John Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2003. As I speak, State governments face a budget gap of $80 billion in 2004, according to the National Governors Association. My own State of North Carolina must close a $2 billion deficit this year, the third year in a row that we have faced a deficit of $1 billion or more. There is an additional $30 billion deficit in 2003 that, for most States, must be closed before the fiscal year ends in June. Cities and towns face a similar budget pinch. The likely result in many States will be steep tax increases and budget cuts. Because most States have seen two or three lean years in a row, the easiest cuts and sources of revenue have already been tapped. States already closed nearly $50 billion in deficits for 2003. According to Standard and Poor's, ``With rainy day funds having been depleted rapidly over the past three years, few options remain other than tough cuts or revenue increases.'' The State and local budget crisis is a serious threat to our economy. State spending cuts and tax increases equaling $100 billion would directly lower GDP growth by one percentage point, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. According to the Center, ``The only way this blow to the economy can be mitigated is through federal fiscal relief for the states.'' Millions of Americans across the Nation will be directly affected by State tax increases and budget cuts. For example, Kansas is considering new taxes on hair stylists, theaters, and doctors. Missouri is now taxing pharmacies. In fact, policymakers in 15 States are already calling for tax increases of approximately $14 billion in 2004. New York budget proposals would raise class sizes and cut 43,000 early education slots in New York City. Florida may take away medical coverage for 26,000 low-income people. In California, hundreds of nursing homes are in danger of bankruptcy, according to the Washington Post. San Diego may close fire stations. Portland, OR, will likely trim its school year by 24 days. Oregon State police are laying off 129 troopers and abandoning 24-hour patrols. The Multnomah county jail will release as many as 500 inmates early. Medical benefits will be eliminated for 8,000 elderly and disabled people. This is wrong. It's wrong for the people being hurt. And it is wrong for our economy. That's why I am proposing the Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2003. This bill would enacts a State relief plan I first described last November. It gives States and cities a total of $50 billion, allowing them to avoid raising taxes and protect critical priorities in public safety, education, and health care. First, my legislation would provide $10 billion to states and major cities to strengthen homeland security. We have a whole range of homeland security priorities that we ought to be meeting but we haven't. Although our domestic readiness begins with first responders, they are not getting the training and equipment they need to respond to an attack with speed, skill, and strength. Our public health system isn't fully prepared to respond to biological attacks. We need to modernize an emergency warning system that is terribly out of date so we can reach Americans at any time, day or night. Our infrastructure is exposed. There are 500 large skyscrapers, 250 major arenas and stadiums, and countless train, subway, and automobile bridges and tunnels. Many of these facilities have vulnerable ventilation systems, poor emergency exits, and inadequate fire retardants and blast-resistant materials. Security at nuclear and chemical plants and over shipments is still too lax. At 123 chemical plants, a toxic chemical release would endanger a million people or more. We need to meet all these priorities, and we can ought to meet them through a partnership between Washington, states, and local communities. This bill goes a long way toward doing that by providing $10 billion for homeland security. Next, today's bill would provide States $10 billion through higher Medicaid reimbursements. Higher Medicaid reimbursements can dramatically help State budgets. It can also address serious inequities in the way Medicaid funds are distributed today. The legislation is based on Senator Rockefeller's excellent proposal. It maintains last year's Medicaid matching rate where rates are declining and provides an additional modest, temporary increase in the matching rate. This short- lived relief will help states balance their budgets and protect children and seniors who rely on Medicaid. Last but not least, my bill will give States and local governments $30 billion in general relief. In return for this aid, State and local governments must agree not to cut K-12 education funding or raise college tuition faster than inflation for low- and middle-income families. Across the Nation, States and cities are struggling with more needs and less revenue. Washington is not doing its part to help. Instead, we have created new demands through the No Child Left Behind education reform law and the Federal special education laws, without delivering the resources needed to meet those demands. We ought to help States and localities meet those demands, and this bill will do that. The Homeland Protection and Tax Hike Protection Act will strengthen our homeland security and prevent states and cities from raising taxes and cutting schools and health care. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protect America Scholarships Act of 2003. The Act will draw talented young people into professions that are vital to America's security and that are critically short of expertise. It offers college students a simple deal: If you'll serve for five years, we'll pay for your college. The reason for this law is simple. Our country continues to have tremendous homeland security needs. We have thousands of important jobs that we aren't filling because we don't have the qualified people. And we have thousands of young people who are looking to serve their country, and who are also looking for ways to pay for college. So this bill puts together the needs of our country and the idealism of our young people. It says that young people who commit to meeting priority homeland security needs will get money for college in return. Let me give three examples of professions where this bill can make a real difference. First, our public health system suffers from a shortage of trained professionals who can contribute to the fight against terrorism. Too few medical professionals are trained to diagnose and treat diseases caused by biological agents. Public health laboratories don't have the capacity to test all the specimens suspected of being biological agents. Local governments need as many as 15,000 new public health preparedness employees. And despite the central role of nurses in responding should terrorists attack with chemical or biological weapons, there are more than 126,000 unfilled nursing positions today. There are special roles in all of these professions that trained young people could fill in important ways. Second, the federal government faces a critical shortage of policymakers and intelligence analysts with expertise in foreign languages and cultures. The General Accounting Office has reported that the FBI's efforts to combat terrorism have been impeded by a lack of qualified translators. Thousands of hours of audiotapes and pages of written material have not been reviewed or translated. Similarly, the U.S. Department of State reports that lack of language fluency has weakened its fight against international terrorism and drug trafficking. A third area where we need more people is fighting cyberterrorism. We now live in a world where a terrorist can do as much damage with a keyboard and a modem as with a gun or a bomb. By exploiting computer vulnerabilities, terrorists might be able to shut down power for entire cities for extended periods; disrupt our phones; poison our water; erase financial records; paralyze our police, firefighters, and ambulances; and stop all traffic on the Internet. Yet our workforce specializing in cybersecurity remains inadequate. The federal government has especially serious shortages. These vulnerabilities leave our Federal agencies exposed to hackers, system shutdowns, and cyberterrorists. By offering up to $10,000 in college tuition, the Protect America Scholarships Act will harness the patriotism and determination of a new generation of Americans to urgent national priorities. The federal government and a growing number of states, including North Carolina, use similar programs to recruit teachers successfully. The recent Hart- Rudman report identified student loan debt burdens as a particular obstacle to attracting young adults into public service. The safety of the American people depends on the millions of people working to protect them. Today's bill will help recruit more talented Americans to professions needed to defend our nation. I hope it will earn the support of my colleagues. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protect America Scholarships Act of 2003. The Act will draw talented young people into professions that are vital to America's security and that are critically short of expertise. It offers college students a simple deal: If you'll serve for five years, we'll pay for your college. The reason for this law is simple. Our country continues to have tremendous homeland security needs. We have thousands of important jobs that we aren't filling because we don't have the qualified people. And we have thousands of young people who are looking to serve their country, and who are also looking for ways to pay for college. So this bill puts together the needs of our country and the idealism of our young people. It says that young people who commit to meeting priority homeland security needs will get money for college in return. Let me give three examples of professions where this bill can make a real difference. First, our public health system suffers from a shortage of trained professionals who can contribute to the fight against terrorism. Too few medical professionals are trained to diagnose and treat diseases caused by biological agents. Public health laboratories don't have the capacity to test all the specimens suspected of being biological agents. Local governments need as many as 15,000 new public health preparedness employees. And despite the central role of nurses in responding should terrorists attack with chemical or biological weapons, there are more than 126,000 unfilled nursing positions today. There are special roles in all of these professions that trained young people could fill in important ways. Second, the federal government faces a critical shortage of policymakers and intelligence analysts with expertise in foreign languages and cultures. The General Accounting Office has reported that the FBI's efforts to combat terrorism have been impeded by a lack of qualified translators. Thousands of hours of audiotapes and pages of written material have not been reviewed or translated. Similarly, the U.S. Department of State reports that lack of language fluency has weakened its fight against international terrorism and drug trafficking. A third area where we need more people is fighting cyberterrorism. We now live in a world where a terrorist can do as much damage with a keyboard and a modem as with a gun or a bomb. By exploiting computer vulnerabilities, terrorists might be able to shut down power for entire cities for extended periods; disrupt our phones; poison our water; erase financial records; paralyze our police, firefighters, and ambulances; and stop all traffic on the Internet. Yet our workforce specializing in cybersecurity remains inadequate. The federal government has especially serious shortages. These vulnerabilities leave our Federal agencies exposed to hackers, system shutdowns, and cyberterrorists. By offering up to $10,000 in college tuition, the Protect America Scholarships Act will harness the patriotism and determination of a new generation of Americans to urgent national priorities. The federal government and a growing number of states, including North Carolina, use similar programs to recruit teachers successfully. The recent Hart- Rudman report identified student loan debt burdens as a particular obstacle to attracting young adults into public service. The safety of the American people depends on the millions of people working to protect them. Today's bill will help recruit more talented Americans to professions needed to defend our nation. I hope it will earn the support of my colleagues. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have previously given a statement and a speech on the floor of the Senate with regard to Mr. Estrada's nomination. I voted against him in the Judiciary Committee. The concerns I had included his not answering questions that were put to him, serious questions, in my judgment--issues about his record and his temperament. Today, I wish to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response, and then I will talk about six bills I have introduced in this Congress to improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the way we do intelligence work here at home. The first responsibility of any government is to protect its people. Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We are at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al- Qaida is ``resuming the offensive.'' The FBI Director says there are ``al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to identify.'' In other words, al-Qaida cells are operating here, but we do not know who they are, where they are, or what they are doing. Americans are buying plastic sheeting and duct tape in record amounts. While they are doing everything they can to protect themselves, they have a right to know that those of us in Government are doing everything we can to protect them, their homes, their families, and their children. This is a dangerous time. But a dangerous time calls for an honest response: This President is failing the test on homeland security. Homeland security has yielded to chemical companies that are holding back commonsense steps to secure chemical plants against horrific explosions. Homeland security is yielding to bureaucratic inertia that is defending old and outworn ways of fighting terror. Today there are huge holes in our borders--one guard for every 5 miles on the Canadian border. There are huge holes at our ports--we are still inspecting only a fraction of all shipments into the United States, shipments that could carry nuclear or biological weapons. There are huge holes in our hometowns--where cops and firefighters do not have the equipment or the training that they need. For all these holes, this President has vetoed billions for homeland security, he is withholding funds that first responders need today, and he has proposed funding homeland security this year at a level that even Republican experts like Warren Rudman say is totally inadequate. We cannot cover the holes in our borders with plastic sheeting. Our cops and firefighters need reinforcements and new gear, not canned goods. In 2000, the President's team talked about the dangers of a hollow military. At a time when the greatest dangers we face are here at home, this administration risks creating a hollow homeland defense. This is happening for a very simple reason. The bare minimum of homeland security improvements we need--$10 billion more this year-- costs less than half of President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000 millionaires. I believe it is time to say to this President: Mr. President, please put our security first. Please set aside $20 billion in tax breaks for 226,000 millionaires, and put homeland security for 290 million Americans first. Let me talk a little bit about my work on homeland security since Congress came back into session. Back in December, I laid out a comprehensive plan for strengthening our domestic security, from stopping ID fraud to sharing more information with local police to improving our cybersecurity. And in the 6 weeks Congress has been in session so far, I have introduced six bills to strengthen our homeland security. Each of these bills would make a concrete, tangible difference in people's lives. Two bills are focused on empowering people to play a greater role in homeland security. First, until this week, most Americans have no better idea how to respond to a terrorist attack than on September 11. Now the administration has begun giving out useful information, but we still don't have enough. We are not being told, for example, how to respond to chemical or biological attacks. In addition, there is still a serious question whether people will get the information they need when they need it, particularly when they are sleeping. Obviously TV and radio won't help if you are asleep. So I have a bill, which I wrote with Senator Fritz Hollings, that will create an emergency warning system to reach everyone--for example, using special phone rings that could wake people up in the middle of the night. Second, we want to encourage more people to contribute. People want to serve, but they feel like they haven't been asked. We should ask. One way is through the Neighborhood Watch program. Neighborhood Watches help prevent both terrorism and ordinary crime. We are going to increase support for these, encourage folks to get involved, with the goal--the realistic goal--of tripling the number of neighborhood watches. Next, I have introduced two bills focused on hardening vulnerable targets--in other words, taking those targets we know terrorists want to attack, and transforming them so they will be less vulnerable. One bill is to do research to enhance building security, to improve the quality of private security guards and make buildings more resistant to attack. We know that at the Oklahoma City bombing, 85 percent of the lives might have been saved if the building had been built with better materials, in a better way. We are still learning about the World Trade Center collapse. We know we need better construction and better security around buildings across America. A fourth bill would require the Government to improve its cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, we had an attack that crippled a lot of Government computer systems. There are simple tests we could be doing to block computer attacks that we are not doing: to ``patch'' holes in the systems. We need to make that happen. Fifth, I have introduced a bill to help local law enforcement by requiring the Government to give security clearances to more police officers, firefighters, and health officials. They need information to keep us safe, but too often they are not getting it. This bill would help make sure they do. Finally, there is the bill I have introduced today, and that I want to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes in the way we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign terrorist groups operating in America. And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why. There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction, who do all of us proud. But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes before September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew were threats but did not track and stop. It is true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best wishes for his reform efforts. At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of the problems we have seen. This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's capacity to respond to terrorism. The Markle Task Force commented: ``. . . there is a resistance ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information . . . the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of counter-terrorism.'' The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a ``history of repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic intelligence. . . .'' The Brookings Institution went further, stating that ``there are strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis.'' And finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: ``the Bureau's long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather than one dedicated to punishing them.'' I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion. Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is full of superb public servants. But the reality is that the FBI is also a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change. That is just the reality. It was only in November that the New York Times reported the FBI's No. 2 official was ``amazed and astounded'' by the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat. Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions. Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it is about gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture. The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for succeeding as law enforcement officers. Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central coordination that is essential to combat national networks of terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's walls rather than sharing it with other key players. Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough. That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly announced ``Terrorist Threat Integration Center.'' That's just about analysis. This is about collection, gathering the intelligence information to begin with. I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its work. I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities, we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this proposal will help stop it. We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill America's promise--that we are safe and free at the same time. I believe this bill is an important step to making America safer, and I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this legislation passed.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I have previously given a statement and a speech on the floor of the Senate with regard to Mr. Estrada's nomination. I voted against him in the Judiciary Committee. The concerns I had included his not answering questions that were put to him, serious questions, in my judgment--issues about his record and his temperament. Today, I wish to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response, and then I will talk about six bills I have introduced in this Congress to improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the way we do intelligence work here at home. The first responsibility of any government is to protect its people. Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We are at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al- Qaida is ``resuming the offensive.'' The FBI Director says there are ``al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to identify.'' In other words, al-Qaida cells are operating here, but we do not know who they are, where they are, or what they are doing. Americans are buying plastic sheeting and duct tape in record amounts. While they are doing everything they can to protect themselves, they have a right to know that those of us in Government are doing everything we can to protect them, their homes, their families, and their children. This is a dangerous time. But a dangerous time calls for an honest response: This President is failing the test on homeland security. Homeland security has yielded to chemical companies that are holding back commonsense steps to secure chemical plants against horrific explosions. Homeland security is yielding to bureaucratic inertia that is defending old and outworn ways of fighting terror. Today there are huge holes in our borders--one guard for every 5 miles on the Canadian border. There are huge holes at our ports--we are still inspecting only a fraction of all shipments into the United States, shipments that could carry nuclear or biological weapons. There are huge holes in our hometowns--where cops and firefighters do not have the equipment or the training that they need. For all these holes, this President has vetoed billions for homeland security, he is withholding funds that first responders need today, and he has proposed funding homeland security this year at a level that even Republican experts like Warren Rudman say is totally inadequate. We cannot cover the holes in our borders with plastic sheeting. Our cops and firefighters need reinforcements and new gear, not canned goods. In 2000, the President's team talked about the dangers of a hollow military. At a time when the greatest dangers we face are here at home, this administration risks creating a hollow homeland defense. This is happening for a very simple reason. The bare minimum of homeland security improvements we need--$10 billion more this year-- costs less than half of President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000 millionaires. I believe it is time to say to this President: Mr. President, please put our security first. Please set aside $20 billion in tax breaks for 226,000 millionaires, and put homeland security for 290 million Americans first. Let me talk a little bit about my work on homeland security since Congress came back into session. Back in December, I laid out a comprehensive plan for strengthening our domestic security, from stopping ID fraud to sharing more information with local police to improving our cybersecurity. And in the 6 weeks Congress has been in session so far, I have introduced six bills to strengthen our homeland security. Each of these bills would make a concrete, tangible difference in people's lives. Two bills are focused on empowering people to play a greater role in homeland security. First, until this week, most Americans have no better idea how to respond to a terrorist attack than on September 11. Now the administration has begun giving out useful information, but we still don't have enough. We are not being told, for example, how to respond to chemical or biological attacks. In addition, there is still a serious question whether people will get the information they need when they need it, particularly when they are sleeping. Obviously TV and radio won't help if you are asleep. So I have a bill, which I wrote with Senator Fritz Hollings, that will create an emergency warning system to reach everyone--for example, using special phone rings that could wake people up in the middle of the night. Second, we want to encourage more people to contribute. People want to serve, but they feel like they haven't been asked. We should ask. One way is through the Neighborhood Watch program. Neighborhood Watches help prevent both terrorism and ordinary crime. We are going to increase support for these, encourage folks to get involved, with the goal--the realistic goal--of tripling the number of neighborhood watches. Next, I have introduced two bills focused on hardening vulnerable targets--in other words, taking those targets we know terrorists want to attack, and transforming them so they will be less vulnerable. One bill is to do research to enhance building security, to improve the quality of private security guards and make buildings more resistant to attack. We know that at the Oklahoma City bombing, 85 percent of the lives might have been saved if the building had been built with better materials, in a better way. We are still learning about the World Trade Center collapse. We know we need better construction and better security around buildings across America. A fourth bill would require the Government to improve its cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, we had an attack that crippled a lot of Government computer systems. There are simple tests we could be doing to block computer attacks that we are not doing: to ``patch'' holes in the systems. We need to make that happen. Fifth, I have introduced a bill to help local law enforcement by requiring the Government to give security clearances to more police officers, firefighters, and health officials. They need information to keep us safe, but too often they are not getting it. This bill would help make sure they do. Finally, there is the bill I have introduced today, and that I want to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes in the way we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign terrorist groups operating in America. And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why. There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction, who do all of us proud. But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes before September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew were threats but did not track and stop. It is true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best wishes for his reform efforts. At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of the problems we have seen. This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's capacity to respond to terrorism. The Markle Task Force commented: ``. . . there is a resistance ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information . . . the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of counter-terrorism.'' The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a ``history of repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic intelligence. . . .'' The Brookings Institution went further, stating that ``there are strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis.'' And finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: ``the Bureau's long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather than one dedicated to punishing them.'' I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion. Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is full of superb public servants. But the reality is that the FBI is also a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change. That is just the reality. It was only in November that the New York Times reported the FBI's No. 2 official was ``amazed and astounded'' by the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat. Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions. Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it is about gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture. The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for succeeding as law enforcement officers. Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central coordination that is essential to combat national networks of terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's walls rather than sharing it with other key players. Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough. That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly announced ``Terrorist Threat Integration Center.'' That's just about analysis. This is about collection, gathering the intelligence information to begin with. I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its work. I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities, we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this proposal will help stop it. We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill America's promise--that we are safe and free at the same time. I believe this bill is an important step to making America safer, and I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this legislation passed.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I believe judges have no greater responsibility than to ensure fair treatment and equal justice under the law. I also believe one of our greatest responsibilities as Senators is to advise and consent on the President's nominees to the bench. I, for one, take this responsibility very seriously. It is not our duty as Members of the Senate to just rubber stamp the President's nominees--particularly nominees who we doubt are committed to protecting equal rights for every single American. Having read the record of this nominee very carefully, I feel compelled to oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada for two reasons. First, what we know about his record raises serious questions about his commitment to protecting equal rights under the law. Second, and more importantly, his refusal to answer reasonable questions during the confirmation process makes it impossible to examine his views of the law and determine whether his personal views would overrule law and legal precedent. Federal judges wield enormous power and have a huge impact on the rights of individuals all across America. Given the fact that the Supreme Court reviews fewer than 100 cases per year, circuit courts, such as the DC Circuit where Miguel Estrada is being nominated to, ends up as the courts of last resort for nearly 30,000 cases each year. Let me repeat that. Fewer than 100 cases are reviewed before the Supreme Court, and 30,000 cases are decided at the circuit court level. These cases affect the interpretation of the Constitution as well as statutes enacted by us to protect equal rights. The circuit courts are the courts where Federal regulations will be upheld or overturned, where many personal rights will either be kept or lost, and where invasions of freedom will be allowed or curtailed. They are the courts where thousands of individuals will have a final determination in matters that affect their financial future, their health, their liberty, and their lives. The District of Columbia Circuit is an especially important court in our judicial system. It is the most prestigious and powerful appellate court below the Supreme Court level because it has exclusive jurisdiction over critical Federal constitutional rights. About Mr. Estrada: The little that we know of Miguel Estrada's approach to the law is troubling. But Mr. Estrada's record is not the main reason I can't support his nomination at this time. The main reason is that he has not explained his views. Before his hearing, I looked forward to hearing Mr. Estrada discuss his views, but he refused to do so. Instead, he stonewalled serious and valid questions--serious and valid questions that have been answered by many other nominees who have appeared before the committee. Other judicial nominees of President Bush have discussed at length their views in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For example, Michael McConnell, whom I voted for and who was recently confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, thoroughly discussed his views on subjects such as Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court's recent ``federalism'' or ``States rights'' decisions limiting the authority of Congress. But with Mr. Estrada, it is very different. The Justice Department refused to produce any legal memoranda written by Mr. Estrada during his 5 years as a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office. In this position, Mr. Estrada researched the law, he wrote memoranda, pleadings, and briefs on behalf of the Federal Government on critical and constitutional and statutory questions that were before the U.S. Supreme Court. I understand the administration has concerns about executive privilege, but there are ways to strike a balance between the privileges of the executive and the rights of the Senate to learn about a nominee before we make a decision about him. That is what has happened during the judicial nomination process of other nominees who have worked in the Solicitor General's office, including Robert Bork and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. We tried to discuss Mr. Estrada's views with him during the hearing, but instead of being forthcoming in answering our questions, Mr. Estrada was extraordinarily evasive. Time after time, Mr. Estrada refused to answer our questions because he claimed not to have an opinion since he has not been personally involved, read the briefs, listened to oral arguments, or independently researched the case. Anybody who has attended law school, including myself, knows that law students and lawyers express opinions about Supreme Court cases every day because of their ramifications for current cases with similar issues. Nine times during his testimony Mr. Estrada refused to name any Supreme Court case with which he disagreed. And time after time after time, Mr. Estrada just flat out refused to offer us any explanation of or insight into his view of his judicial philosophy. For example, we have heard the President state on many occasions that he intended to appoint judges who are strict constructionists--a term commonly used in describing judicial philosophy and often applied to Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. I asked Mr. Estrada a simple question of whether he considered himself within that category; did he consider himself a strict constructionist? But he refused to provide a straight answer. Question to Mr. Estrada: Are you a strict constructionist? Answer: I am a fair constructionist, I think. Question: Do you consider yourself to be a strict constructionist? Answer: I consider myself to be a fair constructionist. I mean, that is today. I don't think that it should be the goal of our courts to be strict or lax. The goal of the courts is to get it right. . . . I tried again. Question: Let me ask the same question a little differently. The President gave a speech last night at a fundraiser and specifically referred to your nomination, among others. The President said, ``For a stronger America, we need good judges. We need people who will not write the law from the bench, but people who''--and I am quoting him now--``strictly interpret the Constitution.'' Do you fall within the President's definition? Mr. Estrada's answer: I have not spoken with the President about this or any other subject. I don't know what he meant. If I had to take his text as a statute, I would want to know more about the circumstances in order to figure out whether I can answer your question. Question: You haven't been asked that question by anyone during the course of your nomination process? If I can interject here, this is something the President talks about regularly--appointing judges who are strict constructionists. He has now been asked several times by me in the hearing whether he is a strict constructionist. His answer was artifice language without answering the question. I asked the question whether he is a strict constructionist. I asked: You haven't been asked that question by anyone during the course of your nomination process? Answer: No. I was asked very similar questions, and they generally had to do with how I go about generally interpreting the Constitution and statutes--and I gave the answer that I gave you a few minutes ago. In other words, ``none of your business'' was the answer. Other Senators tried to get a straight answer from Mr. Estrada. Question: Of the current members of the Supreme Court, who would you characterize as a strict constructionist? Who would you characterize as a fair constructionist? That was his language. How would you characterize the remaining Justices? Answer: I would characterize each member of the current Court as a ``fair constructionist.'' The people on the Supreme Court today have totally different philosophies. Everyone knows that. You have a broad spectrum from someone such as Justice Scalia to someone such as Justice Stevens. But Mr. Estrada said they were all ``fair constructionists,'' which basically meant the term had no meaning at all. It is like asking someone, ``Which Member of the Senate has your philosophy?'' and the answer being, ``Well, they all do.'' We do not all have the same philosophy in the Senate. I do not think anyone would question that. He refused to answer a question about his views of any judge, living or dead. Question: In terms of judicial philosophy, please name several judges, living or dead, whom you admire and would like to emulate on the bench? Answer: There is no judge, living or dead, whom I would seek to emulate on the bench, whether in terms of judicial philosophy or otherwise. . . . Again, ``none of your business.'' As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Miguel Estrada