Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note with some dismay that the majority leader now seeks to fill time, given the fact we are not proceeding with the debate on the stimulus package, with other matters, such as the railroad retirement legislation. It seems to me we have a perfect opportunity to do what we should be doing in this interregnum, and that is to consider all the President's nominees who are languishing. We have the time to debate these nominations and vote on them. Let's do it. Case in point: The majority leader talks about bringing up the railroad retirement legislation. This is the European-style, Government-backed occupational pension scheme. I think we would do better to complete the filling of the President's Cabinet. Mr. President, as you know, John Walters is the last Cabinet member awaiting confirmation. He is awaiting Senate confirmation to serve as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, otherwise known as the national drug czar. When did his nomination come to us from the President of the United States? Way back in June, over 5 months ago. Finally, on October 10, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on John Walters. It lasted over 3 hours. It was very complete. Following the hearing, Mr. Walters answered over 100 written followup questions, including questions from Members who were not on the committee itself. Finally, on November 8 the committee reported out John Walters by a vote of 14 to 5, but we understand that his nomination cannot be brought up for us to debate and then vote because there are holds being placed on his nomination by unnamed Democratic Senators. I am calling upon the majority leader today to bring this nomination to the Senate. If there are objections to its consideration, let those who object stand up and voice their objection and explain to us why they object, even to the consideration of the nomination of an individual who, as I say, has been pending now for over 5 months and is the last person to complete the composition of the President's Cabinet. There is another reason to try to conclude this matter, because the Office of Drug Control Policy is one of the central parts of our Government that deals with drug trafficking around the world. Drug trafficking is one of the ways in which terrorists who we are fighting finance their terrorist activities. For the life of me, I cannot see how someone would stand in the way of the confirmation of a person who is in line to help fight this way of funding terrorism around the world. We are supposed to be pulling out all of the stops to fight terrorism. Apparently, it is all except for one thing, and that is their financing because we have some political problem with confirming the drug czar. Let me give a couple of examples. Afghanistan grossed an estimated $180 billion in the drug trade last year. The Taliban generates an estimated $50 million in annual revenue from heroin trafficking. The Taliban, which of course has been harboring Osama bin Laden, has overseen the world's greatest growth in poppy plant cultivation as well as heroin production and trafficking. According to the State Department, Afghanistan's poppy plant cultivation area has quadrupled since 1990. Just 2 weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that an Italian Government official stated that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network is funded through trafficking. The bottom line is, if we are really going to pull out all the stops in fighting terrorism, we have to cut off their financing, and that includes their drug trafficking. One of the best ways of doing that is ensuring the office we have set up to do that is headed by the President's nomination; namely, John Walters. Yet we cannot get this nomination before the Senate for confirmation. John Walters has over 15 years of experience in drug prevention, beginning in the middle 1980s. He served with the Office of National Drug Control Policy for a total of 4 years in the 1989 to 1993 period. In his hearings, he made it very clear he would execute the policies of the President, which have been widely hailed as necessary for us not only to deal with the problems of drug use in the United States but to cut off the sources of drugs which, among other things, fund the terrorists. So I urge my colleagues, and I urge the majority leader, it is time to confirm John Walters as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Let us not delay this any longer. There apparently is no excuse in terms of time because the majority leader pointed out this morning we apparently have time to consider other matters. So let us finish the confirmation process for the President's Cabinet before we conclude our work in the first full year of the Bush administration. It seems to me that is only fair. It is good policy, and it would help us in fighting the war on drugs.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the first of these is written by Kate O'Beirne, who always provides very well-researched and well-written reports on a very timely topic. As she notes at the beginning of this article: The State Department issued the annual report required by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. She goes on to note: With shocking regularity, human-rights groups report the death of Christians at the hands of Muslim militants in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. She goes on to document the very troubling plethora of religiously motivated human rights abuses throughout the world. This is an article my colleagues would be well to review with respect to especially the debate that is ongoing about the sources of terrorism in the world today. The second article is also from the National Review magazine written by Richard Lowry, an article which also, interestingly, quotes Samuel Huntington in his very timely and interesting book, ``The Clash of Civilizations.'' Lowry quotes Huntington as saying the following: The proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is a central phenomenon of the slow but ineluctable diffusion of power in a multicivilizational world. He goes on to note that one of the causes for proliferation is Western naivete, especially in the support of arms control agreements as the way to stop this proliferation. He notes that arms control agreements work only so long as no one wants to violate them, in which case they simply do not work. He goes on to provide his prescription of what could be done instead to deal with the issue of proliferation, which I think, again, we would all be commended to review. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to review these two items. Exhibit 1 [From the National Review, Dec. 3, 2001] Martyred Muslim Murder and mayhem against christians (By Kate O'Beirne) President Bush's repeated assertions about the peaceful nature of Islam were briefly interrupted when the State Department issued the annual report required by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This year, as in the past, our Muslim-world partners in the coalition against terrorism were prominently featured among the most violent, most intolerant regimes in the world. Religious minorities are persecuted in over 20 states where Islam is the official or dominant religion. The million Christians who have fled the Muslim world in the past five years were hardly seeking sanctuary from the peaceful face of Islam. With shocking regularity, human-rights groups report the death of Christians at the hands of Muslim militants in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. In Pakistan, Islam has been the official religion since 1973, and over the years, the State Department has urged our ally to repeal section 295(c) of the penal code. This is the section that stipulates the death penalty or life in prison for blaspheming Mohammed, and the State Department notes that it ``contributes to inter-religious tension, intimidation, fear, and violence.'' A Christian Pakistani, Ayub Masih, was jailed five years ago on a blasphemy charge, and he has now filed his final appeal against the death sentence imposed on him. Masih is alleged to have said, ``If you want to know the truth about Islam, read Salman Rushdie.'' An accusation by a Muslim neighbor was enough to secure the blasphemy conviction. Under Pakistan's ``Hudood ordinances,'' the legal testimony of religious minorities is accorded half the weight of Muslims'. The testimony of a non-Muslim woman is halved again. Most recently, gunmen from the ``Army of Omar'' opened fire on a Protestant congregation worshipping at St. Dominic's Catholic Church in Bahawalpur, killing at least 16. Islamic party leaders in Pakistan immediately claimed that the massacre was a conspiracy to defame Muslims. Then, Saudi Arabia. In a bracing departure from diplospeak, the State Department says, ``Freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia.'' For many years, Christians have been flogged, imprisoned, and executed by a Saudi government that prohibits non-Muslim worship even in private homes. A Muslim who converts to another religion is subject to the death penalty by beheading. Nigeria is another nightmare. The Center for Religious Freedom, part of Freedom House, maintains a ``New Martyrs List,'' to call attention to the most horrific cases. In one bloody week in May 2000, over 200 people were killed in Kaduna. Among the dead was Rev. Clement Ozi Bello, a 26-year- old former Muslim who had recently been ordained a Catholic priest. The young priest was attacked by a mob that dragged him from his car, tied him up, and gouged out his eyes, before leaving him dead on the side of the road. In October, churches and Christian-owned shops were gasoline-bombed in an area of Kaduna now adorned with pictures of Osama bin Laden. More than 6,000 people have died in religious conflicts in Nigeria since the end of military rule two years ago. ``Our people are being shot, butchered, and roasted,'' says Kaduna bishop Josiah Fearon. The anti-Christian violence in Nigeria has been the direct result of the adoption of Sharia law, the strict Islamic code, by ten of the country's largely Muslim states in the north. Under Sharia, certain crimes are punishable by flogging, amputation, and beheading. The governor of one of these states dismisses the national constitution that proclaims Nigeria a secular country. ``To be good Muslims,'' Ahmed Sani says, ``we have to have Sharia to govern our lives, because God has told us that any Muslim who does not accept Sharia is not a good believer.'' Sani dispatched local officials to Saudi Arabia and Sudan to learn some more about the application of Sharia. In Algeria, the military assumed power a decade ago, to prevent the Islamic Salvation Front from imposing Sharia on the country. Since then, Algeria has been engaged in bloody civil war. In 1994, the Armed Islamic Group pledged to eliminate Jews and Christians from Algeria. The group is deadly serious, having massacred thousands and even hijacking an Air France plane. In the Philippines, an organization called Abu Sayyaf, with ties to al-Qaeda, wants to form an independent Islamic state in the southern islands. In May 2000, a Filipino Catholic priest was murdered along with four others among the 27 hostages kidnapped from two Catholic schools. Before being killed, Rev. Rhoel Gallardo was tortured for refusing to wear Muslim clothing and say Muslim prayers. During negotiations for the hostages' release, Abu Sayyaf demanded that all crosses be removed from churches. Egypt, where the influence of Sharia law is growing, is home to the largest Christian community in the Middle East. The Coptic Orthodox are the targets of both militant Islamic groups and local security forces. Young Christian women are pressured to convert to Islam, while converts from Islam to Christianity have been tortured and imprisoned. Over the past 20 years, more than 30 massacres of Coptic Christians have occurred. In January 2000, during several days of rioting by Muslim mobs in Al-Kosheh, more than 100 homes and shops were destroyed, and 21 Christians and one Muslim killed. The Center for Religious Freedom says that the Egyptian government covered up these crimes to avoid the ``politically sensitive'' issue of punishing Muslims for murdering Christians. Eventually 96 people were tried for the massacres in Al- Kosheh. The only four Muslims to be convicted were held responsible for the accidental killing of the Muslim. The longest sentence is being served by a Christian, Surial Gayed Isshak, for allegedly ``publicly insulting Islam.'' Amnesty International has declared Isshak a ``prisoner of conscience'' and called for his release. In Sudan, the Islamic government