Find a Security Clearance Job!

Space


AMENDMENT NO. 2077

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on protecting the United States from ballistic missile attack)

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 2077.

Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 371, below line 21, add the following:

(a) Findings: The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles presents a threat to the entire World.

(2) This threat was recognized by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry in February 1995 in the Annual Report to the President and the Congress which states that `[b]eyond the five declared nuclear weapons states, at least 20 other nations have acquired or are attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons--and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most areas where United States forces could potentially be engaged on a large scale, many of the most likely adversaries already possess chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, some of these same states appear determined to acquire nuclear weapons.'.

(3) At a summit in Moscow in May 1995, President Clinton and President Yeltsin commented on this threat in a Joint Statement which recognizes `. . . the threat posed by worldwide proliferation of missiles and missile technology and the necessity of counteracting this threat . . . '.

(4) At least 25 countries may be developing weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for such weapons.

(5) At least 24 countries have chemical weapons programs in various stages of research and development.

(6) Approximately 10 countries are believed to have biological weapons programs in various stages of development.

(7) At least 10 countries are reportedly interested in the development of nuclear weapons.

(8) Several countries recognize that weapons of mass destruction and missiles increase their ability to deter, coerce, or otherwise threaten the United States. Saddam Hussein recognized this when he stated, on May 8, 1990, that `[o]ur missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike it if the need arose.'.

(9) International regimes like the Non-Pro-liferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Missile Technology Control Regime, while effective, cannot by themselves halt the spread of weapons and technology. On January 10, 1995, Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, said with regard to Russia that `. . . we are particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, chemical, and biological materials as well as highly enriched uranium or plutonium, although I want to stress that this is global problem. For example, highly enriched uranium was recently stolen from South Africa, and last month Czech authorities recovered three kilograms of 87.8 percent-enriched HEU in the Czech Republic--the largest seizure of near-weapons grade material to date outside the Former Soviet Union.'.

(10) The possession of weapons of mass destruction and missiles by developing countries threatens our friends, allies, and forces abroad and will ultimately threaten the United States directly. On August 11, 1994, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch said that `[i]f the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.'.

(11) The end of Cold War has changed the strategic environmental facing and between the United States and Russia. That the Clinton Administration believes the environment to have changed was made clear by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry on September 20, 1994, when he stated that `[w]e now have the opportunity to create a new relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, or Mutural Assured Safety.'.

(12) The United States and Russia have the opportunity to create a relationship based on trust rather than fear.

(b) Sense of Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballstic missile attack.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I just wanted to propose this amendment now, since the Senator from Oklahoma, the coauthor of this amendment, is making his opening statement now because perhaps some of the remarks he will make in his opening statement will also reflect on the amendment, which we want to be considered next.

So I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I am pleased today to speak on behalf of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Department Authorization Act. I urge my colleagues to preserve it in its somewhat inadequate but present form.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE. Since the 1991----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I would be glad to yield after the statement.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's statement, I be permitted to make an inquiry of the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I made a unanimous-consent request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Does he yield for that request?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma indicated he had a statement. I merely ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the purposes of that inquiry at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. INHOFE. I would like to ask the Senator to repeat his unanimous-consent request, please.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized for the purposes of making an inquiry of the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that request?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank you.

Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am advised by the Parliamentarian that the Senator from Oklahoma has the floor. If he does not yield, there is no ability to request a parliamentary inquiry.

Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the floor?

Mr. INHOFE. I do not yield until the conclusion of my opening statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, does the Senator object to my unanimous-consent request? I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks I be recognized for purposes of making a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor. If he yields for a unanimous-consent request, it is his prerogative to do so. Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield the floor?

[Page: S11133]
Mr. INHOFE. Not at this time, Madam President.

Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from----

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator indicated he would not object to my simply taking the floor to make a unanimous-consent request of the type I indicated. That is all I am asking at this time.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me continue my opening statement from the top again.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of this fiscal 1996 defense authorization bill. Although I believe it is still inadequate, I think it is as good as we could pass at this time.

Since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the military has been cut, misused, neglected, and otherwise distracted from its ultimate purposes--protecting and preserving America's vital interests. This bill, with its House counterpart, represents a first step towards strengthening America's Armed Forces.

One of the most important messages which voters delivered in 1994 was the need to restore the strength of America's defenses. With this bill, the Senate has clearly had enough of the Clinton administration's weak hand in the national security arena. We have added $7 billion to the administration's request.

It has become fashionable in some circles to assert that now that the cold war is over, there is no longer a threat out there. But history has told us that most wars come with little or no warning. From the attack on Pearl Harbor to the invasion of Korea to the invasion of Kuwait, few could have predicted the size and scope of American military involvement which became necessary in the wake of these unexpected events. The lesson learned the hard way in Pearl Harbor remains true today: We must always be prepared.

President Reagan reminded us many times that we, as Americans, never have the luxury of taking our security for granted. It is up to each generation to take the steps necessary to preserve and pass on the legacy of freedom to the next. With this bill, we are beginning to take up that challenge.

As we look to the future, all we can predict with certainty is that there will be more surprises. What there will be we cannot be sure, but we can make some educated guesses. For instance, the gulf war taught us the growing importance of stealth, of space, and of ballistic missiles. As we look to the future, it is clear that technology will be playing a key role, both in shaping the threats we will be facing and the defenses that we will need.

Madam President, it was not long ago that the former CIA Director Woolsey estimated that there are somewhere between 20 and 25 nations that currently have or are developing weapons of mass destruction, either nuclear, chemical, or biological, and they are also developing the means with which to deliver those.

Today, we are going to have an amendment, the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, which will be addressing that, so I will not elaborate on that at this time but will seek time during the consideration of that amendment.

This is a good bill, but I must express my deep concern with the Senate's failure to support further funding of the B-2 bomber. The House, in its bill, had $553 million. America is reducing her military presence around the world. Budget constraints and the end of the cold war are naturally causing us to pull back our forward deployed forces overseas. But as a world leader, our continuing ability to project power around the world will be critical. Unfortunately, our ability to immediately respond in a crisis is going to be diminished unless we are able to use our technological advantages wisely.

This is why the revolutionary B-2 Stealth bomber is so important for our future arsenal. From bases within our own country, these aircraft can quickly deliver devastating payloads to virtually any target on Earth without refueling. They can penetrate the toughest air defenses with minimal risk to our pilots.

The B-2 multiplies mission cost-effectiveness. Today, the standard bombing run package using escorts, air defense suppression aircraft, refueling tankers, and bombers requires up to 67 aircraft and 132 crew members. The same mission can be completed with only two B-2's and four crew members.

Many Americans have been persuaded that sophisticated weaponry, such as the B-2, are relics of the cold war. They have been told that we can easily discard such systems without diminishing our security in the current world environment. They have been told that there are more important and immediate priorities. It is an easy argument to sell, but I do not buy it, and I plan to make my support for more B-2's clear as the deliberations go on.

For 8 years, Ronald Reagan gave us a policy of `peace through strength,' a policy which invested wisely in defense needs with a special emphasis on America's inherent leadership in advanced technology. I believe proven success of that policy should continue to guide our defense posture. This is why, despite my reservations regarding the B-2, I support this bill. It will help save lives and protect our vital interests in the future.

I congratulate Chairman Thurmond and Senator Nunn for the solid effort, united effort they put forth. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to begin by complimenting both the chairman, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Nunn, for their work, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for presenting a very good bill to the Senate this year. I do not have the honor of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I did serve on the House Armed Services Committee for 8 years. Frankly, I am very pleased with the product that has come out of the committee this year.

I, second, want to associate myself with the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma just made. I believe they help to set the stage for a good debate on what we need to do to provide for the defense of the United States.

Third, Madam President, I want to begin a discussion of the amendment which Senator Inhofe and I have laid down and which I think deals with one of the key parts of the bill that has been presented this year. It is the issue of missile proliferation, and the question of what the United States ought to do about it.

Given the fact that there is some difference of opinion about exactly what the nature of the threat is and when we ought to begin to deal with that threat, it seemed to Senator Inhofe and me that we should add something to the bill in the way of findings and a sense of the Senate which expresses our belief that the American people should be defended from ballistic missile attack.

There are very fine findings currently in the bill. We all agree that those findings are a proper predicate for what follows in the bill. But we also believe that there are some other things that should be added as findings and that the Senate should go on record expressing its sense that Americans should be protected from either accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.

Madam President, let me read the portions of the findings of the amendment which we believe help to lay the predicate for further action the Senate will be taking with respect to the protection of American people from ballistic missile attack.

We say, first of all, that the Senate finds the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles present a threat to the entire world.

This threat was recognized by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry in February of this year in the annual report to the President and the Congress, which states:

Beyond the five declared nuclear weapon states, at least 20 other nations have acquired, or are attempting to acquire, weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them. In fact, in most areas where the United States forces could potentially be engaged on a large scale, many of the most likely adversaries already possess chemical and biological weapons. Moreover, some of these same states appear determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

We think this is an important finding because of this question that has been posed: Why should we be preparing some of the things that we are preparing now? Why should we be testing and developing capable theater missile defenses and beginning to plan for the day when we would develop and eventually deploy a national missile defense system? It is because of the concern that has been expressed in this year's report to the President and Congress by the Secretary of Defense, among others.

[Page: S11134]
Also, recently, in May of this year, at the summit in Moscow, President Clinton and President Yeltsin commented on this threat in a joint statement which recognizes:

. . . The threat posed by worldwide proliferation of missiles and missile technology and the necessity of counteracting this threat.

At least 25 countries may be developing weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for such weapons. We further find that at least 24 countries have chemical weapons programs in various stages of research and development. Approximately 10 countries are believed to have biological weapons programs in various stages of development. And, finally, at least 10 countries are reportedly interested in the development of nuclear weapons.

Several countries recognize that weapons of mass destruction and missiles increase their ability to deter, coerce or threaten the United States Saddam Hussein recognized this when he stated on May 8, 1990:

Our missiles cannot reach Washington. If they could reach Washington, we would strike it if the need arose.

Madam President, we further find in the preliminary findings to the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that international regimes like the nonproliferation treaty, biological weapons convention and the missile technology control regime, while effective, cannot by themselves halt the spread of weapons and technology.

On January 10, 1995, Director of the CIA, James Woolsey, said, with regard to Russia:

We are particularly concerned with the safety of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as highly enriched uranium or plutonium, although I want to stress this is a global problem. For example, highly enriched uranium was recently stolen from South Africa, and last month Czech authorities recovered 3 kilograms of 87.8 percent-enriched uranium in the Czech Republic--the larger seizure of near-weapons-grade material to date outside the former Soviet Union.

That is former CIA Director James Woolsey.

We further find in this resolution that the possession of weapons of mass destruction and missiles by developing countries threatens our friends, allies, and forces abroad, and will ultimately threaten the United States directly. On August 11, 1994, Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Deutch, now Director of the CIA said:

If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong 2 missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk.

(Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, these are not hypotheticals for other countries, other places in the world. This is the United States and our territory. The former Deputy Secretary of Defense says that they would potentially be at risk.

We further find, in finding 11, that the end of the cold war has changed the strategic environment facing and between the United States and Russia. That the Clinton administration believes the environment to have changed was made clear by Secretary of Defense William Perry on September 20, 1994, when he stated:

We now have the opportunity to create a new relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, Mutual Assured Safety.

The United States and Russia have the opportunity to create a relationship based on trust rather than fear.

That is the final finding in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As a result of all of these findings, these factors, of these statements made by the key representatives of this administration, it is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.

Let me focus a moment on that simple one-sentence statement of what the sense of the Senate would be. We should be protected from accidental launch of ballistic missiles. I cannot think of anyone who would disagree with that sentiment. It does not take a star wars or a strategic defense initiative to protect against such an attack. We have the capability to develop, and ultimately deploy, a system which would provide that protection. Inherent within this bill is the beginnings of the development and deployment of such a system.

It is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from intentional ballistic missile attack. Obviously, if there is an intentional attack, we want to be protected from that. We mentioned the Taepo Dong 2 missile under development by the North Koreans. Should they decide to launch an attack against Alaska, for example, who among us would argue that we should not be prepared to meet that threat? Indeed, the mere threat that such an attack could be launched inhibits the conduct of our foreign policy because of the potential of blackmail by a country like North Korea.

To digress a moment to further elaborate on this point, one of the reasons that we have such a difficult time dealing with North Korea today is that North Korea does pose an offensive threat to millions of South Koreans and thousands of American troops against which we have no real defense, because of the proximity of Seoul, Korea to the long-range artillery of North Korea, and because of the deployment of North Korean forces. It is very clear that if there were a North Korean attack or bombardment from their artillery, literally millions of South Koreans and thousands of Americans would be killed before the United States had an opportunity to respond. We simply do not have a defense against that kind of an attack, unless everybody from Seoul, Korea could move back about 30 miles. That is obviously not going to happen.

Because of the nature of this threat, we are in a position to be blackmailed by North Korea. We cannot go in and deal with North Korea as we would like to because they do have a means of inflicting great harm and damage on us and on the people of South Korea. We literally have no way to stop it. The only way to respond to that is by some kind of massive military action that would hopefully roll them back. But the damage would already be done.

That is the same thing with respect to missiles. A missile can be either used for blackmail in the conduct of one country's foreign policy, to push its weight around, or to actually launch against another country in a time of war, in order to either create chaos and inflict damage on civilian populations, or to be launched against military targets. And in order to prohibit that from inhibiting the conduct of our foreign policy, we have to have a way of defending against it. If you do have a way of defending against it, you can essentially say you can build the missiles if you want, deploy them if you want, but you cannot be effective in using them, so we are not going to be bullied.

If you do not have an effective missile defense--and as I quoted, we do not--then we are susceptible to that negative influence of bullying by a country like North Korea. That is why it is important for us to have the means of defending ourselves and our allies, whether troops are deployed abroad, or whether it is the defense of the American homeland--in this case, Alaska--by a threat from the North Koreans.

Finally, it would be the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from limited ballistic missile attack.

The reason we state it that way, Mr. President, is because we are concerned here about a limited attack. We do not believe that there is currently existing a threat of massive, strategic attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles by a country such as Russia, and possibly China, which are the only countries today that could pose that kind of threat to the United States. We do not believe that circumstances warrant the development of a system that would provide a protection against such an attack.

That is why there is no longer an effort to develop a strategic defense, such as was contemplated during the Reagan administration when the cold war was a very real threat to the United States, and when the Soviet Union then was quite belligerent with the United States, and when such a threat actually existed. That is what not we are trying to do.

Now, that is why all we are saying here is that it is the sense of the Senate that all Americans should be protected from accidental, intentional, or limited ballistic missile attack.

That is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Those are the findings. Let me finish my presentation with a couple of other quotations that I think would not necessarily be properly included within the findings, but which I think help to make the case that this is not some hypothetical, this is not something that only paranoid people are concerned about, it is something that at the highest councils in our Government, our intelligence, and the Defense Department, there is concern.

The first reason is because it is not necessarily the development of an indigenous capability by a country that is of concern here. We are concerned about North Korea developing the missiles that could eventually reach the United States. As a matter of fact, the missile that could reach the United States is not even shown on this chart here which illustrates some of the other missiles that are in development, or already developed, and their capabilities.

The CSS-2, for example, is a Chinese missile that has been sold to the Saudi Arabians. It has a range of about 3,000 kilometers. That obviously poses a threat to countries in the Middle East, as well as some European countries.

It is not just the indigenous threat, but the possibility of a sale of one of these missiles to another country. I mention this missile, because this missile was sold by the Chinese to the Saudi Arabians. Saudi Arabians are obviously allies of the United States, and we do not fear that missile would be launched against us by this regime. We also did not fear during the regime of the Shah of Iran that Iran would ultimately be unfriendly to the United States. Of course, that is the situation that exists today.

A country that acquires a weapon like this today, if there should be some instability or other circumstance that changes its government, obviously, it could effectively, and perhaps not in the long-distance future, pose a threat to the United States.

We are first concerned about the indigenous threat, but second, we are concerned about a purchase. That is where the time element comes in. We can give an estimate of how long it takes a country like North Korea to develop a No Dong. It could be another 5 years to develop that. But they could sell a country with great capability in a matter of days or weeks, and the deployment could be a threat to us in a very short period of time.

A third aspect, in addition to the indigenous development and the sale of missiles to be used for military purposes, is, of course, the sale of satellite launch capable missiles. This has been done throughout the world, as well. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the interchange of a satellite to be launched into space for weather prediction, for example, and a warhead of mass destruction, a chemical or biological warhead, or even a nuclear warhead in such a missile.

These missiles are proliferating around the world. Even though they have a peaceful purpose, they can very quickly be used for military purposes, and therefore, for us to base predictions on the fact that an adversary of ours will take a long time to indigenously develop a weapon, again does not adequately and accurately state the intelligence threat to the United States.

We have to be prepared to accept the fact that nations will buy either weapons or buy space launch capable missiles for use as weapons, and that can be done in a very short period of time. We only have to look at previous examples to know it has been done.

As a matter of fact, Iraqi Scuds were purchased from another country and then modified by the Iraqis.

It is not just the indigenous development but the purchase of the weapons and the purchase of satellite delivery missiles that also create part of the problem here.

Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent that other material be printed in the Record at this point, and allow me to reach a conclusion of my statement in support of this amendment for a sense-of-the-Senate statement.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S11135]
[Page: S11136]
Mr. KYL. These missiles are, unfortunately, becoming the weapon of choice of bullies in the world. Because they are relatively inexpensive, they can be used to great effect for blackmail purposes. The Iraqis demonstrated how even an errant launch, as the chairman of the committee noted in his eloquent opening statement, can cause great damage.

Mr. President, 20 percent of all United States casualties in the Iraqi war were from one Scud missile attack, which killed 28 Americans with one missile, because we did not have the capability of defending against that.

A question has been asked here, why now? Why are we so concerned about this now? Well, I did not realize until this morning, when radio reports carried the story, that it was 5 years ago today that Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. I think it is an anniversary worth reflecting on for a moment.

One could easily ask what has changed, knowing that this kind of threat can materialize almost overnight; knowing that we need to be prepared to deal with it; knowing that 28 Americans at one time died from a Scud missile attack--20 percent of all of our casualties came from that--knowing of the destruction that the Scuds directed on the State of Israel; and knowing of our great concern about that, because we could not locate the missile.

The only way we had to deal with it was to try to shoot it down, and finally, knowing after the fact that our Patriot missiles, designed to shoot down aircraft, not missiles, though pressed into action for that purpose, were really only effective to interdict about 30 percent of the Scuds that came their way.

Knowing all of these things, one would imagine that 5 years later, we would have made great strides to protect ourselves against the threats that are posed. The fact of the matter is that virtually nothing has changed. Other than a slightly upgraded investigation of the Patriot missile, we do not have a missile defense. This is 5 years later, a period of time in which we should have been able to develop and deploy an effective missile defense against a weapon like the Scud. We have not done so.

Just taking the theater context and forgetting for a moment the potential threat to the United States, it is clear that we have not adequately pursued a defense against this weapon of choice by the troublemaker nations of the world.

We have not developed and deployed a new sensor. We have not developed and deployed a new missile. We have made some strides in the research, but part of the reason we have not done this is because there has been no clear national mandate, no clear national instruction, to get about the business of doing this. There are all kinds of reasons why.

The fact of the matter is, we need to get on with the business of getting this done. That is why I compliment Senator Nunn and Senator Thurmond for much of what they have included in the bill this year.

We have some small differences we will perhaps need to work on. One thing on which we can all agree at this beginning point of the debate is that there is a threat to be concerned about, and that we do need, as we begin this debate, to at least express the sense of this body that Americans need to be protected against an accidental or a limited ballistic missile attack.

Mr. President, if we cannot agree on that, I suspect the American people would rightly question whether we are the body in which to repose confidence about their future security. I am confident that we can agree to this. Based upon that, we can make some sensible decisions about both the policy embodied in this year's defense bill and the expenditures inherent in the authorization bill.

I look forward to working with the chairman, Senator Nunn, and other members of the committee, and other Members of this body, in working through this bill based on an understanding there is a threat to the United States from ballistic missile attack, and to our forces abroad, and our allies, and it is against this threat we should be protected.

I hope when the time comes, Mr. President, my colleagues here will see fit to support the Kyl-Inhofe amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate.



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list