would have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of Americans. The American people deserve to know about this man who will have such an effect on their lives. They deserve to know whether he will respect and protect their civil rights. They deserve to know this before he dons the cloak of silence he will get once he is on the bench. The American people deserve more from Miguel Estrada than ``none of your business.'' I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to elevate qualified, moderate nominees to the Federal bench. In particular, in the Fourth Circuit, where North Carolina is, I have high hopes President Bush will nominate a highly qualified candidate whom I will be able to support. But, based upon Mr. Estrada's record, this is clearly not the right man. I will not just rubberstamp nominees who have not proven they are qualified for the extraordinary responsibilities of a Federal judge, and particularly the extraordinary responsibilities of a judge who would sit on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. I thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 23, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as we all know, when terrorists struck America on September 11, 2001, the greatest loss of life occurred when the World Trade Center's two towers fell. These two towers were symbols of America's strength and prosperity, and they were reduced to rubble by the two massive blows. As we continue securing America against terrorist attacks, we need to give more attention to the security of large buildings, especially skyscrapers and arenas. There are approximately 500 skyscrapers in the United States that are regularly occupied by at least 5000 people, and there are 250 major arenas and stadiums that hold many times more. These buildings will be primary targets of potential terrorist attack. We must do more to ensure that these buildings are secure. That is why I am introducing today the Building Security Act of 2003. The bill does two things: first, it supports the research and funding we need so that buildings can withstand extreme assaults, including terrorist attacks. Second, the bill takes steps so that buildings will be guarded by a security workforce that is adequately prepared to respond to these dangers. Consider the construction of large buildings. Today, many older buildings lack fire retardants and blast-resistant materials that can save hundreds of lives in a disaster. As a result of the study of the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, we know that design changes that would have increased building costs by only 1 to 2 percent might have saved as many of 85 percent of the people killed in that attack. The early reports on the World Trade Center collapse have suggested that the two towers could have endured the impact of the planes, but that the extraordinary heat generated by the explosions weakened the steel structure of those buildings. Advanced technologies in building construction would surely have slowed their collapse. On the positive side, we know that improvements in the construction of the Pentagon mitigated the loss of life; the plane struck the Pentagon on the one side of the building where the windows were blast-resistant and the structural columns had been reinforced. Those changes likely saved many lives. There are new, better construction practices and materials out there, but we are not using them as much as we should. Part of the reason is that today, our Nation's brightest scientists and most innovative companies do not have the resources needed to research, create, and implement these practices. We must enable these people to develop new methods and materials, and help industry meet the higher standards we need, and we must do all that as quickly and efficient as possible. The bill I introduce today will provide $40 million for the National Institutes of Science and Technology, or NIST, to help improve construction standards. The needed research is happening now, but it needs to move much more quickly. This legislation will do three things: 1. undertake an intensive national research effort to determine both how to build strong buildings, and how to improve building codes and standards; 2. specifically research the question of how to ensure that these higher standards are actually met, whether by mandates, tax credits, or other incentives; and 3. provide technical guidance to builders in adopting the new standards and codes. We also must address standards for private security officers. Our country's buildings are staffed by almost two million private security officers. While they have the critical responsibility of preventing emergencies and protecting building occupants from harm, these officers are often inadequately trained or compensated to do so. The industry suffers from low retention, deficient training, and meager salaries. The job turnover rate within the private security industry is as high as 300 percent per year. Recent studies show that 4 in 10 private security officers report no new security measures in their buildings since September 11, and 7 in 10 report that their buildings never conduct evacuation and emergency drills. And over half of the States have no clear oversight for their respective private security industries, nor do they have standards or screening requirements for new hires. This legislation authorizes a review of the private security industry by a commission in the Department of Homeland Security that includes all those with critical knowledge of the industry. The commission is tasked with establishing industry guidelines and standards and developing a means to implement those guidelines and standards in a timely way. Our Nation's buildings have been targeted before, and I believe that they will be targeted again. We must do much more to make these buildings secure. This bill is important step in the right direction.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as we all know, when terrorists struck America on September 11, 2001, the greatest loss of life occurred when the World Trade Center's two towers fell. These two towers were symbols of America's strength and prosperity, and they were reduced to rubble by the two massive blows. As we continue securing America against terrorist attacks, we need to give more attention to the security of large buildings, especially skyscrapers and arenas. There are approximately 500 skyscrapers in the United States that are regularly occupied by at least 5000 people, and there are 250 major arenas and stadiums that hold many times more. These buildings will be primary targets of potential terrorist attack. We must do more to ensure that these buildings are secure. That is why I am introducing today the Building Security Act of 2003. The bill does two things: first, it supports the research and funding we need so that buildings can withstand extreme assaults, including terrorist attacks. Second, the bill takes steps so that buildings will be guarded by a security workforce that is adequately prepared to respond to these dangers. Consider the construction of large buildings. Today, many older buildings lack fire retardants and blast-resistant materials that can save hundreds of lives in a disaster. As a result of the study of the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, we know that design changes that would have increased building costs by only 1 to 2 percent might have saved as many of 85 percent of the people killed in that attack. The early reports on the World Trade Center collapse have suggested that the two towers could have endured the impact of the planes, but that the extraordinary heat generated by the explosions weakened the steel structure of those buildings. Advanced technologies in building construction would surely have slowed their collapse. On the positive side, we know that improvements in the construction of the Pentagon mitigated the loss of life; the plane struck the Pentagon on the one side of the building where the windows were blast-resistant and the structural columns had been reinforced. Those changes likely saved many lives. There are new, better construction practices and materials out there, but we are not using them as much as we should. Part of the reason is that today, our Nation's brightest scientists and most innovative companies do not have the resources needed to research, create, and implement these practices. We must enable these people to develop new methods and materials, and help industry meet the higher standards we need, and we must do all that as quickly and efficient as possible. The bill I introduce today will provide $40 million for the National Institutes of Science and Technology, or NIST, to help improve construction standards. The needed research is happening now, but it needs to move much more quickly. This legislation will do three things: 1. undertake an intensive national research effort to determine both how to build strong buildings, and how to improve building codes and standards; 2. specifically research the question of how to ensure that these higher standards are actually met, whether by mandates, tax credits, or other incentives; and 3. provide technical guidance to builders in adopting the new standards and codes. We also must address standards for private security officers. Our country's buildings are staffed by almost two million private security officers. While they have the critical responsibility of preventing emergencies and protecting building occupants from harm, these officers are often inadequately trained or compensated to do so. The industry suffers from low retention, deficient training, and meager salaries. The job turnover rate within the private security industry is as high as 300 percent per year. Recent studies show that 4 in 10 private security officers report no new security measures in their buildings since September 11, and 7 in 10 report that their buildings never conduct evacuation and emergency drills. And over half of the States have no clear oversight for their respective private security industries, nor do they have standards or screening requirements for new hires. This legislation authorizes a review of the private security industry by a commission in the Department of Homeland Security that includes all those with critical knowledge of the industry. The commission is tasked with establishing industry guidelines and standards and developing a means to implement those guidelines and standards in a timely way. Our Nation's buildings have been targeted before, and I believe that they will be targeted again. We must do much more to make these buildings secure. This bill is important step in the right direction.