is carrying out genocide against the Christian population in the south. Secretary of State Powell has labeled Sudan ``the biggest single abuser of human rights on earth.'' Two million people have died since 1983 in a civil war that ignited when the Khartoum government tried to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. Christians are slaughtered from the air by bombers, enslaved on the ground, and forced to convert to Islam or starve. Writing in the Winter 2001 issue of The Middle East Quarterly, Prof. Hilal Khashan of the American University of Beirut explains that Khartoum's rulers believe that non-Muslims in the south are their ``lost brothers'' who must be redeemed by Islam. According to Khashan, ``This attitude reflects the fact that Muslims, devout or otherwise, tend to believe that Islam, the ultimate divine truth, is destined to prevail at the expense of other religions.'' From reports by government and human-rights groups, a pattern clearly emerges: Predominantly Christian countries generally respect religious freedom, as do buddhist countries (absent Communist domination). The Center for Religious Freedom concludes, ``The religious areas with the largest current restrictions on religious freedom are countries with an Islamic background. This parallels problems with democracy and civil liberties in general, but the negative trend is stronger with respect to religion.'' Hilal Khashan points out that religion has been a decisive factor in most civil wars in Arabic-speaking countries, and there have been at least a million deaths (compared with 150,000 Arab deaths in combined Arab-Israeli wars since 1948). The murderous intentions of the extremist Muslims have clearly overwhelmed the influence of the pacific practitioners continually cited by President Bush. Journalist Amir Taheri noted in the Wall Street Journal recently that 28 of the 30 active conflicts in the world involve Muslim governments or communities. In his oft-cited book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington writes, ``Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors. . . . Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization.'' Huntington further argues that Islamic militancy is not a heretical strain of Islam. ``The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.'' While scholars of the Koran debate whether or not its teachings justify violent jihads against non-believers, Christians in dozens of Muslim countries live with the fearful reality that they risk martyrdom at the hands of Islam--as they long have. Again, Huntington (writing in 1996): ``Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to change the subject and have printed in the Record two articles from the National Review magazine. I ask unanimous consent they be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for bringing this important subject before the Senate. It is evident from what we have heard that this subject requires a great deal of further debate.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will not object but since I have been here 40 minutes, I would like to get in the queue. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Kansas, I be permitted my time in morning business.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I object reluctantly on my behalf and on behalf of other Senators. I believe both Senator Kerry and Senator Bond wish to speak on the issue, and I will speak to it when they have completed their remarks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Bush has asked us to send him an effective, anti-recession stimulus package. In the spirit of bipartisanship and good faith, he proposed a series of provisions that enjoyed both Republican and Democratic support. After much foot- dragging, the Democratic majority has finally produced a bill. Unfortunately, it appears to be nothing more than a collage of special interest wish lists, from livestock assistance to new entitlements-- with very little if anything that will actually stimulate the economy. It is fat on claims but thin on data. It struts around in the light of day as a bipartisan package, but makes deals in the dark of night to secure votes. The bill before us is an embarrassment to the Senate; it is no good for our country, and it is certainly no good for our economy. There may be many good political reasons for Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, but when pet projects trump fiscal prudence, we miss a historic opportunity to help the American people during a time of great need. We must improve the incentives to work, save, and invest--the real catalysts of economic growth--and the Democratic bill fails on all three counts. Instead, Democrats insist that increased Government spending serves as the primary tool for boosting economic activity. But look what they are spending money on--sugar beet disaster programs, rural telecommunications infrastructure, and water-treatment and waste disposal facilities. It is no mystery to leading economists, although my colleagues across the aisle will tell you otherwise, that the better approach is to lower tax rates and the tax burden on labor and capital to improve incentives for workers and business owners. This produces more jobs and generates higher incomes, which in turn translate into higher investment and consumer spending. Democrats prefer to add new health-care entitlements and massive pork-barrel spending items rather than accelerate tax cuts for businesses and individuals. Given the amount of money that would be spent under this bill, we would be better off passing no bill at all. The Republican minority strongly supports the President's proposal, and has crafted a bill that reaffirms his principles for economic recovery. As such, criticism of the Republican bill is direct criticism of the President, because it is his bare-bones proposal we introduced. To my Democratic friends, I say, don't take refuge in calling Republicans partisan; if you object to our bill, criticize the President--it's his proposal. The truth is: he's right, and you're wrong. The American economy is starved for business investment. The President's proposals are designed to stimulate business investment. My Democratic friends say rich people don't spend, only poor people do. Now that is real voodoo economics. Alternative Minimum Tax relief for a business provides money for reinvestment. Neither rich people nor corporations hide their money in a mattress. They invest it, which does . . . what? It creates jobs. What do we need to do today? Create jobs. And what happens when we do that? People have more money to spend. I would rather people have a job than an unemployment check. I would rather they spend their paycheck than an unemployment check. I recently read an article in which a key Democratic political operative said, in effect, we will stand with the President in the war, but on the domestic front, we'll use issues to our political advantage. Righting our economy is critical to our war effort. We shouldn't be playing politics with it. So let's stop the political games. Time is short. The President has asked us to produce a bill for him by the end of the month, and the minority intends to do so. We have already come a good distance toward the other side. It is time for Democrats to do the same, and converge upon what the President and the American people think is best.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Charles Krauthammer for his fine article in the November 12 issue of The Weekly Standard, titled ``The Real New World Order.'' Not only does Mr. Krauthammer's article present the flawed assumptions and philosophical underpinnings of the foreign policies of the Clinton administration--particularly his denunciation of that administration's fealty to the notion of an overriding international order defined by treaties and designed to insulate the world from the burden of American hegemony--but also the demands placed upon the administration of George W. Bush in the wake of the events of September 11. It is a compelling piece, and deserves notice. Krauthammer's article was written prior to the dramatic events of the past week in Afghanistan. That some of his analysis is out of date in light of the battlefield successes of the so-called Northern Alliance does not, however, detract from the validity of the main thesis he presents in his typically articulate and knowledgeable style. Krauthammer argues that the United States, as a result of the terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Americans, is confronted with an epochal opportunity that, if seized, will facilitate one of the most far-reaching transformations in the history of international relations. Rather than facing the rising tide of anti-Americanism postulated to be the natural result of the United States' unique status as the world's sole superpower, much of the world has actually aligned itself with U.S. interests in the face of an elusive enemy brandishing an apocalyptic view of the current global structure, radical Islamic fundamentalism. The developments of the past several days have caught many of us off- guard. Little that was known about the Taliban indicated that it would countenance its own defeat as swiftly as has occurred. I do not believe that could have happened had the President not made clear, in word and deed, his commitment to prevail over that brutal regime and the terrorist organization it protects and that was responsible for the terrible events of September 11. The imperative of victory not yet achieved, however, remains. The momentous reaction of the world's major regional powers, as well as of governments throughout the Middle East, to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will prove ephemeral should we fail to continue to wage this war, and to define its parameters, with the determination and clarity evident in the President's splendid address to the nation before the joint session of Congress. I commend Charles Krauthammer for this thoughtful and compelling article, and highly recommend it to my colleagues in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Krauthammer article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, as my colleagues know, Senator Zell Miller and I have introduced bipartisan legislation to help our domestic travel and tourism industry recover from the devastating effects of September 11. I believe that we must focus an emergency economic stimulus package on the sector that has been most harmed: our travel and tourism industry. If we are to prevent thousands of bankruptcies, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, and a host of indirect consequences to the rest of the economy, it is essential that we provide some immediate help to the travel and tourism industry. The most important element of the legislation would provide a temporary $500 tax credit per person, $1,000 for a couple filing jointly, for personal travel expenses incurred by the end of the year. This temporary measure will help encourage Americans to resume their normal travel habits. Unlike general rebate checks to taxpayers, a tax credit conditioned on travel expenses ensures that the money is spent on a specific activity, in this case an activity that will generate positive economic ripples throughout the entire American economy. It will also help create confidence and encourage Americans to get back on airplanes. Since business-travel expenses are already deductible, temporarily restoring full deductibility for all business-entertainment expenses, including meals, that are now subject to a 50 percent limitation, also would help restore the mainstay of the travel industry: the business traveler. In a recent letter to the President, the members of the Travel Industry Recovery Coalition endorsed the travel credit as well as elimination of the current 50 percent penalty on business meals and entertainment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. I hope my colleagues will cosponsor S. 1500 and join in our bipartisan effort to preserve jobs and revive this vital sector of the economy by getting travelers traveling again.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the other subject I want to talk about today is also, I hope, good news in that it involves what I think the Senate will be able to take up very soon, and that is the nomination of the last of the President's Cabinet officers, who is John Walters to be the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, often known as the drug czar. John Walters has a great history of service in the area of drug control policy. He is a superb nomination of President Bush. His nomination has been around now for over 5 months. The President nominated him on June 5. We are now 5 months later and he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. His hearing was held on October 10, a month after it had originally been scheduled on September 11, and this hearing lasted I think over 3 hours. He was asked a lot of questions by a lot of the members. I think anything that had been on anybody's mind was adequately covered. I think subsequent to that time he has answered over 60 questions with a lot of subparts that have gone into further detail, including questions submitted by members not even of the Judiciary Committee chaired by the Presiding Officer. I am hopeful that at our business meeting this week John Walters will be passed out of the Judiciary Committee so that he can be considered by the full Senate and we can have him confirmed and he can be in place before Thanksgiving. It seems to be not too much to ask of the Senate to confirm Cabinet officers before Thanksgiving of the year in which they are nominated, particularly when their nominations have been pending for so long. Let me say a couple words about John Walters. And I have to say I am biased because I know this fine man. I recently met his family. My daughter and his wife are friends. I know the Walters to be a very fine family. His service to this country has exemplified the values I know he cherishes. They are values that manifest themselves in trying to tell young people in this country why the path of drugs is the wrong path for them, trying to help people who have gotten involved in drugs get back on the right track through treatment and rehabilitation, trying to develop a national strategy that helps us keep drugs out of the country, that interdicts them and tries to deal with them in the places of their origin and tracks down the people who perpetrate the trade in drugs and traffic in them, selling them to young people, to provide punishment for those drug traffickers. All of the aspects of the war on drugs--and that is an unfortunate term--require focus and attention by the Office of Drug Control Policy. When John Walters served in that office under President George Bush-- the first President George Bush--later acting deputy director for 4 years in the Bush administration of the Office of Drug Policy, he became intimately familiar with all aspects of our war on drugs. He participated significantly in the issues relating to drug treatment. I know one of the questions was whether he was as strongly committed to drug treatment as he was to some of the other aspects of drug control policy. I note that there are certain parts of drug policy that are the responsibility of the U.S. Government because as a nation we deal with drug interdiction and as a foreign policy matter we deal with eradication of drugs in foreign lands and their interdiction before they come into the United States. That is a Federal responsibility; it is not performed by, for example, the city of Phoenix. But when we get to drug education, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, those are shared responsibilities starting with our local communities that have a great deal to say about how those programs get carried out in each individual community, supported by the States and ultimately also by the U.S. Government. When one examines the role of the Federal Government and the people who have worked on this issue in Washington, it is important to separate those functions which are purely and strictly of the Federal Government as opposed to those jobs which are shared by other jurisdictions. Our focus needs to be primarily on the former. We share a responsibility with all of the other States and local communities with respect to the latter. That doesn't mean we are any less committed to antidrug education, treatment, and rehabilitation. I think there was a sense that that was perhaps John Walters' philosophy. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, he was one of the architects of the new drug strategy and the Federal spending plan that targeted drug treatment and treatment research when he was in the Bush administration. He was certainly behind the move to expand the budget and programs for drug prevention. I think all of that became clarified during the hearing. There was a great deal of support in the Judiciary hearing for the President's commitment of additional resources. I believe the number is $1.6 billion for these programs. I specifically asked him whether or not he would be a strong advocate for administering this program as the President had outlined it. He said absolutely he would. I think there is no doubt about the fact that he is committed to treatment and prevention and will strongly support the President's plan in that regard. His work, by the way, first began in the mid-1980s when he worked on drug policy matters at the U.S. Department of Education and was actually responsible in that position for a drug prevention guide. Over 1 million copies were distributed. That is when I first became aware of his work. But of course his later work was in the Office of Drug Control Policy itself, 4 years total serving as chief of staff from 1989 through 1991, and then deputy director for supply reduction from 1991 through 1992. I hope somebody with the long experience he has had in this area can quickly be confirmed by the Senate to assist the President in this war on drugs and to fill out the last Cabinet position in the Bush administration. There is one other reason I come to the floor today: To make the point that has to do with our war on terrorism. As we know--and as we can discuss in a lot more detail than we are permitted to do here in public--terrorists in several places in the world are significantly supported financially through the drug trade. It is therefore important for us, while we are fighting this war on terrorism, to not forget that a key component of terrorism financing in many places in the world is the drug trade. That is the responsibility of the Office of Drug Control Policy, primarily coordinating the different agencies of the U.S. Government in fighting the war on terrorism. It is yet another reason we need a leader at the top of that organization. It is true we have a lot of good people fighting that battle around the world today, but the direction that can come only from the director--a Cabinet officer of the President--I think is critical. Therefore, if we are going to do everything we can in fighting the war on terrorism, which all of us like to say around here, one of the things we must do is to quickly confirm John Walters as the drug czar. One of the key components of fighting drugs is also fighting the war on terror. That is why I conclude by urging my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to confirm John Walters when we vote on him, presumably this week, and to quickly get his nomination before the Senate so that all 100 Senators can have a vote on the confirmation of John Walters as drug czar. I would love to have that vote before the end of this week. I am sure the President would as well. But we have to do it within the next few days, in any event. If there is any concern or objection to John Walters, I hope Members will bring those concerns to me so I can do whatever I can to ensure that he can satisfy those concerns. The bottom line is that we need this position filled since he is the right man for the job. He has the President's confidence, and it is about time we confirmed him as drug czar. I hope my colleagues will act on that quickly. Those are two bits of good news: The victory of the Arizona Diamondbacks and my hope that we will quickly confirm John Walters and conclude the confirmation process of the President's Cabinet. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for arranging my time to speak. I will talk about two things: First is the victory last night in the bottom of the ninth inning of the Arizona Diamondbacks in the baseball World Series. Naturally, we Arizonans are very proud of the Arizona Diamondbacks. I am proud of the New York Yankees, and I am proud of the people of the city of New York. Ever since I was a little kid, I was a New York Yankees fan because my grandfather used to listen to the games on the radio back in the Midwest I became familiar with the statistics of all of the great players of the New York Yankees throughout the years, mostly through the good but through both the good and the bad. They have been the most successful franchise in baseball history, of course, and when the events of September 11 occurred in New York City, all of America, in a sense, became New York Yankees fans. When they won the American league pennant and went to the World Series for the first time probably in their history, Americans were pulling for the New York Yankees rather than the other team which, of course, had always before been the underdog, and mostly Americans pulled for the underdog. But this time, they were pulling for the New York Yankees; everybody except, that is, the Arizona Diamondbacks fans. Four years ago, Arizona got a baseball team. At that point, I became, at least in the National League, an Arizona Diamondbacks fan. My fantasy was to have a World Series that involved the American League champion, the New York Yankees, and the National League champion, the Arizona Diamondbacks, in which both teams would do very well and which would be won by the Arizona Diamondbacks in the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh game. Lo and behold, that is exactly what happened, a dream come true for a baseball fan all of my life and somebody who likes both of these teams very well. Obviously, I rooted for the Diamondbacks. I understand the disappointment of the New Yorkers who lost but, of course, as we all know, New Yorkers have more often than not been on the other side and have tasted the fruits of victory. All Americans appreciate the valiant battle both teams put up and certainly what the New York Yankees were trying to achieve for not only themselves as a team but the people of New York. In a larger sense, all Americans participated in this series fully aware of what it meant to the people of New York and, frankly, it meant that same thing for all of the people of America because we could not go to the series with the Yankees playing without thinking of the events of September 11. Yet in another way, the series having been won by a new, fresh team, the Arizona Diamondbacks, I think also is a great thing for America. As a Diamondbacks fan, it is especially gratifying that after just 4 short years, the Arizona Diamondbacks won the baseball World Series, the shortest period of time ever in the history of baseball. It was not by accident. The Arizona Diamondbacks wanted to play the very best in the World Series. They wanted to play the New York Yankees; they got that chance. They wanted to beat the very best, and in Mariano Rivera, the New York Yankees' relief pitcher, that is who they had to beat in the bottom of the ninth. And they did. It takes nothing away from Rivera or the rest of the Yankees who are truly a class act, but what it shows is that there has now begun a new dynasty in baseball--the Arizona Diamondbacks. They won 100 games in their second season, did not win the National League pennant but did very well. Naturally, we were very proud of them. Now to win it all in the World Series really caps it off for Arizona fans. My hat goes off to the general partner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, Jerry Colangelo. Jerry is known in the sports world as a very successful sports entrepreneur, a real fan, and also a participant. He himself played ball in his youth and, coming from Chicago, obviously was involved in the key franchise of the Chicago Bulls, came to Arizona, and helped create the Phoenix Suns, a very successful franchise in its own right. He was the natural person to whom the leaders of Phoenix came when they wanted to put together a major league baseball team. And he said: I really have my hands full with the other things I'm doing, including the Phoenix Suns and in getting a new stadium, a new place for the Phoenix Suns to play ball; and he said: We would have to have a brand new ballpark: that would take a lot in terms of public support, and I would rather not be involved in it. But he was the logical choice, and reluctantly he agreed to take the leadership in bringing together the Arizona baseball franchise. He did that. He raised the money. He provided the leadership. He got the BankOne ballpark built with a beautiful stadium in downtown Phoenix with a retractable roof that goes back and forth in 6 minutes, a beautiful natural turf ballpark in which to play. His philosophy was to create a winner. Jerry Colangelo is about winning. He is not a guy who just wants to field a team and then perhaps take 20 years to get to the World Series. He thought the Arizona fans deserved a winner at the very beginning, and that is what he set about to create. Naturally, it did not come free, and as a result, because a new major league baseball franchise cannot participate in most of the revenues from the league for I think it is about 5 years, it was very costly to the people who supported the team, and financially, obviously, they are not in as good shape as some other teams that have been there a lot longer. So this will be a big boon to them not just from a fan support base but financially as well. Therefore, I really appreciate what has happened for Jerry Colangelo. He deserves the very best, as does his management team, his son Bryan, and all the others who worked to make that a great family and a great team in the State of Arizona. I note that I talked to Jerry Colangelo this morning. He had received a congratulatory call from President Bush, himself a great baseball fan. And hopefully some of the Diamondbacks will be able to get to Washington in the not too distant future to meet with the President. He is also on the way to Chicago for the baseball owners meetings, and there are some big decisions the owners have to make about this great American pastime. I just wanted to share with my colleagues my joy, and I am sure I speak for all the people in Arizona, the way they feel about the Arizona Diamondbacks this year, the way they have kept together as a team. They have had to play a very tough National League Western Division, the Los Angeles Dodgers and the San Francisco Giants, who were challenging them every step of the way. San Diego was a tough team for them, as were the Colorado Rockies. All of those teams deserve a lot of credit. But in the end it was the Arizona Diamondbacks who marched through the other teams and ended up beating Atlanta to take the pennant and I think, in facing the New York Yankees, faced the best the American League had to offer. It was obviously a victory in which all of Arizona can take a great deal of pride. And I hope fans across the United States who may have been pulling for the Yankees for other sentimental reasons this year will take a good hard look at the upstart Arizona Diamondbacks who deserve a lot of credit, having beaten the best, and will be around for a long time to come as a great baseball team playing our great national pastime. A final word on this. I was talking to somebody this morning who said: You know, during this series, which has to go down as one of the greatest series in the history of baseball, the way the games were won in Yankee Stadium and in the bottom of the ninth in the seventh game in Phoenix, a lot of America was focused on having fun with our national pastime and not thinking about some of the more serious and difficult issues we have had to face. One of the ways we can show the terrorists that they can have absolutely no chance of beating the American spirit is to continue to do what we enjoy, and that includes enjoying our great national pastime, baseball. So my hat is off to the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise this morning to speak to an amendment which I believe is the pending business before the Senate, and that is the Daschle amendment No. 2044 relating to collective bargaining of public safety employees. This is an amendment that has been offered to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill which is the pending business of the Senate. I understand a cloture vote will be scheduled for next Tuesday on this particular amendment. I want to speak to this issue for a moment because I think this is an unfortunate time to be bringing this amendment forward, especially since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I regret an effort has been made to inject this rather emotionally charged issue into the appropriations bill we are going to be asked to vote on early next week. I also think the timing is unfortunate. I understand why, at a time when all of America is willing to and desirous of expressing its appreciation to our firefighters and other rescue workers, especially as they have worked day and night, literally, at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City, to find ways of recognizing their contribution to our country and to the people of New York. I do not think this particular amendment is the way to do that because the amendment seeks to, for the first time, force the U.S. Government's heavy hand into State and local government labor relations with police, fire, and a whole host of other workers--first responders, ambulance, paramedics, EMTs, and a whole group of other people who, for the first time, would be required to comply with Federal procedures regarding collective bargaining rather than the traditional approach, which has been for the State and local governments to make their own determinations as to how to deal with their various employees, including fire, police, and other first responders to emergencies. The timing is unfortunate, as I say. I think there are many better ways for the United States to express its appreciation to these employees than to have a very partisan and contentious issue of labor relations inserted into the appropriations bill under the guise of finding a way to support our police and firefighters. This is not the way to support our police and firefighters. This is an item that has been on the agenda of some people for a long time. To try to insert it into the debate on an appropriations bill at this time I think is most unfortunate. Let me say parenthetically, there are some wonderful police and fire folks in Arizona with whom I have worked over the years. They have been tremendously helpful to me. Arizonans went back to New York City to help in that effort. There is not anybody who appreciates more the work that our police, firefighters, and other first responders do than I. As I say, in particular, the folks in the various organizations that provide police services in Arizona have helped me in more ways than I can tell, but I really do not think this collective bargaining bill, as an amendment to the appropriations process, is the way to recognize their efforts. Here is why. This amendment would require the State and local governments to implement collective bargaining for this group of employees, and it is not limited to paid employees. Volunteer firemen, for example, would be just as subject to this collective bargaining requirement as would the employees of the towns' or counties' police or fire department, for example, because it applies to either paid or unpaid law enforcement officers, firefighters, rescue squads, ambulance crews, as well as paramedics, EMTs, rescue workers, ambulance personnel, hazardous materials workers, first responders, and individuals providing out-of- hospital emergency medical care, both on a paid or voluntary basis. It mandates many categories of individuals that would now be subject to collective bargaining for the first time under Federal rules because under this amendment, within 180 days of enactment, the Federal Labor Relations Authority must determine whether a State provides the following rights--and there is a whole long list: The right to form and join a labor organization; to recognize employees' labor organizations; commit agreements to writing; bargaining over hours, wages, terms of employment, arbitration, enforcement through State courts, and so on. This is obviously an arbitrary list of rights that would be imposed under the authority of the Federal Government. If the FLRA determines that a State does not substantially provide for these rights--and over half of the States do not, by the way, they are right-to-work States that do not mandate collective bargaining--then the FLRA, under this legislation, shall establish collective bargaining procedures for these covered individuals. That has to be done within 1 year of the date of enactment. So the bottom line is it imposes on States, even those which do not currently have collective bargaining laws, a new set of Federal requirements for collective bargaining for these people, including, as I said, even voluntary firemen. It would force this Federal system on those States. It is not just an unfunded mandate, although there is obviously a cost associated with this as well, but it would override all of the local and State laws that currently apply. Twenty-one States do not currently require this kind of collective bargaining. It would literally force upon those governments collective bargaining over these public safety officers, who are nonunion members, to accept the union as their official bargaining agent. This is such a total break from all of the tradition in this country. Some States are right-to-work States. Some States are not right-to-work States. Some States have options for collective bargaining for local jurisdictions, for example, such as my State of Arizona. We have never felt it was appropriate to mandate from the Federal Government how each of these municipalities and States would conduct their labor relations. The bill has a provision that says if you have less than 25 full-time employees, then your police department or fire department would not be covered. Stop and think about all of the towns and the counties throughout our country that may have 26 or 27 or 28 employees. They would be covered. For the first time, the heavy hand of the Federal Government would come down and tell them what to do. It is no wonder that county sheriffs in Arizona and some mayors in some relatively small towns have contacted my office and said: Do not impose this on us. We are getting along fine. We have great relations with our employees, and for the Federal Government to step in is not only going to increase our costs but, frankly, create some bad relationships. We do not need that. We have enough trouble responding to all of the problems that have resulted from September 11 to have to deal with this. This is not an appropriate response to the events of September 11 for us to force this on our State and local communities. In my own State of Arizona, for example, our law provides that public safety employees can present their proposals to their employers but does not require as an obligation that collective bargaining be the result. This, of course, would require the State agencies and local governments to bargain with labor unions on behalf of the public safety employees. This is why the sheriffs as well as some police chiefs have contacted me and said it interferes with their ability. The Arizona sheriffs and police chiefs, the league of cities and towns, all of them have expressed their opposition to this legislation. I think the problem is in opposing it, there is somehow a notion we are therefore against police and firemen. That is what bothers me the most. There is a big difference between the Federal Government mandating labor policies on our towns and counties on the one hand and expressing our support for police and firefighters on the other. We have done that in the Senate in resolutions we have passed. I hope in many other ways to show support for the police and firemen in my State with whom, again, I have had such a great relationship. They have helped me, and I hope I have been able to help them. In fact, I know I have through several appropriations that we have received to help them in fighting drugs, for example. It has been a great relationship, and I hope I do not have to prove my loyalty to these folks by supporting an amendment which has no place in this bill, which is a very political amendment, which creates huge problems with respect to federalism and forcing for the first time this new Federal mandate on these local communities, at a huge cost. By the way, the cost is estimated at $44 million by CBO over the next 4 years. CBO says it will cost $3 million just to set up the FLRA to develop the regulations to determine State compliance and enforce those compliances. This is simply not the right response to the events of September 11. I regret this issue has been infused into the Labor-HHS bill. So I say to my friends in the volunteer fire departments in the small towns throughout Arizona and even in the larger communities, which of course do have these collective bargaining arrangements, for the most part, the best way we can respond to the incident of September 11 is to keep focused on the job ahead of us, and that is to train up and be ready to respond as first responders to any emergency within our local communities; to support our local firefighters and police so that in the myriad false alarms they are now responding to we provide them the resources necessary for them to do their job; to support them in any issues they have with respect to the Federal Government in terms of getting funding for programs and the like; but not to respond by creating a new Federal mandate on every community in our States that now they are going to have to be required to engage in collective bargaining when that has been a matter of local option in the past. It seems to me this is the wrong approach, and I hope we can find other ways of supporting our local fire and police than by this particular amendment. I intend to vote no if the question of cloture comes up. To explain that very briefly, the point is: Should we be taking up this amendment on this unrelated bill? Sixty Senators will have to say yes before we will be permitted to do that next Tuesday. I hope at least 40 Senators will say, no, this is not the place to do it, this is not the way for us to express our support for fire and police. There are more practical ways we could do that given the events of September 11.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that we stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will set the record straight. The Senator said he didn't get an answer to my question. I was in a briefing during the Inhofe amendment in S-407 as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee on some other matters. I didn't object to the Inhofe amendment. Like the Senator from Iowa, I was willing to have it approved on a unanimous vote. The Senator from Oklahoma has explained that it deals with a different section of the bill. That is irrelevant. There is one central question before us. I ask my colleagues to focus on this carefully. Until last year, there had never been a thought that the Federal Government would begin building schools that had always been the responsibility of our States and the local school districts. There was never a thought that we would do that. Our school construction effort was always targeted to our one area of responsibility--the kids on the military reservations, Indian reservations, and the other Federal impact aid areas. That was our responsibility, and it remains our responsibility now. But what we are now proposing to do is to take the school construction money and distribute it all around the country to States and local school districts. I am sure there is a lot of good politics in that, Mr. President, but it is the wrong policy for those of us at the Federal Government level who have a responsibility to these other children. We are not meeting that responsibility. If we were building the schools on the Indian reservations or taking care of these military children, that would be one thing. I have pointed out that we were failing miserably in that responsibility. I ask colleagues, how can we sit here and blithely spend over $900 million on schools around the country that could just as easily be built by the taxpayers of those jurisdictions, while ignoring our responsibility to the very kids who are our responsibility and whom the States and local governments can't take care of. What sense does that make? How does that make us feel at night when we go to bed and say we have done a good thing today--violating treaties with our Native Americans and denying the kids of the people we put in harm's way serving in the military the kind of education other kids get because we want to sprinkle that money around the country rather than putting it in the area of responsibility that we in the Federal Government have. That is horrible public policy. The only way to set it right is to reorder the priorities and put back as the first priority our responsibility of funding the schools in the military and for the Indian reservations, and that would remain our top priority for school construction. To do that, we need to vote yes on the Kyl amendment. I urge colleagues to do that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond to the two questions the Senator from Iowa asked. The first question was where was I during the Inhofe amendment. He presumes, I gather, that I opposed the Inhofe amendment. I didn't oppose the Inhofe amendment. I don't. I guess I would ask where he was. It was approved on a voice vote unanimously, as I understand it. Second, he characterizes my amendment as an attempt to undo what we already did today. I want to make clear that I will characterize my amendment as I did in my opening presentation. What we did earlier today is not what this amendment is all about. The amendment I presume the Senator from Iowa is referring to is the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire. That is an amendment which would have transferred the funds from the program the Senator from Iowa supports to title I programs. My amendment doesn't have anything to do with title I programs. My amendment says merely that the priority in the expenditure of school construction funds--that is what they are used for: construction, repair, renovation, and so on--that the priority for that funding be first to the Federal area of responsibility, the Indian kids, the kids on the military bases, the impact aid districts; in other words, those children who are the responsibility for being educated by the Federal Government should have the first priority in the school construction funds. I am not trying to undo what we did earlier today. I supported the Gregg amendment. But what I would prefer to see us do is to say that the funds that we are going to put forth for construction of schools be prioritized, and that the first priority be the responsibility of the Federal Government. That is for two reasons: No. 1, the States and local school districts have the ability to fund the construction of the schools that they have a tax base to fund. As I pointed out, in some of these reservation areas, be it military reservation or other Federal reservation, there is not the tax base to support it. Second, we have a huge unmet obligation. We as Federal legislators should be ashamed that there is an over $2 billion shortfall in the funding of Indian school construction. That is our obligation. It is a treaty obligation. All I am saying is, we take the Federal obligation, put that at the top, and then the other schools can be funded. Those are the State and local schools' responsibilities. Up until last year, the Federal Government had never paid a dollar for construction of those schools. Let's keep the priority we should have had in the first place to fund our obligation first, the Federal schools, and then the rest of the money could go to the funding of the State and local schools. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KYL. I will yield back my time. I am sorry we have to confuse the issue by moving to table it. In view of that, the proper vote here now is a ``no'' vote to table the Kyl amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as a matter of courtesy, I was trying to enable those in opposition to the amendment to continue to speak. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that this amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, my colleague from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. It is an amendment which we have debated before but which I now present as the appropriate time for getting this done. This amendment would make it very clear that the Federal Government from now on must give absolute priority to Indian military and impact aid schools when it allocates funds for school renovation or repair. The amendment establishes this priority by directing the Secretary of Education to direct any school construction funds not expended in a given fiscal year only to those categories of schools that fall within the exclusive responsibility of the Federal Government; namely, the impact aid schools, Department of Defense schools, and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. This priority would apply to unexpended funds from fiscal years 2001 and 2002. As I said, this debate is not a new one. The question before us is, should the Federal Government concentrate on meeting its fundamental existing obligations or should we define our mission as finding new things for the Federal Government to do first? Most aspects of primary and secondary education have traditionally been, and remain, the responsibility of States and local school districts. But there are certain facets of elementary and secondary education in this country that are the clear and only responsibility of the Federal Government. Those are the education of our Indian children, the children on reservations, and the so-called impact aid schools. Yet proponents of finding new things to do with Federal education dollars propose branching out into new areas and ignoring this fundamental Federal obligation to, first of all, take care of these kids' educational needs. So under this bill, the way it is written right now, without my amendment, for the first time the Federal Government begins building schools, which is a State responsibility, while ignoring the obligation to the Indian children and the children on American military bases. The Federal Government has a huge unmet obligation to address the infrastructure needs of schools administered under the auspices of the BIA, as well as those schools impacted by the presence, within their taxing jurisdictions, of Federal installations through the program known as impact aid. Yet by extending this unauthorized school construction program--and I note ``unauthorized''--the money in this Labor-HHS bill has never been endorsed by the Senate on a recorded vote. The language in the bill would entangle the Federal Government in the business of building and repairing local schools, while leaving the existing needs on the Federal reservations unmet. Impact aid provides funds for school facility repair and renovation, especially on, as I said, the schools that are largely on Indian lands. All told, impact aid assists 1,600 schools serving 1.2 million federally connected children. In addition, the Department of Defense operates 70 schools nationwide. Impact aid construction has not been fully funded since 1967. The result is a huge backlog of projects estimated to exceed $2 billion. These numbers only hint at the grim reality faced by students and teachers in these impacted districts. A school board member in a military impact aid district told Education Week that some districts conducted so much of their business in portable classrooms and aging buildings that they ``more closely resemble prison camps than schools.'' He went on to say: ``Our troops are in Bosnia and those are the kinds of schools their kids''--that is, the children of war-torn Bosnia-- ``are in.'' The Military Impacted Schools Association has estimated it would take $310 million to meet facilities needs in their members' districts. The situation for Indian impacted schools is even more dire. According to a 1996 study by the National Indian Impacted Schools Association, a typical district of this type had more than $7 million in facilities needs. It is important to reiterate that these federally impacted districts cannot rely on the local property tax base to fund repairs and construction, unlike nearly all of the districts that would receive the funds appropriated under this bill. The superintendent of one district in my State, for example, reports that his jurisdiction contains exactly four taxpayers. I know in one of the counties in my State, where I had to help because of the large amounts of Federal land, only 1 percent of the land--and most of the taxing comes from property taxes--was non-Federal land in this community; in fact, only 3 percent in the entire county. Most States do not have that problem. But since the Federal Government has the obligation of educating these kids, then it is important for us to ensure that the priority for construction be given to these districts. The facilities, as I said, are in dire straits on our Indian reservations, which educate about 50,000 Indian students. The education of Indian children, which includes the provision of safe and adequate facilities, is a specific trust responsibility of the United States and is codified in numerous treaties and acts of Congress. Nobody who believes in keeping our treaty obligations to Native Americans can vote against this amendment because its purpose is to ensure that we meet the obligations of these treaties. According to testimony from the Director of the Office of Indian Education Programs, half of the schools within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have exceeded their useful lives of 50 years and more than 20 percent are over 50 years old. No fewer than 96 schools need to be entirely replaced. Many students lack access to computer and science labs, gym facilities, and other basic resources. At least one school in my State lacks even a library and basic dining facilities. The Committee on Indian Affairs estimates it would take $2.1 billion to address these schools' current repair and renovation needs. I am pleased that President Bush has made it a priority to address the construction needs of Indian and impact aid schools. But that will only occur if we can adopt the amendment that I have proposed. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal provided for a significant increase in impact aid construction. This is the first step toward keeping the promise that we made to our Native Americans. By passing my amendment, the Senate will make it clear that Congress shares this commitment and will put existing Federal obligations ahead of proposals to involve the Federal Government in areas that can and should be addressed by States and local governments. For those colleagues who want to know where the major impact of this is, I will candidly tell you, my State of Arizona is one of the States of major impact because of the large number of Indian students we have in Arizona and the large number of students being educated in affiliation with military bases. Other States, however, that are also very heavily impacted and that would be benefited significantly by this amendment are the States of New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Missouri, and Nebraska. Those are, candidly, the States that receive the most benefit. But almost every State would, in some respect, benefit by the allocation of these funds on this priority basis. Mr. President, I am going the reserve the remainder of my time to see if there is any response to my amendment. I will be happy to reply to any points that any of my colleagues may have if there is any objection to it.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, for her leadership both in the holding of the hearing that she mentioned, as well as putting together the legislation we introduce this evening. Something happened on September 11 that, with one exception, really had not happened since the War of 1812 when British soldiers came into the United States and literally attacked Americans on our own soil. Except for the first attack on the World Trade Center, that did not happen again until September 11, when over 6,000 people were killed by foreigners who were here and attacked Americans in our country. At that point, we began to realize that we had to begin to close the loopholes in our immigration system that, frankly, were allowing just about anybody and everybody to come into this country and, as we have learned, to do some very bad things to Americans here in our own country. So this legislation would do a variety of things, as Senator Feinstein has said, beginning with the creation of a data base that would enable us to know what the FBI knows, what the CIA knows, what the INS knows, what the State Department knows. Today, these different computers do not talk to each other, so that when a consular officer is asked to grant a visa to someone, he may have no information indicating this person should be denied the visa, yet it is quite possible that person is not someone we would want to have come into the United States. In our hearing, the representative from the State Department said the State Department personnel who granted visas to these 19 terrorists were heartbroken. She said it is like when a person hits the little kid who runs out from between the parked cars. It obviously is not the driver's fault, but you feel horrible about it. It is obviously not the fault of the people in the State Department who granted these visas, but they felt horrible about it because they didn't have the information to tell them that those visas should have been denied. This bill will enable us to put all of that information into one simple database so that our consular offices will know to whom to grant the visas and who should not receive them. It will make a lot of other changes, as Senator Feinstein said, all of which are designed to gain better for the process of admitting people into the country, for knowing when they exit the country, for ensuring that people who come here to study in fact come here and study and don't come on a pretext, as at least one of these terrorists did, and a variety of other things that take advantage of the technology we have today. The great thing about this bill, as verified by the hearing and some other very hard work Senator Feinstein has done on her own, is to determine that the technology is here. We can apply technology to this problem. The other piece of good news is that it doesn't cost that much, relatively speaking. In fact, we are going to have to employ technology to save money. We can't possibly hire enough people or take all of the time it would take to do this if we don't employ technology. We are very excited about the prospect of applying technology to a new challenge here in America to close the loopholes in our immigration law, to ensure or at least be a lot more sure that we are not letting terrorists come into this country or stay in this country when they shouldn't be here. I am proud to join my colleague Senator Feinstein in the introduction of this legislation. I hope we can find a way very early on to see that it gets considered in the proper fora so that the full Senate will have an opportunity to support the legislation and support the President, who has called for exactly this kind of approach. Mr. President, today, Senators Feinstein and I, joined by Senators Snowe, Hatch, Thurmond, Bond, and Kohl, introduce the Visa Entry Reform Act, legislation that will strengthen our U.S. visa system, and allow better tracking and monitoring of foreign nationals in the United States who present national security risks to our country. Last week the President signed into law anti-terrorism legislation that will provide many of the tools necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States, and to detain those terrorists who have entered our country. That law provides new, better definitions of what a terrorist organization is, and provides the Attorney General greater authority to detain members of such organizations. It clarifies that individuals who have contributed to such organizations, even if such support went to nonterrorist activities of the organizations, are inadmissible and deportable. The new law also authorizes the tripling of Border Patrol, Customs inspectors, and INS inspectors at the northern border, a minimal addition, given the expected high rates of attrition for these agencies over the next five years, and the continued and growing need for personnel along the southwest border. Yesterday, the President announced three initiatives in our fight to track down terrorists: a task force, headed by the deputy assistant director of the FBI for intelligence, to work toward greater coordination of intelligence and law enforcement information on terrorists; a comprehensive study of our never-implemented foreign student tracking system; and an initiative to provide much-needed coordination among Customs and INS officials in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These are all important tools, and will be instrumental in our overall efforts to track down terrorists. The legislation that we introduce today will complement our recent efforts. Under the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, law enforcement, the Departments of Transportation and State, and all of our intelligence agencies will be connected by a comprehensive database, headed by the Director of Homeland Defense, with necessary shared law enforcement and intelligence information to thwart attempts to enter the country and to find terrorists who have made their way into the United States. Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with a new fraud-proof ``SmartVisa'' card, using new technology that would include a person's fingerprints or other forms of ``biometric'' identification. These cards would be used by visitors upon exit and entry into the United States, and would alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired or a red flag is raised by a Federal agency. Our bill would also strengthen other Federal identification documents such as pilots' licenses, visas, immigration work authorization cards, and others by requiring that they be fraud- and tamper-resistant, contain biometric data, and, if applicable, include the visa's expiration date. Another provision of the bill would require that the 29 nations that participate in the government's visa waiver program be required, after 1 year, to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports. In addition, our bill would require that, after 2 years, all countries that participate include biometric data on their passports. INS inspectors would have to check passport numbers and, where available, biometric information with the new, centralized information database. Countries that participate in the program would be required to report stolen passport numbers to the State Department in order to continue to participate in the program. Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Section six of the bill will require that passenger manifests on all flights scheduled to come to the United States be forwarded in real-time, and then cleared, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. All cruise and cargo lines and cross-border bus lines would also have to submit such lists to the INS. Our bill also removes a current U.S. requirement that all passengers on flights to the United States be cleared by the INS within 45 minutes of arrival. Clearly, in some circumstances, the INS will need more time to clear all prospective entrants to the United States. These simple steps would give law enforcement advance notice of foreigners coming into the country, particularly visitors or immigrants who pose security threats to the United States. The Visa Entry Reform Act will also provide much needed reforms and requirements in our U.S. foreign student visa program, which has allowed numerous foreigners to enter the country without ever attending classes and with lax oversight by the Federal Government. The system is rife with abuse, with numerous examples of fraud and bribery by persons seeking student visas. Just as alarming, in the past decade, more than 16,000 people have entered the United States on student visas from states included on the government's list of terrorist sponsors. Notwithstanding that Syria is one of the countries on the list, the State Department recently issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals so that they could attend flight schools in Fort Worth, TX. Our legislation would prevent most persons from obtaining student visas if they come from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria, with the authority of the Secretary of State to waive the bar. Additionally, our bill would require the INS to conduct background checks before the State Department issues the visas. U.S. educational institutions would also be required to immediately notify the INS when a foreign student violates the term of the visa by failing to show up for class or leaving school early. For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States has faced a massive attack from foreigners on our own soil. Every one of the terrorists who committed the September 11 atrocities were foreign nationals who had entered the United States legally through our visa system. None of them should have been allowed entry due to their ties to terrorist organizations, and yet even those whose visas had expired were not expelled. Mohamed Atta, for example, the suspected ringleader of the attacks, was allowed into the United States on a tourist visa, even though he made clear his intentions to go to flight school while in the United States. Clearly, at the very least, he should have been queried about why he was using his tourist visa to attend flight school. We also know that two of the terrorists were on watch lists that should have been provided to the State Department and the INS, in order to prevent their entry to the United States. Another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, was here on a student visa that had expired as of September 11. Hani Hanjour never attended class. In addition, at least two other visitor visa-holders overstayed their visa. In testimony before my own Senate subcommittee, U.S. officials have told us that they possess little information about foreigners who come into this country, how many there are, and even whether they leave when required by their visas. America is a nation that welcomes international visitors--and should remain so. But terrorists have taken advantage of our system and its openness. Now that we face new threats to our homeland, it is time we restore some balance to our immigration policy. As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives in freedom. I hope that we will soon pass, the Congress will pass, the Visa Entry Reform Act. It will make a difference.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein, the chairman of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, for her leadership both in the holding of the hearing that she mentioned, as well as putting together the legislation we introduce this evening. Something happened on September 11 that, with one exception, really had not happened since the War of 1812 when British soldiers came into the United States and literally attacked Americans on our own soil. Except for the first attack on the World Trade Center, that did not happen again until September 11, when over 6,000 people were killed by foreigners who were here and attacked Americans in our country. At that point, we began to realize that we had to begin to close the loopholes in our immigration system that, frankly, were allowing just about anybody and everybody to come into this country and, as we have learned, to do some very bad things to Americans here in our own country. So this legislation would do a variety of things, as Senator Feinstein has said, beginning with the creation of a data base that would enable us to know what the FBI knows, what the CIA knows, what the INS knows, what the State Department knows. Today, these different computers do not talk to each other, so that when a consular officer is asked to grant a visa to someone, he may have no information indicating this person should be denied the visa, yet it is quite possible that person is not someone we would want to have come into the United States. In our hearing, the representative from the State Department said the State Department personnel who granted visas to these 19 terrorists were heartbroken. She said it is like when a person hits the little kid who runs out from between the parked cars. It obviously is not the driver's fault, but you feel horrible about it. It is obviously not the fault of the people in the State Department who granted these visas, but they felt horrible about it because they didn't have the information to tell them that those visas should have been denied. This bill will enable us to put all of that information into one simple database so that our consular offices will know to whom to grant the visas and who should not receive them. It will make a lot of other changes, as Senator Feinstein said, all of which are designed to gain better for the process of admitting people into the country, for knowing when they exit the country, for ensuring that people who come here to study in fact come here and study and don't come on a pretext, as at least one of these terrorists did, and a variety of other things that take advantage of the technology we have today. The great thing about this bill, as verified by the hearing and some other very hard work Senator Feinstein has done on her own, is to determine that the technology is here. We can apply technology to this problem. The other piece of good news is that it doesn't cost that much, relatively speaking. In fact, we are going to have to employ technology to save money. We can't possibly hire enough people or take all of the time it would take to do this if we don't employ technology. We are very excited about the prospect of applying technology to a new challenge here in America to close the loopholes in our immigration law, to ensure or at least be a lot more sure that we are not letting terrorists come into this country or stay in this country when they shouldn't be here. I am proud to join my colleague Senator Feinstein in the introduction of this legislation. I hope we can find a way very early on to see that it gets considered in the proper fora so that the full Senate will have an opportunity to support the legislation and support the President, who has called for exactly this kind of approach. Mr. President, today, Senators Feinstein and I, joined by Senators Snowe, Hatch, Thurmond, Bond, and Kohl, introduce the Visa Entry Reform Act, legislation that will strengthen our U.S. visa system, and allow better tracking and monitoring of foreign nationals in the United States who present national security risks to our country. Last week the President signed into law anti-terrorism legislation that will provide many of the tools necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States, and to detain those terrorists who have entered our country. That law provides new, better definitions of what a terrorist organization is, and provides the Attorney General greater authority to detain members of such organizations. It clarifies that individuals who have contributed to such organizations, even if such support went to nonterrorist activities of the organizations, are inadmissible and deportable. The new law also authorizes the tripling of Border Patrol, Customs inspectors, and INS inspectors at the northern border, a minimal addition, given the expected high rates of attrition for these agencies over the next five years, and the continued and growing need for personnel along the southwest border. Yesterday, the President announced three initiatives in our fight to track down terrorists: a task force, headed by the deputy assistant director of the FBI for intelligence, to work toward greater coordination of intelligence and law enforcement information on terrorists; a comprehensive study of our never-implemented foreign student tracking system; and an initiative to provide much-needed coordination among Customs and INS officials in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These are all important tools, and will be instrumental in our overall efforts to track down terrorists. The legislation that we introduce today will complement our recent efforts. Under the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, law enforcement, the Departments of Transportation and State, and all of our intelligence agencies will be connected by a comprehensive database, headed by the Director of Homeland Defense, with necessary shared law enforcement and intelligence information to thwart attempts to enter the country and to find terrorists who have made their way into the United States. Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with a new fraud-proof ``SmartVisa'' card, using new technology that would include a person's fingerprints or other forms of ``biometric'' identification. These cards would be used by visitors upon exit and entry into the United States, and would alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired or a red flag is raised by a Federal agency. Our bill would also strengthen other Federal identification documents such as pilots' licenses, visas, immigration work authorization cards, and others by requiring that they be fraud- and tamper-resistant, contain biometric data, and, if applicable, include the visa's expiration date. Another provision of the bill would require that the 29 nations that participate in the government's visa waiver program be required, after 1 year, to issue tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports. In addition, our bill would require that, after 2 years, all countries that participate include biometric data on their passports. INS inspectors would have to check passport numbers and, where available, biometric information with the new, centralized information database. Countries that participate in the program would be required to report stolen passport numbers to the State Department in order to continue to participate in the program. Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Section six of the bill will require that passenger manifests on all flights scheduled to come to the United States be forwarded in real-time, and then cleared, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. All cruise and cargo lines and cross-border bus lines would also have to submit such lists to the INS. Our bill also removes a current U.S. requirement that all passengers on flights to the United States be cleared by the INS within 45 minutes of arrival. Clearly, in some circumstances, the INS will need more time to clear all prospective entrants to the United States. These simple steps would give law enforcement advance notice of foreigners coming into the country, particularly visitors or immigrants who pose security threats to the United States. The Visa Entry Reform Act will also provide much needed reforms and requirements in our U.S. foreign student visa program, which has allowed numerous foreigners to enter the country without ever attending classes and with lax oversight by the Federal Government. The system is rife with abuse, with numerous examples of fraud and bribery by persons seeking student visas. Just as alarming, in the past decade, more than 16,000 people have entered the United States on student visas from states included on the government's list of terrorist sponsors. Notwithstanding that Syria is one of the countries on the list, the State Department recently issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals so that they could attend flight schools in Fort Worth, TX. Our legislation would prevent most persons from obtaining student visas if they come from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria, with the authority of the Secretary of State to waive the bar. Additionally, our bill would require the INS to conduct background checks before the State Department issues the visas. U.S. educational institutions would also be required to immediately notify the INS when a foreign student violates the term of the visa by failing to show up for class or leaving school early. For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States has faced a massive attack from foreigners on our own soil. Every one of the terrorists who committed the September 11 atrocities were foreign nationals who had entered the United States legally through our visa system. None of them should have been allowed entry due to their ties to terrorist organizations, and yet even those whose visas had expired were not expelled. Mohamed Atta, for example, the suspected ringleader of the attacks, was allowed into the United States on a tourist visa, even though he made clear his intentions to go to flight school while in the United States. Clearly, at the very least, he should have been queried about why he was using his tourist visa to attend flight school. We also know that two of the terrorists were on watch lists that should have been provided to the State Department and the INS, in order to prevent their entry to the United States. Another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, was here on a student visa that had expired as of September 11. Hani Hanjour never attended class. In addition, at least two other visitor visa-holders overstayed their visa. In testimony before my own Senate subcommittee, U.S. officials have told us that they possess little information about foreigners who come into this country, how many there are, and even whether they leave when required by their visas. America is a nation that welcomes international visitors--and should remain so. But terrorists have taken advantage of our system and its openness. Now that we face new threats to our homeland, it is time we restore some balance to our immigration policy. As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives in freedom. I hope that we will soon pass, the Congress will pass, the Visa Entry Reform Act. It will make a difference.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the anti- terrorism bill. The bill will provide our Nation's law-enforcement personnel with important tools to more effectively investigate and prevent further attacks against the people of the United States. At the outset, I want to make clear that we did not rush to pass ill- conceived legislation. During the past two Congresses, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism, the Subcommittee held 19 hearings on terrorism. I want to repeat that: 19. The witnesses who appeared before the Subcommittee included the then-Director of the FBI Louis Freeh and representatives of all three of the congressionally-mandated commissions on terrorism that have issued reports over the last two years. Additional hearings on terrorism were held by the full Judiciary Committee and by other committees. Many of the provisions proposed by the Attorney General, and included in the legislation we sent to the President today, mirror the recommendations of one or more of the major terrorism commissions and have already been examined by the committee of jurisdiction. In fact, some of these provisions had already been voted on and passed by the Senate in other legislation. Indeed, as I will discuss more fully in a minute, the language sent forward by the Attorney General to establish nationwide trap and trace authority was included in the Hatch-Feinstein-Kyl Amendment to the recently passed Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Much of the remaining language in that amendment was included in the Counterterrorism Act of 2000, which the Senate passed last fall, after a terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 American sailors and injured another 39. That bill was based on recommendations of the bipartisan, congressionally-mandated National Commission on Terrorism, known as the Bremmer Commission, which was established in 1998 in response to the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. One particularly important provision, which was included in both the CJS bill and the current bill, updates the law to keep pace with technology. The provision on pen registers and trap and trace devices: one, would allow judges to enter pen/trap orders with nationwide scope; and two, would codify current case law that holds that pen/trap orders apply to modern communication technologies such as e-mail and the Internet, in addition to traditional phone lines. Nationwide jurisdiction for a court order will help law-enforcement to quickly identify other members of a criminal organization such as a terrorist cell. Indeed, last year Director Freeh testified before the Terrorism Subcommittee that one of the problems law-enforcement faces is ``the jurisdictional limitation of pen registers and trap-and-trace orders issued by federal courts.'' He continued: ``Today's electronic crimes, which occur at the speed of light, cannot be effectively investigated with procedural devices forged in the last millennium during the infancy of the information technology age.'' Prior to the legislation we passed today, in order to track a communication that was purposely routed through Internet Service Providers located in different States, law-enforcement was required to obtain multiple court orders. This is because, under existing law, a Federal court can order only those communications carriers within its district to provide tracing information to law enforcement. According to Director Freeh's testimony before the Terrorism Subcommittee, ``As a result of the fact that investigators typically have to apply for numerous court orders to trace a single communication, there is a needless waste of time and resources, and a number of important investigations are either hampered or derailed entirely in those instances where law enforcement gets to a communications carrier after that carrier has already discarded the necessary information.'' This bill solves the problem. I would also like to address another important provision. The bill will more clearly to criminalize the possession of biological and toxin agents by those who should not possess them. The bill would amend the implementing legislation for the 1972 ``Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological, Biological, and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction,'' BWC. Article I of the BWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, or retention of Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins, whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes. It is not the intent of the BWC, nor is it the intent of Section 802, to prevent the legitimate application of biological agents or toxins for prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes. These purposes include, inter alia, medical and national health activities, and such national security activities as may include the confiscation, securing, and/or destruction of possible illegal biological substances. In addition to the other provisions in this anti-terrorism legislation that will provide our law enforcement communities with the tools to weed out and stop terrorism, I want to express my support for the immigration provisions upon which the administration, key members of the House Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch, Kennedy, Leahy and I have reached agreement, and which are included in this bill. We must not forget, however, that the United States will continue to face overwhelming infrastructure and personnel needs at our consular offices abroad, along both the southern and northern border, and in our immigration offices throughout the United States. And, in addition to the provisions included in this anti-terrorism bill, the U.S. government will need additional tools to keep terrorists out of the country and, once they are in the country, find them and remove them. That means, among other things, eliminating the ability of terrorists to present altered international documents, and improving the dissemination of information about suspected terrorists to all appropriate agencies. After hearing first-hand about the extraordinary weaknesses of our immigration and visa processing systems, Senate Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and I will soon introduce legislation to better equip our government with the tools necessary to make our immigration and visa processing systems more secure. With that said, the anti-terrorism bill will certainly provide a better legal framework for keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States, and detaining them should they enter. First, this anti-terrorism bill clarifies that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to share data from its ``most wanted list,'' and any other information contained in its national crime- information system, with the Immigration Naturalization Service and the State Department. This will help the INS and State Department identify suspected terrorists before they come to the United States, and, should they gain entry, will help track them down on our soil. It also allows the State Department, during a U.S. criminal investigation, to give foreign governments information on a case-by-case basis about the issuance or refusal to issue a U.S. visa. The bill will also clarify U.S. law prohibiting the entry of, and requiring the removal of, individual alien terrorists. It will probably surprise the Members of this body a great deal to know that, under current law, a terrorist alien is not considered either inadmissible to, or deportable from, the United States even if he or she has ``endorsed or espoused terrorist activity that undermines the efforts of the United States to fight terrorism,'' or has provided ``material support to a terrorist organization.'' Nor is an individual deportable for being a ``representative of a terrorist organization.'' The anti- terrorism bill makes it clear to U.S. officials considering whether to allow someone to come to the country, that a person meeting any one of these criteria is not welcome to come here. Although the final bill prohibits admission of individuals who have endorsed terrorism or are representatives of a terrorist organization, neither of those criteria will make such an individual deportable. I will work to make it clear that such criteria are deportable. In addition, the anti-terrorism package that we are debating today further defines what is considered by the United States to be a terrorist organization. Under current law, a terrorist organization must be designated by the Secretary of State under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This process can take several months, and has been criticized by some experts as potentially politically corruptible. Under this final package, Section 219 designations will remain in effect. A separate designation process is added, whereby an organization can be designated by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General, in consultation with each other, with seven days' notice to the leadership of the House and Senate and the congressional committees of jurisdiction. Additionally, an organization, whether or not it is formally designated by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General, can be considered to be terrorist if it is made up of two or more individuals who commit or plan to commit terrorist activities. This anti-terrorism package also has provisions regarding temporary detention. It allows for the temporary detention of aliens who the Attorney General certifies that he has ``reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible or deportable under the terrorism grounds.'' This compromise represents a bipartisan understanding that the Attorney General of the United States needs the flexibility to detain suspected terrorists. Under the compromise that Members have reached, the Attorney General must charge an alien with a deportable violation or he must release the alien. In this final version, if the charge is not sustained, or if withholding of deportation is granted by an immigration judge then the alien must be released. In addition, the underlying certification, and all collateral matters, can be reviewed by any U.S. District Court and any appeals can be heard by U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. The Attorney General, under this final version, is required to review all individual certifications every six months, and any alien certified can ask that the Attorney General review the case. Finally, this package will determine whether ``consular shopping,'' i.e. someone has a visa application pending from his or her home country, but goes to another country for adjudication, is a problem. If so, the Secretary of State must recommend ways to remedy it. Another provision prevents countries that do not have machine-readable passports from participating in the Visa Waiver Program, although the Secretary of State is allowed to provide a waiver for countries that do not provide such passports. I do not support the waiver authority, but am pleased that the overall requirement is included. Another provision authorizes $36.8 million for quick implementation of the INS foreign student tracking system, a program that I have repeatedly urged be implemented. The final package also includes relief for immigrants, who but for the tragic events of September 11, are here legally and could now lose their legal status. As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious lives, I am resolved to push forward to make the United States a safer place for its millions of law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing our institutions of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives in freedom. Finally, let me address briefly the concern voiced by some that we are in danger of ``trampling civil liberties.'' I reiterate that we did not rush, that we have had thorough, deliberative hearings, and that many of the proposals within this bill have already been passed by the Senate. Nothing in the current bill impinges on civil liberties. The bill will give Federal agencies fighting terrorism the same tools we have given those fighting illicit drugs, or even postal fraud. Many of the tools in the bill are modernizations of the criminal law, necessitated by the advent of the Internet. While some of these tools are extremely helpful in terrorism investigations, it makes no sense to refuse to apply these common sense changes to other crimes that are committed, like kidnaping, drug dealing, and child pornography. It is unwise to limit these tools to only terrorism offenses because often, at the outset of an investigation of a particular person or crime, law enforcement does not know what you are dealing with. A credit-card fraud case or a false immigration documents case may turn out to be connected to funding or facilitating the operations of a terrorist group. We should give law enforcement the tools it needs to have the best chance of discovering and disrupting these activities. We have a responsibility to the people of this nation to ensure that those who are charged with protecting us from future terrorist attacks are empowered to do so. This is not a zero sum game. We can both ensure our security and protect our liberties. We cannot afford to lose this race against terror, and we cannot afford to give the enemy in this war a full lap head-start. I support this bill. I commend President Bush and General Ashcroft for submitting a sound proposal to the Senate, and for their tremendous efforts during the past month. section 1012