THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The apprehension of a terrorist crossing into the United States by Customs agents just prior to the millennium celebration is one well-known example of the success that we have had in interdicting terrorists before they can strike.
While terrorists have been around for a long time, their actions are becoming increasingly more deadly. In the past 5 years, over 18,000 people someplace around the world have been injured or killed in a terrorist incident. That 18,000 number of persons injured or killed by terrorism in the last 5 years represents a threefold increase over the preceding 5 years.
With the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear weapons as a real threat, the potential for even deadlier attacks is a reality. This makes efforts to prevent attacks even more vital.
Earlier this year, the congressionally mandated National Commission on Terrorism issued its report. The report is called: ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism.'' This report concluded that international terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat, and that countering the growing danger of this threat requires significantly enhancing U.S. efforts.
It further states that priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks using U.S. intelligence and law enforcement as our principal tools to prevent such attacks.
I would also like to cite a recent report by the Commission on America's National Interests. The Commission on America's National Interests is a commission on which Senators ROBERTS, MCCAIN, and myself are members.
The commission's report on ``America's National Interests,''
dated July 2000, lists as a vital interest that:
Terrorist groups be prevented from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them against U.S. citizens, property and troops.
The commission's report goes on to state:
As one of the most free and open societies in the world, the U.S. is also among the most vulnerable to terrorism.......
Protecting American citizens both at home and abroad requires a well-coordinated counter-terrorism effort by all U.S. government agencies, giving due regard for fundamental American civil liberties and values.
The report on ``America's National Interests'' continues:
Given the severity of the potential consequence of a weapon of mass destruction terrorist incident, as well as the rising technical capacity of non-state actors, the U.S. government should attach the highest priority to developing the capacity to preempt these threats if possible, and mitigate their consequences if necessary.
Mr. President, I repeat from the report on ``America's National Interests'' that ``the U.S. government should attach the highest priority to developing the capacity to preempt these threats if possible, and mitigate their consequences if necessary.''
This report could not have been more clear. Yet still another group of experts studying U.S. national security, the U.S. Commission on National Security, commonly known as the Hart-Rudman commission, concluded in its April 2000 report that our No. 1 priority should be to ensure that the United States is safe from the dangers of a new era: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It specifically mentions ``strengthening cooperation among law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, and military forces to foil terrorist plots.......''
The words of these three significant reports, as well as many other Americans, did not go unheeded by the administration. The President recognized the growing importance of law enforcement and intelligence in countering the terrorist threat even before these reports were released. He sent to Congress a request for over $300 million in additional funding for exactly the types of enhanced counterterrorism efforts that these three commissions are recommending.
What has happened in the Congress? Of the approximately $300 million requested, a portion of which was requested in a classified form, as it will be used by various intelligence agencies, $28 million of that $300 million was for reprogramming requests in the fiscal year that is about to conclude on September 30. What happened? That request for reprogramming was rejected, rejected including $10 million for the Department of the Treasury and $18 million for the Department of Justice.
I am sad to report that in the bill before us today, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations request, which begins on October 1, did not fare much better. There was a $71.1 million request for the Department of Justice. This has been completely unfunded in both the House and the Senate appropriations committees and thus in this conference report. There was a $77.2 million request for the Department of the Treasury which should have been included in the bill we are currently debating; $74 million of that remains unfunded.
In addition, the request for the intelligence community was not funded in the fiscal year 2001 legislation. In total, of those amounts which are available for public review, of the $300 million requested by the President, $146.1 million was unfunded.
Let me describe a couple of specific initiatives that are particularly important and that so far have not been funded in either the House or Senate appropriations bill.
First, the administration requested over $40 million to support the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. These are interagency law enforcement groups which combine resources and expertise for a more effective and efficient effort to deter and investigate terrorists. This is a proven concept that brings agencies together to solve problems, hopefully problems before they mature into tragic instances. The Joint Terrorism Task Forces were very successful in deterring and preventing terrorism during the millennium. I cannot understand why this Congress would not support this request.