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, first, I yield a minute and a half to my friend from Vermont, who has worked so hard on this issue.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield the Senator another 30 seconds.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this administration has made new rules that are the biggest rollback of clean air protections in history. The amendment from me, Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Reid, Senator Daschle, and others says: Before the administration puts kids with asthma and seniors with respiratory problems at risk, we ought to take at least 6 months to see what effect it is going to have on their health. In other words, what we are saying is let's look before we leap. The amendment from my friend from Oklahoma says exactly the opposite. It says let's leap and then later we will look. What are we going to say when the study that he is proposing is completed if, in fact, it shows what all of us believe it is going to show now, which is that this change will cause pollution, it is going to put kids with asthma at risk, it is going to put senior citizens with serious respiratory problems at risk? What are we going to say to them, those kids who have had asthma attacks, seniors who have had serious heart or respiratory problems as a result of these changes in the rules? In other words, what the Inhofe amendment is suggesting is let's pollute more now, study it, and when we find out we are wrong we will go back and do something about it. The responsible thing to do is to conduct a serious, quantitative analysis so we can determine what impact this will have on kids and what impact it will have on seniors' health before it has the force of law. This study that is referred to by my friend from Oklahoma could well have been bought and paid for by the administration's own people. It is called ``qualitative,'' which means it is guessing by political appointees as opposed to serious analysis. The career officials within the EPA itself have said that it is self-selecting and misleading. One of the key States that is cited in the study has actually disavowed it. The bottom line is this: The EPA has never scientifically studied and modeled this issue. The one analysis that did do that, by private consultants that the EPA has used in the past, says that these new rules will cause 120 tons more pollution at just two factories. We should not leap before we look. We need to see what impact this will have on the health of kids and seniors. And all we are asking is 6 months. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional minute.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 1 minute prior to the vote.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the administration has proposed some of the most dramatic changes in the Clean Air Act that have been made in our history. All this amendment says is before we make these significant changes, we take a serious look at a quantitative study of what effect it is going to have on human health, particularly kids with asthma and seniors with cardiorespiratory problems. Look before we leap. It is that simple. The studies that have been done have not been serious scientific studies. There has not been any serious scientific study done to support this rule. The only serious scientific studies say this rule will cause significantly more pollution. In addition to that, the Governors, although they support some kind of reform, specifically do not support this reform, and so it is critically important that Senators support this amendment for the sake of our kids and for the sake of our seniors. Six months just to determine what effect this will have on the health of our kids and our seniors is a perfectly reasonable, responsible thing to do. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, this morning I will be offering an amendment, together with Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Clinton, and Senator Reid, all of whom have worked very hard on this amendment. This amendment is about doing a very simple thing: it is about keeping our air clean so that kids won't have asthma attacks and so seniors won't have heart attacks and so Americans won't lose their lives before their time. For months the administration has talked about massive changes in clean air protections and for months Senators on both sides of the aisle have said to the administration: Before you go through with these changes, would you please tell us in detail how these changes are going to affect our families? In other words, would you please look before you leap? We have been asking that question for months, and for months the administration has refused to answer. On November 22, they went ahead with their massive changes without telling us how it was going to affect the health of the American people. I believe the administration does not want to share these facts because they are afraid of what the facts will show. They are afraid people will see what their rule changes will do. When you study these rules, when you listen to the experts, you will see that they will make our air dirtier. These rules will add more soot to our cities and more smog to our national parks. At the end of the day, these rules will allow more kids to get asthma attacks, more seniors to have heart problems which land them in the emergency room, and more people will lose their lives prematurely. This amendment is a very modest response to these proposed changes. It does not block the rules forever. It does not put them off for years. It just says let's put these rules off for about 6 months and use that time to determine how these changes will affect human health, how they will affect kids with asthma, senior citizens with cardiorespiratory problems. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. We are saying let's get a study from the nonpartisan, completely respected National Academy of Sciences. That is all we are talking about: 6-month delay to look at these changes to see, before they go into effect, what effect they will have on the health of the American people. The science of pollution is completely clear. Pollution causes heart and lung problems. It aggravates asthma. It causes the smog that ruins the view in our Nation's parks. It causes premature deaths. According to Abt Associates, a nonpartisan research group, just 51 powerplants are responsible for more than 5,500 deaths every year, for over 106,000 asthma attacks, and for costs to our economy of between $31 billion and $49 billion. That is only 51 powerplants. If you did the same study of other industries, the numbers would go up dramatically. North Carolina has some of the worst pollution in the country. According to Dr. Clay Ballantine, a physician in Asheville in western North Carolina, just living and breathing in western North Carolina costs 1 to 3 years off the average life of a person. The UNC School of Public Health, found that in many of our counties 3 in 10 kids have asthma, which is three times the national average. Just walking in the Great Smoky Mountains is as bad for your lungs as breathing in many big cities. When the head of the EPA, Christie Todd Whitman, visited the Great Smokies last Fourth of July, she could barely see 15 miles at a place where you used to be able to see 75 to 100 miles. So clean air is a huge priority. It is important for our kids, for seniors, and for our parks. This administration has made radical changes in the regulations under the Clean Air Act. This is about a program called New Source Review or NSR. The basic idea of NSR is simple. Under the Clean Air Act, if someone builds a new factory, the new factory has to have state-of-the-art equipment to prevent pollution, but there is a special deal for factories that were built before 1977. Those factories don't need to install new pollution controls unless and until their toxic emissions go up by a significant amount. Only when that happens does the plant have to install these new controls that others have to meet instantly. This is what the New Source Review is all about. There is no question--and all of us believe--that reforming NSR is a good idea. We ought to do two things: One, we ought to cut red tape, which is a problem; two, we ought to cut pollution. Under Carol Browner, EPA Administrator in the Clinton administration, positive work was done in that direction. But the debate today is not about those kinds of reasonable and sensible reforms that are in the best interest of the American people. This debate is about this administration's package. There are several glaring problems with that package. First, the administration developed these rules through a series of secret consultations with executives from power and oil companies. It would not have been so bad if the administration had also been talking secretly to regular patients and kids and doctors about what effect these changes in the rules would have on their lives and their health. But there is no evidence they did that. Instead, the administration focused on one side and favored that side in the changes they made in the rules. The second problem is this administration has never explained in any serious way whether these changes will in fact harm human health, whether they will cause more pollution, more asthma, or more premature deaths. For months we have asked