Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 - Conference Report
INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT -
(Senate - December 08, 2004)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 2845 which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2845) to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment, and the House agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the conference report accompanying S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I highlight three specific terrorism prevention provisions in the conference report, provisions on which I have worked particularly hard to incorporate into this new bill, provisions which I am pleased to see enacted into law. These provisions make important improvements to our Federal criminal law, improvements that are critical to strengthening our ability to fight and win the war against terrorism.
The first two provisions involve strengthening our efforts to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not get into the hands of terrorists. Earlier this year, I introduced two bills, S. 2664 and S. 2665. I am pleased to see that both of those bills have now largely been adopted by the conference.
S. 2664, also known as the Prevention of Terrorist Access to Destructive Weapons Act, can be found at Title VI, Subtitle J of the new bill reported by the conference. This provision creates new federal prohibitions and strengthens current federal prohibitions against the possession of four categories of destructive items: (1) Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, known as "MANPADS", (2) atomic weapons, (3) radiological dispersal devices, known as "dirty bombs", and (4) the variola virus, the virus that causes smallpox. There is no legitimate private purpose for possessing these items. Moreover, the potential for terrorist use of these items is among the most serious threats to our homeland security. By prohibiting the unauthorized possession of these items, and by imposing strong penalties on violators, these provisions will play a major role in preventing and disrupting future terrorist attacks, by depriving terrorists of access to some of the most highly destructive and dangerous items civilized society has ever faced.
Specifically, these provisions would punish unlawful possession as well as unlawful production or transfer of these items, and includes attempts, threats, and conspiracies related to such acts. These provisions generally impose tough, mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years, and in some cases impose sentences up to and including life imprisonment. Tough penalties like these are appropriate for the most dangerous threats our nation faces, and that is exactly the kind of threat that these items pose. We may not be able to deter the most dedicated of our terrorist enemies around the world from wanting to harm us, but we can deter individuals who serve at lower levels in terrorist organizations, and we can deter those who might try to profit from terrorism by supplying terrorists with such items.
I would like to spend just a brief moment highlighting the particular problem of MANPADS. MANPADS are lightweight, surface-to-air missile systems designed to take down aircraft. MANPADS fire an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile equipped with a guidance system designed to target low-flying aircraft, typically around the time of landing or departure. They can be carried and fired by a single individual, from a distance. Because they are small, they are easy to conceal and smuggle. They are relatively cheap-ranging from $25,000 to $80,000 each-take only seconds to prepare, require minimal training, and have a flight time of just three to ten seconds.
By some estimates, there are at least 500,000 MANPADS in circulation around the globe. Although most MANPADS are thought to be under the control of an established military, as many as a thousand MANPADS are believed by some to be in the hands of al-Qaeida and other terrorist groups. Coalition forces reportedly captured nearly 5,600 missiles during the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reported last year that MANPADS "are widely available in the world and do have the ability to shoot down aircraft and helicopters, and from time to time it happens in various locations." He said there are "enormous numbers" of such weapons still in Iraq-"have to be more than hundreds. ..... There are weapon caches all over that country. They were using schools, hospitals, mosques to hide weapons."
A 2000 State Department report stated that "one of the leading causes of loss of life in commercial aviation worldwide has been from MANPADS ..... attacks, with over 30 aircraft lost." According to a Congressional Research Service report issued last year, there have been at least 36 known missile attacks on commercial planes in the last 25 years; 35 of those incidents took place in war-torn areas, mainly in Africa. For example, in 1983 and 1984, Angolan rebels shot down two Boeing 737s. In the first incident, all 130 people on board died, but in the second attack, the plane managed to land without fatalities after being hit at an altitude of 8,000 feet. In 1998, a Boeing 727 was shot down in the Democratic Republic of Congo, killing 41. And in November 2002, in Mombasa, Kenya, two missiles were launched against a chartered Israeli Boeing 767 just after take off for Tel Aviv, Israel. The pilot reported spotting smoke trails near his plane, and some of the 261 passengers said they heard an explosion. The attempted attack has been linked to al-Qaida, and occurred on the same day as an al-Qaida-linked bombing of a nearby resort hotel. Shoulder-launched missiles also brought down several smaller aircraft during the invasion of Iraq, including a Chinook helicopter that crashed last November, killing 16. In January, an Air Force C-5 transport plane carrying 63 troops was struck by a surface-to-air missile as it left Baghdad Airport, but it landed safely.
Accordingly, MANPADS are widely recognized as one of the greatest threats to civil aviation today. And just last year, the President agreed with other world leaders at a G-8 conference to a series of controls on MANPADS. S. 2664 is a critical part of the President's effort to control and combat the proliferation of MANPADS, and I am pleased that the conference has seen fit to incorporate the provisions of that bill into its report.
In addition to MANPADS, S. 2664 also targets three other destructive devices. No one questions the obvious danger posed by allowing atomic weapons and radiological dispersion devices, or dirty bombs, to get into the hands of terrorists. In addition, the variola virus is the causative agent of smallpox-an extremely serious, contagious, and often fatal disease. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control has classified variola as one of the biological agents that poses the greatest threat for public health impact. It has a high potential for large-scale dissemination. Accordingly, it may be attractive to terrorists as a biological weapon. These provisions, I am pleased to see, have also been incorporated into the conference report.
I will just add a quick word about S. 2665, also known as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibition Improvement Act. The provisions of S. 2665 can be found at Title VI, Subtitle I of the new bill. Those provisions generally expand current federal criminal prohibitions against the use and proliferation of WMD, both domestically and abroad, and fills a number of gaps in current law.
They amend the current federal weapons of mass destruction statute by criminalizing all WMD attacks on foreign government property in the United States, as well as U.S. government property, and expanding the current prohibition on the use of WMD to include any acts affecting interstate commerce in a variety of ways. They also amend the federal biological agents and toxins law by extending the prohibition to possession by agents of terrorist nations or terrorist organizations.
With respect to foreign WMD threats, the bill amends a provision of the Atomic Energy Act to prohibit participation outside of the United States in the unauthorized development as well as production of nuclear material, and creates a new criminal code section to forbid the provision of material support to, or any other participation in, any WMD program of a terrorist organization or terrorist nation.
The third and final provision I want to highlight involves the perpetration of cruel hoaxes against the families of military personnel and terrorism hoaxes generally. I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of S. 2204, also known as the Stop Terrorist and Military Hoaxes Act, and pleased to see that provisions of those bills have been incorporated into the conference report.
It is disturbing to think that anyone would want to engage in the false impersonation of a military officer in order to harass, terrify, or otherwise cause mental distress to military families. I cannot fathom why a human being would want to conduct a crank call to the family of a member of the Armed Forces and falsely inform them that their loved one has been killed in the line of duty.
Yet during the recent war in Iraq, that is precisely what happened. Several families reportedly received hoax telephone calls informing them that a family member serving the military in Iraq had been killed or captured. Not surprisingly, the families who received these calls were terribly distressed. It must have been a cruel experience indeed to have to wait and work to confirm that their family member was actually alive and safe.
Hoaxes against military families and terrorism hoaxes must be punished, because they utilize scarce resources that need to be focused on combating terrorism, and distract the attention of our law enforcement and our military away from our terrorist enemies. But that's not the only reason. Hoaxes are cruel. They are mean-spirited. And they can be very dangerous. I want to read a portion of a letter from one dutiful U.S. serviceman to his uncle. The letter is dated April 18, 2003, and it reads: "One guy died bringing me a sat. phone so I could call Dad to let him know I was alive. It made me think of 'Saving Private Ryan.' Was it worth his life and the risk of the others to bring me a phone? I know it was a relief to all of you to hear I was okay. Now I feel I must make my life worth his. I don't know if I can do that." No one should have to die in the line of duty in order to correct a hoax. And no one should have to live with the emotional pain that this serviceman so eloquently describes in this poignant letter.
Under current law, acts of impersonation are illegal only if the person demands or obtains something of value from the victim. That does not include military family hoaxes like the ones described here. In addition, many terrorism hoaxes fall outside the definitions of current law. S. 2204 fills these major gaps in the law, and I am pleased to see these provisions incorporated into the conference report.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT