J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his colloquy which has clarified this issue. It has helped gain support for the amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, for his help. And I thank especially my colleague, Senator McCain, for pushing this issue forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner for his tremendous service to this country and the Nation, particularly in uniform, and the magnificent contribution he makes daily to the deliberations of the Armed Services Committee. We could not do it without him. His contributions are such that they enable the committee to do its work in a fashion which I think most of the Members of the Senate would support. This is the 6th year that I have served on the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. I am privileged to chair this subcommittee. As I look back over the past 5 years, we have done a lot to improve the pay and benefits for our service men and women. Every year, we responded to the concerns of our service members and their families. We heard our service members say that their pay was inadequate and not competitive with the civilian market. We responded by approving pay raises that total over 20 percent over the five years, and put into law a provision that requires pay raises at least a half percent above inflation through fiscal year 2006. We heard the pleas of our service members that they were not fully reimbursed for off-post housing expenses. We responded by removing the requirement that members pay 15 percent of housing costs out-of-pocket and authorized an increase in the basic allowance for housing in order to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005. We also directed the Secretary of Defense to implement a program to assist members who qualify for food stamps with a special pay of up to $500 a month. We heard the concerns about the Redux retirement system. We responded by authorizing service members to choose between the traditional high three retirement system, or to remain under Redux with a $30,000 bonus. We also authorized our military personnel to participate with other Federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan. We heard concerns about health care for our active duty members and their families. We responded. We enacted provisions that improved the quality of health care and access to health care providers. We authorized TRICARE Prime Remote for families of active duty personnel assigned where military medical facilities were not available. We eliminated copayments for active duty personnel and their families when they received care under the TRICARE Prime option. We heard the military retirees when they called our attention to the broken promise of health care for life. We started with a series of pilot programs which included access to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, a TRICARE senior supplement, and Medicare subvention. Ultimately, we found an even better answer, TRICARE for Life. Under this program, TRICARE pay virtually everything the Medicare does not pay. This is the best health care program for Medicare eligibles in the United States. We are really proud of this program. We responded to concerns of our absentee military voters by passing laws making it easier for military personnel and their families to vote in Federal, state, and local elections. By the way, Mr. President, in that TRICARE for Life Program we included a program that I think is extremely valuable for military retirees, the U.S. Government is picking up the cost of the biggest out-of-pocket expense for our military retiree families, and that is the cost of prescription drugs. I just wish we could do that for every senior family in America. For our military recruiting and retention ebbed and flowed during this 5-year period. We responded by authorizing special pays and bonuses as well as innovative recruiting initiatives. We also passed laws that will require high schools to give our military recruiters access to students directory information and the same access to students as the schools give to colleges and potential employers. I know that we recruit individuals and retain families. Both recruiting and retention are improving. Just a few years ago, the services reported great challenges in meeting recruiting goals, and service members were leaving at alarming rates. I would like to think that the improvements in benefits that I just described helped to turn our recruiting and retention around. I understand that the downturn in the economy and the terrorist attacks on our Nation also contributed to the increase in the desire to serve our nation. This year, like the last five years, we have attempted to respond to the needs of our service members and their families. In the bill now before the Senate we do several things. We recommend authorization of the active duty end strength requested by the administration. This includes an increase in end strength of 2,400 for the Marines. I am convinced that the other services need an increase in end strength as well. We simply cannot continue to increase our military commitments without increasing the end strength of our Armed Forces. They are already stretched too thin. I intend to offer an amendment to increase the end strength of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for next year, and will propose a plan to address the needs of the services over the next 5 years. We cannot fight a war on the cheap and we cannot fight a war without people. For the fourth year in a row, we propose a significant pay raise above the rate of inflation for military personnel. We recommend an across the board pay raise of 4.1 percent which is a half percent above the increase in the Employment Cost Index, and an additional targeted pay raise for certain experienced mid-career personnel that will result in pay raises ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent beginning in January, 2003. We also extend the special pays and bonuses that are so important for recruiting and retention. Full time manning support is one of the top readiness issues of the Reserves. All of our TAGs have talked to us about the shortage in full time support in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. For the second year in a row, the Administration failed to budget for the ramp up contained in an agreed upon plan to bring full time manning in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard up to minimal levels over an 11-year period. We address this shortfall by increasing the full time manning end strength by 1,761 personnel as the second installment of the 11-year plan. We authorize the service secretaries to pay an incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to members serving in certain difficult to fill assignments. We encourage the Department to use this assignment incentive pay to address some of the concerns about military personnel serving tours in Korea. We are finally able to authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for retirees with 20 or more years of military service with disabilities rated at 60 percent or more. I understand the figure is now zero percent disabling and above. This is an incredibly high watermark in terms of service of this body to those who have served, and particularly those who are service-connected disabled and who also are military retirees with 20 or more years of service. I understand that our posture here is, even though the Armed Services Committee reported out legislation that this Defense authorization bill grant current receipt of disability compensation and military retirement--receipt concurrent for those who are 60-percent disabled or more--that this body by unanimous consent has agreed to actually lower that figure so that all of our military retirees with 20 years of active duty service or more, zero percent disabled or greater, will now be able to receive disability compensation and military retirement at the same time. I think that is only just. We have our assistant majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, to thank for that. He has been pushing for this for many years. Our proposal will phase in this effort. But with this Defense authorization bill today we will not be phasing it in; it will be reality, in the Senate's point of view. This provision was carefully drafted, in consultation with veteran organizations and with members of the committee. We authorize a National Call to Service provision initiated by Senator McCain that would require individuals enlisting in the military under this program to serve on active duty for 15 months after the completion of initial entry training. That would encourage our citizens to participate in military training somewhat. It is not universal military training, but it is an incentive to become familiar with the military. And I think it is an excellent proposal by Senator McCain and Senator Bayh. It is called National Call to Service. If an individual comes on active duty, train, and then serve 15 months, what do they receive in addition to that for compensation? They could elect one of the following incentives: No. 1, a $5,000 bonus; No. 2, a student loan repayment of up to $18,000, which is quite significant; No. 3, a 12-month educational allowance at the Montgomery GI bill rate; or, No. 4, a 36-month educational allowance at two-thirds of the Montgomery GI bill rate. I think this is one of the most insightful programs to come along in a long time. I heartily endorse it. We increase the maximum end strength for each of the military academies from 4,000 to 4,400 cadets or midshipmen. I think this is an excellent provision and one that we need. We provide $55 million to address the severe aviation training backlog in the Army to train pilots from Guard and Reserve units transitioning to new aircraft and to train active duty pilots in their combat aircraft before reporting to their units. We direct the Secretary of Defense to review personnel compensation laws and policies applicable to our Reserve components, including the retirement system to determine how well they address the demands placed on the Guard and Reserve personnel. I thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and the Personnel Subcommittee for their support. I especially thank Senator Hutchinson for his support and work. His hard work has made this a truly bipartisan effort on behalf of our military men and women and their families. I appreciate all that he has done and what he has contributed. The bill we bring before the Senate today is a good bill that will go a long way toward improving the lives of our servicemembers and their families. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this significant legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am floored by the wonderful and gracious remarks of the Senator from Florida, my dear friend, Mr. Nelson, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, my colleague on the Commerce Committee. He is most effusive in his praise of me. But he is absolutely correct when he praises the service of our young men and women in harm's way. There is a marvelous book out now, ``We Were Soldiers Once and Young.'' I was a soldier once and young, and I can only look with admiration, great respect, and tremendous heartfelt pride at the young men and women out there now. The service men and women are young, they are talented, they are trained, they are committed, and they are doing a great job for the United States. If this bill is a tribute to anything, it is not a tribute to me or to anybody on the Armed Services Committee or even to this Senate, but it is a tribute to them and their hard work on behalf of all of us. So I thank the Senator from Florida for his effusive praise, but let's just reserve those kinds of words for another day. Today, we are talking about dealing with the needs of our service men and women who make it possible for us to have this open and free debate here. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Skip Sherrell, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, shortly after the turn of the 20th century, Alonzo Franklin Herndon, a former slave, founded the Atlanta Mutual Insurance Association, which would later become the Atlanta Life Insurance Company. Today, Atlanta Life holds assets of over $200 million, operates in 17 states, and stands as one of the largest African-American owned and operated financial institutions in the Nation. Born on a farm near Social Circle, GA, in 1858, Herndon's beginnings were anything but auspicious. He spent his early life in field labor and sharecropping. However, he ultimately learned the barbering trade and flourished. By the turn of the century, he owned and operated the world renowned Crystal Palace barbershop on Peachtree Street in downtown Atlanta. By the time he founded the Atlanta Mutual Insurance Association, Alonzo Herndon was one of the wealthiest African-Americans in the Nation. Alonzo Herndon's vision for his company transcended conventional corporate thinking. Mr. Herndon was not only worried about the bottom line, but about the health and livelihood of African-Americans throughout the Atlanta area. The Atlanta Mutual Insurance Association was formed after Mr. Herndon purchased a small benevolent association for $140, and acquired and reorganized two other companies in September of 1905. By providing sick and death benefits to African-Americans for affordable weekly assessments of 5 to 25 cents, the Atlanta Life Insurance Company defined corporate responsibility to the community. Today, we honor the Atlanta Life Insurance Company on the occasion of their founder's day birthday celebration. Specifically, we join Atlanta Life in honoring the barber profession, without which Alonzo Herndon would not have been able to create the Atlanta Life Insurance Company. Moreover, we look forward to the 2005 Founder's Celebration commemorating the 100th anniversary of Atlanta Life's founding. In an age where corporate malfeasance is too often in the news, it gives me great pride to celebrate a company that has succeeded financially without compromising its values. I wish the Atlanta Life Insurance Company many more years of success.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect marine species in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of Georgia. Shark gillnetting causes bycatch of many marine species, including valuable gamefish such as tarpon, red drum, king mackerel, and cobia and leatherback sea turtles, a protected species. Gillnets are already prohibited in Georgia's State waters, and my legislation would also prohibit this gear from being used in the Federal waters off the coast of Georgia. This legislation is supported by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the State's coastal resources. My proposal does not prohibit shark fishing but rather affects the means of fishing. Shark fishers can use other methods for fishing such as long-lines or hook and line as alternatives. Additionally, this bill only affects the waters off the coast of Georgia. The neighboring States are still allowed to handle the bycatch, enforcement, and other issues as they believe is appropriate. The waters affected by the legislation are home to many types of marine life that are vitally important to Georgia's traditional and expanding charter fishery, as well as the state's coastal communities and tourism industry. These businesses are negatively impacted by the shark gillnetting bycatch rates and its impacts on gamefish populations, including some already overfished stocks. In August 2000, I was contacted by some of these Georgia business people who are concerned over what they see as a dramatic decrease in the fish population and about the future viability of their businesses. These citizens work to create a delicate balance between the environment and their livelihood by limiting their catches and releasing fish to help insure the sustained health of local fish stocks and their habitats. Shark gillnetting has disrupted this balance. My legislation is the first step to bringing this balance back in line. As the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, begins the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act, I will work with Chairman Hollings to address this issue. It is at once an environmental issue, a small business issue, a state sovereignty issue, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help protect marine species in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of Georgia. Shark gillnetting causes bycatch of many marine species, including valuable gamefish such as tarpon, red drum, king mackerel, and cobia and leatherback sea turtles, a protected species. Gillnets are already prohibited in Georgia's State waters, and my legislation would also prohibit this gear from being used in the Federal waters off the coast of Georgia. This legislation is supported by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the State's coastal resources. My proposal does not prohibit shark fishing but rather affects the means of fishing. Shark fishers can use other methods for fishing such as long-lines or hook and line as alternatives. Additionally, this bill only affects the waters off the coast of Georgia. The neighboring States are still allowed to handle the bycatch, enforcement, and other issues as they believe is appropriate. The waters affected by the legislation are home to many types of marine life that are vitally important to Georgia's traditional and expanding charter fishery, as well as the state's coastal communities and tourism industry. These businesses are negatively impacted by the shark gillnetting bycatch rates and its impacts on gamefish populations, including some already overfished stocks. In August 2000, I was contacted by some of these Georgia business people who are concerned over what they see as a dramatic decrease in the fish population and about the future viability of their businesses. These citizens work to create a delicate balance between the environment and their livelihood by limiting their catches and releasing fish to help insure the sustained health of local fish stocks and their habitats. Shark gillnetting has disrupted this balance. My legislation is the first step to bringing this balance back in line. As the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, begins the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act, I will work with Chairman Hollings to address this issue. It is at once an environmental issue, a small business issue, a state sovereignty issue, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to direct my colleagues attention to the technological changes and developments going on in the television industry. Many people have said that the transition from analog to digital television broadcasts is the biggest innovation in TV since color television. Having seen a digital broadcast, it is as if you are watching the program or sporting event in person. I believe consumers will want to bring this technology into their homes. I do not believe that we have yet discovered the full use of digital broadcast signals, but I do know that it has the potential to change the way people interact with their TVs. Imagine being able to participate in realtime with a game show on television or being able to ``chat'' with other viewers from around the country during a show. DTV may provide the platform for a more interactive television experience. I am particularly interested to see how these technologies can be employed to allow local stations to better serve local communities. For the past half-century, local broadcasters have provided valuable services to their local communities. When disasters strike, important, life saving information is often disseminated over the airwaves. Local stations also keep residents informed of community political issues, thereby engaging citizens in the local democratic process. Since its inception, the broadcasting industry has been founded on two important concepts: the idea of localism and the idea that broadcasting should be free, and over-the-air. I am proud to say that a number of Georgia stations are working to ensure that they continue to serve local communities with free, over the air signals in the digital era. In my state, we have digital television stations up and broadcasting in four communities. In Atlanta seven stations have digital signals on the air: WAGA, WATL, WGCL, WPXA, WSB, WTBS, and WXIA. In Savannah WTOC is on the air in digital; in Augusta WFXG and WRDW-TV are broadcasting in digital, and in Columbus, WLTZ and WXTX are serving Georgia viewers with digital television. These Georgia broadcasters have taken the next step in television, and for that I commend them. The transition to digital can be expensive, particularly for smaller stations. To broadcast in digital, these businesses have invested in new transmission equipment and, in some cases, new broadcast towers. If they choose to produce their own digital content, like digital local news, they must invest in digital cameras and editing equipment. Finally, once their digital signal is on-the-air, the stations must pay the bills to transmit two signals simultaneously to ensure viewers can receive both a digital and analog broadcast. Despite the expenses, these Georgia stations have recognized that digital television is the future. I am confident that their investment in digital television will pay off and I commend them for leading the digital television charge.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a man whose leadership is only surpassed in value to me by his friendship. Twenty- five years ago, Mr. Jim Mayer played an important role in the creation of an innovative pilot program called ``Leadership VA.'' The program is designed to identify 70 leaders in the Department of Veterans Affairs each year, and to provide an enrichment of their career development through an intense leadership training experience. In its 25 years of existence, Leadership VA has laid a foundation for a network of VA leaders who share a deep commitment to the Department of Veterans Affairs and to public service in its broadest sense. Today, 63 percent of all Central Office Senior Executive Service members have completed the program, as have 73 percent of all field leaders. This success, though, did not happen by chance. Rather, it is a tribute to the hard work and forward thinking of Jim Mayer. Jim began his VA career as Special Assistant for Vietnam Veterans Affairs to Administrator Richard L. Roudebush in 1974, six years after beginning his service in the U.S. Army as an infantry man in the 25th Division in Vietnam. Jim joined the Leadership VA staff as its Executive Director in April of 1998, but his relationship with LVA goes back to his time on the first Selection Committee in 1978. Throughout his years at the VA, Jim has spent countless hours working on behalf of veterans, striving to better conditions by improving the VA from within, but his accomplishments are not limited to his time at the VA. He is a recipient of numerous awards including: 1977, VA Meritorious Service; 1981, VA Exceptional Service; 1991, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Outstanding Volunteer; and, 1993, George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge for work as a volunteer with Desert Shield/Desert Storm injured at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. For as long as I have known him, Jim Mayer has exemplified the term ``public servant.'' He is a selfless individual who has always thought of his country before thinking about himself. In this day and age, few people live that type of life, but, as President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The test of our worth is the value of our service.'' I would like to thank Jim for his service, his dedication, and, above all else, for his friendship. He is an inspiration and a great American.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, this week commemorates the contributions of the nursing profession to patients and health care and the dedication of those individuals who have chosen nursing. Yet in all the years that we have acknowledged how much nurses mean to the delivery of health care and our quality of life, we have not done enough to ensure the viability of nursing as a profession. The 2001 American Nurses Association (ANA) National Survey revealed that 715 hospitals had 126,000 openings for nursing positions and an 11 percent vacancy rate. Nursing schools across the country report that enrollment has significantly decreased and the ANA also projects that 65 percent of present nurses will retire within this decade. These statistics signal a nursing crisis and that means a health care crisis for this country. At both the June 14, 2001, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on the looming nursing shortage and the June 27, 2001, Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing on the federal government's role in retaining nurses for delivery of federally funded health care services, I emphasized an alarming statistic that the federal health sector, employing approximately 45,000 nurses, may be the hardest hit in the near future with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for retirement by the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies in all health care settings are attributed in part to worsening work place conditions with mandatory overtime and increasing patient care workloads. I believe today we are facing a widespread and complex challenge with this nursing shortage and there are no quick fixes. Congress has passed some important measures to help nurses to continue to take safe and effective care of their patients and to assist health care facilities to recruit and retain needed nurses. Some of these important measures will help recruit new nurses and assist with the cost of education, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act and S. 937 which I authored and which will now permit the transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill by members of the Armed Forces thus allowing spouses and children of eligible service members to use transferred GI bill assistance for undergraduate or graduate nursing education. Additionally, the VA Nurse Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Act was signed into law this year and will help to alleviate the anticipated VA nursing shortage by addressing working conditions, implementing a Nurse Cadet Program to encourage high school students to pursue nursing careers as well as other education incentives. I was pleased to have played a major role in development and passing this measure as well. Congress, Federal and State agencies, private and public health care organizations are all actively working to develop solutions to the looming nursing shortage. We want nurses to know that they do have allies who will work with them to find solutions. To further demonstrate our support of nurses, I am also proposing that the U.S. Postal Service issue a nursing stamp to say, ``Thank you for being a Nurse.'' This stamp will help to raise public awareness of the nursing crisis and show our support of the nursing profession. I ask my colleagues to join with me in a long-term commitment to support the nursing profession. I want to say a special ``thank you'' to the nurses who were there for me when I was injured in Vietnam. These nurses gave me care and hope. I do not care to think of the future of health care without these dedicated and knowledgeable nurses.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act, that will require Federal agencies to carefully consider the impact of proposed regulations on individual privacy. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we are being forced to fight a new kind of war; a war in which we have not only physical battlefields, but battlefields of principle. Not only must we have troops on the ground protecting our physical well-being, but we must also insure that we protect the American way of life. Ours is a country based on individual rights--rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, as Thomas Jefferson mentioned in the manner in which each of us sees fit. While we are obligated, as a Government, to protect the physical safety of the American people, we also are obligated to remember our history, our struggles, and the principles for which our great Nation stands. While we enhance and strengthen our investigatory tools and physical arsenal, we cannot allow the terrorists to prevail in undermining our civil liberties. Therefore, today, I am introducing the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act in the Senate as companion legislation to H.R. 4561, which was introduced by Representative Bob Barr, a long-time champion of civil liberties in the U.S. Congress. It will impose a mandate that when Federal agencies are required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, they must publish an accompanying ``privacy impact statement.'' This initial privacy impact statement, written in terms which all of us can understand, would be subject to public notice and comment. After receiving and evaluating any comments, the agency would then be required to include a final privacy impact statement with the regulation. These initial and final privacy impact statements would include: the type of information to be collected and how it would be used; mechanisms through which individuals could correct inaccuracies in the collected information; assurances that the information would not be used for a purpose other than initially specified; and a description of how the information will be secured by the agency. For example, the Financial Crime Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury has proposed a rule implementing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 which would encourage financial institutions and Federal law enforcement agencies to share information in order to identify and deter money laundering and terrorist activity. While I fully support the Patriot Act and recognize the benefits of such a rule, the sensitivity of such information necessitates that we insure that the agency consider the ramifications of such an invasion on an individual's privacy. The American people must know specifically how this financial information would be used and how it would be protected. The purpose, importance, and timeliness of this legislation have brought together a wide variety of supporting organizations, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association to Public Citizen. While I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of the war on terrorism, I am also well aware that we face a multi-faceted enemy. My experience has taught me that diverse threats necessitate diverse responses. We have planned for our offensives on the ground and in the air, and we have begun to mount a stronger homeland defense. But our efforts will be incomplete and will indeed run the risk of undermining all else we may accomplish in the fight against terrorism if we neglect to mount a successful defense of the American way. I believe that this legislation is necessary to protect the American people from attacks seen and unseen, and I encourage other Senators to join me in protecting the liberties for which I know we all stand. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act, that will require Federal agencies to carefully consider the impact of proposed regulations on individual privacy. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we are being forced to fight a new kind of war; a war in which we have not only physical battlefields, but battlefields of principle. Not only must we have troops on the ground protecting our physical well-being, but we must also insure that we protect the American way of life. Ours is a country based on individual rights--rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, as Thomas Jefferson mentioned in the manner in which each of us sees fit. While we are obligated, as a Government, to protect the physical safety of the American people, we also are obligated to remember our history, our struggles, and the principles for which our great Nation stands. While we enhance and strengthen our investigatory tools and physical arsenal, we cannot allow the terrorists to prevail in undermining our civil liberties. Therefore, today, I am introducing the Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act in the Senate as companion legislation to H.R. 4561, which was introduced by Representative Bob Barr, a long-time champion of civil liberties in the U.S. Congress. It will impose a mandate that when Federal agencies are required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, they must publish an accompanying ``privacy impact statement.'' This initial privacy impact statement, written in terms which all of us can understand, would be subject to public notice and comment. After receiving and evaluating any comments, the agency would then be required to include a final privacy impact statement with the regulation. These initial and final privacy impact statements would include: the type of information to be collected and how it would be used; mechanisms through which individuals could correct inaccuracies in the collected information; assurances that the information would not be used for a purpose other than initially specified; and a description of how the information will be secured by the agency. For example, the Financial Crime Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury has proposed a rule implementing provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 which would encourage financial institutions and Federal law enforcement agencies to share information in order to identify and deter money laundering and terrorist activity. While I fully support the Patriot Act and recognize the benefits of such a rule, the sensitivity of such information necessitates that we insure that the agency consider the ramifications of such an invasion on an individual's privacy. The American people must know specifically how this financial information would be used and how it would be protected. The purpose, importance, and timeliness of this legislation have brought together a wide variety of supporting organizations, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association to Public Citizen. While I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of the war on terrorism, I am also well aware that we face a multi-faceted enemy. My experience has taught me that diverse threats necessitate diverse responses. We have planned for our offensives on the ground and in the air, and we have begun to mount a stronger homeland defense. But our efforts will be incomplete and will indeed run the risk of undermining all else we may accomplish in the fight against terrorism if we neglect to mount a successful defense of the American way. I believe that this legislation is necessary to protect the American people from attacks seen and unseen, and I encourage other Senators to join me in protecting the liberties for which I know we all stand. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in order to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the Senate companion bill to H.R. 203, the ``National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act,'' which passed the House last year by voice vote. I also want to thank Senators Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin, Bingaman, Carnahan, Leahy, Lieberman, and Johnson for their co- sponsorship. In today's business environment, one of the greatest obstacles blocking the path to prosperity for America's small businesses is regulatory compliance. Small businesses regularly find themselves lost in a maze of Federal regulations that are designed to create safer and healthier workplaces. Chairman Kerry and I want all of our businesses to comply with the regulations that preserve the health, environment, and well-being of our workers and our communities. But, too often, small businesses do not have access to the information they need in order to comply with regulations in good faith. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act calls for the establishment of a pilot project in which 20 selected Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, would provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. This pilot project would be administered by the Small Business Administration, SBA, which would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000 to selected SBDCs. The bill also requires that the Congress receive a progress report annually on the pilot program's accomplishments at each SBDC. Under our legislation, SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those who receive compliance assistance. This privacy provision has also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their local SBDC. The adoption of the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will provide small businesses with the support they need to navigate the often complicated world of Federal regulations. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act of 2002.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in order to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the Senate companion bill to H.R. 203, the ``National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act,'' which passed the House last year by voice vote. I also want to thank Senators Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin, Bingaman, Carnahan, Leahy, Lieberman, and Johnson for their co- sponsorship. In today's business environment, one of the greatest obstacles blocking the path to prosperity for America's small businesses is regulatory compliance. Small businesses regularly find themselves lost in a maze of Federal regulations that are designed to create safer and healthier workplaces. Chairman Kerry and I want all of our businesses to comply with the regulations that preserve the health, environment, and well-being of our workers and our communities. But, too often, small businesses do not have access to the information they need in order to comply with regulations in good faith. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act calls for the establishment of a pilot project in which 20 selected Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, would provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. This pilot project would be administered by the Small Business Administration, SBA, which would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000 to selected SBDCs. The bill also requires that the Congress receive a progress report annually on the pilot program's accomplishments at each SBDC. Under our legislation, SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those who receive compliance assistance. This privacy provision has also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their local SBDC. The adoption of the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will provide small businesses with the support they need to navigate the often complicated world of Federal regulations. I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act of 2002.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, today I have submitted an amendment to address the treatment of certain American industries by Andean nations. Specifically, I am concerned with the detrimental effect the Colombian government's use of the price band system, as it applies to pet food, is having on the U.S. pet food industry and the farmers who provide the raw materials used in the production of pet food. As a Senator from Georgia, this issue is of particular concern to the poultry farmers in my State who supply a large amount of the poultry and poultry byproduct used in the production of pet food for export to Colombia. I note that the Andean Trade Promotion and Expansion Act requires a country to demonstrate a commitment to undertake its obligations under the WTO before it can be designated a beneficiary country. It appears that Colombia's application of the price band system as it applies to pet food is a violation of Colombia's WTO obligations. Pursuant to the WTO, a developing nation, such as Colombia, is required to request and be granted a ``reservation'' if it is going to impose the price band system on a particular product. The Colombian government failed to acquire a reservation for either wet or dry pet food. Therefore, Colombia's application of the price band system to pet food is in violation of the WTO. It is my expectation that in reviewing the eligibility criteria relating to market access and WTO commitments, the U.S. Trade Representative will insist that Colombia implement its WTO commitment to remove wet and dry pet food from the price band system, and apply the 20 percent common external tariff to imported pet food as required by Andean Community law.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I am proud to be a part of this body which wisely acted to improve border security last night. As we approach the end of April, I am here today to urge my House colleagues to act on the issue of port security, which the Senate passed unanimously last year. Our Nation's coastline is over 95,000 miles--by far our most prolific border. Yet, despite the tremendous national mobilization to increase security since September 11, protecting our seaports has been a somewhat elusive goal. Although the Senate acted last December to tighten security at our Nation's ports, the legislation is still stalled in the House of Representatives. In my home state of Georgia, ports play an important role in international commerce and military support. The Port of Brunswick, GA, with three marine terminals, is growing rapidly. Brunswick is the home of a world-class auto and machinery import-export processing facility as well as an expanding forest products and agri-bulk operation. With the completion of the new Sidney Lanier Bridge this year and the on- going deepening of the Brunswick Harbor channel, the future of this operation is even brighter. At the Port of Savannah, which brings in the eighth largest cargo volume in the Nation, ships carry iron, steel, lumber, machinery, and paper products. It was the fastest growing container shipping operation in the Nation during calendar year 2001, and the only port to experience double-digit growth for the year. The total volume of business at the port has grown steadily over the last decade, reflecting its important contribution as a powerful economic benefit for importers, exporters and consumers located throughout the entire southeast region of the United States. The Port of Savannah is also an important strategic ally to our Nation's military, serving as a first responder for deployment of military equipment, supplies and personnel to hot spots around the world. To utilize this important port, ships must traverse the Savannah River and pass between historic River Street, with its shops and restaurants, and the new Convention Center and hotel on Hutchinson Island, which can accommodate over 10,000 guests and employees. On any given day, there are thousands of people walking the streets of this beautiful, old town. If someone with sinister motives were able to gain access to this channel, they could easily wreak havoc on a large number of people in a short period of time. Imagine this situation repeated at ports throughout the country, many of which are located around large population centers. A New York Times article from November 2001 sums up the problem with a description of a port in Portland, Maine: The unscrutinized containers, the bridge, the oil tanks, the dormant but still radioactive nuclear power plant 20 miles north of the harbor--all form a volatile mix in a time of terrorism. One must not forget that 68 nuclear power plants are located along navigable waters, and in my State, we also face maritime security risks as a result of the opening of a liquefied natural gas terminal LNG. One LNG carrier can carry enough gas to heat the homes of over 30,000 families. Our ports and waterways are vulnerable. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports reports: The state of security in U.S. seaports generally ranges from poor to fair, and in a few cases, good. This same report surveyed 12 large ports and found that only 3 controlled port access from the land, and that 9 of these ports did not control access via the water. To realize the ramifications, we only need to remember the U.S.S. Cole. While Congress did appropriate over $93 million in funds for port security upgrades last year, we can and must do more. We have an opportunity, and a duty, to act to help prevent a terrorist attack on our ports before it happens. In December, the Senate unanimously passed S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001. I am a cosponsor of this important legislation because I understand the crippling affect a terrorist attack at our ports would have on the Nation's commerce as well as our people. Ninety-five percent of foreign trade travels on water. After September 11, the Nation's air travel system was halted for days, crippling commercial airlines, the postal service, and the transportation of goods and people worldwide. Millions of dollars were lost in unrealized revenue as a result of only 4 days. The airports however, had a security system in place. They only needed adjusting in order to reopen our skies. However, what security system is in place at our ports? If something happened at my home State's port of Savannah or Brunswick, how would this Nation respond? I believe Americans would rightly expect seaborne shipments to stop. This means that the employment of over 1 million people would be in jeopardy; over $74 billion in annual gross domestic product would halt; personal income contributions of over $52 billion would disappear, and local and Federal revenue exceeding $20 billion would dry up. The ripple effects throughout our Nation's economy and the world's--because sea shipment is the ultimate example of globalization--would be devastating. Unlike the airports, restoring normal sea shipments would take longer than 4 days because there is no system in place to upgrade but rather a patchwork of security initiatives that may not allow for any quick or uniform upgrades. In view of all of these disturbing facts, I urge my House colleagues to take up and pass S. 1214, which contains important provisions to make our seaports more secure. At a minimum, S. 1214 requires security assessments and authorizes funding for these assessments at our ports, which some port authorities have done already. The Georgia Ports Authority--GPA--for example, has already conducted this assessment with its own funds. This report recommends a major increase in the number of surveillance cameras, lighting, fencing and other perimeter security measures at Savannah and Brunswick. It also recommends the addition of some 40 new law enforcement and other security personnel to enhance the 60 person police force now deployed at the Port of Savannah and to also provide additional coverage in Brunswick. In addition, there is a recommendation for a major expansion of the credentialing system for personnel and vehicles that have access to the port facilities. We do not yet have the price tag for all of these improvements, but we know that it will be costly. I am certain that GPA will be applying for Federal funding to assist in these costs, and I will strongly support their application as we work through the budget process. The $93 million grant program Congress established was only a first step toward strengthening our seaports, and S. 1214 would help up get closer to that goal. This legislation also requires background checks for personnel employed in security Sensitive positions. Additionally, S. 1214 authorizes funding for screening and detection equipment, and it requires crew and cargo manifests to be reported to the U.S. Customs Service before the ship arrives at a domestic port, not after. In order to help coordinate the many agencies and law enforcement personnel at our Nation's ports, the bill encourages, where possible, locating these personnel at the same facility. Additionally, after working with the bill's authors, I drafted a provision included in the Senate passed bill which establishes a pilot program operated by the U.S. Customs Service to ensure the integrity and security of cargo entering the United States. Specifically, this provision calls for Customs to explore the types of technology available that can be used to ensure a ship's goods have not been tampered with. Such technology could enable ``preapproved'' cargo to enter the United States on an expedited basis. This program would also require communication and coordination with foreign ports and foreign Customs officials and shippers, at the point the goods are loaded onto ships bound for our land, and would likely result in prescreening of American bound goods at these foreign ports. This ``extension'' of our borders to enable screening of containers at foreign ports translates into a greater chance of eliminating threats at home and ensuring that properly handled and safe cargoes can be moved through the system so that we can focus on potentially more dangerous cargoes. Commander Stephen Flynn of the U.S. Coast Guard and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations believes that homeland security can be supported through ``establishing private-sector cooperation, focusing on point-of-origin security measures, and embracing the use of new technologies.'' I wholeheartedly agree with Commander Flynn, and I believe my amendment accomplishes these goals. I am pleased with the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, Robert Bonner. He is in support of my amendment. In a speech given on January 17, 2002, Commissioner Bonner announced the Service's Container Security Initiative. With over half of our Nation's containers originating at only 10 international ports, targeting these ports for an ``international security standard [for] sea containers,'' as Commissioner Bonner put it, would result in pre-screening of most of the goods entering the country. The Commissioner continued by stating that pre-screening of containers and the use of technology are vital parts of this program: A first step in the [container security initiative] begins by examining and comparing our targeting methods with those of our international partners. And we should consider dispatching teams of targeting experts to each other's major seaports to benchmark targeting and to make sure that all high risk containers are inspected by the same technology that can detect anomalies requiring physical examination inside the container. . . . Having your containers checked and pre-approved for security against the terrorist threat at a mega-port participating in this program should and likely will carry tangible benefits. I look forward to working with Commissioner Bonner and the Customs Service on this initiative, as well as implementation of the pilot program called for in my amendment, and I have written to the Commissioner conveying my strong interest in the CSI program and pledging my full cooperation in implementing it. Additionally, I was pleased to read in the April 16 Washington Post that several U.S. businesses have signed on to participate in such a program to better ensure the integrity and safety of goods entering the United States. I look forward to reviewing the successes and recommendations resulting from this important port security initiative. One of the Customs Service's vital partners in the current port security regime is the U.S. Coast Guard. They were among some of the first respondents to the homeland security call on and after September 11. I applaud the President for including the Coast Guard funding level increases in his budget, which will better enable the Coast Guard to carry out its multifaceted security initiatives--from monitoring our ports to search and rescue to drug interdiction programs. In a Washington Post column from Sunday, March 3, about the potential development of weapons of mass destruction by Al Quaeda, the author writes: In ``tabletop exercises'' conducted as high as Cabinet level, President Bush's national security team has highlighted difficult choices the chief executive would face if the new sensors picked up a radiation signature on a boat steaming up the Potomac River . . . Congress must send the President a strong port security bill before it is too late. I urge the House to promptly pass S. 1214.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, just last week I read an article that described the practice of online companies placing prices on people's personal information in order to raise revenue. When the Internet revolution began, I do not believe anyone thought the buying and selling of our personal information would be where these companies would turn when they began to experience difficulties in the financial markets. My constituents have expressed to me their concerns over such practices, and I have responded by co-sponsoring Senator Hollings' bi- partisan legislation to enact reasonable privacy standards on personal information gathered on-line. In May 2000, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, issued its third report to Congress on the state of online privacy. Due to the fact that there remained a great deal of concern by consumers over how their information is used by online companies, so much so that some consumers provided false information or did not utilize the commercial aspects of the Internet altogether, the FTC recommended legislation to establish online privacy guidelines. Introduction of this legislation is a step in the right direction, and a step closer to the FTC's recommendation. This bill calls for sensitive, personally identifiable information, such as health information, race, religion, and social security number, to be protected by requiring consumers to provide affirmative consent for this information to be shared; in other words, they must ``opt in.'' Under our proposal, the treatment of non-sensitive, personally identifiable information must be described through strict, robust notice in plain English. After some consumers received their privacy policies required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, they thought it would be easier to understand the tax code. An important provision in the Hollings measure modeled on allowing consumers to access their credit report information would allow online consumers to access and correct any incorrect information companies may be listing. Additionally, to monitor the effectiveness of this legislation, the bill calls for the FTC to report to Congress on this matter and to recommend any needed changes in its provisions. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which I believe moves us in the right direction to actually grow the Internet and its capability for commerce by easing people's fears over how their names, addresses, social security numbers and other important information will be secured. The Internet's possibilities are only beginning to be realized. In the business world, it creates an easy way to share information and conduct transactions. However, if the information is personal in nature, I, along with many of my colleagues, believe people deserve and are indeed entitled to expect the opportunity to elect whether to have that information shared or not, and in all cases for it to be securely monitored. I am proud to lend my support to this important bill.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, just last week I read an article that described the practice of online companies placing prices on people's personal information in order to raise revenue. When the Internet revolution began, I do not believe anyone thought the buying and selling of our personal information would be where these companies would turn when they began to experience difficulties in the financial markets. My constituents have expressed to me their concerns over such practices, and I have responded by co-sponsoring Senator Hollings' bi- partisan legislation to enact reasonable privacy standards on personal information gathered on-line. In May 2000, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, issued its third report to Congress on the state of online privacy. Due to the fact that there remained a great deal of concern by consumers over how their information is used by online companies, so much so that some consumers provided false information or did not utilize the commercial aspects of the Internet altogether, the FTC recommended legislation to establish online privacy guidelines. Introduction of this legislation is a step in the right direction, and a step closer to the FTC's recommendation. This bill calls for sensitive, personally identifiable information, such as health information, race, religion, and social security number, to be protected by requiring consumers to provide affirmative consent for this information to be shared; in other words, they must ``opt in.'' Under our proposal, the treatment of non-sensitive, personally identifiable information must be described through strict, robust notice in plain English. After some consumers received their privacy policies required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, they thought it would be easier to understand the tax code. An important provision in the Hollings measure modeled on allowing consumers to access their credit report information would allow online consumers to access and correct any incorrect information companies may be listing. Additionally, to monitor the effectiveness of this legislation, the bill calls for the FTC to report to Congress on this matter and to recommend any needed changes in its provisions. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which I believe moves us in the right direction to actually grow the Internet and its capability for commerce by easing people's fears over how their names, addresses, social security numbers and other important information will be secured. The Internet's possibilities are only beginning to be realized. In the business world, it creates an easy way to share information and conduct transactions. However, if the information is personal in nature, I, along with many of my colleagues, believe people deserve and are indeed entitled to expect the opportunity to elect whether to have that information shared or not, and in all cases for it to be securely monitored. I am proud to lend my support to this important bill.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill designed to promote investor education. The collapse of Enron has left Congress searching for answers as to how such a disaster could have happened and how it can be prevented from happening in the future. I serve on both the Commerce and Governmental Affairs Committees which are investigating Enron and a central concept I have taken away from these investigations is the importance of ensuring that investors have adequate and current information regarding their retirement plans. Employees need to be armed with knowledge in order to protect themselves and their hard earned retirement savings. My bill would require that employee investors in company 401(k) plans receive quarterly reports detailing the contents of their 401(k) plans. Under current law, employers are only required to provide annual reports with a statement of benefits accrued under the plan. Enron certainly illustrates what a difference a year makes. Employees should have timely access to information about their 401(k) plan, enabling them to make choices in their investments. My bill would require that employees receive quarterly reports with a specific listing of: 1. the fair market value of the assets of each investment option; 2. the percentage of plan investment in each asset; and 3. the percentage of investments in employer securities and how much of that investment came from employee contributions. My bill would also require that quarterly reports contain a ``warning label'' informing employees of the potential danger of investing too heavily in employer stock. I believe that employees should have the ability to choose how to invest and diversify their own 401(k) plan. However, I also believe employees should be able to make informed choices. Providing employees with the basic information that investing too heavily in any one security, including their own company stock, violates commonly accepted investing principles is simple common sense. Thus, my bill requires that a warning label be provided to employees upon enrollment in a plan and included in quarterly reports that reads: Under commonly accepted principles of good investment advice, a retirement account should be invested in a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. It is unwise for employees to hold significant concentrations of employer stock in an account that is meant for retirement savings. We may not be able to prevent company executives from lying, cheating and stealing like the executives of Enron, though we should ensure a climate of strict enforcement to deter such behavior. However, we can arm employees with the information and tools to protect themselves and their retirement savings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill designed to promote investor education. The collapse of Enron has left Congress searching for answers as to how such a disaster could have happened and how it can be prevented from happening in the future. I serve on both the Commerce and Governmental Affairs Committees which are investigating Enron and a central concept I have taken away from these investigations is the importance of ensuring that investors have adequate and current information regarding their retirement plans. Employees need to be armed with knowledge in order to protect themselves and their hard earned retirement savings. My bill would require that employee investors in company 401(k) plans receive quarterly reports detailing the contents of their 401(k) plans. Under current law, employers are only required to provide annual reports with a statement of benefits accrued under the plan. Enron certainly illustrates what a difference a year makes. Employees should have timely access to information about their 401(k) plan, enabling them to make choices in their investments. My bill would require that employees receive quarterly reports with a specific listing of: 1. the fair market value of the assets of each investment option; 2. the percentage of plan investment in each asset; and 3. the percentage of investments in employer securities and how much of that investment came from employee contributions. My bill would also require that quarterly reports contain a ``warning label'' informing employees of the potential danger of investing too heavily in employer stock. I believe that employees should have the ability to choose how to invest and diversify their own 401(k) plan. However, I also believe employees should be able to make informed choices. Providing employees with the basic information that investing too heavily in any one security, including their own company stock, violates commonly accepted investing principles is simple common sense. Thus, my bill requires that a warning label be provided to employees upon enrollment in a plan and included in quarterly reports that reads: Under commonly accepted principles of good investment advice, a retirement account should be invested in a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. It is unwise for employees to hold significant concentrations of employer stock in an account that is meant for retirement savings. We may not be able to prevent company executives from lying, cheating and stealing like the executives of Enron, though we should ensure a climate of strict enforcement to deter such behavior. However, we can arm employees with the information and tools to protect themselves and their retirement savings. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 2115 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This center will be the first in the Federal Government to be dedicated solely to protecting the Nation against the public health threats posed by biological, chemical, and radiological weapons attacks. The monumental importance of this task, compounded by the potentially devastating consequences of a failure to give it the national commitment it deserves, makes the creation of a single center that will focus all its energies and resources on encountering the public health threat of bioterrorism imperative and of the greatest urgency. The events of last fall made it painfully clear that we as a nation are not as prepared as we need to be to deal with a bioterrorist attack. The Federal response to the anthrax crisis has been variously characterized as fragmented, slow, confused, ineffectual--in a word, inadequate. This is in no way a reflection on the dedication or abilities of the men and women who performed so exceptionally well in their roles at the Federal, State, and local level in response to a threat none of us had encountered before. They did not let us down. If anything, we, the Congress of the United States, let them down through years of neglect of the public health sector and by failing to give adequate recognition sooner to the threat posed to us by bioterrorism. It was not until 1999 that the Department of Health and Human Services launched its bioterrorism initiative. The military had understood and taken steps to counter the threat of biological warfare against our troops decades earlier. But it took the civilian sector until 3 years ago even to begin to take seriously the threat of domestic terrorism. Today not one of us could possibly fail to understand how serious the threat posed by bioterrorism truly is. Some among us were the intended targets of last fall's bioterrorist attack. All of us keenly felt the threat. Between 1999 and 2001, we spent in this Nation a total of $730 million on HHS's bioterrorism initiative, the lion's share of which was used by the CDC to bolster bioterrorism preparedness and response capacity of State and local health departments. This initiative was a good start, but it is now clear that between 1999 and September 11, 2001, we continued to grossly underestimate the national commitment that would be required to counter the threat of bioterrorism. Finally, late last year, as we finished allocating funds for fiscal year 2002 in the wake of September 11 and the anthrax attacks, we boosted HHS bioterrorism spending to $3 billion, roughly a tenfold increase. Congress is often accused of being reactive instead of proactive, and I think that criticism is, I am sad to say, valid in this case. Certainly a dramatic ratcheting up to our commitment to bioterrorism defense was the right reaction to the events of last fall. But now we are presented with the opportunity, and I think the obligation, to take proactive steps to anticipate future threats and needs based on our recent experiences. My proposal today is just such a step, and I exhort my colleagues in this body and in the House to support the immediate authorization of a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. The CDC is on the public health front in the war against domestic terrorism, the tip of the spear. It is not the only weapon in our arsenal. The CDC joins the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration, the many State and local health departments, and many others on the front line. But the CDC is the one with the greatest responsibility in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Despite the critical nature of these responsibilities, we must remember how new they are to the CDC, especially relative to the CDC's 56 years of experience addressing public health threats of a fundamentally different nature. The threat posed by bioterrorism bears a surface resemblance to that posed by more conventional disease outputs. But closer inspection reveals real substantive differences, and a recognition of these differences can make the difference between an effective and ineffective emergency response. The scientists and other experts at the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Environmental Health are highly skilled in controlling and preventing disease outbreaks of a natural origin, but when it comes to bioterrorism, they are treading new ground without a compass. CDC's rapid response personnel, in the absence of the specialized and focused bioterrorism training that a national center could provide, will inevitably bring to bear epidemiological models and methods that, while exceptionally effective in approaching naturally occurring disease outbreaks, are poorly suited to manmade outbreaks. As my friend and former Senator Sam Nunn so wonderfully noted in testimony to Congress just months before September 11 of last year: A biological weapons attack cuts across categories and mocks old strategies. We need a new approach. Under the present structure, CDC's bioterrorism preparedness and response efforts exist alongside and are dispersed among its more traditional programs. This is the prevailing state of affairs because HHS's bioterrorism initiative is still relatively new, not because it is the ideal method of organizing CDC's response to bioterrorism, but the time has come to give the CDC's bioterrorism defense efforts the focus they deserve. Counterbioterrorism activities at the CDC jumped from zero percent of the CDC's overall budget in 1998 to 4 percent in 2001 and 34 percent in 2002. Each of the CDC's other major programs, none of which now even approaches the bioterrorism program in terms of size, has been given a national center with its own director, its own budget authority, and own accountability to Congress. The CDC's Bioterrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response Program, by contrast, is not even funded through the CDC. Its resources come from the external public health and social service emergency fund. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, we authorized a National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, not because the CDC had no prior programs relating to birth defects and developmental disabilities, but rather because only in their own dedicated center could these programs receive the focus and priority they deserve. There is a National Center for Health Statistics, but there is right now no National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. It seems to me that if a dedicated center is called for by the need for accurate health statistics, the urgent need for a comprehensive, effective, and focused defense against bioterrorism certainly demands one as well. Under my legislation, the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response would be charged with the following responsibilities: training, preparing, and equipping bioterrorism emergency response teams, who will become the special forces of the Public Health Service, for the unique purpose of immediate emergency response to a man-made assault on the public health; overseeing, expanding, and improving the laboratory response network; and that is a mission; developing response plans for all conceivable contingencies involving terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction, that is much needed and developing protocols of coordination and communication between Federal, State, and local actors, as well as between different Federal actors, in collaboration with these entities, for each of those contingencies, which is highly needed; maintaining, managing, and deploying the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, what an important challenge that is; regulating and tracking the possession, use, and transfer of dangerous biological, chemical, and radiological agents that the Secretary of HHS determines pose a threat to the public health; developing and implementing disease surveillance systems, including a nationwide secure electronic network linking doctors, hospitals, public health departments, and the CDC, for the early detection, identification, collection, and monitoring of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction; administering grants to state and local public health departments for building core capacities, such as the Health Alert Network; and organizing and carrying out simulation exercises with respect to terrorist attacks involving biological, chemical, or radiological weapons in close coordination with other relevant federal, state, and local actors. This Center is designed specifically to complement HHS's existing structure for the coordination of its multi-agency counter-bioterrorism initiative. At present, the Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the bioterrorism functions of the CDC with those of the NIH, with those of the FDA and so forth. The housing of all the CDC's bioterrorism functions in one dedicated center will facilitate the Director's coordination task by providing a single point of contact within the CDC for its bioterrorism defense efforts. When the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response goes online, the CDC will benefit from a much more focused and prioritized bioterrorism mandate; the Office of Public Health Preparedness will benefit from a streamlining of its coordination duties; and the American people will benefit from a firmer, sounder, stronger defense against bioterrorism. Let me be clear that what I am proposing is not an added layer of bureaucracy. Most of the responsibilities that would be assigned to the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response already accrue to the CDC in Atlanta. My legislation would gather these existing bioterrorism functions from their various locations throughout the CDC, which has 21 different buildings, I might add, and bring them all under one roof, one center--an elimination of bureaucratic layers, not an addition of a new one. There are a few new responsibilities that my legislation would charge to the Center that do not currently reside with the CDC, but I challenge anyone to claim that they constitute merely an added layer of bureaucracy. Where there are new responsibilities--for instance, the tracking and regulation not merely of the transfer but of the possession and use of deadly biological toxins--it is only in instances of national security imperatives of the highest order. In 1947, President Truman advocated and presided over the creation of the National Military Establishment, a new department bringing the Departments of War and Navy under one aegis. In 1949, the National Military Establishment was renamed the Department of Defense. President Truman recognized in the waning days of World War II that the Nation's military as it was then structured would be incapable of meeting future threats. That is important. The Department of Defense, with its unified command structure and cohesive focus on national defense, was his solution to the problem. Today, we all know how well the Department of Defense has served us. In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed the first drug czar to lend focus to what had previously been a loosely dispersed and consequently ineffectual war on drugs. More recently, President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security because he recognized that we need one office and one director whose sole responsibility is to ensure the security of our homeland. In this same tradition, I propose a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. When a threat--be it our inability to win future wars, rampant drug use, or terrorist designs on our homeland--reaches critical proportions, our Nation has historically responded by creating a focal point whose sole mandate is addressing that threat. Today, I can say without fear of contradiction that the threat of bioterrorism has surpassed the critical threshold. In my view, we are therefore called upon by history and by our obligation to future generations to create a dedicated National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This center will be the first in the Federal Government to be dedicated solely to protecting the Nation against the public health threats posed by biological, chemical, and radiological weapons attacks. The monumental importance of this task, compounded by the potentially devastating consequences of a failure to give it the national commitment it deserves, makes the creation of a single center that will focus all its energies and resources on encountering the public health threat of bioterrorism imperative and of the greatest urgency. The events of last fall made it painfully clear that we as a nation are not as prepared as we need to be to deal with a bioterrorist attack. The Federal response to the anthrax crisis has been variously characterized as fragmented, slow, confused, ineffectual--in a word, inadequate. This is in no way a reflection on the dedication or abilities of the men and women who performed so exceptionally well in their roles at the Federal, State, and local level in response to a threat none of us had encountered before. They did not let us down. If anything, we, the Congress of the United States, let them down through years of neglect of the public health sector and by failing to give adequate recognition sooner to the threat posed to us by bioterrorism. It was not until 1999 that the Department of Health and Human Services launched its bioterrorism initiative. The military had understood and taken steps to counter the threat of biological warfare against our troops decades earlier. But it took the civilian sector until 3 years ago even to begin to take seriously the threat of domestic terrorism. Today not one of us could possibly fail to understand how serious the threat posed by bioterrorism truly is. Some among us were the intended targets of last fall's bioterrorist attack. All of us keenly felt the threat. Between 1999 and 2001, we spent in this Nation a total of $730 million on HHS's bioterrorism initiative, the lion's share of which was used by the CDC to bolster bioterrorism preparedness and response capacity of State and local health departments. This initiative was a good start, but it is now clear that between 1999 and September 11, 2001, we continued to grossly underestimate the national commitment that would be required to counter the threat of bioterrorism. Finally, late last year, as we finished allocating funds for fiscal year 2002 in the wake of September 11 and the anthrax attacks, we boosted HHS bioterrorism spending to $3 billion, roughly a tenfold increase. Congress is often accused of being reactive instead of proactive, and I think that criticism is, I am sad to say, valid in this case. Certainly a dramatic ratcheting up to our commitment to bioterrorism defense was the right reaction to the events of last fall. But now we are presented with the opportunity, and I think the obligation, to take proactive steps to anticipate future threats and needs based on our recent experiences. My proposal today is just such a step, and I exhort my colleagues in this body and in the House to support the immediate authorization of a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. The CDC is on the public health front in the war against domestic terrorism, the tip of the spear. It is not the only weapon in our arsenal. The CDC joins the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health Resources and Services Administration, the many State and local health departments, and many others on the front line. But the CDC is the one with the greatest responsibility in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Despite the critical nature of these responsibilities, we must remember how new they are to the CDC, especially relative to the CDC's 56 years of experience addressing public health threats of a fundamentally different nature. The threat posed by bioterrorism bears a surface resemblance to that posed by more conventional disease outputs. But closer inspection reveals real substantive differences, and a recognition of these differences can make the difference between an effective and ineffective emergency response. The scientists and other experts at the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Environmental Health are highly skilled in controlling and preventing disease outbreaks of a natural origin, but when it comes to bioterrorism, they are treading new ground without a compass. CDC's rapid response personnel, in the absence of the specialized and focused bioterrorism training that a national center could provide, will inevitably bring to bear epidemiological models and methods that, while exceptionally effective in approaching naturally occurring disease outbreaks, are poorly suited to manmade outbreaks. As my friend and former Senator Sam Nunn so wonderfully noted in testimony to Congress just months before September 11 of last year: A biological weapons attack cuts across categories and mocks old strategies. We need a new approach. Under the present structure, CDC's bioterrorism preparedness and response efforts exist alongside and are dispersed among its more traditional programs. This is the prevailing state of affairs because HHS's bioterrorism initiative is still relatively new, not because it is the ideal method of organizing CDC's response to bioterrorism, but the time has come to give the CDC's bioterrorism defense efforts the focus they deserve. Counterbioterrorism activities at the CDC jumped from zero percent of the CDC's overall budget in 1998 to 4 percent in 2001 and 34 percent in 2002. Each of the CDC's other major programs, none of which now even approaches the bioterrorism program in terms of size, has been given a national center with its own director, its own budget authority, and own accountability to Congress. The CDC's Bioterrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response Program, by contrast, is not even funded through the CDC. Its resources come from the external public health and social service emergency fund. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, we authorized a National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, not because the CDC had no prior programs relating to birth defects and developmental disabilities, but rather because only in their own dedicated center could these programs receive the focus and priority they deserve. There is a National Center for Health Statistics, but there is right now no National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. It seems to me that if a dedicated center is called for by the need for accurate health statistics, the urgent need for a comprehensive, effective, and focused defense against bioterrorism certainly demands one as well. Under my legislation, the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response would be charged with the following responsibilities: training, preparing, and equipping bioterrorism emergency response teams, who will become the special forces of the Public Health Service, for the unique purpose of immediate emergency response to a man-made assault on the public health; overseeing, expanding, and improving the laboratory response network; and that is a mission; developing response plans for all conceivable contingencies involving terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction, that is much needed and developing protocols of coordination and communication between Federal, State, and local actors, as well as between different Federal actors, in collaboration with these entities, for each of those contingencies, which is highly needed; maintaining, managing, and deploying the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, what an important challenge that is; regulating and tracking the possession, use, and transfer of dangerous biological, chemical, and radiological agents that the Secretary of HHS determines pose a threat to the public health; developing and implementing disease surveillance systems, including a nationwide secure electronic network linking doctors, hospitals, public health departments, and the CDC, for the early detection, identification, collection, and monitoring of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction; administering grants to state and local public health departments for building core capacities, such as the Health Alert Network; and organizing and carrying out simulation exercises with respect to terrorist attacks involving biological, chemical, or radiological weapons in close coordination with other relevant federal, state, and local actors. This Center is designed specifically to complement HHS's existing structure for the coordination of its multi-agency counter-bioterrorism initiative. At present, the Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the bioterrorism functions of the CDC with those of the NIH, with those of the FDA and so forth. The housing of all the CDC's bioterrorism functions in one dedicated center will facilitate the Director's coordination task by providing a single point of contact within the CDC for its bioterrorism defense efforts. When the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response goes online, the CDC will benefit from a much more focused and prioritized bioterrorism mandate; the Office of Public Health Preparedness will benefit from a streamlining of its coordination duties; and the American people will benefit from a firmer, sounder, stronger defense against bioterrorism. Let me be clear that what I am proposing is not an added layer of bureaucracy. Most of the responsibilities that would be assigned to the National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response already accrue to the CDC in Atlanta. My legislation would gather these existing bioterrorism functions from their various locations throughout the CDC, which has 21 different buildings, I might add, and bring them all under one roof, one center--an elimination of bureaucratic layers, not an addition of a new one. There are a few new responsibilities that my legislation would charge to the Center that do not currently reside with the CDC, but I challenge anyone to claim that they constitute merely an added layer of bureaucracy. Where there are new responsibilities--for instance, the tracking and regulation not merely of the transfer but of the possession and use of deadly biological toxins--it is only in instances of national security imperatives of the highest order. In 1947, President Truman advocated and presided over the creation of the National Military Establishment, a new department bringing the Departments of War and Navy under one aegis. In 1949, the National Military Establishment was renamed the Department of Defense. President Truman recognized in the waning days of World War II that the Nation's military as it was then structured would be incapable of meeting future threats. That is important. The Department of Defense, with its unified command structure and cohesive focus on national defense, was his solution to the problem. Today, we all know how well the Department of Defense has served us. In the 1980s, President Reagan appointed the first drug czar to lend focus to what had previously been a loosely dispersed and consequently ineffectual war on drugs. More recently, President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security because he recognized that we need one office and one director whose sole responsibility is to ensure the security of our homeland. In this same tradition, I propose a National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. When a threat--be it our inability to win future wars, rampant drug use, or terrorist designs on our homeland--reaches critical proportions, our Nation has historically responded by creating a focal point whose sole mandate is addressing that threat. Today, I can say without fear of contradiction that the threat of bioterrorism has surpassed the critical threshold. In my view, we are therefore called upon by history and by our obligation to future generations to create a dedicated National Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.