Second, the President requested $6.4 million to create a unit within the Office of Foreign Asset Control dedicated to uncovering and tracking the financial assets of terrorist organizations. This is an area of law enforcement in which America, in the area of terrorism, is woefully deficient. It is vitally important that we establish this new office and that we gain an insight and an ability to oversee and control terrorist financing. This was a specific recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorism. This item was rejected, and so our woeful deficiency will continue for another year, if the current position of Congress, including the position of the legislation before us this afternoon, becomes law.
In fact, there were several items that were included in the President's request that the Commission on Terrorism specifically recommended. They include increased resources to meet technology requirements, expansion of linguistic capabilities, increased funding for investigative initiatives--all of those unfunded.
[Page: S8792] GPO's PDF
There is also an as yet unfunded request to establish a Center for Anti-Terrorism and Security Training. This will provide a centralized training facility for those on the front lines fighting terrorists around the world, including our own Capitol Police, diplomatic security officers protecting our embassies abroad, and our allies who look to us to help them in their fight against terrorism. The counterterrorism funding I am highlighting is desperately needed. All agencies have agreed
that we need to do more to step up our efforts against terrorism. These requests are supported by the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorism and, in more general terms, the Commission on America's National Interests, and the Hart-Rudman commission.
What I find especially hard to imagine is why we would refuse this $300 million request when it is so widely recognized that the cost of failure, when it comes to terrorism, involves weapons of mass destruction and could be in the billions of dollars. This is an area where we must do absolutely everything we can on the prevention side to avoid, to interdict acts of terrorism before they are inflicted upon our citizens.
Mr. President, there is yet another consequence of the action we are being asked to take by supporting an appropriations bill which is so deficient in meeting this key area of our Nation's security. All too often we are seen as pushing other governments to do more in the fight against terrorism, to help us in an international effort against terrorism. If we are unwilling to support what our own experts tell us is needed, what is in our national interest, how can we be effective in convincing others to do more? I don't think there is an answer to that question. We must practice what we preach.
The good news is there is still time to remedy the situation. I hope the appropriations committees will fund the President's request for counter terrorism funding. This is about a real threat that is here today and cannot be ignored. Failing to take action on this modest request is irresponsible. Those who call for spending more for potential future threats and for increasing spending on other national security priorities cannot ignore the vital national interest, the first-line priority of an effective national protection against terrorism.
I will express my dismay, my shock at what has been done by the Congress thus far by voting against this bill. And should the Congress, in its lack of attention or lack of appropriate recognition of the importance of terrorism, should we pass this appropriations bill, which is so deficient in responding to the challenges of terrorism, then I will urge the President to veto this bill and give the Congress an opportunity to redeem itself from what is potentially a very serious error--placing the national security of the United States at risk.
I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some of my leader time to comment briefly on the pending legislation.
I come to the floor to express my strong objection to the manner in which this was presented to the Senate. It is wrong, it is dangerous, it is shortsighted, and it does a real disservice to this institution, period.
I have no objection to appropriations bills coming to the floor, as they must. I have no objection to perhaps even limiting the amendments at this late date to relevant legislation that may be affected in the bill. But I do have a strong reservation when we gag the Senate, as we have once again, limiting debate about important matters directly relating to tax and appropriations in a way that precludes the right of every Senator to be fully engaged in these deliberations.
I have heard again and again from colleagues on the other side that it is our desire to slow things down--to stop things. Let me say that is poppycock. No one here wants to slow anything down. In just a moment I will present a list for the RECORD of all the things we are prepared to take up this afternoon--this afternoon.
We know why this package was cobbled together in the form and manner in which it now appears before the Senate. It was put together to deny us the right to offer amendments--something we seek to do not because we want to slow things down but because we want a voice.
I am not necessarily opposed to the telephone tax repeal. Senator ROBB has been an extraordinary advocate of that. I give him great credit for getting us this far. But I must say I think it begs the question at this hour, with our Republican colleagues clamoring for 90 percent of the surplus to be used for debt retirement, should we would choose the telephone tax , of all things, as one of the items to be paid for with the remaining 10 percent of the surplus our Republican colleagues suggest should be available for both tax reduction as well as investments?