for a serious qualitative study, and for months we have not received that study. Let me go through a short timetable. On July 16, 2002, at a joint hearing of the Environmental Committee and the Judiciary Committee, both Senator Jeffords and I asked Jeff Holmstead, the EPA's top clean air official, whether he could quantify the effects of this proposal on a human level. He could not do it then, and the best I can tell, he has not tried to do it since. On August 1, 2002, 44 Senators signed a bipartisan letter to EPA which asks the EPA to conduct a rigorous analysis of the air pollution and public health impact of the proposed rule changes. Again, they didn't do it. On September 3, 2002, I again asked Mr. Holmstead for an analysis of EPA's proposals. Mr. Holmstead had no new analysis. Instead, he pointed back to an analysis that had been done 6 years earlier during the Clinton administration--a different set of proposals, a different analysis. The head of the EPA, 6 years ago, Carol Browner, who testified at the hearing, said the old study proved nothing. But when I asked Mr. Holmstead if EPA would simply hold off on the new rules until we had a real study on the effect that these new rules would have on the health of the American people, he said no. On November 22, 2002, the administration just went ahead, finalized the rules without giving any credible evidence on what impact this would have on human health. So what we are saying is not complicated. We are saying: Should we not look before we leap, before we change rules that can affect the most basic protection for our kids and our families and our parks? Should we not at least do an analysis of what impact it is going to have on kids and families and our environment and our parks? The administration's answer is no. Let's go ahead. I believe that is their answer because they don't want to know the truth because they are afraid of what the truth will be. If you look at these rules, which I have and others have, it is clear that they will hurt people. Time after time this administration has twisted proposals made under the Clinton administration to allow more pollution. Here is what Ms. Browner said: The current administration's recent announcement of final changes to the New Source Review Program abandons the promise of the Clean Air Act--steady air quality improvements. [These rules] will allow the air to become dirtier. Let me repeat that: These rules ``will allow the air to become dirtier.'' And that means they will allow our kids and our seniors to get sicker, to die sooner. That is what we are talking about. It is very basic and fundamental. Let me give two examples of what these rules will do: First, the rules change the way pollution levels are calculated. Under the new source review, a factory has to clean up only if it increases its pollution level. It matters a lot how we measure the factory's initial pollution level, what's called the ``baseline.'' Up to now, the rule has been that the baseline is the average for the last 2 years--that is the basis on which we determine whether there has been an increase in pollution--unless the company can prove another period is more representative of recent emissions. But the basic rule has been that you establish the baseline by looking at the last 2 years. That makes sense. What this administration proposes doing makes no sense. What they are saying is instead of using the last 2 years, we let the factory choose any 2 years out of the last 10. So instead of looking at the last 2 years as a baseline to determine whether emissions have gone up, what they are saying is we are going to let the factory choose any 2 years in the previous 10 in order to determine whether emissions have gone up. So even if the reality is that their pollution level is quite low right now, they get to go back a decade and say that pollution is high. They can even take emissions from accidents and malfunctions and use those to inflate their baseline. And because they can make pollution 10 years ago look like pollution today, they can pollute even more without cleaning up. You don't have to take my word for it. According to internal documents, career staff at the EPA said that this change would ``significantly diminish the scope'' of the New Source Review. A study by the Environmental Integrity Project found that at just two facilities, the new rules would allow over 120 tons of the pollution into the air. The National Association of State and Local Air Regulators says that this change ``provides yet another opportunity for new emissions to avoid NSR.'' So the bottom line is more pollution. Here is a second example. The new rules contain something called a ``Clean Unit'' exemption. In theory, the exemption should give companies an incentive to clean up by giving them benefits if they install state-of-the-art technology. It is a perfectly good idea. But this administration has provided an exemption as long as the company installed new equipment anytime during the last 10 years. In other words, if a company did something good in 1994, they get a free pass to increase pollution in 2003, 9 years later. Again, this makes no sense. Again, it will increase pollution. Again, here is what the State and local air commissioners said. This rule ``would substantially weaken the environmental protections offered by the NSR program.'' Now, when it comes to the effects of these rules, it is true that the State administrators could be wrong. The career officials at EPA could be wrong. I could be wrong. We could all be wrong. The rules could be OK. But even if we are all wrong--and I do not believe we are--shouldn't we get the whole story and get a real answer to the question before putting our kids and our seniors at risk? Six months is not a long time to wait in order to get the whole story. It is far better to wait 6 months than to say to this administration, go ahead, roll the dice. It is OK. We are willing to put the lives of our children and seniors at risk, and we are willing to let this rule go into effect even though we do not know what effect it is going to have on the health of our seniors and children. Let me talk for a minute about the broad opposition to these rules. This administration likes to talk about State flexibility, but these regulations take flexibility away from the States and forces some States to lower their protections. Again, this is the view of the State experts: The revised requirements go beyond even what industry requested. . . . Because the reforms are mandatory, they will impede, or even preclude, the ability of States and localities all across the country to protect the air. Although our associations believe NSR can be improved. . . . We firmly believe the controversial reforms EPA is putting in place . . . will result in unchecked emission increases that will degrade our air quality and endanger public health. That is the States. Now listen to the doctors. Over a thousand doctors from all across the country have urged this administration not to go ahead with these final rules. These doctors see the effects of air pollution every day in their practices and in the emergency rooms, and they warned that ``it is irresponsible for the EPA to move forward in finalizing new regulations that could have a negative impact on human health.'' This is not a partisan issue. The State air quality folks are not partisans. The local air quality folks are not partisans. And then there's Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group to which 12 past or present former Republican Members of Congress are connected. Republicans for Environmental Protection recently wrote a letter supporting my amendment. They wrote that ``a reasonable delay (of the rules) is necessary in order to allow independent researchers to investigate how the New Source Review revisions would affect emissions and the resulting impacts on public health.'' So Republicans support this amendment as well. We will hear people say that protecting the air is too expensive. But at the 51 power plants I mentioned earlier, premature deaths and asthma attacks cost our country over $30 billion each year. The costs of cleaning the air are a small fraction of that amount. So clean air not only saves lives; it also saves money. Finally, I want to be very clear about what this amendment does and does not do. This amendment delays by 6 months the effective date for the final rules on the New Source Review that this administration has already announced. This amendment does not touch the proposed rules regarding so-called ``routine maintenance.'' Now, speaking for myself, Senator Lieberman and Senator Jeffords, all of whom have worked very hard on this amendment, we understand the importance of new rulemaking on the definition of ``routine maintenance.'' We understand that reform of this definition is underway to allow for greater certainty for the electric industry. It is a good idea. We are not doing anything in this amendment that affects in any way the proposed rulemaking on ``routine maintenance.'' In fact, we believe it is appropriate to take public comment in the rulemaking in order to develop a rule that promotes energy efficiency, without--and I emphasize ``without''--allowing the air to become dirtier. A bipartisan group in this chamber has expressed support for EPA proceeding with a rulemaking that ``protects human health and the environment while providing regulatory certainty for the electric utility industry and other industries.'' We respect their concerns on this issue. This amendment is about final rules. It is a very modest amendment. It would delay these rules by about 6 months while we get an honest, nonpartisan study of what these rules will do to our kids' health and the environment. It will protect our kids from asthma, our seniors from heart problems, our parks from smog. This amendment will make sure we look before we leap. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be printed in the Record following this statement: Letter from 44 Senators, dated August 1, requesting an analysis of the new rules; Letter from Physicians for Social Responsibility, dated September 27, opposing the rule changes; Letter from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officers, dated January 16 of this year, requesting a delay in the rule changes; and Letter from the Republicans for Environmental Protection, dated January 17, 2003, requesting a delay in the rule changes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Erica Burens of my staff during today's business.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Cyber Security Leadership Act of 2003, a bill that calls on the Federal Government to lead by example in shoring up its computers and protecting them against cyber attacks. I introduce this bill because our Nation's computers and networks are increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks. A week after the September 11 attacks, a cyber attack spread across 86,000 computers over several days, causing unknown amounts of financial and economic damage. Two months before that, a cyber attack called Code Red infected 150,000 computers in 14 hours. According to cyber security experts, Federal computers have already been used as weapons in large-scale cyber attack. There aren't just amateur teenage hackers. Terrorists, including al Qaeda operatives, have browsed Internet sites offering software that would help them take down power, water, transport and communications grids. One of the principal reasons that companies do not act to secure their systems is that the Federal Government does not act to secure its own systems. Unfortunately, Federal agencies continue to be among the worst offenders failing to protect themselves against cyber attack. Last November, a Congressional report card gave 14 agencies a failing grade for their computer security efforts. These vulnerabilities leave our Federal agencies exposed to hackers, system shutdowns, and cyber terrorist infiltration. Clearly, we need to act now to strengthen our computer systems. I believe the first step in this process is to have our Federal agencies lead by example. The National Cyber Security Leadership Act of 2003 would establish higher standards for Federal Government computer safety. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would establish the standards after individual agencies conduct comprehensive tests of their network systems and report on their weaknesses. These procedures will strengthen our government's resistance to cyber attacks and will demonstrate to the business community the tremendous value in conducting comprehensive security tests and monitoring new developments. I have developed this important piece of legislation with assistance from Mr. Alan Paller, Director of Research for the SANS Institute; Mr. Franklin S. Reeder, Chairman of the Center for Internet Security and of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Committee; and several computer security experts in the Federal Government. We cannot afford to wait until we experience a computer meltdown. I urge my colleagues to join with me in helping our Federal agencies to lead by example.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Cyber Security Leadership Act of 2003, a bill that calls on the Federal Government to lead by example in shoring up its computers and protecting them against cyber attacks. I introduce this bill because our Nation's computers and networks are increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks. A week after the September 11 attacks, a cyber attack spread across 86,000 computers over several days, causing unknown amounts of financial and economic damage. Two months before that, a cyber attack called Code Red infected 150,000 computers in 14 hours. According to cyber security experts, Federal computers have already been used as weapons in large-scale cyber attack. There aren't just amateur teenage hackers. Terrorists, including al Qaeda operatives, have browsed Internet sites offering software that would help them take down power, water, transport and communications grids. One of the principal reasons that companies do not act to secure their systems is that the Federal Government does not act to secure its own systems. Unfortunately, Federal agencies continue to be among the worst offenders failing to protect themselves against cyber attack. Last November, a Congressional report card gave 14 agencies a failing grade for their computer security efforts. These vulnerabilities leave our Federal agencies exposed to hackers, system shutdowns, and cyber terrorist infiltration. Clearly, we need to act now to strengthen our computer systems. I believe the first step in this process is to have our Federal agencies lead by example. The National Cyber Security Leadership Act of 2003 would establish higher standards for Federal Government computer safety. The National Institute of Standards and Technology would establish the standards after individual agencies conduct comprehensive tests of their network systems and report on their weaknesses. These procedures will strengthen our government's resistance to cyber attacks and will demonstrate to the business community the tremendous value in conducting comprehensive security tests and monitoring new developments. I have developed this important piece of legislation with assistance from Mr. Alan Paller, Director of Research for the SANS Institute; Mr. Franklin S. Reeder, Chairman of the Center for Internet Security and of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Committee; and several computer security experts in the Federal Government. We cannot afford to wait until we experience a computer meltdown. I urge my colleagues to join with me in helping our Federal agencies to lead by example.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Hollings, the Emergency Warning Act of 2003. In the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster, Americans must know how to respond. In the first terrible hours on September 11, 2001, in Washington, in New York, and across the country, most of us didn't know what to do. We didn't know whether it was safer to pick our children up from school or safer to leave them there. We didn't know if we should stay at work or head for home. For everything that's happened since September 11, the reality is that if an attack happened again, many of us still would not know what to do. That must change. To prepare Americans to respond in time of attack, the first thing we need to do is to update our emergency warning system. Today, that system depends heavily on television and radio, and it has two big problems. First, the system doesn't reach millions of Americans who aren't near a TV and radio at a given moment. How many of us would hear a warning issued on TV at 3 a.m? Second, the system doesn't provide all the information we need. For many of us, the new color-coded terrorism warnings have proven more confusing than helpful. We need practical information about what we can do to respond to threats or attacks. While the terrorist attacks have highlighted the need for effective public warnings, they're also essential during natural disasters. In fact, most public warnings deal with weather hazards like hurricanes and floods. After Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina, the Air Force had to rescue more than 200 people stranded in cars, on roofs, and in trees, people who weren't told to evacuate their homes until it was too late. More than 50 people died during that hurricane. In our State's neighbor, Tennessee, six people died during a 1999 tornado because tornado sirens failed. With all the technology that we have at our disposal, we can do better. In short, we have to make sure effective warnings get to every American in time of danger, and we have to make sure those warnings tell folks just what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones. The Emergency Warning Act will help achieve that goal. This legislation will require the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce to make sure that comprehensive, easily understood emergency warnings get to every American at risk, Whether from flood, hurricane or terrorist attack. This bill instructs Commerce and DHS to work with the government agencies that currently issue warnings, with first responders, with private industry, and with the media to make sure that our emergency warning system actually warns Americans who are at risk. There are a lot of things the system could do using existing technology. For example, it could alert Americans in their homes through a special phone ring. These warnings could reach people as they sleep in their homes. For people on the move, the system could use cell phones, which can already be programmed to broadcast emergency warnings to all users in a certain area--even if those folks are just passing through. Pagers and beepers can achieve the same result. Televisions can be programmed to come on automatically and provide alerts in the event of a disaster. We also can make sure that warnings provide the specific information people need--what to watch for, where to go, how to travel, what to bring. We should not have empty warnings. Instead, we should respond to specific threats with specific information that people can use. This legislation was developed with a lot of help from the Partnership for Public Warning. Their comprehensive study of the problem, ``Developing a Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System,'' pointed the way to what we are doing. I'm grateful for their help, as well as the indispensable help of Senator Hollings. Creating a better emergency warning system is only the first step we must take in order to empower Americans to respond to terrorist attack. As I've said in the past, I believe Americans want to contribute to our nation's defense, they are just looking for ways to do it. In the coming weeks, I will introduce additional legislation to support civilian defense efforts across America. But this bill makes an important contribution to our efforts.