Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to inform Senators of my intention to bring before the Senate at the earliest possible time an important piece of legislation that I introduced last April along with 21 of my colleagues. Our bipartisan bill, S. 767, the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001, would apply the Brady law to all firearms sales at gun shows, thereby closing the loophole that allows criminals to buy firearms from private sellers at gun shows without a background check. This legislation is identical to the Lautenberg amendment passed by the Senate on a bipartisan vote in the 106th Congress. As long as gun violence continues to take the lives of 10 of our young people every day, and about 30,000 Americans every year, we must do everything we can to prevent convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers from gaining access to firearms. It has been my intention to bring this legislation to a vote since its introduction last spring. We were asked not to offer the bill as an amendment to the education bill because it was one of the President's top priorities. We were asked not to offer it to the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill because it was non-germane. We were asked not to offer it to the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights because it was a fragile compromise. We were asked not to offer it to the Defense authorization bill because of the critical importance of moving that legislation. Finally, we are barred by Senate rules from offering the amendment to the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills moving through the Senate. By not enacting this legislation, we have, unfortunately, overlooked one of the most effective tools we can give to law enforcement to prevent violent acts against our people, and that is the ability to conduct background checks every time a gun is sold at more than 4,000 gun shows held in this country each and every year. The time has come for the Senate to consider this legislation. It was important before September 11, and it is even more important today. Here are the facts: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported to Congress last year that gun shows are a major gun trafficking channel, responsible for more than 26,000 illegal firearms sales during a single 18-month period. Gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered in gun trafficking investigations. The FBI and ATF tell us again and again that convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and other prohibited purchasers are taking advantage of the gun show loophole to acquire firearms. Now, more and more evidence is emerging that terrorists also know the weaknesses in our gun laws. The Chicago Tribune reported on November 18 that among the ruins of radical Islamic safehouses in Kabul were computer printouts of Jihad training manuals that emphasized how easy it is to obtain firearms, and firearms training, in the United States. Under the heading ``How Can I Train Myself for Jihad,'' the manual says, ``in other countries, for example, some states of the United States or South Africa, it is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training.'' The manual goes on to advise those training for holy war to join American gun clubs to sharpen their shooting skills, saying, There are many firearms courses available to the public in the USA, ranging from 1 day to 2 weeks or more. These courses are good but expensive. Some of them are only meant for security personnel but generally they will teach anyone. It is also better to attend these courses in pairs or by yourself, no more. Do not make public announcements when going on such a course. Find one, book your place, go there, learn, come back home and keep it yourself. . . . Useful courses to learn are sniping, general shooting and other rifle courses. Handgun courses are useful but only after you have mastered rifles. We also have new evidence of suspected terrorists using gun shows to obtain weapons. On September 10, a jury in Detroit convicted Ali Boumelhem, a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, on charges of conspiring to smuggle guns and ammunition to Lebanon. Mixed in with auto parts in a container bound for Lebanon, law enforcement authorities found a variety of weapons and accessories purchased at gun shows, including two shotguns, 750 rounds of ammunition, flash suppressors for AK-47s, and upper receiver for an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16), and speed loaders for 5.56mm ammunition. Ali Boumelhem and his brother, Mohamad, knew the law well, and they exploited it over the years. Because Ali is a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from purchasing firearms under the Brady law, the confiscated weapons were purchased from licensed dealers at gun shows by Mohamad, who is not a felon. Mohamad was later acquitted of charges related to this illegal ``straw purchase.'' According to the court record, he also threatened a confidential informant during the investigation, saying ``If we cannot get you here we will take care of you in Lebanon.'' The investigation also revealed that prior to November 1998, when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System was implemented under the Brady law, Ali Boumelhem did purchase several shotguns from licensed dealers at gun shows by lying on the required form about his felony conviction. He knew that prior to the establishment of the NICS, background checks were not required on long guns in many States. We may never know what became of those guns, and, more importantly in terms of the legislation I am discussing today, we will never know whether Boumelhem or his brother purchased guns from private sellers at these gun shows because there is no record of sale or background check required for sales by unlicensed sellers at gun shows, then and now. What we do know is that this Hezbollah member found a large selection of weapons there and worked the system to his benefit over time before finally getting caught. We need to close the gun show loophole so that we prevent illegal weapons purchases by terrorists. In another case, the New York Times reported on November 13 that Conor Claxton, a man accused of being a member of the Irish Republican Army, testified in Federal court in Fort Lauderdale that he and his associates had gone to south Florida gun shows to buy thousands of dollars worth of handguns, rifles, and high-powered ammunition to smuggle to Northern Ireland. The Times also reported that on October 30 in Texas, Muhammad Navid Asrar, a Pakistani man, pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition. Authorities said that in the last 7 years Mr. Asrar had bought several weapons at gun shows, including handguns and rifles. According to police in Alice, Texas, a Federal grand jury is investigating whether he may be linked to al Qaeda terrorists. The Times reported that he aroused the authorities' suspicion when he asked employees at his convenience store to take pictures of tall buildings and mail letters for him from Pennsylvania back to Texas. I wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft earlier this month to ask what steps the Department of Justice is taking to prevent terrorist attacks involving firearms, including firearms acquired at gun shows. I look forward to his reply. I also met with officials of the Department of Justice and ATF to discuss the role of firearms in their counterterrorism efforts. Let me say that although the Attorney General and I may not agree on many issues when it comes to the regulation of firearms, I believe we have a unique opportunity to work together to prevent violent acts by terrorists and others, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. Not one single, solitary person who is not already prohibited from possessing firearms would be denied the right to purchase firearms by our gun show bill. I know there are those who oppose any new gun laws. They have a right to that opinion, but what is their proposed alternative? Should we ignore the Jihad manuals and the cases of Ali Boumelhem, Conor Claxton, and Mohammad Asrar? Do any of us really know what the next terrorist attack will look like? I believe we have a clear responsibility to do everything we can to prevent terrorists from gaining access to firearms. But even if we set aside the issue of terrorists' access to guns, this legislation is important to bring some sense to our gun laws and save American lives. The chilling reports this week of an alleged plot by students at New Bedford High School to kill large numbers of their fellow students and teachers reminded us that the threat of gun violence is still very real for our children and families. Two years ago, after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people and themselves at Columbine High School with weapons purchased from a private seller at a gun show, Democrats and Republican in the Senate joined together to pass the Lautenberg amendment to close the gun show loophole. The legislation I have introduced is identical to that Senate-passed amendment. Unlike other gun show bills, it would apply the successful Brady law to every gun sold at gun shows, without exception. As under current law, law enforcement would have up to three business days to conduct background checks on firearms sales. Our opponents will say that we're trying to shut down gun shows by imposing a ``waiting period'' on gun sales that usually take place on weekends. But that is not the case. There is no ``waiting period.'' The Brady law gives law enforcement up to 3 business days to complete a background check on a prospective gun buyer. In fact, most gun purchases are processed very quickly by the NICS system. The FBI clears 72 percent of gun buyers within 30 seconds. Another 23 percent are cleared within 2 hours. That means background checks are completed within 2 hours for 95 percent of prospective gun buyers. Nineteen out of twenty have a decision rendered in just 2 hours. But what about that last 5 percent that takes longer than 2 hours? According to a recent GAO report, those gun buyers are more than 20 times more likely to be prohibited from possessing a weapon under Federal law. For gun buyers in that last 5 percent, potentially disqualifying information often requires the FBI to access court records--which are typically not available on a weekend; indeed, typically not available until at least Monday morning--to ensure that the person is not a convict felon or fugitive from justice; those records have to be checked. Yet other gun show bills would make exceptions to the Brady law, reducing background checks for many gun show sales to 24 hours, to avoid inconveniencing the people in that 5-percent category. I believe that would be a serious mistake. We must reject the notion that it is better to allow a criminal to get gun than to ask a small group of potentially high-risk gun buyers to experience a minor inconvenience. If anything, law enforcement needs more time, not less, to conduct background checks. The FBI reported last year that over an 18-month period, more than 6,000 firearms were sold to convicted felons and other prohibited buyers because the three business days allowed under the Brady law expired before law enforcement could provide a definitive response. These illegal firearms must then be retrieved by State and Federal officer, as dangerous scenario which no one wants to see repeated or multiplied. We are not proposing to lengthen the time for background checks, but clearly it would be a mistake to shorten it even further. Instead, we should do the right thing for both law enforcement and gun buyers and simply apply current law to all gun show sales. No law-abiding citizen will be denied the right to purchase a firearm under my legislation. As under current law, if the 3 business days expire before law enforcement identifies a violation that would prohibit the gun sale, the sale can go forward. We are not trying to end gun shows, and we are not trying to deny any law-abiding American the right to purchase a gun. What we are trying to end is the free pass we're now giving to convicted felons when they can walk into a guns how, find a private dealer, buy whatever weapons they want, and walk out without a background check. In overwhelming numbers, the American people believe that background checks should be required for all gun show sales. The people of Colorado and Oregon confirmed this last fall when they approved ballot initiatives to close the guns show loophole. I want my colleagues to know that I will take every opportunity early next year to bring the Gun Show Background Check Act before the Senate for a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can finally close the gun show loophole and make sure that convicted felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, and other prohibited persons do not use gun shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I anticipate speaking a bit longer than 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to speak for so much time as I may consume.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Gregg be recognized for 10 minutes, and upon the conclusion of his remarks, the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am privileged to serve as the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. The Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee issued a very pressing report about America's economy. I would like to read from the first paragraph of the Executive Summary. New reports from the Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the combination of the large tax cut and the worsened economic situation have essentially eliminated any expected on-budget surplus for the next five years. Indeed, there is a growing possibility that the government's fiscal position could be even worse, with no surplus at all by the end of the decade and with a national debt that might be even higher in ten years than it is now. What is particularly prescient about this report is the fact that it was not issued this morning, hours after Mr. Daniels of OMB declared that the fiscal policies of this administration have locked this Government into deficits for the next several years. This report was issued on September 7, 2001. It is also interesting to note that this report suggests very strongly, prior to the attack on America on September 11, that the fiscal policies of this administration had headed us down a road to deficit after deficit after deficit. The attack on September 11 was a dreadful assault on this country, but it is not the cause of the current deficit we are staring at over the next several years. It may have accelerated the timing, but the fundamental core was the irresponsible tax policies of this administration. If we look across several years, we see a situation where our colleagues on the other side resisted, in 1993, President Clinton's plan, which mercifully passed by a very narrow margin, which set the fiscal context, together with monetary policy, for the largest expansion of our economy perhaps in our history. Yet when this party came to power, not only in the Senate and the House but in 2001 in the Presidency, it took them a scant 9 to 10 months to reverse years of economic progress and prosperity and cast us back again into deficit after deficit after deficit. The consequences are severe. We are approaching critical choices about Social Security and Medicare. Just a year ago, we had surpluses which we could use to make these difficult choices. Those surpluses are gone. But the demographic timebomb of the baby boomers is not gone. It will be here. It is virtually on our doorstep. So we now have to respond to these issues bereft of a surplus that was hard-earned over years of effort during the 1990s. There is something else, obviously, that is one of the direct consequences of September 11. We are at war. This is a war that will demand increased expenditures which we cannot decline to make, not just in the military operations, which are expensive inherently, but if we are not to repeat the mistakes that were made previously in the area of Southwest Asia. We have to maintain a presence there. We have to be one of the international participants to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. We have to take steps across the globe to eliminate other terrorist threats, sometimes more sinister than the dreadful events we saw in New York. We have to recognize there are loose nuclear materials around the world, particularly in Russia, loose biological agents around the world. All of these things will cost money. And the war on terror will not end simply with the defeat of al-Qaida. It will be a constant ongoing battle, perhaps akin to the Cold War--increased expenditures now, because of this tax cut policy, without the benefit of a surplus. There is something else we must recognize. We are looking at short- run economic consequences of this tax policy. But what is going to happen in the next several months and days and years ahead is that the administration's response will be OK, we can't shun funding defense. We will have to cut back in every other area of effort. The key to our long-run economic prosperity is the productivity of America. That productivity is not simply machines and tools and computers. It is human capital. It is healthy, educated Americans who can use these tools, who can invent new tools, who can continue this growth. When we cut education and when we refuse to fund special education and when we go ahead and cut back on health care and we do all these things, we are harming our long-run productivity. That is the dilemma we are in today. It is a dilemma that was entirely avoidable by a more responsible fiscal policy of this administration. There is no surprise about Mr. Daniels' announcement yesterday. Perhaps the only shock, if you will, was the timing. It was inevitable after we passed this tax cut. Now as we go forward, we are seeing the consequences. Those consequences will be very difficult to bear. What is worse than that, our colleagues are compounding this terrible situation by advancing the same policies in the guise of a stimulus package: Accelerating marginal tax cuts further and proposing corporate AMT that is retroactive. That is not going to get this economy moving. That will simply make the hole we are in much, much deeper and the climb out much steeper and longer and harder, particularly for working Americans. Again, there should be no surprise about Mr. Daniels' announcement, but there should be surprise, shock, and perhaps even anger, that having brought us down this path, they refuse to see the error of their ways. They refuse to recognize that, yes, we do need a stimulus package but one that would truly stimulate the economy by getting consumers back in the marketplace, by ensuring that middle- and low-income working Americans get access to additional dollars that they will spend quite quickly. We must in fact protect ourselves through increased expenditures on homeland defense. I hope yesterday's announcement represents not just waking up to the reality of their policies but changing the policies, that in working collectively with the leaders in the House and in the Senate to script and craft a fiscal package that will move America forward, we will begin our slow climb out of this deficit situation. But there should be no confusion about the fundamental cause of our current economic situation--a precipitous collapse from surpluses to deficits. It was an unwise, irresponsible tax plan promoted and proposed by the President and regrettably accepted by this Congress. I hope the searing news that Mr. Daniels gave us yesterday will provide something more than heat, that will provide a little illumination to those who seek to lead this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to inquire about the Compassion Capital Fund, which is funded in this bill at $89 million. As my colleagues know, this fund was requested by the President as part of his Faith-Based Initiative. This is a significant amount of money and I want to note that the Senate has not yet considered legislation authorizing various aspects of the President's Faith-Based Initiative, including provisions which might alter longstanding rules on government funding of religious organizations. Therefore, I would like to clarify several points with the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee about the uses of these funds. It is my understanding that this fund is supposed to provide grants to organizations for the purpose of advising charitable organizations on expanding their operations effectively and providing guidance on how to emulate model social service practices. Am I correct on that point?

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for clarifying these points, and I look forward to working to further clarify this matter during the conference committee process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support Chairman Landrieu's intention in the District of Columbia fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill to allow the city to use its own funds to support a needle exchange program in the city, and I oppose Senator Allen's amendment to restrict the use of those funds. The current ban on the use of Federal funds for this program remains intact in the legislation before us. This issue truly is about the ability of an independent jurisdiction to use its locally raised revenue to support a program that its elected officials have deemed appropriate. In my own State of Rhode Island, for example, a needle exchange program called ENCORE has existed in the city of Providence since 1995, supported by local funds. This has been, and continues to be, a very successful program. Many of the other programs in the 34 States that currently have either state-funded or city-funded needle exchange programs also have been successful in decreasing the spread of HIV/ AIDS. There are currently well over 100 different needle exchange programs around the country working to effect this positive change. The ENCORE program in Rhode Island has enrolled over 1,500 clients and provides education, counseling, access to sterile syringes, and referrals to substance abuse treatment programs. Followup studies and date continue to show that participants in this program have substantially reduced their risk behaviors. However, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to be very serious in my State, particularly as individuals with the disease are able to live longer and therefore constitute a greater percentage of the State population. That is why the State of Rhode Island continues to look for new methods to deal with the spread of this disease, and why programs like ENCORE are so important. The Surgeon General echoed this report in one of his own studies in March 2000, stating that ``there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces transmission of HIV and does not encourage the illegal use of drugs.'' That has been the case in my own State, and that will be the case if we allow the District of Columbia to take a similar approach with its own funds. The District of Columbia has the highest rate of HIV and AIDS in the country, and therefore desperately needs the ability to tackle this problem in its own way. Unfortunately, the city has been prevented from using its own locally raised revenue to deal with this issue since 1999 in this appropriations bill. In addition, in last year's D.C. appropriations bill, even private funds were prevented from being used to support a program. Today we have an opportunity in the bill before us to change this attitude and allow the city to enact a targeted and aggressive program to attempt to eradicate this deadly disease from a vulnerable population. Several important public health organizations support this move, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as well D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey. It is imperative that we add our support to this effort as well. To reiterate, I commend the leadership of Senator Landrieu from Louisiana. Her position and the position of the committee is that the District of Columbia should be allowed to spend its own money on a needle exchange program. This is a program that has been embraced in 34 States and over 100 cities. One of those cities is Providence, RI. Providence has Operation ENCORE in which they provide a needle exchange together with education, counseling, and drug rehabilitation referrals. The program works. I come today with facts, with success, to argue that the District of Columbia should be allowed to use its own money to replicate successful programs in other urban areas. They have a huge problem with AIDS in their community. This is a sensible, proven way to help people avoid the scourge of infection with AIDS, and we should support it, not try to deny them this opportunity. It is no surprise, based on the experience of Providence, which is, at this point, enrolling over 1,500 individuals successfully, that this program has been heralded by the Surgeon General as a great success. In his words, in March of 2000: There is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces transmission of HIV and does not encourage the illegal use of drugs. ``Conclusive scientific evidence,'' and today we are here to try to refute conclusive scientific evidence, which is at the heart of the proposal to strike this provision, and also to override the judgment of local authorities which is commonplace throughout this country in the over 100 municipalities that are running a program such as this. If we want to rely upon science and also on the authority of localities to use their local funds as they wish, we have to reject this Allen amendment and we have to support the position of the committee. This position that drug programs featuring needle exchanges are effective is supported by a host of organizations: The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. It is clearly supported by the mayor of the District of Columbia, Mayor Williams, and the police chief. Those with the most interest in this program, with the most at risk, the most at stake, are asking us to give them the chance to use their resources to provide for a needle exchange program to reduce the transmission of AIDS and, as the Surgeon General pointed out, in no way will this encourage the illegal use of drugs. I cannot think of a more sensible position to support. I urge my colleagues to reject the Allen amendment and support Chairman Landrieu's position. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I share my distinguished colleagues' interest in assuring that this issue is addressed. Targeted treatment services for homeless populations has been successful in providing the assistance and support many homeless need to return to secure and stable lives. I commend the chairman and ranking member for their continued support for substance abuse and mental health treatment services for the homeless.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. First, I want to commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter, and their staff, for their work on this bill. Given the budget realities, I know it wasn't an easy task to put this bill together, and I know they would agree we should have even more robust numbers for many programs. That is why it is important to recognize the increased investments contained in this bill, like dislocated workers; NIH; CDC; SAMHSA; LIHEAP; Head Start; Title I; teacher quality; and Pell grants. I am particularly pleased that the bill significantly enhances the childhood immunization program under CDC, providing $84.5 million more than last year and $62.5 million more than the administration's budget request. This additional funding is critical to the continued success of the program, which has faced dramatic increases in vaccine purchase costs, as well as new challenges in program outreach and in vaccine delivery infrastructure development. In addition to its work in preventing and tracking diseases, the CDC also plays a critical role in our effort to maintain and control the onset of chronic disease among Americans. Seven of every 10 deaths in this country each year can be attributed to chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke and cancer. CDC's work to improve our understanding of risk factors, such as tobacco use, poor nutrition and lack of physical activity, through applied research is the cornerstone of our Nation's effort to curb the current epidemic of chronic disease related deaths. I would also like to commend the chairman and ranking member for preserving funding for the Health Professions Program at HRSA. This program provides vital support to academic institutions and students in an effort to improve the accessibility, quality and racial and ethnic diversity of the health care workforce. The administration's budget proposal would have decimated this program. During this time of shortages in a variety of health care settings, the health professions and nurse education programs are key to our continued efforts to recruit motivated and qualified individuals for the health care workforce. I have been particularly interested in the work of the Geriatric Education Centers Program, which provide training for health care professionals who provide care to our Nation's seniors, as well as support for faculty who teach geriatrics. Rhode Island has one of the highest concentrations of people over the age of 65, with persons over the age of 85 being the fastest growing segment of the population. As such, I am deeply concerned about the lack of health professionals specifically trained to address the health care needs of our rapidly aging population. The geriatric programs sponsored by HRSA, including one in my State, play a vital role in enhancing the skill base of health professionals who care for frail and vulnerable seniors. As a final point with regard to the health related provisions in this legislation, I would simply add that I hope that Senate conferees will be able to work with the House to increase the current funding level for the Community Access Program (CAP) at HRSA. I also want to thank Senators Harkin and specter for providing $2 billion in LIHEAP funding. This is an 18-percent increase over funding provided in the fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill. LIHEAP is an important program for residents of the Northeast and Midwest, and this increased funding is especially important now. The slowing economy and layoffs will make it increasingly more difficult for low-income families to be able to afford to heat their homes this coming winter. If these families cannot pay their heating bills then they will be forced to chose between heat, prescription drugs, housing, and food. This additional funding will help working poor families maintain economic stability during this difficult time. As for education funding, I am pleased on many fronts. The bill provides an overall increase of $6.3 billion, including a $1.4 billion increase for title I, $925 million to preserve the School Renovation Program, $1 billion for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (after school) program, $3 billion for teacher quality, and a $250 boost in the maximum Pell grant to $4,000. I particularly appreciate the $15 million increase for LEAP, bringing funding for this program to $70 million. LEAP is a Federal-State partnership program which helps needy students attend and stay in college. I have worked closely with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, on this program, and I look forward to continuing to work with her, Chairman Harkin, and Senator Specter to maintain this funding level in conference. I also want to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for including funding for a critical national cause I have long championed, along with Senator Cochran and others in this body--support for our Nation's school libraries. The condition of our school libraries is a national disgrace; they either contain mostly bare shelves or are filled with outdated books. Without funding, the goal of the President's Reading First Program to ensure children can read and read well at an early age, will not be met. While I am pleased that the bill provides a modest downpayment for this program at $25 million, additional funding is certainly needed. I want to continue to work with Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter to provide increased resources for this critical program, so that it will work hand in hand with Reading First to improve our student's literacy levels and reading scores. Certainly Chairman Harkin's ESEA amendment to fully fund IDEA would provide the resources needed for the school library program and countless other programs, while meeting the needs of our children with disabilities and schools. I strongly support this effort, and will work with the chairman of the subcommittee to press for this amendment to be retained in the ESEA conference. Indeed, we must pass this amendment to ensure that essential initiatives get the funding needed to work.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Corzine and Torricelli of New Jersey in introducing this timely and important legislation. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act seeks to address a critical need that currently exists in our health care emergency preparedness network. Since the devastating attacks of September 11, it has become apparent that we as a Nation face many threats for which we must be prepared. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has made significant investments in research, planning and implementation of procedures designed to deal with a variety of terrorist attacks, including strengthening our public health system so that it may respond effectively to a potential biological or chemical terrorist event. In that time, we have made great progress in solidifying our level of preparedness for these kinds of insidious events. Nevertheless, the events of last month have also made us keenly aware of our vulnerabilities, particularly when it comes to State and local health systems, where our ability to resond to a major catastrophic event is not what it should be. Specifically, while the 1996 Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act required the development of a Domestic Preparedness Program, including efforts to improve capacity of local emergency response agencies, only limited funds were provided to state and local responders and none for hospitals. For those hospitals that have devised plans, the challenge is often finding the resources to acquire the appropriate equipment and training necessary to respond to a chemical or biological event. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act we are introducing today would address this urgent problem by requiring all States to think strategically about their health systems and how they might be called to respond to a biological or chemical attack. Each State would submit to the Department of Health and Human Services for review and approval a disaster preparedness plan that would designate certain hospitals and providers to respond to a terrorist attack. These facilities would devise and implement chemical and biological weapons response plans that conform to their responsibilities as a component of the State's overall disaster response. To help defray these additional costs, the bill authorizes a new grant program administered by HHS' Office of Emergency Preparedness to fund the implementation of biological and chemical attack preparedness strategies. This legislation compliments ongoing efforts to enhance our public health capability to minimize casualties should a biological or chemical attack occur within our borders. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that every link in the health system chain, from the individual provider to our Federal health agencies, has the tools it needs to carry out the tasks for which it is responsible in this new world. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to join them today in this important endeavor and urge the Senate to take quick action to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Corzine and Torricelli of New Jersey in introducing this timely and important legislation. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act seeks to address a critical need that currently exists in our health care emergency preparedness network. Since the devastating attacks of September 11, it has become apparent that we as a Nation face many threats for which we must be prepared. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has made significant investments in research, planning and implementation of procedures designed to deal with a variety of terrorist attacks, including strengthening our public health system so that it may respond effectively to a potential biological or chemical terrorist event. In that time, we have made great progress in solidifying our level of preparedness for these kinds of insidious events. Nevertheless, the events of last month have also made us keenly aware of our vulnerabilities, particularly when it comes to State and local health systems, where our ability to resond to a major catastrophic event is not what it should be. Specifically, while the 1996 Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act required the development of a Domestic Preparedness Program, including efforts to improve capacity of local emergency response agencies, only limited funds were provided to state and local responders and none for hospitals. For those hospitals that have devised plans, the challenge is often finding the resources to acquire the appropriate equipment and training necessary to respond to a chemical or biological event. The Biological and Chemical Attack Preparedness Act we are introducing today would address this urgent problem by requiring all States to think strategically about their health systems and how they might be called to respond to a biological or chemical attack. Each State would submit to the Department of Health and Human Services for review and approval a disaster preparedness plan that would designate certain hospitals and providers to respond to a terrorist attack. These facilities would devise and implement chemical and biological weapons response plans that conform to their responsibilities as a component of the State's overall disaster response. To help defray these additional costs, the bill authorizes a new grant program administered by HHS' Office of Emergency Preparedness to fund the implementation of biological and chemical attack preparedness strategies. This legislation compliments ongoing efforts to enhance our public health capability to minimize casualties should a biological or chemical attack occur within our borders. Indeed, it is absolutely essential that every link in the health system chain, from the individual provider to our Federal health agencies, has the tools it needs to carry out the tasks for which it is responsible in this new world. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to join them today in this important endeavor and urge the Senate to take quick action to adopt this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, to introduce two pieces of legislation we believe are absolutely critical to our ongoing effort to combat childhood lead poisoning. These two bills, the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act and the Children's Lead SAFE Act, are intended to improve our ability to detect and treat children at high risk of lead poisoning, as well as expand our network of Federal program sites where children at increased risk of lead poisoning can be screened. The Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act requires WIC and Head Start/Early Head Start programs with children under age 3 to assess whether a child participant has been screened for lead, and provide and track referrals for any child who has not been appropriately screened. The bill also calls upon WIC and Head Start/ Early Head Start grantees to ensure that all enrolled children are screened for lead poisoning and grants these entities the authority to perform or arrange blood lead screening for program participants. Lastly, the bill allows WIC clinics and Head Start/Early Head Start grantees to seek reimbursement through Medicaid or the State Children's Heath Insurance Program, CHIP, for eligible children who have received a lead screening test in accordance with CDC recommendations or Medicaid policy. The Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early Intervention Act, or the Children's Lead SAFE Act, would require Medicaid contractors to comply with existing requirements to provide screening, treatment and any necessary follow-up services for Medicaid-eligible children who test positive for lead poisoning. To be clear, this is not imposing any new mandate on State Medicaid contractors. It is simply trying to make current law more effective by explicitly requiring health care providers to comply with Federal lead screening requirements that have been in existence since 1992. This new, stronger mandate has become necessary because 82 percent of children ages one through five have never been screened for lead poisoning, even though they were receiving health care benefits or services through Medicaid, WIC, or the Health Centers program, according to a recent report from the General Accounting Office, GAO, despite long standing Federal requirements. This means that of the estimated 890,000 children in the U.S. with elevated blood lead levels, over 400,000 have never been identified or treated. Even more disconcerting is that 50 percent of our States do not have screening policies that are consistent with Federal requirements. The reason why our two bills specifically focus on specific Federal programs stems from the GAO report, which indicated that 77 percent of U.S. children with high levels of lead in their blood are enrolled in Federal programs, highlighting the viral role of these programs in helping to eliminate the preventable tragedy of childhood lead poisoning. Better involvement by Federal programs in promoting screening and treatment is also critical to reducing the significant health care and special education costs associated with the irreversible effects of lead poisoning, which include the impairment of mental and physical development. We need to find the will and the resources to eradicate lead hazards for millions of at-risk children. We also need to make more Americans aware of the dangers of lead poisoning. I am committed to addressing this crisis, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting these bills and other lead poisoning prevention efforts. I ask consent that the text of the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Torricelli of New Jersey, to introduce two pieces of legislation we believe are absolutely critical to our ongoing effort to combat childhood lead poisoning. These two bills, the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act and the Children's Lead SAFE Act, are intended to improve our ability to detect and treat children at high risk of lead poisoning, as well as expand our network of Federal program sites where children at increased risk of lead poisoning can be screened. The Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act requires WIC and Head Start/Early Head Start programs with children under age 3 to assess whether a child participant has been screened for lead, and provide and track referrals for any child who has not been appropriately screened. The bill also calls upon WIC and Head Start/ Early Head Start grantees to ensure that all enrolled children are screened for lead poisoning and grants these entities the authority to perform or arrange blood lead screening for program participants. Lastly, the bill allows WIC clinics and Head Start/Early Head Start grantees to seek reimbursement through Medicaid or the State Children's Heath Insurance Program, CHIP, for eligible children who have received a lead screening test in accordance with CDC recommendations or Medicaid policy. The Children's Lead Screening Accountability for Early Intervention Act, or the Children's Lead SAFE Act, would require Medicaid contractors to comply with existing requirements to provide screening, treatment and any necessary follow-up services for Medicaid-eligible children who test positive for lead poisoning. To be clear, this is not imposing any new mandate on State Medicaid contractors. It is simply trying to make current law more effective by explicitly requiring health care providers to comply with Federal lead screening requirements that have been in existence since 1992. This new, stronger mandate has become necessary because 82 percent of children ages one through five have never been screened for lead poisoning, even though they were receiving health care benefits or services through Medicaid, WIC, or the Health Centers program, according to a recent report from the General Accounting Office, GAO, despite long standing Federal requirements. This means that of the estimated 890,000 children in the U.S. with elevated blood lead levels, over 400,000 have never been identified or treated. Even more disconcerting is that 50 percent of our States do not have screening policies that are consistent with Federal requirements. The reason why our two bills specifically focus on specific Federal programs stems from the GAO report, which indicated that 77 percent of U.S. children with high levels of lead in their blood are enrolled in Federal programs, highlighting the viral role of these programs in helping to eliminate the preventable tragedy of childhood lead poisoning. Better involvement by Federal programs in promoting screening and treatment is also critical to reducing the significant health care and special education costs associated with the irreversible effects of lead poisoning, which include the impairment of mental and physical development. We need to find the will and the resources to eradicate lead hazards for millions of at-risk children. We also need to make more Americans aware of the dangers of lead poisoning. I am committed to addressing this crisis, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting these bills and other lead poisoning prevention efforts. I ask consent that the text of the Early Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, may I say what a privilege it is working with Chairman Levin and the ranking member, Senator Warner. The Senators have led this Senate with great distinction.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the language in this legislation that would authorize another round of base closings. I do so, as we all do, knowing full well there are perhaps facilities in my home State that might be considered. I am confident and hopeful that, because of their critical role, they will continue to be vital parts of the Department of Defense. But every Senator is a bit nervous when we authorize a round of base closings. Simply stated, we have too many facilities. We have a cold-war base structure. We have a post-cold-war Department of Defense. We have to reconcile the two. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Arizona. The bottom line here, the effect that is most obvious from too many bases, is the deteriorating quality of life of the troops who serve in our Armed Forces. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army, from 1967 to 1979. There were facilities back then, in the 1970s, which the Army desired to close. Some are still open. There were facilities back then that were inadequate or barely adequate. They remain on the books of the Army. Troops are using them for their barracks. Family housing is being used. Base closure is just common sense. When you have the demands of training, operational readiness, integrating new equipment, and then family housing, troop housing, and community facilities on Army posts and Navy bases or an Air Force base, something has to give. What typically gives are those quality-of-life items: The community center, the child care center, the library, family housing, and troop housing. That is multiplied and amplified when you have just too many bases. About 3 weeks ago, I traveled to Fort Bragg, NC, to watch the 82nd Airborne Division conduct live fire exercise for their division readiness brigade. Those soldiers are today on orders and on alert to go out and be the tip of the spear. I talked to the brigade commander, the division commander, the battalion commander, and the troops. The one thing they said is they are proud to be in this division, and that one of the reasons they are is because the commanding officer, the division commander, and battalion commander--all the way down--put the money and emphasis on training. They are ready to go. They are well trained. But what they can't do is put sufficient resources to all the needs they have on the post. I must say that Bragg is one of the primary posts in the Army it does quite well. They are getting ready to conduct massive reconstruction of family housing. They are reconstructing barracks. But they cannot do as much as they want. When you go away from those major division posts, such as Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell, and other posts around the country and go out to other posts that do not have quite that high of a priority, the crisis is even more severe. It is then manifested, as Senator McCain indicated, in retention problems and in recruiting problems. It is manifested in quality of life which is not commensurate with the sacrifices these young men and women make for their country and will make even more dramatically in the days ahead. This base closing round is supported by the President, the Secretary of Defense, by the Joint Chiefs, and by service chiefs because they know they can't continue to operate efficiently and effectively if they have facilities they do not need but have to keep barely open. It drains resources from the quality-of-life of troops, and also from the ability of this military force, which is the best in the world, to maintain its razor edge of readiness, training, and operational capability. The DOD estimates that we are maintaining 23-percent excess capacity of infrastructure. That is obvious because after the end of the cold war we reduced our force structure 36 percent. There are those arguing based upon the tragic and horrific events of September 11 that we need to keep these bases open. Some of those bases were built at the beginning of the First World War. But substantially the infrastructure was built in the Second World War when we were fighting huge national armies in two theaters. We were drafting hundreds of thousands of men. We were training them. We were preparing to conduct operations with armies and corps. The operation we face going forward will involve our military forces but most likely special operations troops--specially tailored brigades of Army and Marines. We will not be engaged, mercifully, thankfully in a tank-to-tank army battle with hundreds of thousands of troops on each side. We don't have that force structure today. But we have that infrastructure today. If we want to be efficient and effective, we have to reconcile our infrastructure with our force structure. We are not going to fight World War II again--I hope. We are not going to fight the cold war again--I hope. But we have serious threats before us. Those threats require a faster, leaner military. Part of that efficient, leaner military is allowing the services to make judicial judgments about what real estate they need. Yes, we have an imperfect structure in terms of base closing conditions. Nothing is perfect. But there are closed bases that some people thought would never be closed in our lifetime, or several lifetimes. So it has worked. There are other arguments that no savings have been realized. As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, between $15 billion and $16 billion will have been realized by the end of fiscal year 2001 on these base closures. It is projected going forward that we will accrue an annual savings of approximately $6.2 billion. That is real money that goes back into the bottom line of the Department of Defense for improved barracks, improved family housing, improved readiness, improved technology, a better fighting force. There are some who argue that we can't do this because there is just too many environmental flaws; that it turns out to be just a big environmental remediation project. Those environmental costs are not avoidable. It is mandated by law that the DOD, like everyone else, is responsible for serious environmental degradation. They have to pay for it. They are doing it right now on posts that are open and operating. It is not something you can throw into the mix and say don't close the base because of environmental costs. You have environmental costs for open bases. They have to be faced, addressed, and paid for. For many reasons, I believe we have to follow through on the base closing language in this legislation. I think it is time to give the Department of Defense the flexibility to tailor their resources, to tailor their infrastructure, and to fit the mission that faces us today. We have the best military force in the world. We will see them in action shortly. I think we owe them our vote to sustain their base closing round as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Michigan and Virginia not only for their gracious offer of the opportunity to speak this afternoon but also for their work as chairman and ranking member of this committee. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for their leadership. I rise this afternoon in support of this authorization bill for the Department of Defense for the year 2002. It comes at a critical time in history where we have to prepare for a series of threats, both anticipated before September 11 and now understood very well after September 11. I also speak specifically with respect to my responsibility as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. In that regard, I first thank and commend Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, the ranking member. Senator Allard did a tremendous amount of work, and his perseverance, diligence, his good humor, and his cooperation were essential to the legislation we are contemplating and considering today. He has truly done a remarkable job. It was a distinct pleasure and honor working with him. I thank him for his activities. The jurisdiction of the Strategic Subcommittee has a very wide swath, including space and space systems, strategic programs, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance programs, ballistic missile defense programs, and Defense-funded programs at the Department of Energy. The Strategic Subcommittee held hearings on all of the matters of jurisdiction, including reports of the Space Commission and the National Reconnaissance Organization Commission. We had extensive hearings, particularly on the ballistic missile defense organization. We had at one point a 5-hour hearing on their plans and programs for this year. We also had a very useful and instructive hearing on the status of our long-range bomber force. Even though we had a compressed timeframe to consider these issues because of the late submission of the budget, the Strategic Subcommittee conducted extensive hearings. The result is the legislation we have before the Senate, a product of these hearings, and of hard work, particularly by the staff. I commend and compliment the staff for their intense effort and their thorough analysis of the requests made to the committee. Based upon these hearings and this extensive analysis, we were able to increase, in many critical areas, authorization for programs. In providing additional funds for these programs, we were guided by the recommendations of the military services themselves. We were very attentive to the unfunded requests outlined and identified by the Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, their so- called wish lists. That gave us a sense of where we had to apply additional resources. We tried to do that. Now, with respect to space and space systems, we understand the United States has a continuing and increased reliance on access to space. For space programs, we added $53.9 million to improve readiness and operations of safety at the east and west coast space launch and range facilities. This was the Air Force's No. 1 unfunded priority. We were able to fund a significant portion of their request. We also added funds to the Air Force to improve its space surveillance capabilities and its communications capabilities. With the additional funds we have provided in this legislation, the Air Force will be able to exercise an option to buy additional wide band gap- filler satellites to ensure global wide band communications capability. Again, as we contemplate and prepare for extensive operations around the world directed at those who attacked us, these types of global communications become more and more critical to the successful operations not only of the Air Force but of our ground elements and all of the elements in the Department of Defense. In the area of strategic systems, we have included a provision consistent with the requests by the Department of Defense and the administration that would repeal section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. Section 1302 required the Secretary of Defense to stay at the START I nuclear force structure level until such time as START II enters into force. This provision, the provision we have included, will allow significant immediate reduction in the number of strategic nuclear warheads, and will continue the transition of our forces away from a cold war structure without having to wait for START II to enter into force. Also related to the repeal of section 1302 is the inclusion within the bill of funds to allow the Air Force to begin to retire the Peacekeeper ICBMs beginning next year. This is consistent with the overall thrust of the administration to make reductions in our nuclear force structure. We are awaiting a nuclear posture review, due in the next few weeks. But we are giving the administration what they desire and what we think is appropriate: the authority to begin to make reductions in our nuclear forces and the money to begin immediately to retire the Peacekeeper ICBMs. Also in the strategic area, we have included a provision that would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to keep the full fleet of B-1B bombers in place, including those B-1B bombers that are assigned to the Air National Guard until both the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review are completed and the Secretary has thoroughly reviewed the missions of the B-1B bomber fleet. We have included the necessary $100 million in operations and maintenance funds to keep the B-1B bombers flying in fiscal year 2002. I also suggest and point out the B-1B bombers are among those assets that have been identified and notified for possible forward deployment in support of our antiterrorist operations. As we today and in the future place increased reliance on our bomber fleet, not only have we dealt with the B-1B bomber force, we have also added an additional $125 million for much needed upgrades to the B-2 bomber and the B-52 bomber. We have all watched recently as those B-52s left Barksdale Air Force Base in support, again, of our antiterrorist operations, so it is essential to support these Air Force aircraft also. In the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance area, we have continued the emphasis started by Senator Warner on transforming our military forces by promoting unmanned aerial vehicles. This bill includes an additional $64.2 million for unmanned aerial vehicles. As we improve the capability of these vehicles, we will rely on them for a growing list of missions. Once again, in any type of counterterrorism operation where we need relatively low-level, nonobservable, we hope, observation from the sky and where we are unwilling to risk pilots, these vehicles are terribly useful. Last year we sponsored a demonstration for the Global Hawk system in an air surveillance role. This bill includes funding for a signals intelligence demonstration project using the Global Hawk UAV. We think it is an important addition to our repertoire of overhead reconnaissance. Another responsibility of the Strategic Subcommittee is the defense- funded programs at the Department of Energy with the exception of the nonproliferation programs. These DOE programs include environmental cleanup programs, the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and intelligence and counterintelligence programs. This bill would add approximately $855 million for these important programs. The budget request for these programs was not sufficient to cover all the needs for DOE to comply with its cleanup agreements or to improve the conditions of the production complex or to complete stockpile life extension programs. Additional resources are needed to not only maintain weapons reliability and our ability to safeguard the stockpile, but also our responsibility to clean up sites that have been polluted by nuclear processes in the past. We recognize that more money may be needed but this is a substantial downpayment on cleanup and stockpile security programs. The additional funding included $422 million for the DOE environmental programs and $500 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration. In addition to the extra funding for DOE programs, we have included legislative provisions to streamline the DOE polygraph program and help the National Nuclear Security Administration complete its reorganization. As we all know, the initial response prompting these programs, the polygraph program and the creation of NNSA, was the situation of security breaches in our nuclear laboratories. We hope and believe that is a thing of the past because of our emphasis on streamlined security procedures and a more rational, robust, and efficient NNSA. One of the most controversial elements of our deliberations involve ballistic missile defense. Let me say initially that there is a consensus on the committee that we need robust research and development of ballistic missile defense and immediate deployment of theater missile defenses to counter the threat. But it turns out that when you come to national missile defense there are two schools of thought. There are those who might say it will never work and those who say we don't care if it works, we need it. The reality is somewhere in between. We have a strong obligation to test and develop national missile defenses so we can bring, we hope, that technology to bear to defend the country. But we have to be careful not to deploy something that will not work. That is what we have attempted to do in this legislation, to provide a counter to immediate threats but also ensure that we spend money wisely, with the ultimate goal of producing a technology that works, not fielding a technology that doesn't work. Let me first discuss the threat that we see before us immediately. It is most easily divided, I think, into the theater threats, short-range, less than 1,000 kilometers, and medium range, 1,000 to 3,000 kilometers, and then those national threats, ICBMs that can travel more than 5,500 kilometers. You can see there is a large number of countries that have theater missile capability, and it is growing each and every day. These are the threats that immediately challenge our troops in the field, that immediately involve American interests through our forces and our allies throughout the world. When you go to the area of national missile defense, we know the Russians have thousands of missiles, the Chinese approximately 20, and then it is uncertain, frankly. As we all know, there is a strong suspicion that the North Koreans have this capability. There is certainly an indication other countries want this capability. But it is clear to us, and it should be clear to the American public, that the great, immediate threat that should prompt our immediate response is in the area of theater missile defense. This authorization responds to that grave theater missile defense threat. It responds also to the national missile defense threat by continuing to support robust funding for research and development. Let me give an overview of the funding levels that we have recommended for the ballistic missile defense program. It is good, I think, to begin with our baseline, which is last year's authorization: $5.1 billion overall--national missile defense and theater missile defense, as indicated on this bar graph. The ``other'' category simply refers to other nonspecific BMDO-wide activities such as program operation and other generally supporting programs. The request by the administration was $8.3 billion, about a 60-percent increase, the largest request for any particular category in this DOD authorization. In this chart, you can see roughly the breakout between ``other,'' national missile defense, and theater missile defense. After very careful consideration of each and every program, after hours of hearings and discussions with the officers in charge of BMDO, and other officials, we made adjustments unrelated to the debate about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, related simply to several principles that are important. Avoid contingency deployments--avoid deploying equipment that has not been thoroughly tested and we are not quite sure will work. Do not fund activities that cannot be executed this year. We have scarce resources. We are about to mount a worldwide campaign against terror and terrorists who struck us and to fund things this year that cannot be performed when we have other glaring needs, to me is not the way to spend our money wisely and to support our troops appropriately. Also, to avoid excessive nonspecific funding, requests for large amounts of money without any real plan to spend it--the sense I got from listening to the Administration is that they will figure out what they are doing on the run. That is not the way to develop a system that is going to protect the United States. Finally, avoid an undue program growth rate--programs that have been moving along with good progress and suddenly are going to be accelerated without justification for the acceleration. Those are the principles we used to decide program-by-program adjustments we would be making. The effect was to reduce the overall budget to $7 billion, almost $2 billion more than last year's authorization; specifically, to increase theater missile defense by $600 million, the immediate threat, while reducing the administration's request for national missile defense yet still increasing that budget by $1.1 billion. This was a robust authorization for ballistic missile defense. The committee decisions have been impacted, of course, by what we did last week. In the manager's amendment, we added back the $1.3 billion we had cut. But we have given the President the opportunity to use this money for either ballistic missile defense or for antiterrorism activity. I hope he will look at what we have done, and while looking at the ability to deploy systems that aren't ready and activities that can't really be executed this year, that he will wisely spend that $1.3 billion for antiterrorism in the conduct of this campaign that threatens America today. If he does that, we will still be on the path to a strong theater missile defense and a strong national missile defense, but we will be able to affect the immediate crisis we face with more resources. I hope he makes that choice. The legislation we presented him after last week's amendment will give him that choice. Let me try to go into some detail about the recommendations. Again, I hope the President and DOD will take our work and use it to form their views with respect to the additional $1.3 billion. As I mentioned, we have increased theater missile defense by $626 million. We have tried to identify with surety well-defined programs such as the PAC-3 Program, which is just ready for deployment, and the THAAD Program, and to fund them robustly. We have also tried to increase resources for the Navy Area Defense Program and the Airborne Laser to resolve emerging technical problems to keep them on schedule. In addition to these programs, we have added $76 million to the administration's request for the Arrow Missile System. The Arrow is a joint Israeli-United States project. These funds will help make the Arrow interoperable with our forces. It is an essential part of the development. Today that is one of the few theater missile defense systems that is fielded and operational. We have also gone ahead and looked at some of these ill-advised contingency deployments. We save $390 million by not funding untested THAAD missiles, Navy Theater-Wide missiles, premature THAAD radar, and Airborne Laser components. We save over $200 million by rationalizing the Navy Theater-Wide test and radar development programs while funding tests for Block 1 missiles and asking the Secretary of Defense for future plans on Navy Theater-Wide. When it comes to national missile defense, I also pointed out that we have increased last year's authorization by a total of $1.1 billion. It would fund a new midcourse test bed. It would provide 20 percent more for NMD, but it would save over $500 million by moderating growth in the NMD system and reducing funding for nonexecutable programs--those programs which we think, after careful analysis, cannot be completed in this year's authorization. We also have saved over $200 million by reducing excessive funding for activities not associated with specific programs--essentially large categories of money with very little justification. All of this money can now be used, pursuant to the amendment of last week, for counterterrorism operations, all the things we know we have to do today, and I hope we do today. We have also funded the request by the administration for a test bed in Alaska. Even though there is a great deal of controversy about the efficacy of this test bed to test missiles, even though there is a suggestion that it could be used for deployment which would raise issues under the ABM Treaty, we have tried to give the administration the benefit of the doubt by not only significantly increasing resources but also assuming that they are working very diligently not to arbitrarily move away from the treaty but to comply with it until they are forced otherwise. This approach of giving the administration not only permission but authority to establish their test bed is again another commitment to do everything we can to promote research and development of a national missile defense system. As we go forward, we hope we can continue working closely with the administration. Let me also point out that our response to the proposal by the administration for missile defense was prompted not by an ideological approach to BMD but by a desire to see a program that works. We tried to base our judgments on the experience of these programs before. One of the most influential aspects of our review was considering the report of General Welch, the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, who conducted a thorough study of the THAAD system, the theater high-altitude system. A few years ago, this system was going nowhere, with test failure after test failure. General Welch was asked to come in and look at the program, analyze its faults, and point out whether it could be saved and how it could be saved. His conclusions were very instructive to our deliberations. First of all, the Welch panel, set up by the BMD office to look at the failure in this theater high-altitude program, concluded that the THAAD program's ``rush-to-failure'' was caused in part by the decision to buy operational missiles early. That was the key factor in the difficulties of this program. Until they got back to careful, thorough development with requirements and objectives, this program was in danger of failing. If it failed, it would be a significant loss to the Nation. The same logic was echoed by GEN Kadish, director of BMDO, when he testified that ``emergency deployments are disruptive and can set back normal development programs by years.'' That is precisely what the administration was urging us to do in this authorization--to accelerate deployment before we had done the testing, to buy missiles that were untested, to rush to failure. I argue very strenuously that if the program adopted by the administration is to simply take this $1.3 billion back and plug it right back into this program, it will be a rush to failure, and it will defeat what we all want to see--the immediate deployment of effective theater missile defenses and the deployment, subject to considerations of international law and treaties at this point, of an effective national missile defense. Until we have the testing and the development completed, deployment is something that is both premature and ultimately harmful to the program development. The program should be careful and deliberate, and we hope ultimately successful. As the Welch report concluded, attempting to deploy minimal operational capability early ``is unlikely to be productive for programs of this complexity. The drive for early capability is proving to be counterproductive.'' I hope the administration takes these words to heart. Much of what we suggested in terms of funding reductions was based upon this logic--the logic of seasoned professionals who looked closely at this program and who want these programs to succeed but understand that they have to be done thoroughly and carefully, and not rushed to failure. As we go forward, we will, I am sure, continue this debate about national missile defense and ballistic missile defense, and a host of other issues. I hope and I know the full Senate has the same type of very constructive and very helpful debate that the members of my subcommittee and the members of the full committee had because I think it is important to have this type of significant debate as we go forward about issues. We have tried to do this, and we have tried to do it thoroughly. I believe we have produced, at the subcommittee level, and the full committee, a thoughtful and very logical and very defensible product. Today we are in this Chamber presenting the administration with the opportunity to use these resources to counter terrorism or to go back and invest in programs of dubious immediate efficacy and efficiency and worth for the national defense. Again, I hope that the administration does this. Let me just make brief comments about the situation with respect to the ABM treaty which, I point out, was separated from the logic of this discussion. Regardless of the existence of an ABM treaty, our responsibility is to look closely at every one of these programs and to conclude which ones have real value for national defense and which ones are simply not worth the effort in terms of the resources committed this year. We did that--regardless of the existence of the ABM treaty. But the ABM treaty is a factor that has to be considered when you talk about national missile defense. The point I make is that many things changed on September 11. One thing that changed is the appreciation, I believe, by all of us and the administration that we need the help and the cooperation of the world community to beat our enemy, to beat the terrorists, to root out these networks out and destroy them. In that context, I suggest and advise that it would be very counterproductive for immediate and unilateral departure from the ABM treaty, because of the consequences it would produce. That advice, I hope, is taken to heart by the President. The President clearly has the authority today to withdraw from a treaty. We attempted--and we continue to attempt in separate legislation--to provide a forum for this Senate at least to consider a proposed departure from the ABM treaty. But until that other legislation is considered, and perhaps passed, it is clear that the President has this right. But today, as we assemble a world coalition to fight people who have harmed us--grievously--I would think that he would be very careful not to withdraw because we need the support of many nations. I think it is particularly inappropriate and premature to do that since I believe we do not have the technology today that will, in fact, be capable of deployment within the next few months, perhaps the next few years. While we are developing the technology, we should be very careful about undermining the stability of international relations, particularly at a time when we are reaching out to nations across the globe, including our European allies, including Russia, including China, asking them all to stand with us and to trust our judgment and our leadership as we go forth to counter and destroy the common enemy, the terrorists in the world. So I believe among the many things that have changed on September 11 is the attitude that was demonstrable in the administration that we can go it alone, that we don't need many other people; it is our way or the highway. We are now on a common path, we hope, to overcome and defeat the terrorists. This is not time to debate the language that was embodied in the original version of the bill which passed the committee. I do hope there is a more appropriate time soon. We are in this Chamber today at a momentous time in our history. All of us are committed to giving our Department of Defense every resource it needs to defend this country and, most specifically, to destroy those who attacked us and attempted to destroy us. It is in that spirit we continue these deliberations. It is in that spirit we will pass this legislation. And it is in that spirit we will triumph and prevail. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge a distinguished Rhode Islander and proven leader in my State's labor community, Mr. Eddie Sullivan, the President and Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers, (IUOE), Local 57 in Providence. Eddie Sullivan lives in Warwick with his wife Dolly and is a proud father of four wonderful daughters, Kim, Kimberly, Kristen, and Katherine. Mr. Sullivan was initiated into IUOE Local 57 in January of 1964, and has worked for various contractors in the State of Rhode Island as a crane operator over the years, taking part in the construction of some of Rhode Island's most significant structures. In 1976, Local 57 elected him as an Auditor, and due to his hard work appointed him as the Vice President in 1980. In just five short years, Eddie was appointed as the Business Manager and President of Local 57 in 1985 and continues to serve in this capacity today. In addition to his various responsibilities within the labor movement, Mr. Sullivan has served as the President of the Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council and was elected as a Trustee of the International Union of Operating Engineers for the Northeastern States in 1991. As Local 57 celebrates its centennial of fighting for the concerns and needs of hard working Rhode Islanders, it is only fitting to acknowledge Eddie for his decades of service to the IUOE. I would like to take this opportunity to personally extend my deep appreciation and gratitude to Eddie Sullivan for his continued hard work and leadership over the years to the labor movement, and his efforts to improving the lives of so many Rhode Islanders and their families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have suffered an egregious loss. We mourn for those who have perished. We pray for those who suffer. We are inspired by the courage and heroism of the people of New York, particularly the brave firefighters and police officers. We are inspired by the fidelity to duty of our men and women in uniform at the Pentagon and around the world. Ages ago, the Greek historian Thucydides reminded us: [T]he bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it. Yesterday we saw the bravest: firefighters and police officers who rushed into a burning and collapsing skyscraper, a chief of the New York City fire department, a deputy chief, and department chaplain who stayed at their posts as the building collapsed around them; soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen at the Pentagon who struggled through wreckage to take out survivors, and returned today to work at their posts; office workers in New York who carried fellow workers down 60 flights of stairs to safety. Their bravery and their courage is an inspiration to all of us. And we are profoundly angered by those terrorists who have struck this devious, horrific blow against us all. The emotions of yesterday and today must and will coalesce into a steely resolve to mete out justice to the terrorists, to those who harbor them, to those who train them, and to those who encourage them. We must work with our allies to destroy the network of terrorism that is committed to imposing its fanatical and suicidal pathology on free men and women everywhere. Yesterday we lost what little innocence that remained in our view of the world. We have been bloodied. But we retain a common and constant faith that free men and women, committed to individual progress, and mindful of the dignity of all men and women, will prevail over the fanatic dedicated to destruction and darkness. Archibald MacLeish, the American poet, gave voice to many of the emotions we feel when he spoke of those who fell in battle: The young dead soldiers do not speak. Nevertheless, they are heard in the still houses: who has not heard them? They have a silence that speaks for them at night and when the clock counts. They say: We were young. We have died. Remember us. They say: We have done what we could but until it is finished it is not done. They say: We have given our lives but until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave. They say: Our deaths are not ours; they are yours; they will mean what you make them. They say: Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say; it is you who must say this. They say: We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning. We will rebuild New York and the Pentagon. And although we can never replace the lives that were lost, we will give them their meaning. Let our foes everywhere know that our words are more than a lamentation; they are a call to action and a promise of swift and certain justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business, and if the Republicans wish 10 minutes of morning business following, I have no objection to that.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Mikulski and Senator Bond for all of the hard work they have put into the Fiscal Year 2002 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Given the serious fiscal restraints facing the Congress this year as a result of the budget resolution and the unsound tax cut, they have masterfully negotiated the many and often competing demands of the programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. In particular, I would like to thank Senators Mikulski and Bond for restoring much needed funds to a number of important Department of Housing and Urban Development programs that were slated for drastic cuts under the President's budget. Despite the economic prosperity that our country has experienced, many Americans are still lack safe and affordable housing. In my own state of Rhode Island, 46 percent of Rhode Islanders are unable to afford this rent without spending over 30 percent of their income on housing. In terms of homeownership, the average sales price of a home in Rhode Island went up by $24,000 between 1999 and 2000. In the same period, the number of houses on the market decreased by over 50 percent, and only 25 percent of these homes were affordable to low- income families. This housing affordability crisis has been affecting families around the country. The latest HUD worst case housing needs study indicates that there are over 4.9 million low-income Americans who pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. In addition, a broader study done by the National Housing Conference, the mortgage bankers and others shows that 14 percent or 13.7 million American families have worst case housing needs. Ten million of these people are elderly or work full or part-time. This is why I was so concerned about the President's budget proposal to cut HUD programs by $1.7 billion. Once you factor in inflation, the Administration was proposing to cut housing programs by $2.2 billion, an 8 percent real spending decrease compared to Fiscal Year 2001. One of the President's cuts that most concerned me was the $859 million net cut in public housing, the program that supports some of our nation's most vulnerable families. In my own state of Rhode Island, approximately two-thirds of our public housing units are used by the elderly and disabled. I also was disappointed by the Administration's decision to eliminate the public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP). This flexible, community-based program has made public housing much safer by helping local housing agencies create comprehensive anti-crime and anti-drug strategies. I applaud both Senators Mikulski and Bond for restoring funding to both of these programs. The VA-HUD bill before us today contains almost $3 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, $650 million more than the President's request, and $300 million for the drug elimination grant program. I also approve of the bill's requirement that 30 percent of the funding for HUD homeless programs be set aside for permanent housing for the disabled homeless. This shows the Senate's commitment towards helping end homelessness, not just funding programs for those who are homeless. Likewise, the committee's allocation of $500,000 for the Interagency Council on the Homeless will help Federal Government agencies better coordinate their programs for preventing and ending homelessness. I also want to commend the committee for putting Shelter Plus Care renewals for the homeless in a separate account. As chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, I personally believe that the long-term solution to the renewal problem should be solved by transferring renewals to the Section 8 program, and I hope the committee considers doing this in the future. I am also pleased about the language in the bill supporting the reauthorization of the Mark-to Market program. I held a subcommittee hearing on this issue on June 19, 2001, and the Banking Committee successfully marked up a reauthorization bill yesterday morning on August 1, 2001. It is my hope that this important legislation will be enacted into law well before the expiration of the original program on September 30, 2001. I also would like to commend both the administration and the committee on increasing funding for HUD's office of Lead Hazard Control by $10 million. Nonetheless, much more needs to be done. I, and a number of my colleagues, believe that this number should be much higher and will continue to work to increase funding for this extremely important program. No family in this country should be forced to live in housing that can cause permanent brain damage to their children. Finally, I was pleased to see language in the bill asking HUD to institute a computer program to adequately calculate the amount of credit subsidy necessary to support the FHA multifamily mortgage insurance programs and to establish a task force to determine the costs of multifamily defaults. I am disappointed that the administration has chosen to allow this program to stay shut down. Clearly, the FHA multifamily program has some problems that need to be solved; however, the administration's solution of raising the insurance premiums misses the larger point of ensuring that these programs continue to construct affordable housing. Thus, I also support the bill's language regarding the need for FHA premium changes to be made through notice and comment rule making. I hope to work with my colleagues over the next several months to see if we can't come up with a longer term solution to the repeated shutdown of this important FHA insurance premium program. There are two issues with this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill that I hope we can address as the bill moves forward. The first is the Committee's decision to cut Section 8 reserves from two months to one month, without protecting public housing authorities from budget shortfalls. The second is the implications of the decision to expand the traditional rescission language to include all funds recaptured from the Section 8 program. I know that the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee care very much about supporting hard-pressed parents who are struggling to provide a decent home for their children. The Section 8 program is the principle source of housing assistance for these extremely low-income parents who face the most acute housing needs of any segment of our population. It is an especially critical support for parents who have just left welfare and who may be earning too little to afford decent housing. It also helps parents move their kids out of areas of concentrated poverty and into neighborhoods with educational and employment opportunities. For all these reasons, we must maintain our commitment to the Section 8 program and make sure it works efficiently. Keeping the Section 8 reserves at adequate levels is an important part of making this housing program work. Basically, the Section 8 reserves provide additional funds to Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) whose voucher program costs exceed their budget allocation in a given year. Thus, if a PHA approaches the final months of its fiscal year and needs more funds to pay landlords or pay for utility costs, it can request up to 2 months of additional funding from HUD. The reserves are critical to the program's financing because HUD bases each PHA's annual budget not on its expected costs in the coming fiscal year, but rather on its actual costs in the prior year. Since the factors that cause such increases can be unpredictable from year to year, sufficient reserves are necessary so that PHAs won't be forced to reduce the number of families they serve. I am also concerned about the current rescission language in the bill. It is not unusual for Congress to reclaim Section 8 monies that HUD does use. However, this year's bill goes one step further by rescinding all future recaptures from Fiscal Year 2002 and prior years, and diverting them into other accounts, some of which are not even related to the housing needs of low-income families. As I mentioned previously, PHAs' budgets are based on the prior year's actual costs and not on their expected costs if they adopt changes to serve more families. They may need additional resources beyond their budget allocations if they succeed in making their programs work better. But this bill cuts the Section 8 reserves that could provide these additional resources. And, by rescinding all recaptures that HUD could make this year and next, it deprives HUD of funds to ensure that PHAs that are increasing voucher utilization do not get caught in a budget squeeze. HUD may also use recaptures to adjust contracts with owners under the project-based Section 8 program if unforseen costs arise, such as rising utility prices. If HUD does not have the resources to make these adjustments, these owners may opt- out of the Section 8 program. Finally, HUD can currently redirect at least some recaptures to offset Section 8 costs in the upcoming fiscal year, reducing the appropriated dollars needed to maintain the size of the program. This in turn, frees up funds to provide more new vouchers. If we are serious about helping extremely low-income families benefit from voucher assistance, then we need to ensure that the needed resources are available to make this program work well and efficiently. But this bill contains two provisions that run the risk of doing just the opposite. Both the reduction in reserves and the rescission could run the risk of undermining the financing of the Section 8 program, and undermining efforts to serve more families with vouchers. Let's not run this risk. Let's ensure that the Section 8 program is our first priority for use of recapture funds. Again, I thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for all of their hard work on this bill and I hope that we will be able to discuss these matters in more detail, and that we work together to find ways to address these issues.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, every summer the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, hosts a luncheon for the participants of the National Youth Science Camp. This is a distinguished collection of high school students from every State in the Nation who have demonstrated exceptional abilities in the fields of science and technology. They participate in a two-week science camp in Green Bank, WV, and, afterwards, spend several days touring Washington, D.C. Their time in the Nation's capital culminates in the luncheon hosted by Senator Byrd. At this year's luncheon, held in the Russell Caucus Room on July 19, Senator Byrd was introduced by a member of the board of the National Youth Science Foundation, Mr. Charles McElwee. When Mr. McElwee introduced Senator Byrd at the luncheon, I was impressed. He recognized the remarkable accomplishments of the senior Senator from West Virginia: that Senator Byrd has served in the Senate for more than 42 years, has been elected to 8 consecutive 6-year Senate terms, and has held more Senate leadership positions than any other Senator in history. Next, he referred to Senator Byrd's knowledge of Senate Rules, the Constitution, and the Bible, and his prolific writings on the histories of the U.S. Senate and the Roman Senate. Mr. McElwee then proceeded to challenge the young, budding scientists ``to make the most of [their] natural minds, as has Senator Byrd.'' I consider this powerful introduction of Senator Byrd a touching example of how one of Senator Byrd's constituents feels about him. It highlights the esteem in which he is held by his fellow West Virginians, and I want to share it with my colleagues. Therefore, I ask that Mr. McElwee's introduction of Senator Byrd be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues from South Carolina for raising this very important issue. I also want to commend my colleague from Colorado for working with senators from South Carolina on this matter. As the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am very interested in ensuring that DOE sites are closed in a timely manner and that the waste is treated and disposed of properly. I want to assure my colleagues that the Strategic Subcommittee will carefully examine this issue as the Senate Armed Services Committee considers the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization bill.