I am told there is about $28 billion left in the budget if we reserve 90 percent for the surplus. If we assume for the moment that we accept the Republicans' proposal to use 50 percent of that $28 billion for tax reduction and 50 percent for investments, that leaves about $14 billion for tax reduction in the remainder of this year. Fourteen billion dollars isn't a lot of money when you are talking about the proposals we have had to vote on this year, but $14 billion represents what the Republicans would make available for tax cuts.
The telephone tax would use up one-third of what they would allocate for tax reduction in this fiscal year--one-third. Maybe we want to commit one-third of the remaining surplus for tax reduction to the telephone tax .
But this Senate is denying us the opportunity to suggest something else. This Senate is denying us the opportunity to offer amendments and to have a debate. In fact, I must say I will bet you most people are going to vote on this and they don't even have a clue what the telephone tax is. I know the Presiding Officer does. He just noted that to me. But I will venture a guess that a lot of people do not.
That is just one of the problems we have with this course of action.
I don't have any objection to taking up the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I don't have any objection to taking up Legislative Branch appropriations bill. But I do have an objection when the administration informs us that we have virtually eliminated funding for counterterrorism and have not provided the funding necessary for the IRS and we have been denied the opportunity to at least debate these issues.
Then I am told indirectly that, well, we will come up with the money somewhere on another vehicle. I am mystified by that approach. What is it that leads us to think we can find the money
elsewhere, at a later date, if we can't find it now? And if we can't find it now, it just seems to me we are premature in moving the bill forward until we can find it.
There are a lot of specific practical problems that I hope my colleagues share about this approach--problems related to our ability to participate in the process, problems related to our ability to offer amendments, problems related to the fundamental rights of every Senator to be involved in the debate, problems related directly to the substance of the issues on which we are now voting. Those are serious problems, and they shouldn't be minimized. But beyond that, I have fundamental problems with the precedent we are setting here.
There are many who may come into the Senate in future years who, if we continue this process, may come to the conclusion that if it is good on appropriations, why not on any authorization? Why not on a tax bill? Let's just go from committee to conference. Let's forget this Chamber. This Chamber might well be additional office space someday. We don't need a Chamber anymore--not for deliberations, because there are none.
Where does it end? Not in our generation. I am sure this will be a slow process. But, institutionally, anybody who cares about the way the Senate should be run should care about the process we are using now.
I don't know what message it sends to our young Members on either side of
[Page: S8793] GPO's PDF
As I said a moment ago, we have no objection--none--to moving to other bills. I will not do it. But I would love to ask unanimous consent to move, immediately following the conclusion of our debate on this package, to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Guess what. I would get an objection on the other side. I am not sure why. I don't know why. But I know this. We haven't brought it up because somebody over there doesn't want it to come up. That isn't us.
I would love to ask unanimous consent to take up the D.C. appropriations bill, the intelligence authorization bill, and the H-1B bill. Let's take them up. Let's have a debate. Let's offer amendments. I have offered to Senator LOTT that we could take up the H-1B bill with five amendments on a side with an hour limit on each amendment, period. We would be done in a day. I believe we could do it in a day. The other side has rejected this offer.
Don't let anybody say with a straight face or with any credibility that it is Democrats holding things up. Let's get to these bills. Let's get them done. Let's offer amendments. But, for heaven's sake, let's remember this institution. Let's call it the most deliberative body and mean it. Let's recognize the institutional quality.
It degrades us each time something such as this happens.
I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAMS). Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. MURKOWSKI are located in today's RECORD under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are about through with this debate, as demonstrated by the fact that Senators on neither side are coming to the floor. We would be able to vote more rapidly than anticipated except that some Senators have made appointments based on the assumption we would not be voting until 3:30 or 4. However, we have cleared on both sides that we can vote on the adoption of the pending conference report at 3:15 and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the adoption of that time and the waiving of that rule.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents