Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 76 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 76 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6425-S6440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 3263

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator
from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Lautenberg, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S6426]]

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Feingold,
proposes an amendment numbered 3263.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the support of new nuclear
weapons development under the Stockpile Services Advanced Concepts
Initiative or for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP))

At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

SEC. 3122. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NEW NUCLEAR
WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT UNDER STOCKPILE SERVICES
ADVANCED CONCEPTS INITIATIVE OR FOR ROBUST
NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section
3101(a)(1) for the National Nuclear Security Administration
for weapons activities may be obligated or expended for the
following:
(1) The Stockpile Services Advanced Concepts Initiative for
the support of new nuclear weapons development.
(2) The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, who
offered this amendment on a previous occasion, in the Chamber. We have
worked closely together. Because of the necessities of time, I hope the
Chair will recognize her to make remarks, and then I will try to gain
recognition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts. I particularly thank him for being the main sponsor of
this amendment.
This amendment is something about which I feel passion, and the
reason I do is because the country, of which I am a part, in this bill
authorizes the opening of a nuclear door to the development of new
nuclear weapons.
One of the things I realized is Americans forget what a nuclear
weapon does. Both Senator Kennedy and I were very young teenagers when
the first nuclear bomb was dropped. The first nuclear bomb that was
dropped was 15 kilotons, and it was dropped on Hiroshima. This is what
Hiroshima looked like when that bomb was dropped.
Let me show you what a 21-kiloton nuclear bomb did, because that was
the second bomb that was dropped, and that was on Nagasaki. In the
course of a year, between the two cities, 200,000 people died--
200,000--many of them in the most horrible of ways from radiation
sickness.
Radiation is a major problem whenever you look at a new nuclear
weapon--where it can be contained, how it can be contained, and where
it cannot be contained.
In this bill, there is authorization for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker
buster. In this bill, there is a request for authorization of $9
million for advanced nuclear weapons concepts which translates into
strategic battlefield nuclear weapons under 5 kilotons--battlefield
nuclear weapons.
Let me show you the depth to which a bomb has to penetrate to prevent
nuclear fallout. If it is two-tenths of a kiloton, it has to go down 70
feet, to 120 feet, and then it throws off 25,000 tons of radioactive
fallout.
If it is 1 kiloton, at 80 feet, it throws up 60,000 tons of
radioactive fallout and would have to go down to 220 feet not to throw
out any radioactive fallout. Five kilotons, if it goes down 320 feet,
it will not throw off radioactive fallout, but at 130 feet, it throws
out 220,000 tons of radioactive fallout. At 100 kilotons, it would have
to go down to 800 to 1,000 feet not to throw off any radioactive
fallout.
That is what we are talking about. That is what is authorized in this
bill: a nuclear bunker buster of 100 kilotons, and there is no known
way to drive a bomb 800 to 1,000 feet into the earth because there is
no known casing strong enough to drive that bomb down to that depth.
So I ask the question: Why are we doing this? Why are we spending
what over 5 years will be $500 million on this program? And why are we
doing it when it is going to encourage the very proliferation
everything about us wants to prevent?
We now know through newspaper articles that India may be looking at
what is called a boutique nuclear weapon, a battlefield nuclear weapon.
We lead the way. We do not want other nations to go ahead and develop
this, and this country has the most sophisticated conventional military
in the world.
I support this amendment which essentially would eliminate the
authorization for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the advanced
nuclear weapon concept.
I want to point out when this administration came into office, they
put out a document called the Nuclear Posture Review in 2002. This
Nuclear Posture Review, according to press reports, actually stated the
United States would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons in
certain circumstances.
This document named seven countries against whom we would consider
launching a nuclear first strike. Those seven countries as listed in
2002 were North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, China, and Russia. It
also proposed a new triad in which nuclear and conventional weapons
coexist along the same continuum. This effectively blurs the
distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and suggests that
they could be used as an offensive weapon.
In addition, the Nuclear Posture Review said we need to develop new
types of weapons so we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances
and against a wider range of targets, such as hard and deeply buried
targets, or to defeat chemical or biological agents.
I have now asked Secretary Rumsfeld, as a member of the Defense
Appropriations Committee 2 years running, about this. The first year he
said this is just a study; that is all. This year a week ago when I
asked him, he said clearly, with the amount of underground activity
that exists in the world, and it is pervasive in country after country
that people have tunneled underground--North Korea is a perfect
example; certainly Iran is--we have found this in country after
country, and the question is, If that is a problem, what might be done
about it. Your first choice would be to find some obviously
conventional way to do it. They have looked and looked and looked, and
this additional way is at least, in my view, worth studying.
In addition, the Congressional Research Service says the fiscal year
2005 budget request seems to cast serious doubt on the assertions that
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is only a study because budget
projections over the next 5 years is nearly $500 million for this
program. So it is more than a study. It is a real program that is
underway. I think it is a huge mistake.
I indicated that there is no way today to sink a nuclear weapon
deeply enough into the earth to prevent radioactive fallout. Let me
show what that fallout would do. This is the predicted radioactive
fallout from a 300-kiloton explosion in west Pyongyang, North Korea,
using historical weather data for the month of May. We see what the
fallout would be. This makes no sense. We are not going to use a weapon
either on a battlefield or as a bunker buster that spews out
radioactive nuclear fallout. Why reopen the nuclear door? Why have
other nations look at America and say, America is going to do this;
maybe we should do it? India, Pakistan, historic enemies, both nuclear
capable countries, rumors are that one now is going to develop a
tactical battlefield nuclear weapon. They see us doing it; therefore,
it is all right for them to do it.
According to press reports, in a Nuclear Posture Review, one of the
countries we might consider a first use, North Korea. We then find
North Korea breaks the agreed formula. North Korea is producing a
nuclear capability. It makes no sense for the strongest military on
Earth, the most sophisticated conventional military on Earth, to say,
once again, we must reopen the nuclear door, and we must begin a new
generation of nuclear weapons.
The people of California do not want this. I do not think the people
of any State want that. So I believe very strongly in this amendment. I
hope to discuss it more on Tuesday. I will do everything in my power to
fight every way I can the reopening of this nuclear door.
The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and Advanced Concepts Initiative
are only part of a movement to expand the development of new nuclear

[[Page S6427]]

weapons. There are also plans to develop a modern pit facility, and
that modern pit facility would provide the capacity to create up to 450
more plutonium pits per year. The plutonium pit is the shell which is
effectively the trigger of a nuclear device which compresses and
therefore detonates. That is not necessary to maintain the current
nuclear numbers that we have. It is only necessary if you are going to
build new nuclear. In addition, last year the Administration urged
Congress to eliminate the Spratt-Furse provision which for the past 10
years provided that there could be no research, no development, no
study of low-yield nuclear weapons.
So the evidence is there that this administration is proceeding along
the lines to reopen the nuclear door to develop a new generation of
nuclear weapons while at the same time preaching to the world, thou
shalt not; we are opposed to nuclear proliferation. Yet we are willing
to open that door and proliferate ourselves.
In my view, this is hypocrisy. In my view, this is not good public
policy. In my view, this is immoral and unethical.
I represent a constituency that does not think we need a new
generation of nuclear weapons. So this amendment would remove that
authorization from the Defense authorization bill, and I stand in
support of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
would like to first reflect on some remarks that would have been
presented by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Warner, were he able to be here. Then I will make a couple of comments
on my own as well.
He points out that for the past 2 years, the Department of Energy has
requested funding or legislation for several nuclear-weapons-related
activities, including a feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth
penetrator and the advanced concepts initiative.
These requests generated significant debate in the Congress, both
last year and in the previous year. Last year, Congress decided to
authorize research and the feasibility studies on advanced concepts and
the robust nuclear earth penetrator, while ensuring that the Congress
has the final say on whether more advanced development activities may
proceed in the future.
So it is strictly up to Congress as to whether we would authorize
anything in the future, and that has nothing to do with the bill that
is before us today.
Specifically, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2004 prohibits the Department of Energy from proceeding to the
engineering/development, production or deployment phases of the robust
nuclear earth penetrator, or a low-yield nuclear weapon, unless
specifically authorized by Congress.
This is a prudent way to handle a very sensitive issue, which is
deserving of the Congress's most careful oversight. I believe we struck
a proper balance which will allow our weapons scientists, engineers,
and technicians to conduct necessary research and studies to ensure
that they maintain the ability to respond to any future military
requirements from the Department of Defense.
We know rogue nations are increasingly developing hardened and deeply
buried targets where they can conduct command, control, and
communications operations, operate laboratories to produce and store
weapons of mass destruction, and engage in other activities.
Pursuant to military requirements from the Department of Defense to
address hardened and deeply buried targets, the National Nuclear
Security Administration is doing a feasibility study to determine
whether an existing nuclear weapon can be modified so that it can
destroy these hardened targets--I repeat, an existing nuclear weapon,
not a new nuclear weapon. The feasibility study is also trying to
determine what collateral damage would result in such an event.
The need for validating this capability is well documented over
several preceding administrations. Increased urgency to develop a
capability to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, both
conventional and nuclear, was identified in the Quadrennial Defense
Review, also in the Nuclear Posture Review, and the Hard and Deeply
Buried Target Capstone Report and the HDBT report to the Congress.
Advanced penetrators armed with conventional warheads have a very
limited capability. They can only address relatively shallow targets
whose location is known precisely.

I would parenthetically note that we also have photographs at the
very beginning of the gulf war where we thought we had identified the
location of Saddam Hussein. Very precise weaponry was deployed to try
to penetrate the bunkers and facilities in which we thought the command
and control was located. You remember the photographs of the concrete,
layer upon layer upon layer, and hardened steel intermeshed with that
concrete, none of which, of course, was penetrated enough to destroy
the target we wanted to destroy. Only nuclear weapons can address the
deeply buried targets that are protected by manmade or even hard
geology. Our current nuclear penetrator, the B6-111, is only capable of
penetrating a few feet of frozen soil and is incapable of attacking
successfully a growing number of these hardened targets.
The feasibility study on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is
focused on technical issues related to adapting an existing nuclear
weapon to meet a spectrum of nuclear requirements for hardened and
deeply buried targets, including survival through impact and
penetration of hard geology. While the feasibility study on the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator will allow the Department of Energy to
determine if the capability of destroying the HDBTs is possible, the
current authorization will not result in a new or modified nuclear
weapon.
Again I want to emphasize that the National Defense Authorization Act
for the fiscal year 2004 included a provision requiring a specific
authorization from the Congress before the Secretary of Energy can
proceed to the engineering/development phase or subsequent phase of a
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or a low-yield nuclear weapon.
I support the National Nuclear Security Administration's ability to
continue the feasibility study and the Advanced Concepts Initiative,
and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, which is, if
anything, premature because of the points I have just made.
I will note in closing that it is possible to show photographs of a
flattened Tokyo during World War II that was not bombed with a nuclear
weapon or a burned-out Dresden, Germany. It is possible to show a lot
of destruction in war caused by either nuclear or conventional weapons.
But that is not what we are talking about nor are we talking about
opening the nuclear door, as was mentioned. No new nuclear weapon is
envisioned here. What we are talking about, again, is a feasibility
study to use something we already have to destroy a target.
I would answer the question, Why would we want to do this? There are
a lot of intelligence reports we cannot get into on the Senate floor
that discuss the propensity for potential enemies of the United States
to deeply bury what they don't want us to be able to destroy--whether
it be weapons of mass destruction, production or storage or launch
capability facilities or command and control or other kinds of targets
we may need to deal with in a time of war. Why would we want to deny
ourselves the ability to destroy those kinds of targets?

The point was mentioned that Secretary Rumsfeld testified. What did
he testify to? That this was worth studying. He never said we were
proceeding, because the law would prohibit that. That is all he said,
that this is worth studying. Indeed it is.
Why does the 5-year budget requirement carry out a larger sum of
money? Simply because that is what we require. We say to the DOE: Even
though you have a 1-year number here, what would it look like if you
proceeded 5 years out? And they have to tell us. But that is a
hypothetical number because we have not authorized anything beyond the
number we are talking about here.
The final point. Once we start talking about nuclear weaponry, a lot
of very extraneous arguments get brought into the picture. I suggest we
not go down that road because it is not necessary. It has nothing to do
with this debate.

[[Page S6428]]

One of the arguments is, why would we want to begin testing nuclear
weapons when we are trying to convince these other countries such as
Pakistan and India, and so on, not to do so? I remind my colleagues
that long after the United States imposed a moratorium on all nuclear
testing, it was not just India or Pakistan but the North Koreans who
were trying to develop a weapon. The French and the Chinese tested
weapons after our moratorium was declared. So it is fallacious to say
if only we would forego any testing of any kind, then the other
countries would forego it as well. History shows that is a fallacious
argument.
My point is let's not get into the scary discussion of reopening the
nuclear window with an amendment that would prohibit us from continuing
to study something that all of our defense people say we need to
continue to study, and that is whether an existing weapon could be used
to destroy a target we may need to destroy at some time in the future.
As long as Congress has the ultimate say as to whether we would proceed
with the development or deployment of the weapon--and we have not done
that--it is absolutely not necessary for us to adopt an amendment such
as this that would cripple us from even looking into the subject. That
would be a Luddite position for a country like the United States with
all of the responsibilities we have to take.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when we have the
opportunity to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to join with my
colleague and friend, the Senator from California, offering this
amendment with my other colleagues.
Just to summarize very briefly, the development of these nuclear
weapons signals a dangerous direction in our nuclear policy. It weakens
our ability to ask other countries to give up their nuclear programs.
If we build these nuclear weapons, the costs are clear. No one will
believe we are serious about nuclear nonproliferation. Developing new
nuclear weapons sends a mixed message that undermines all of our calls
for nonproliferation. When we criticize Iran and North Korea for their
nuclear weapons development, they point back to ours.
There is little doubt that we would be starting a new arms race.
Although it is too soon to tell who will follow suit, few developments
in the quantity or quality of nuclear weapons have gone unmatched by
other powers. To start a costly new arms race for these weapons of
little utility is, I believe, a mistake.
At the same time, the benefits are not clear. Opponents will just
build deeper bunkers, out of the range of new weapons. We will build
weapons with deeper range and our enemies will again build deeper
bunkers.
But even more compelling is the fact that conventional weapons will
do the job against deeply buried targets. All bunkers must have air
intakes, energy sources, and entries; and secure those through
conventional means and you have essentially secured the bunker, making
these new nuclear weapons programs effectively useless.
In the end, the Department of Energy would like us to buy something
that we do not need, that we will never use, that endangers us by its
mere existence, and that makes our important diplomatic goals much more
difficult to achieve.
I hope we will have the acceptance of our amendment.
Mr. President, having outlined what I believe to be the principal
reasons for the amendment, I am going to take a few moments to go into
some detail now about what is at risk.
As I mentioned, we are on the threshold of a new nuclear arms race.
Instead of curbing the spread and the development of nuclear arms, the
Bush administration wants us to build a new generation of nuclear
weapons. I believe this is a dangerous and reckless policy that will
put Americans at even greater risk in an increasingly dangerous world.
The nuclear weapons the administration is developing go by such terms
as ``mini-nukes'' and ``bunker busters.'' They may not possess the
yield of the nuclear warheads of the cold war era, but a mushroom cloud
is still a mushroom cloud. They can still cause monumental destruction,
massive casualties, and long-term environmental damage to entire
regions of the world. They will encourage other countries to follow our
example and produce a new generation of nuclear weapons of their own.
Their existence makes it even more likely that nuclear weapons could
fall into the hands of terrorists.
On issue after issue, the Bush administration has arrogantly
abandoned cooperation of the allies in favor of ``my way or the
highway'' policies that alienate us from the world, from its rejection
of the Kyoto Treaty against global warming to misguided occupation of
Iraq. This administration's policies have made the world more dangerous
for Americans, and the development of a new generation of nuclear arms
is another such policy. These nuclear weapons programs must be stopped.
The administration requested a total of $34.2 million for the
development of these new nuclear weapons. Our amendment would stop this
money from going toward these new nuclear weapons and would direct the
money toward other priorities such as increasing the safety of our
existing stockpile, or environmental cleanup of nuclear materials.
The administration's funding request for these programs is a
continuation of the dangerous new direction this administration is
taking in our nuclear weapons policy.
The administration's Nuclear Posture Review acknowledged this,
stating it ``puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role
of nuclear''--this is in the Nuclear Posture Review, 8 January 2002.
Building on the QDR--the overall review of our defense capability--the
Nuclear Posture Review ``puts in motion a major change in our approach
to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and
presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.''
Why? Because the administration intends to go ahead not only in the
research but in the development of these weapons systems. We will hear
from the other side: ``Oh, no, we aren't, Senator.'' All you have to do
is look in the legislation itself. There it is on page 378--the
limitation of availability of funds for advanced nuclear weapons
concept limitation. Under the funds authorized to be appropriated this
year, they may be obligated or expended for the purpose of additional
or exploratory studies under an advanced nuclear weapons concept
initiative until 30 days after the date on which the Administrator for
Nuclear Security submits to the congressional defense committees a
detailed report on the activities for such studies on the initiatives
that are planned for 2005.
There it is. Is that what the administration and is that what the
Senate is relying on to say they are going to have to come back here
for another action in terms of the development and the testing of
nuclear weapons?
Look at what the language says--until 30 days after the date on which
a report goes to the committee. They can go ahead.
Let us see what they are intending. This is a pass. Those who rely on
that language said, ``Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, we have
effectively addressed your needs.'' They cannot go ahead in terms of
development or testing because we have language in there to prohibit
it.

That is not accurate. That is not accurate. I have read the operative
language in the Defense authorization bill for this year's funding.
They can do anything they want after they give notification. That isn't
any prohibition for this year.
We can ask, What do they mean? What do they intend?
Let us look at what Linton Brooks, Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, says. He is the top person on nuclear
weapons. He says on December 5, 2003: ``On behalf of the
administration, I would like to thank you''--
This was a memoranda to the directors of some of the laboratories. I
will include the page in the Record.
``On behalf of the administration, I would like to thank you and your
staff for helping us to support this important effort. We are now free
to explore a range of technical options.''
This is after Congress repealed the amendment which prohibited mini-

[[Page S6429]]

nukes. That was in the law. And the last Congress repealed that action.
Here is the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration:
``We are now free to explore a range of technical options. We should
not fail to take advantage of this opportunity.''
Look what else Linton Brooks said:
``I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable. I think
that's just an inherent part of deterrence. If it is usable, they can
be developed, and we ought to use it.''
You can ask, How do we know the administration is serious in pursuing
the bunker buster? How do we know that? All we have to do is look at
the 5-year budget the administration has submitted.
As it moves on through in the development of the bunker buster, you
will find as it increases--it has a total appropriations for this whole
project of some $484 million over the next 5 years. For studies? For
technical research? That is for the robust nuclear penetrator. Research
is $484 million and $82 million for the small nuke. If you look in
their budget, that is what it has.
Look in the details of what they expect each year. And when you come
to 2007, you will find it is planning development in 2007. It has the
technical language.
If I am wrong, I hope those on the other side will correct me. If
this language does not mean development, correct me. If applicable,
RNEP will move to level 6.3 authority, given the appropriate
authorization--that means effectively the development in 2007 and the
testing in 2009. It is in the 5-year program. This is what they are
intending to do. That is why this amendment is so important.
It is very clear what the intention of the budget proposal is from
the statement of the key administration officials who are dealing with
the development of nuclear weapons and by the statement of the Nuclear
Posture Review in and of itself. That is the direction we are going.
We believe we should say we are not going to go in this direction. We
do not want to have another nuclear arms race.
One of the great successes of Democratic and Republican Presidents
over the period since the end of World War II was being able to contain
the nuclear arms race. We came dangerously close during the Cuban
missile crisis of a nuclear exchange. But we have been able to avoid
it, and we have seen progress made with the different arms control
agreements which have been signed and supported by Republicans and
Democrats alike.
Why in the world, when we are trying to contain the nuclear
capability of North Korea and Iran, are we going out and beginning to
have another nuclear arms race when we have the most feared military in
the world right now? That is the argument that must be addressed on the
other side to those who want to support this particular program.
Development of these nuclear weapons is part of that ill-advised
transformation. It returns us to the dangerous dynamics of the world
when our nuclear scientists competed with our rivals to develop the
latest technology, our arsenals were on highest alert, and we were only
minutes away from nuclear attack.
The administration's nuclear posture review directs the Department of
Defense to look into the possible modification to existing weapons to
provide additional yield flexibility in the stockpile and improve the
earth-penetrating weapons to counter the increased use of potential
adversaries of hardened and deeply buried facilities, referring to the
bunker buster. In addition, the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories
were to look into the weapons that reduce collateral damage, the so-
called mini-nukes.
Last year, the House Energy and Water Subcommittee raised serious
concerns about our Nation's nuclear weapons program. They had extensive
hearings on this. The Department of Energy is proposing, and this is
their conclusion of the House committee report:

The Department [of Energy] is proposing to rebuild,
restart, and redo and otherwise exercise every capability
that was used over the last forty years of the Cold War and
at the same time prepare for a future with an expanded
mission for nuclear weapons.

That is what the Republican House committee concluded, after
extensive hearings on this particular issue. The House Energy and Water
Subcommittee thought the pursuit of a broad range of new initiatives
was premature until the Department of Energy could demonstrate that it
could adequately care for the nuclear weapons we already have, which
makes sense.
The committee cut the funding for the mini-nukes program, refusing to
``support redirecting the management resources and attention to a
series of new initiatives.''
Chairman Hobson's criticisms ring just as true today. Our amendment
would similarly cut the funding for new nuclear weapons programs.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2005 contains $9 million for
the Advanced Concepts Initiative, which funds research into the
programs. This is an increase of 50 percent from last year's level of
$6 million.
The low-yield nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons with a yield up to
5 kilotons. But these mininukes are very deadly. A 5-kiloton bomb is
half the size of the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima, capable of killing
hundreds of thousands of people and making the target radioactive for
decades to come.
Based on questions about their battlefield utility, Congress banned
the research and development of these weapons for over 10 years. As
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first gulf war, Colin
Powell asked for a review of options for using tactical nuclear weapons
on the battlefield. He rejected all of them. Colin Powell rejected all
of them because he concluded they have no usefulness on the
battlefield.
Unfortunately, last year, at the administration's request, Congress
repealed the ban and allowed research into these weapons to go forward.
I disagreed with that action and joined with my colleague from
California in an amendment to retain the ban. Many supported repealing
the ban because they believed the administration would not field these
new weapons. This is simply not true.
The administrator's nuclear weapons chief, Linton Brooks, says, as I
mentioned: ``I have a bias in favor of the lowest useable yield because
I have a bias in favor of . . . things that might be useable.''

That is a clear intention of what a leading person for the
administration believes and feels about the usability of small nuclear
weapons.
The administration wants these weapons because it believes our
existing nuclear weapons are too large to be used. It wants to develop
a generation of more useable nuclear weapons. In creating a more
useable nuclear weapon, the administration is making it more likely
that the United States would use such a weapon, increasing the risks of
escalation and nuclear war.
This chart shows a detonation outside of Damascus. This would be a 5-
kiloton bomb that was detonated in a hypothetical bunker in the Middle
East, in Damascus, on a typical day. Over half a million people would
be wounded or killed from such explosion, and the fallout pattern would
extend from Damascus into the Mediterranean Sea. The detonation of even
a 1-kiloton nuclear weapon at a depth of less than 50 feet will create
a crater larger than the World Trade Center and spew a million cubic
feet of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.
According to Michael May, the former Director of Lawrence Livermore
Nuclear Laboratory, one of our premier research labs, ``Scientists say
even a low-yield nuclear strike on a bio-warfare storage bunker will
dig a large, hot crater and blast a witches's brew of weaponized germs
and radioactive fallout into the air.''
This next chart gives some idea about what that might look like. We
can realize the size of the hole only if we can see the observation
post that allegedly can hold 20 people. They are right on the edge of
that very substantial crater for the 1-kiloton bomb, with the thousands
of tons of radioactive material which comes from that.
For those who argue that the advanced weapons concepts program is
necessary to preserve the intellectual base of nuclear weapons
scientists, one

[[Page S6430]]

of the prime reasons being recommended before our committee is because
we want to keep occupied our nuclear scientists so they will be
energized in their work.
This amendment would not stifle their ability to study nuclear
weapons. There is plenty of work to be done on stockpile security, on
the nuclear weapons capability of other nations. This amendment would
leave the money available for research in the nuclear weapons field but
would prevent it from being spent on nuclear weapons research.
The robust nuclear earth-penetrator, the so-called bunker buster, is
a nuclear weapon that will burrow into the ground 10 to 50 feet before
detonating. The administration is currently studying the feasibility of
putting existing nuclear weapons with yields up to 300 kilotons into an
earth-penetrating casing. The bunker buster is designed to strike
deeply buried, hardened bunkers, which could be fortified below 100 to
300 feet of concrete.
Earth-penetrating weapons would spray millions of tons of radioactive
waste into the atmosphere, creating a plume of deadly fallout,
according to nuclear physicists.
Robert Peurifoy, the retired vice president of Sandia National
Laboratories, another premier nuclear weapons laboratory, had this to
say:
``If you can find somebody in a uniform in the Defense Department who
can talk about the need for nuclear bunker busters without laughing,
I'll buy him a cup of coffee. It's outlandish. It's stupid. It is an
effort to maintain a payroll at the weapons labs.''
Opponents will argue that we are simply funding a study, that there
is no intent to go any further. But last year Fred Celec, former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters in the Bush
administration, was asked about these bunker busters and he stated that
if a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash
through hard rock or concrete and still explode, ``it will ultimately
get fielded.''
In May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said the bunker buster ``is a study.
It is nothing more and nothing less.'' This study was planned to cost
$15 million for fiscal years 2003 to 2005. In fiscal year 2004, based
on concerns about the program, Congress cut the appropriations to $7.5
million. But this year, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request
challenged that and the administration requested $27.6 million for the
study and revealed that it planned to spend $485 million over the next
5 years.
Surely an investment of that magnitude is not just a study but a
quantum leap towards deployment of this dangerous weapon. In fact, in
that plan the administration stated its intent to move in a development
stage.
Whatever their size, current deployed nuclear weapons must be
detonated close to the ground in order to kill chemical or biological
agents, creating a great deal of nuclear fallout. If the detonation is
underground, all the debris becomes radioactive and disperses through
the air. Fallout can be reduced by detonating the weapons at a higher
altitude, but that reduces their effectiveness against chemical or
biological weapons.
Bunker busters require pinpoint accuracy to hit deeply buried,
hardened bunkers that may contain chemical or biological weapons. They
require precise intelligence on the location of the target because even
an enhanced radiation weapon has a very short range of effectiveness to
neutralize a biological agent. If the bomb is even slightly off target,
the detonation may cause the spread of chemical bioagents in addition
to the radioactive fallout instead of vaporizing the agent.
In fact, the administration's own Nuclear Posture Review acknowledges
that ``significant capability shortfalls currently exist in: finding
and tracking mobile relocatable targets and WMD sites'' as well as
``locating, identifying, and characterizing hard and deeply buried
targets.''
Given our current failure to locate WMD in Iraq, do we have
sufficient confidence to drop a nuclear bomb on a suspected hardened,
deeply buried bunker? According to noted Stanford physicist Sidney
Drell, the blast effects of such a weapon ``extend beyond the area of
very high temperatures and radiation they create for destroying such
agents.'' The consequences of using such a weapon extend far beyond the
limited area of a suspected bunker.
In the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the administration
refused to rule out--isn't this interesting--in the months leading up
to the war in Iraq, the administration refused to rule out the use of
nuclear weapons. If we had mininukes last spring, would we have used
them against suspected chemical or biological bunkers, bunkers which
turned out not to have existed?
Using a low-yield nuclear weapon against a suspected bunker around
Baghdad could have killed a half a million people or more. Imagine the
geometric increase in the resentment of the Iraqi people to our
occupation, what it would have been had we done so.
Couple the administration's interest in these weapons with its newly
declared preventive war doctrine and we face the potential of a nuclear
first strike against a nonnuclear nation. This would violate our
obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Use of a nuclear
weapon against a country preemptively would instantly transform America
from the great beacon of hope in the world to a pariah.
So, as I mentioned, the development of these new weapons signals a
dangerous direction in our nuclear policy. It weakens our ability to
ask other countries to give up their nuclear programs. And the costs
are clear. No one will believe we are serious about nuclear
nonproliferation. Developing the new nuclear weapon sends a mixed
message that undermines all of our calls for nonproliferation. When we
criticize Iran and North Korea for their nuclear weapons development,
they point back to ours. There is little doubt that we would be
starting a new arms race. Though it is too soon to tell who will follow
suit, few developments in the quantity or quality of nuclear weapons
have gone unmatched by other powers. To start an arms race with these
weapons of little utility is a mistake.
Opponents, as mentioned, will just build deeper bunkers, but even
more compelling is the fact that conventional weapons will do the job
against deeply buried targets. We have not heard on the Armed Services
Committee testimony that we do not have the capacity or capability to
deal with the deep bunkers with conventional weapons today. I will wait
for those who are opposed to this amendment to justify that position.
So this is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. The
materials I mentioned are here on my desk. It is quite clear the
direction this administration is intending to go. It is clear not only
from the statements of those who have the prime responsibility for the
development of nuclear weapons, it is clear in their statement for
their 5-year proposal. You cannot read that proposal and not see where
they are looking for development and testing. It is all out there for
everyone to see.
For those to suggest on the floor of the Senate that under the
existing Defense authorization bill we have effectively prohibited that
kind of conduct in terms of the testing and the development defies the
language I have read previously. The only hindrance would be the fact
that the Department of Defense is required to send studies here to the
appropriate Defense committees and then, after 30 days, is free this
year to take whatever action they want. That is not the way for us to
move into another nuclear arms race. That is what this amendment is
meant to address. That is why I hope it will be accepted.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, let me compliment the Senator from
Massachusetts. I fully intend to support this amendment. I have spoken
about this issue on the Senate floor previously. It is in my judgment
that job one for this country is to attempt to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons around the rest of the world, to prevent the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, to make certain the nuclear weapons
that do exist are protected and safeguarded, and then for this country
to lead in this world to try to reduce the stockpile of nuclear
weapons.
But for this country to be talking about building new nuclear
weapons,

[[Page S6431]]

earth-penetrating, bunker-buster nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear
weapons, and have people in this administration talk about nuclear
weapons as if they are just another weapon to be used in a war--drop a
nuke on a cave someplace; just another weapon, that is what they are
talking about--that this country should be wanting to build more, it is
absurd.
There are roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. The stealing
of one of those weapons or the acquisition of one by terrorist groups
would cause an apoplectic seizure for people who live in the major
cities of this country that would be targeted by the detonation of a
nuclear weapon.
Our job is not to be talking about building new nuclear weapons.
There are plenty of nuclear weapons on this Earth--far too many, in
fact. Our job is to be a world leader in stopping the spread of nuclear
weapons and to find ways to reduce the stockpile of existing nuclear
weapons. That is the way we create a safer world, not talking about
building more, not talking about resuming testing, not talking about
bunker buster, earth penetrators, low-yield, usable nuclear weapons.
That is, in my judgment, reckless talk. I intend to support this
amendment.
Mr. President, I am going to be offering an amendment to this Defense
authorization bill dealing with the White House plan to use a military
aircraft to broadcast Television Marti to the Cuban people. I want to
talk about that just for a moment.
It is almost unbelievable. When someone listens to the logic of all
of this, they would say: Are you nuts? Is no one thinking at all about
this?
Cuba, as we know, is a Communist government, run by Fidel Castro. He,
I think, has lived now through 10 American Presidencies, with an
embargo on the country of Cuba through 40-some years.
So we want to convince the Cubans that Fidel Castro is a bad deal for
them. Well, I have been to Cuba. I do not think they need much
convincing. They understand. They do not live in a free country. They
understand that they live under the yoke of a Communist government.
They would love to come to this country. If we had no immigration laws
and Castro let them go, we would have an exodus to this country. So
they do not need a great deal of convincing. But, nonetheless, we spend
a lot of money on Television and Radio Marti.
So Radio Marti actually gets into Cuba, and people listen to it. I
have been to Cuba. The dissidents and others in Cuba indicated that
Radio Marti is effective, although they can also pick up the radio
stations from Miami easily. All those commercial stations are available
to be listened to by the folks in Cuba.

I support Radio Marti. It is fine with me. It gets into the Cuban
broadcast range, the Cuban people listen to it, and I have been told by
the Cubans in Cuba that it is effective. But TV Marti, broadcasting
television signals into Cuba, let me talk about that for a moment.
All those television signals are blocked so the Cuban people can't
see it. We broadcast it. I want to show you what we have been doing
with the taxpayers' money. This is a picture of something called Fat
Albert. It is a tethered dirigible or balloon that goes up, and using
Fat Albert we send television signals at Cuba. Traditionally, we have
done it from 3 until 7 in the morning. We broadcast 4 hours a day
through Fat Albert. The Cuban Government blocks the signal. So we spend
the money for nothing. We have a balloon-enhanced signal to Cuba and
nobody can see the image.
In fact, here is how the television screen in Cuba looks. As you see,
it is a scrambled screen. There is no TV picture.
The President announced recently that he is going to get much more
aggressive on TV Marti. One would think if what we are doing is a
colossal, tragic, complete, thorough waste of taxpayers' funds, you
would stop it. No, not us, not now, not with Cuba. We want to spend
more money. The President says it doesn't matter that they can't see
it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. What we want to do is phase
out these balloons because they are old. What we want to do is take an
EC-130 special operations aircraft, under the control of the Department
of Defense, and use it to transmit TV Marti broadcasts to Cuba. The
broadcasts may well still be jammed, and the Cuban people still won't
be able to see them. But the President and the White House are talking
about $18 million to be able to send these television messages into
Cuba that the Cubans can't see.
We have spent $180 million on TV Marti since 1989, $180 million on
broadcast signals the Cubans haven't seen. One wonders if there is any
depth to which foolishness will move in this Chamber, if we continue to
do this. Is there anything that is beyond the pale? We just want to
keep doing this? In fact, we want to get rid of the balloon, and we can
put this aircraft up, run by a military special operations unit.
There are only six of these aircraft in the world. They are
extraordinarily valuable in the Middle East. We have used these
airplanes to great value in the Middle East. They broadcast important
messages to support U.S. military operations in places like Afghanistan
and Iraq. But they will not be used to great value in Cuba.
So if something doesn't work, the President and the White House
announce we want to do more of it, and do it with more sophisticated
equipment.
We want to divert this aircraft from missions in war theaters--
Afghanistan, Iraq--and see if it can replace Fat Albert; put it up in
the air and push television signals out the carcass of this airplane
that the Cuban people probably cannot see or receive.
It is unbelievable to me that the White House is pushing this
nonsense. I am going to offer an amendment that will say we will
prohibit the use of EC-130 special operations aircraft and other
aircraft for transmission of TV Marti broadcasts to Cuba or radio
broadcasts to Cuba. We already get the radio broadcasts in. We don't
need to do it with special operations aircraft. Having a special
operations aircraft available probably will not get TV signals in
effectively.
My point is, why waste the money? We were told yesterday that we are
short of money for DOD. We were told we should have a $25 billion
reserve fund. This Congress voted for it without a dissenting vote.
Why? Because we are short of money. We need it, so the Congress
provided it. Do we want to use scarce resources for flying a special
ops airplane, of which there are only six in the entire world, so that
we can send signals that will be jammed by Fidel Castro?

I don't have any use for Fidel Castro. I want the Cuban people to be
free. But I want the American people to be free from this nonsense.
These are taxpayers' moneys that come from the pocketbooks of the
American people, and they ought not be wasted. This is a tragic waste
of the taxpayers' money.
While I am at it, let me make one more point. We have folks who are
in the Treasury Department in an organization called OFAC, Office of
Foreign Assets Control. Their job is to track terrorist funds, the
funds that support terrorists groups. Down at the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, they have 21 people tracking American tourists who
travel to Cuba. And they have fewer than four who are tracking assets
that are supporting Osama bin Laden. That is unbelievable to me.
Recently I brought a picture of a woman named Joanie Scott to the
Senate floor, a wonderful young woman who came to see me. She went to
Cuba to distribute free Bibles. But she found out those fearless
warriors in OFAC were not tracking Osama bin Laden. They were tracking
Joanie Scott who was distributing free Bibles to the people of Cuba and
slapping her with a $10,000 civil fine.
And it is not just Joanie Scott. It is a whole series of others, such
as a man whose father died, and his last wish was that his ashes be
buried at the church in which he ministered in Cuba. His son takes them
there, and OFAC, instead of tracking Osama bin Laden's funding, is
going after this guy with a civil fine for taking his dead father's
ashes to bury them in Cuba. That is the kind of nonsense that is going
on. It has nothing to do with sound public policy. It has everything to
do with politics in Florida. This administration is playing it like a
violin.
The fact is, this ought to stop. I will support the Defense
authorization bill, but I hope my colleagues will agree

[[Page S6432]]

with me that diverting money from the Defense Department to put up a
special operations EC-130 to broadcast television signals to the Cuban
people who probably won't be able to see it is a waste of taxpayers'
money, and it ought to stop.

Regulatory Agencies

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I read in the paper a story that reminded
me that we have some real problems with respect to regulatory agencies
these days. I happen to think there is a significant role for effective
regulation in government, especially in areas where you have monopolies
or the potential of abuse of consumers and citizens. That is why you
have regulatory authorities, and there is a requirement for them to
regulate effectively.
I noticed in the paper that ``SEC Seeks Psychologist to Boost
Morale.'' It says:

Some former SEC officials find the idea of an SEC
psychologist laughable.

This is a full-time position that will pay $147,000 a year, and they
want to improve employee attitudes and job satisfaction, reduce
burnout, conflict, and stress by hiring a psychologist.
I don't doubt there is plenty of need for psychologists in
Washington, DC.
This came on the heels of a report in the newspaper about the Bureau
of Indian Affairs sending a number of employees to Tony Robbins'
motivational course in Chicago, IL, at a cost of tens of thousands of
dollars. At a time when we don't have enough money to fund health care
needs for Indian children, to fund Indian tribal colleges, to deal with
the social service needs of most of these children on Indian
reservations, we are sending people off to the Tony Robbins
motivational course in Chicago, spending a small fortune.
As I was thinking about these things, which seemed to me to be a
waste of the taxpayers' money, I was thinking about the issue of
regulation.
Last evening, I saw the CBS report about what had happened in
California with electricity prices. I held hearings and I chaired the
subcommittee in Commerce holding hearings on the issue of the fleecing
of west coast consumers who were paying prices for electricity that
were outrageous a couple of years ago. We subpoenaed Kenneth Lay,
former head of Enron. He came in and took the fifth amendment in front
of our committee. We had Jeffrey Skilling. He actually testified. He is
now under indictment. I was thinking about this issue of regulation,
when I read last evening the transcript of Enron employees talking
about going ahead and shutting down the electric plant.
That way, you have less supply of electricity out there. You inflate
the price and we can maximize profits, manipulate the supply in order
to maximize profits. They say: Well, all the money you guys stole from
those poor grandmothers. The other guy says: Yes, Grandma Millie,
that's Grandma Millie.
They laughed about stealing money from people by manipulating and
shutting down electric plants. This all happened while we had the FERC,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--people who are paid by the
taxpayers who are supposed to regulate--sat on their hands; they did
their imitation of a potted plant and did absolutely nothing.
One might ask consumers on the west coast about the $5 billion to $10
billion that was stolen from them by manipulating supply and demand and
the inflating of prices by cartels, by traders who created schemes
named ``get shorty,'' ``fat boy,'' ``death star,'' and ``load shift.''
These are organizations--and there is more than one--that, in my
judgment, stole billions of dollars. Yes, there are some indictments,
but some are still living in their gated communities and counting that
money.
The Federal regulatory agency here, called FERC, did the American
public an enormous disservice by deciding their job wasn't to regulate,
it was to observe. If a regulatory agency is not going to regulate in
cases where you have the stealing of billions of dollars, then we don't
need that agency at all. We ought to dissolve it and create one that
will work.
Here is another regulatory agency, the Federal Communications
Commission. They are not regulating, either. They are content to just
observe. They just came up with new rules on broadcast ownership. They
said, oh, by the way, it will be all right with us if, in one major
city in this country, the same company owns eight radio stations, three
television stations, the cable company, and the major newspaper. That
will be fine. That is what the FCC said.
You talk about abridging the rights of people in this country. This
is a decision that means a handful of people--fewer and fewer people--
will decide what the American people see, hear, and read in the future.
Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people wrote to the FCC
complaining about the proposed rule. It didn't matter a bit. They went
ahead and adopted it anyway. This is not a regulatory agency. At least
they are not representing the interests of the American people. It is
what the big interests want; let us move in that direction. It is what
the big and powerful interests want--that is what we will do. That is
true with FERC, with the FCC, the Surface Transportation Board, STB,
and the SEC.
The Surface Transportation Board took the place of the Interstate
Commerce Commission, the ICC, which I always thought was dead from the
neck up. We replaced it with something called the STB. It doesn't
matter. They are supposed to look after the railroads and make sure
consumers are not cheated.
In North Dakota, we are overpaying rail rates by $100 million. Does
the STB care about that? They don't give a whip. They are supposed to
regulate and they are content to sit on their hands and observe. I met
with them yesterday; same old story.
The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to hire a psychologist
because of employee stress. It is interesting to me that the investment
banking firms were investigated in this country and reached a
settlement because they internally, some of them, were trying to sell
stocks to the public that internally they called dogs. They said, we
have these stocks that are real dogs, not worth anything, but let's
market them to the public. They had sales people trying to sell the
stocks that they described as dogs. Do you know who uncovered all that
double dealing going on, the basic conflicts of interest? Was it the
SEC, the ones that have hundreds of lawyers who are supposed to be
doing this? No, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which wants to
hire a psychologist because they have such stress on their jobs, didn't
do a thing. It was the attorney general of New York State.

How about the scandal with the mutual funds? Was that the SEC, the
organization that is so stressed out they want to hire a psychologist
for employees? Unfortunately not. They were busy observing. The first
Chairman under this administration said it would be a kinder and
gentler SEC, we are probusiness. That is the message he wanted to send.
Well, that is certainly true. They have done nothing. It was Elliot
Spitzer, the attorney general of New York, who unearthed both of those
scandals. So much for the SEC, and so much for job stress for people
who don't do anything.
The FDA is supposed to regulate as well. They seem content to
represent the pharmaceutical industry. They have spent their time in
recent months trying to prevent the Congress from providing for the
reimportation of FDA-approved drugs from Canada. Why? Beats me. When
the question is asked, whose side are you on, they come down on the
side of the pharmaceutical industry, not the consumer.
We are trying to put downward pressure on prescription drug prices.
They are in the wrong corner. I don't need to mention much about the
FTC. When gas prices are $2.10 or $2.20 a gallon, you would hope to
have an agency like the FTC that would be aggressive and active, and
that you would see a cloud of dust from an investigating agency trying
to find out what is happening. We know some of what is happening. There
is a lot of trading and speculation going on, and a great deal of
concern that consumers are being taken advantage of. Do we see much
activity out of the Federal Trade Commission? Not much going on there,
either. It is a great place to nap, apparently.
There is a good reason, it seems to me, for us to start asking: Is
there not a requirement for a regulatory authority that regulates? I
know this notion

[[Page S6433]]

of deregulation is wonderful. But if you deregulate in the face of
monopolies, the American people, in my judgment, are going to be
injured severely. Ask people in California, Oregon, and Washington, who
paid sky-high rates for electricity, about the need for effective
regulation. Why did they pay those rates? Because a company such as
Enron, and others, I might add, got involved and found ways to cheat.
They created schemes, such as ``get shorty,'' ``fat boy,'' ``death
star,'' and others, by which they could cheat the ratepayers, the
consumers. I think there is a time when you need effective regulation.
Going back to one more point, I mentioned all of these agencies--the
SEC, FDA, Federal Communications Commission, Surface Transportation
Board, and others. They are all there for a purpose. If they are not
serving that purpose, maybe we don't need them at all. It is a purpose,
however, that I embrace.
I believe the American people deserve someone who fights for them.
When the railroad overcharges somebody, in my judgment, they ought to
be able to file a complaint and find due process in a regulatory body
that is not on the railroad's side, or that automatically decides for
the railroads, but in a way that fairly and effectively deals with
those complaints.
When the FCC is looking at what the impact is of the concentration of
broadcast properties, I hope they will not come up with the conclusion
that it is not a problem for the consumers if one company owns eight
radio stations, three television stations, the newspaper, and the cable
company in the same town.
I do not know what school you go to learn that sort of nonsense, but
that is not the right thing for this country.
Incidentally, on that subject, the Senate agrees with the position I
have articulated. We voted on this issue and by a wide margin the
Senate voted to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's rules
on broadcast ownership, but it is not going anyplace because the
leaders in the House of Representatives are blocking that resolution.
My hope is as we proceed through this year and work on appropriations
issues we might be able to address some of these issues with regulatory
agencies. If we are going to have regulatory agencies--and I think we
should in a good many areas; I do not think they need psychologists,
they need leadership--they need an administration that says: Your job
at the FCC, FDA, FERC, and others is to effectively represent the
interests of the American people, and when you have big interests
confronting small interests, you need to be the fair referee here, the
one that evens the score a bit.
I mentioned many times the refrain in Bob Wills and the Texas
Playboys song from the 1930s, but it applies pretty well:

Little bee sucks the blossom and the big bee gets the
honey.
The little guy picks the cotton and the big guy gets the
money.

With respect to Government, there ought to be a mechanism that
provides protection for the smaller interests when confronted by the
larger interests that want to take advantage of it. What happened on
the west coast should never have happened with respect to electric
grids because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have
stepped in immediately, but they would not; they did not. The
President, in fact, when he took office bragged: There will be no price
caps; we won't put any caps on prices because we want the market to
work.
The market was not working. There was massive stealing and cheating
going on of west coast consumers by some folks who got rich in the
Enron Corporation, and others. That is not speculation on my part. We
now know this as a function of criminal filings that have been made in
these cases. We now know it as a result of tape recordings that were
made available only under duress by the U.S. Justice Department in the
last couple of days. ``Enron Traders Caught on Tape,'' ``Enron Tapes
Anger Lawmakers.''
The American people deserve better. The American people deserve much
better than they are getting with these regulatory agencies that decide
they do not want to regulate.
I wanted to visit about these regulatory agencies. Some will not like
what I have to say. Frankly, I do not like their inattention to the
issues facing the American people in a manner that is not fair to many
people.
I come back to where I started, the amendment I discussed earlier
about prohibiting the use of special operations aircraft to broadcast
TV Marti signals into Cuba. My amendment is a prohibition on the use of
money for that purpose.
Radio Marti is effective. I have been to Cuba. They hear those
signals. It is effective. We have spent nearly $180 million on TV
Marti. It has been a tragic waste of the taxpayers' money. Those
signals are not able to be seen in Cuba. They are blocked. To
appropriate military aircraft for the use of sending signals that will
likely still be blocked and not seen by the Cuban people seems folly to
me.
I ask unanimous consent that we lay the current amendment aside so I
may formally offer the amendment I have described.
Mr. REID. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask the Senator from Nevada the status of the
legislation in the Senate. It is my intention to offer the amendment.
Of course, I will have the opportunity. Is it the intention of the
floor managers not to allow amendments the rest of the day?

Mr. REID. Yes, there may come a time when there are six or seven
amendments the managers cleared. As far as setting the Kennedy
amendment aside, we are not able to do that this afternoon.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me also say--I know the managers of the bill are not
here--as an observation, it would make a lot of sense to move
amendments. There is always the case of people coming to the floor of
the Senate saying: Boy, we don't want any delays; this is taking too
long. And yet on a fair number of occasions, when I have come to the
floor, there is someone--in this case it is not the Senator from Nevada
himself. Well, I guess it is the Senator from Nevada at this point
saying someone objects.
I would prefer we offer amendments, get them to the desk, and
consider them with votes in due course. If there is a decision or an
objection at this point to setting aside the current amendment, which
is the course that must be taken, then I will come back, I guess, on--
on Monday or Tuesday, will we be open for amendments?
Mr. REID. Monday.
Mr. DORGAN. Then I will come back on Monday and offer the amendment I
described and hope it may be seen by the Senate as something that
represents an enhancement to this underlying Defense authorization
bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina wishes to speak for 20 minutes; is that
right?
Mrs. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. REID. Is that in morning business or on this amendment?
Mrs. DOLE. Morning business.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North
Carolina be recognized for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Following the Senator from North Carolina recognized in
morning business, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for 20 minutes
to speak as in morning business. It is my understanding we have cleared
amendments now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.

Amendment Nos. 3274, 3275, 3236, 3276, 3233, 3277, and 3278, En Bloc

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I have a set of amendments to the Defense
bill that have been cleared by both managers. Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to, and
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. These have been cleared by Senator Levin. There is no
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3274, 3275, 3236, 3276, 3233, 3277, and 3278)
were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:

[[Page S6434]]

AMENDMENT NO. 3274

(Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land at the Sunflower Army
Ammunition Plant, Kansas)

At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, insert the
following:

SEC. 2830. LAND CONVEYANCE, SUNFLOWER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT,
KANSAS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army, in
consultation with the Administrator of General Services, may
convey to an entity selected by the Board of Commissioners of
Johnson County, Kansas (in this section referred to as the
``entity'' and the ``Board'', respectively), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of real property, including any improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 9,065 acres and containing the
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. The purpose of the
conveyance is to facilitate the re-use of the property for
economic development and revitalization.
(b) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the entity shall provide the United
States, whether by cash payment, in-kind contribution, or a
combination thereof, an amount that is not less than the fair
market value, as determined by an appraisal of the property
acceptable to the Administrator and the Secretary. The
Secretary may authorize the entity to carry out, as in-kind
consideration, environmental remediation activities for the
property conveyed under such subsection.
(2) The Secretary shall deposit any cash received as
consideration under this subsection in a special account
established pursuant to section 572(b) of title 40, United
States Code, to pay for environmental remediation and
explosives cleanup of the property conveyed under subsection
(a).
(c) Construction With Previous Land Conveyance Authority on
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant.--The authority in subsection
(a) to make the conveyance described in that subsection is in
addition to the authority under section 2823 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (division
B of Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2712) to make the
conveyance described in that section.
(d) Environmental Remediation and Explosives Cleanup.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may
enter into a multi-year cooperative agreement or contract
with the entity to undertake environmental remediation and
explosives cleanup of the property, and may utilize amounts
authorized to be appropriated for the Secretary for purposes
of environmental remediation and explosives cleanup under the
agreement.
(2) The terms of the cooperative agreement or contract may
provide for advance payments on an annual basis or for
payments on a performance basis. Payments may be made over a
period of time agreed to by the Secretary and the entity or
for such time as may be necessary to perform the
environmental remediation and explosives cleanup of the
property, including any long-term operation and maintenance
requirements.
(e) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary may
require the entity or other persons to cover costs to be
incurred by the Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for
costs incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance
under subsection (a), including survey costs, costs related
to environmental, and other administrative costs related to
the conveyance.
(2) Amounts received under paragraph (1) shall be credited
to the appropriation, fund, or account from which the costs
were paid. Amounts so credited shall be merged with funds in
such appropriation, fund, or account, and shall be available
for the same purposes, and subject to the same limitations,
as the funds with which merged.
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey jointly
satisfactory to the Secretary and the Administrator.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary and the
Administrator may require such additional terms and
conditions in connection with the conveyance of real property
under subsection (a), and the environmental remediation and
explosives cleanup under subsection (d), as the Secretary and
the Administrator jointly consider appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.

AMENDMENT NO. 3275

(Purpose: To clarify the protection of military personnel from
retaliatory action for communications made through the chain of
command)

On page 280, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 1068. PROTECTION OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL FROM
RETALIATORY ACTIONS FOR COMMUNICATIONS MADE
THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

(a) Protected Communications.--Section 1034(b)(1)(B) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii)''; and
(2) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following:
``(iv) any person or organization in the chain of command;
or
``(v) any other person or organization designated pursuant
to regulations or other established administrative procedures
for such communications.''.
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to
any unfavorable personnel action taken or threatened, and any
withholding of or threat to withhold a favorable personnel
action, on or after that date.

AMENDMENT NO. 3236

(Purpose: To authorize and improve Operation Hero Miles)

On page 131, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

SEC. 653. ACCEPTANCE OF FREQUENT TRAVELER MILES, CREDITS, AND
TICKETS TO FACILITATE THE AIR OR SURFACE TRAVEL
OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
THEIR FAMILIES.

Section 2608 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) through (k) as
subsections (h) through (l), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Operation Hero Miles.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
may use the authority of subsection (a) to accept the
donation of frequent traveler miles, credits, and tickets for
air or surface transportation issued by any air carrier or
surface carrier that serves the public and that consents to
such donation, and under such terms and conditions as the air
or surface carrier may specify. The Secretary shall designate
a single office in the Department of Defense to carry out
this subsection, including the establishment of such rules
and procedures as may be necessary to facilitate the
acceptance of such frequent traveler miles, credits, and
tickets.
``(2) Frequent traveler miles, credits, and tickets
accepted under this subsection shall be used only in
accordance with the rules established by the air carrier or
surface carrier that is the source of the miles, credits, or
tickets and shall be used only for the following purposes:
``(A) To facilitate the travel of a member of the armed
forces who--
``(i) is deployed on active duty outside the United States
away from the permanent duty station of the member in support
of a contingency operation; and
``(ii) is granted, during such deployment, rest and
recuperative leave, emergency leave, convalescent leave, or
another form of leave authorized for the member.
``(B) In the case of a member of the armed forces
recuperating from an injury or illness incurred or aggravated
in the line of duty during such deployment, to facilitate the
travel of family members of the member to be reunited with
the member.
``(3) For the use of miles, credits, or tickets under
paragraph (2)(B) by family members of a member of the armed
forces, the Secretary may, as the Secretary determines
appropriate, limit--
``(A) eligibility to family members who, by reason of
affinity, degree of consanguinity, or otherwise, are
sufficiently close in relationship to the member of the armed
forces to justify the travel assistance;
``(B) the number of family members who may travel; and
``(C) the number of trips that family members may take.
``(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Defense may, in an exceptional case, authorize a person not
described in subparagraph (B) of that paragraph to use
frequent traveler miles, credits, or a ticket accepted under
this subsection to visit a member of the armed forces
described in such subparagraph if that person has a notably
close relationship with the member. The frequent traveler
miles, credits, or ticket may be used by such person only in
accordance with such conditions and restrictions as the
Secretary determines appropriate and the rules established by
the air carrier or surface carrier that is the source of the
miles, credits, or ticket.
``(5) The Secretary of Defense shall encourage air carriers
and surface carriers to participate in, and to facilitate
through minimization of restrictions and otherwise, the
donation, acceptance, and use of frequent traveler miles,
credits, and tickets under this section.
``(6) The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement
with a nonprofit organization to use the services of the
organization--
``(A) to promote the donation of frequent traveler miles,
credits, and tickets under paragraph (1), except that amounts
appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be expended
for this purpose; and
``(B) to assist in administering the collection,
distribution, and use of donated frequent traveler miles,
credits, and tickets.
``(7) Members of the armed forces, family members, and
other persons who receive air or surface transportation using
frequent traveler miles, credits, or tickets donated under
this subsection are deemed to recognize no income from such
use. Donors of frequent traveler miles, credits, or tickets
under this subsection are deemed to obtain no tax benefit
from such donation.
``(8) In this subsection, the term `family member' has the
meaning given that term in section 411h(b)(1) of title 37.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3276

(Purpose: To require a report on the training provided to members of
the Armed Forces to prepare for post-conflict operations)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

[[Page S6435]]

SEC. 1022. REPORT ON TRAINING PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES TO PREPARE FOR POST-CONFLICT
OPERATIONS.

(a) Study on Training.--The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a study to determine the extent to which members of
the Armed Forces assigned to duty in support of contingency
operations receive training in preparation for post-conflict
operations and to evaluate the quality of such training.
(b) Matters To Be Included in Study.--As part of the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall specifically
evaluate the following:
(1) The doctrine, training, and leader-development system
necessary to enable members of the Armed Forces to
successfully operate in post-conflict operations.
(2) The adequacy of the curricula at military educational
facilities to ensure that the Armed Forces has a cadre of
members skilled in post-conflict duties, including a
familiarity with applicable foreign languages and foreign
cultures.
(3) The training time and resources available to members
and units of the Armed Forces to develop cultural awareness
about ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs of the people
living in areas in which post-conflict operations are likely
to occur.
(4) The adequacy of training transformation to emphasize
post-conflict operations, including interagency coordination
in support of combatant commanders.
(c) Report on Study.--Not later than May 1, 2005, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a report on the result of the study
conducted under this section.

amendment no. 3233

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the funding of
the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise under the National Shipbuilding
Research Program of the Navy)

On page 35, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

SEC. 232. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING OF THE
ADVANCED SHIPBUILDING ENTERPRISE UNDER THE
NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE
NAVY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The budget for fiscal year 2005, as submitted to
Congress by the President, provides $10,300,000 for the
Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise under the National
Shipbuilding Research Program of the Navy.
(2) The Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise is an innovative
program to encourage greater efficiency in the national
technology and industrial base.
(3) The leaders of the United States shipbuilding industry
have embraced the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise as a
method for exploring and collaborating on innovation in
shipbuilding and ship repair that collectively benefits all
components of the industry.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the Senate--
(A) strongly supports the innovative Advanced Shipbuilding
Enterprise under the National Shipbuilding Research Program
as an enterprise between the Navy and industry that has
yielded new processes and techniques that reduce the cost of
building and repairing ships in the United States; and
(B) is concerned that the future-years defense program of
the Department of Defense that was submitted to Congress for
fiscal year 2005 does not reflect any funding for the
Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise after fiscal year 2005; and
(2) that the Secretary of Defense should continue to
provide in the future-years defense program for funding the
Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise at a sustaining level in
order to support additional research to further reduce the
cost of designing, building, and repairing ships.

amendment no. 3277

(Purpose: To require a study regarding promotion eligibility of retired
warrant officers on active duty)

On page 79, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 515. STUDY REGARDING PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY OF RETIRED
WARRANT OFFICERS RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Requirement for Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall
carry out a study to determine whether it would be equitable
for retired warrant officers on active duty, but not on the
active-duty list by reason of section 582(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to be eligible for consideration for
promotion under section 573 of such title.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study under
subsection (a). The report shall include a discussion of the
Secretary's determination regarding the issue covered by the
study, the rationale for the Secretary's determination, and
any recommended legislation that the Secretary considers
appropriate regarding that issue.

amendment no. 3278

(Purpose: To convert appropriations transfer authority in section 123
to authority for transfers of authorizations of appropriations)

Strike section 123 and insert the following:

SEC. 123. PILOT PROGRAM FOR FLEXIBLE FUNDING OF SUBMARINE
ENGINEERED REFUELING OVERHAUL AND CONVERSION.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy may carry out
a pilot program of flexible funding of engineered refueling
overhauls and conversions of submarines in accordance with
this section.
(b) Authority.--Under the pilot program, the Secretary of
the Navy may, subject to subsection (d), transfer amounts
described in subsection (c) to the authorization of
appropriations for the Navy for procurement for shipbuilding
and conversion for any fiscal year to continue to provide
authorization of appropriations for any engineered refueling
conversion or overhaul of a submarine of the Navy for which
funds were initially provided on the basis of the
authorization of appropriations to which transferred.
(c) Amounts Available for Transfer.--The amounts available
for transfer under this section are amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Navy for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 2004 and before fiscal year 2013 for the following
purposes:
(1) For procurement as follows:
(A) For shipbuilding and conversion.
(B) For weapons procurement.
(C) For other procurement.
(2) For operation and maintenance.
(d) Limitations.--(1) A transfer may be made with respect
to a submarine under this section only to meet either (or
both) of the following requirements:
(A) An increase in the size of the workload for engineered
refueling overhaul and conversion to meet existing
requirements for the submarine.
(B) A new engineered refueling overhaul and conversion
requirement resulting from a revision of the original
baseline engineered refueling overhaul and conversion program
for the submarine.
(2) A transfer may not be made under this section before
the date that is 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary of the Navy transmits to the congressional defense
committees a written notification of the intended transfer.
The notification shall include the following matters:
(A) The purpose of the transfer.
(B) The amounts to be transferred.
(C) Each account from which the funds are to be
transferred.
(D) Each program, project, or activity from which the
amounts are to be transferred.
(E) Each account to which the amounts are to be
transferred.
(F) A discussion of the implications of the transfer for
the total cost of the submarine engineered refueling overhaul
and conversion program for which the transfer is to be made.
(e) Merger of Funds.--A transfer made from one account to
another with respect to the engineered refueling overhaul and
conversion of a submarine under the authority of this section
shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the
account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal
to the amount transferred and shall be available for the
engineered refueling overhaul and conversion of such
submarine for the same period as the account to which
transferred.
(f) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The
authority to make transfers under this section is in addition
to any other transfer authority provided in this or any other
Act and is not subject to any restriction, limitation, or
procedure that is applicable to the exercise of any such
other authority.
(g) Final Report.--Not later than October 1, 2011, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report containing the Secretary's
evaluation of the efficacy of the authority provided under
this section.
(h) Termination of Program.--No transfer may be made under
this section after September 30, 2012.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I rise to speak to an amendment to
Section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2005 revising the authority for the Commission on the Future of the
National Technology and Industrial Base.
This amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests
are represented in the membership of the commission and are considered
in its studies.
I applaud Chairman Warner and the Armed Services Committee for
creating this Commission in Section 841 of this Act. This esteemed
commission will be composed from persons with backgrounds in defense
industry, foreign policy, trade, labor, economics, and other relevant
fields. Further, this commission is charged with studying and reporting
on various important issues affecting the future of the national
technology and industrial base.
However, as chair of the Small Business Committee, I was surprised to
find that Section 841 contains no requirement to appoint small business
persons to the commission. I was also disappointed to see that the
commission is not currently required to study small business issues.

[[Page S6436]]

There is no reasonable basis for retaining these omissions in the
act. Persuasive studies from the Office of Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration have shown that small businesses are crucial to
job creation, economic development, and technological innovation.
Further, the Small Business Act sets forth the goal of directing 23
percent of defense procurement dollars to small business prime
contracts. Clearly, the commission's studies will be incomplete without
taking into account small business contributions to our Nation's
defense.
My amendment provides for appointment to the commission of persons
with background in small business contracting. It also gives this
commission the mandate to study the ways to strengthen the role of the
small business sector as a vital component of our national technology
and industrial base.

National Hunger Awareness Day

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, 1 year ago, I shared my thoughts on the
Senate floor on a matter that weighs heavily on my mind. I reserved my
maiden speech for a topic I chose to make one of my top priorities as a
Senator. Hunger is the silent enemy lurking within too many American
homes and a tragedy I have seen firsthand far too many times throughout
my life in public service.
Today, on National Hunger Awareness Day, I call once again for a
hunger-free America. The battle to end hunger in our country is a
campaign that cannot be won in months or even a few years, but it is a
victory within reach. What we need is to help our fellow Americans
understand the terrible reality of hunger and how to put a stop to it.
As Washington Post columnist David Broder said:

America has some problems that defy solution. This one does
not. It just needs caring people and a caring government
working together.

We are fortunate, indeed, to have a President who strives to lead our
Government and our Nation in a compassionate direction. President Bush
has said poverty runs deep in this country, and we need to take the war
on poverty a step further by recognizing the power and promise of
faith-based and community-based groups that exist not because of
Government, but because they have heard the universal call to love
somebody in need.
I am curious if the majority of the American public knows how many of
their fellow citizens go hungry each and every day. The number is
astounding. The Census Bureau reports that in the year 2002, 34.6
million Americans were living in poverty. Within that figure, over 7
million families, families with children, young little ones fall asleep
with an empty stomach. It is hard to believe that here in America,
where we are desperately trying to get a handle on obesity, there are
literally millions of children who do not have enough to eat.
Families in my home State of North Carolina are especially
struggling. According to the most recent studies from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, we are one of the few States that has an
increasing rate of food insecurity. From 1996 to 2002, food insecurity
among North Carolina households rose from 9.6 percent to 12.3 percent.
That means tens of thousands of families have difficulty affording food
at some point each year.
A great deal of this can be attributed to the significant economic
hardship we have faced over the last few years. Once-thriving towns
have been decimated by the closing of furniture and textile mills. In
the summer of 2003, less than 1 year ago, North Carolina experienced
the largest layoff in State history when textile giant Pillowtex closed
its doors forever. That day alone, 4,400 people lost their jobs, and
eventually nearly 5,000 were laid off.
In eastern North Carolina, plant closures have resulted in more than
2,200 layoffs since last summer, and in the last few months, the
western region of North Carolina has lost more than 1,500 jobs.
Now there are signs that the situation is improving, but even as our
employment numbers rise, there are families struggling to put a
balanced meal on their table. Sadly, their story is not unlike so many
others across the country. There are many Americans who, after being
laid off, were fortunate enough to find new employment. But in the
changing climate of today's workforce, simply being able to hold down a
job will not necessarily guarantee your family three square meals a
day.
A recent report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that many of
the jobs lost between the years 2001 and 2003 will be replaced by jobs
paying at least 20-percent less. The face of the hungry has changed
over the last 10 years. While many associate those who struggle with
hunger as being unemployed Americans, the sad truth is that the number
of the working poor has escalated in the last decade.
There are 43 million people in low-income families. That means
millions of those lining up at soup kitchens, low-priced pantries, and
other charitable organizations are men and women working anywhere from
one to three jobs, raising children, and under daily pressure to make
ends meet. They have been called the new poor in the editorial sections
of our newspapers.
I think of families such as Danny and Shirley Palmer of rural Ohio, a
State such as North Carolina that has been devastated by thousands of
job losses. Danny worked for a quarter of a century at a local power
company until he was let go in November 2002. After over a year of job
searches, he obtained a union card as a pipefitter. He pays union dues
but has yet to be tapped for a job. He works now as a Wal-Mart
employee, but with bills, including a $343-a-month mortgage, their
savings account is almost empty. Their frustration is not being able to
find suitable employment, and that frustration is growing rapidly.
Our food banks are having a hard time finding food to feed these
families. As America struggles in today's economic hardships, financial
donations have dropped off or corporations have scaled back on food
donations. As recent numbers have shown, many times there are just too
many people and not enough food.
In the year 2003, at least 23 million Americans stood in food lines.
In any given week, it is estimated that 7 million people are served at
emergency feeding sites around the country. The numbers in specific
parts of our country are just as disheartening.
In western North Carolina, the Manna Food Bank says over 68,000
people seek food assistance throughout the year, with over 20,000
seeking assistance each week. This means many of the same people are
coming back again and again.
Since I came to Congress, I have visited homeless and hunger
shelters, food distribution sites and soup kitchens. I went through the
process of applying for Government assistance through the WIC Program,
helping women, infants and children. As I learned more about the
efforts to combat hunger, I gained a great respect for groups such as
the Society of St. Andrew.
For the last 25 years, this organization has been doing yeoman's work
in the area of gleaning. That is when excess crops that would otherwise
be thrown out or taken from farms, packing houses, and warehouses are
distributed to the needy. Gleaning also helps the farmer because he
does not have to haul off or plow under crops that do not meet exact
specifications of grocery chains, and certainly it helps the hungry by
giving them not just any food but food that is both nutritious and
fresh.

Last year, the Society of St. Andrew told me $100,000 would provide
at least 10 million servings of food for hungry North Carolinians. Just
before last year's National Hunger Awareness Day, I set out to raise
that amount for the society. Thanks to the compassionate hearts of
several individuals, companies, and organizations, we surpassed the
original goal and raised $187,000 in 2 weeks. That money was enough for
at least 18 million servings of food.
The Society of St. Andrew is the only comprehensive program in North
Carolina that gleans available produce and then sorts, packages,
processes, transports, and delivers excess food to feed the hungry. In
the first few months of this year, the society hosted over 168 events,
gleaning 4.2 million pounds of food. Between January and March, they
gleaned 12.8 million servings.
Incredibly, it only cost one penny a serving to glean and deliver
this food to those in need. All of this work is done by the hands of
the 9,200 volunteers and a minimal staff.

[[Page S6437]]

Like any humanitarian effort, the gleaning system works because of
cooperative efforts. Clearly, private organizations and individuals are
doing a great job, but they are doing so with limited resources. It is
up to us to make some changes on the public side and help leverage
scarce dollars to feed the hungry.
Transportation is the single biggest concern for gleaners. As the
numbers tell us, the food is there. The issue is simply how to
transport such a large volume. I am proud to say that with the help of
organizations such as the American Trucking Association and America's
Second Harvest we are making progress at easing that transportation
concern.
I have introduced a bill with cosponsor Senators Chris Dodd, Richard
Lugar, and Lamar Alexander that will change the Tax Code to give
transportation companies tax incentives for volunteering trucks to
transfer gleaned food. Such tax incentives would be especially helpful
to organizations such as Relief Fleet. This food distribution system is
run through transportation companies who donate empty trailer space to
move food donations to the proper sites.
Last fiscal year, Relief Fleet moved 16.7 million pounds of food free
of charge. More than 555 truckloads traveled to 130 food banks,
generating a savings of $382,000 in shipping costs.
Gleaning and transportation efforts are just some of the possible
initiatives to help end hunger. There is so much more that can be done.
Take, for example, child nutrition programs. There is no question that
far too many of our children are going hungry each and every day. Of
the 23 million Americans being fed at soup kitchens, 9 million of those
are hungry children under the age of 18. This is why the School Lunch
Program is so important.
In fact, recent research at Tufts University indicates that even mild
undernutrition experienced by young children during critical periods of
growth may affect brain development and lead to reductions in physical
growth. Under the current School Lunch Program, children from families
with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free
meals.

Additionally, children from families with incomes between 130 and 185
percent of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals, no more than
40 cents per meal. This may seem like a nominal amount, but for
struggling families with several children, the costs add up. School
administrators in my State tell me they hear from parents who just do
not know how they will be able to pay for their child's school meals.
These income eligibility guidelines are not consistent with the WIC
Program and other Federal assistance.
For example, families whose incomes are at or below 185 percent of
poverty are eligible for free benefits through WIC. It makes sense to
harmonize these income eligibility guidelines, allowing us to clarify
this bureaucratic situation. Doing so would enable us to immediately
certify children from WIC families for the national school lunch and
breakfast programs.
Difficulty paying the reduced price fee is an issue that is real
across America. More than 500 State and local school boards have passed
resolutions urging the Congress to eliminate the reduced price
category, thereby expanding free lunches and breakfasts to all of those
children whose families' incomes are at or below 185 percent of
poverty.
In addition, the American School Food Service Association, the
Association of School Business Officials, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, and the American Public Health
Association have endorsed this idea. Why? Because it is the right thing
to do.
I was pleased when the Senate agriculture panel went on record in the
child nutrition reauthorization bill in favor of eliminating the
reduced price meal program. This initiative will begin through a pilot
program in five States. I thank Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member
Harkin, and my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee for their
support and assistance. Since introducing this legislation, colleagues
on both sides of the aisle have joined me and two bills have been
introduced in the House of Representatives. Of course, this is only the
first step. There is far more to be done.

Our work to end hunger stretches outside of our own country, of
course. There are more than 300 million chronically hungry children in
the world. More than half of these children go to school on an empty
stomach and almost as many do not attend school at all but might if
food were available. I believe the distribution of food in schools is
one of the most effective strategies to fight hunger and malnutrition
among children. Studies have shown this encourages better school
attendance which in turn improves literacy rates and helps fight
poverty. This increased school attendance for students in poor
countries may very well protect some children who would otherwise be
susceptible to recruitment by groups that would offer them food in
return for attending extremist schools or participating in terrorist
training camps.
I was proud to introduce a joint resolution with Congressman Jim
McGovern of Massachusetts that recognizes the worldwide problem of
hunger and acknowledges the vital significance of food distribution to
millions of starving children. This resolution recognizes the benefits
of increased school attendance due to food availability for needy
children, benefits ranging from improved literacy rates and job
opportunities to protection from root causes of terrorism. In short,
children who attend school on a regular basis have a much brighter
future. Let us build on this foundation.
On this third annual Hunger Awareness Day, I urge Americans to join
me in the campaign to end hunger. As I have said before, hunger does
not differentiate between Democrats and Republicans, and just as it
stretches across so many ethnicities, so many areas, so must we.
Bill Shore, director of Share Our Strength, an antihunger
organization, said it best.

There are two kinds of poverty in America. There are those
who don't have and there are those who don't know. The
majority of Americans are fortunate not to be in the category
of those who don't have. Too many have been willing to remain
in the category of those who don't know. Men and women of
conscience must do more than accept or reject allegations
about the conditions of the society in which they live. They
must find out for themselves. Those who do will learn that
hunger is a serious but solvable problem. It is only as
invisible as Americans allow it to be.

It is a privilege to work with colleagues from both sides of the
aisle toward the goal of ending hunger.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Senator Fritz Hollings--a Career of Supporting Israel and American Jews

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk for a little while
about a matter that has come up regarding one of my distinguished
colleagues who, like me, served in Europe during World War II, who was
a very brave and proud soldier, and who was decorated for his service
there. That is Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings has served for some years in this body as a junior
Senator, even when he was well into 70 years of age. That was one of
the more unusual circumstances, although I think I, too, bring a junior
status at a fairly advanced age to my being here as a freshman.
But in the delegation that is going to go to Normandy tonight, I am
one of several who served in World War II. The other names are among
the bravest of all: Senator Daniel Inouye, who lost his arm in Italy
after being struck three times by enemy fire. And, as he described it
to me, in one of those incidents he had not felt any part of the wound
from the bullet which apparently passed through his body--a rifle shot
through his body, or a machine gun shot through his body. He was
knocked down. He got up to continue to lead his platoon into a
murderous battle in Italy.
Although it took some 50 years for Senator Daniel Inouye to get his
medal, it finally arrived. Those of us who were privileged to be here
were so proud of Senator Inouye's service as

[[Page S6438]]

the medal was bestowed on him for the service he so bravely gave to his
country.
It was noted also that even though Daniel Inouye, now Senator Inouye,
was volunteering for service in the U.S. Army which at first was
denied, he continued to be as loyal as he could to his country, brave
and courageous. We are proud of the opportunity to serve with him and
to know him as a friend.
In addition to Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator Warner--and
Senator Stevens had an illustrious military record flying in China,
Burma, India--and Senator Akaka and Senator Warner--all of us join
together in the bond we received as a result of serving in World War II
and being given then the privilege to serve in this distinguished body.
I want to talk about Fritz Hollings, a good friend of mine for more
than 20 years, now the senior Senator from South Carolina, a good
friend to all of us, an outstanding public servant, someone who has
given more years to public service than some of the people who are
serving here have. He was accused of being anti-Semitic because of an
op-ed piece he wrote that appeared recently in the Charleston Post and
Courier.
The charge has been made on the Senate floor by the junior Senator
from Virginia who apparently heads up the National Republican
Senatorial Committee and serves as the chief fundraiser for Republican
incumbents and candidates for the Senate.
It is very unusual. Frankly, I don't remember in almost 20 years of
service that one Senator issues a press release criticizing another for
something the person did in a public press release. That tells us where
it was going. It was going to politics.
I also heard the junior Senator from Virginia repeat the charge again
earlier this week while he was a guest on the Don Imus radio show. The
charge he leveled is outrageous. I encourage the junior Senator from
Virginia to cease and desist.

I am a Jewish American and fully support the American-Israeli
relationship, not because I am a Jewish American but because it is good
for America. It is good for us to have an ally that is as strong as she
is, an ally that is the only democratic society in the entire Middle
East with over 100 million of those who would declare they are the
enemy of Israel and the United States. Israel is a very valuable part
of our support for freedom and liberty in this world.
I have known the senior Senator from South Carolina for almost a
quarter of a century. I am proud of his longstanding service to the
people of this country. I treasure our friendship. Although he will be
leaving this Senate in January of next year, he will be missed. I
certainly will be one of those who will miss him.
He is one of the strongest Senate supporters of the State of Israel
and the American Jewish community we have. He doesn't just ``talk the
talk.'' As an appropriator, he has ``walked the walk.''
Israel is safer and more secure as a result of the votes Senator
Hollings has cast in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of
the Senate.
The senior Senator from South Carolina has a well-deserved reputation
for candor. And, frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around
here.
The op-ed in question is his candid assessment of why President Bush
took us to war with Iraq despite the fact Iraq did not have weapons of
mass destruction or links to al-Qaida.
I want to make it positively clear I don't necessarily agree with
everything the senior Senator from South Carolina said in the op-ed,
but I reserve the right to disagree with the best of friends on an
issue. But to construe the op-ed piece or its author as representing
anti-Semitism is patently unfair.
Senator Hollings was critical of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and
the journalist Charles Krauthammer for being three of the architects of
a dubious policy to forcibly democratize the Middle East, starting with
Iraq. They believe that such policy will make Israel more secure. That
is something all of us want and need.

The problem with that policy is that it is not quite working the way
the architects envisioned. This may have something to do with the fact
that none of them, to my knowledge, have any combat experience. People
who do have experience in combat, such as former President Bush,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, are a little more circumspect about
what we can achieve and how we can achieve it.
I, too, have been critical of this policy which the administration
swallowed hook, line, and sinker. I called for Deputy Secretary of
Defense Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith to
resign, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Does that make me an
anti-Semite? I would say not.
We are all kind of holding our breath right now as we wait to see the
fallout from the resignation of Mr. Tenet, the head of the CIA, so
abruptly, so quickly. We want to know what it is that caused that
sudden change. He was a loyal, faithful servant. Perhaps mistakes were
made. We will find out more about that very soon.
The bottom line is that these high-ranking civilian officials to whom
I just referred in the Pentagon have misled America and they have let
our troops down. Senator Hollings' contention that Israel is less
secure as a result of this misguided policy certainly cannot be
dismissed.
It is time for that cadre of people who run the Pentagon to go. It
has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It has everything to do with the
fact that Iraq is becoming a quagmire and has already claimed over 800
brave young American men and women.
When I heard the junior Senator from Virginia attack Senator
Hollings, I asked my staff to research his voting record with regard to
Israel and other matters of concern to the American Jewish community.
The memo my staff prepared is 10 pages long. I could not find a
single vote that could be construed as opposition to Israel or American
Jews.
I will cite a few examples. In 1978, he voted against S. Con. Res.
86, a measure to disapprove the sale of jet fighters to Israel. He
voted against the disapproval of the sale. The resolution was defeated
44 to 54.
In 1980, he voted to table an amendment to S. 2714, the foreign aid
authorization bill, that would have withheld $150 million in aid to
Israel because of the settlements being erected in the West Bank.
In 1981, he opposed President Reagan's decision to sell AWACs and
other military equipment to Saudi Arabia.
In 1986, Senator Hollings supported Senator Byrd's amendment to H.J.
Res. 738, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1987 to ensure that
funds appropriated for aid to the Philippines did not come at the
expense of aid to Israel or Egypt.
Senator Hollings also supported recognizing Jerusalem as the
undivided capital of Israel. As the ranking member and former chairman
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary, he has insisted that the annual appropriations bill under
his jurisdiction contain the following three provisions: One, that
people born in Jerusalem be allowed to list Israel as their country of
origin; two, that all relevant official U.S. Government documents list
Jerusalem as the capital of Jerusalem; and three, that U.S. policies
treat Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I note that these provisions have been eliminated in conference at
the insistence of House Republicans and the administration.
Does that make them anti-Semites? Absolutely not. The Senator from
South Carolina is eloquent and certainly able to defend himself and his
record.
But when I hear his reputation repeatedly besmirched, the reputation
and integrity of a man that I know to be one of the staunchest
supporters of Israel and the American Jewish community, a man who
fought hard, almost gave his life to defend his country, I will not sit
by and be quiet.
To paraphrase our former colleague, Lloyd Bentsen: I know Fritz
Hollings. Fritz Hollings is a friend of mine. Fritz Hollings is no
anti-Semite.
To state otherwise goes beyond the pale of partisan rhetoric, even by
the standards of a heated election campaign.
Frankly, I think the senior Senator from South Carolina is owed an
apology, not just by the junior Senator from Virginia but from Senators
who believe it was an inappropriate besmirching of character and
reputation

[[Page S6439]]

dutifully earned by years and years of service to this country and
certainly to this body. Silence on the other side, in my view, is
implicit approval of what was said.
I hope we hear something different in the not-too-distant future.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

FTAA Negotiations and Florida Citrus

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to
bring to the Senate's attention to some recent news about the ongoing
negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or the FTAA. These
negotiations have been going on for some period of time. I look at
these with significant interest, as they dramatically affect my State
of Florida.
There are many mutual benefits that will accrue to the nations of the
Western Hemisphere from a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. I
am someone who has consistently supported free and fair trade. That is
why I am hopeful these negotiations are going to yield an agreement
that ultimately can be supported here.
However, there is a critical issue with respect to the negotiations
of the FTAA that is absolutely crucial to my State. It involves the
Florida citrus industry. It involves tens of thousands of jobs, and it
involves basically the production of frozen concentrate that supplies
the fresh orange juice on the breakfast tables of so many Americans
every morning.
Here is the news. Last week, Reuters reported that ``the United
States signaled for the first time that some agriculture products would
be excluded altogether from the [Free Trade Area of the Americas
agreement] FTAA.
There was another publication called ``Inside U.S. Trade,'' which
reported that this new proposal from the United States would ``allow
for some market access negotiations to yield results other than total
elimination of tariffs.''
Well, that is a significant change from what we have been told. It
is, from my standpoint and my State's standpoint, clearly a step in the
right direction. But while this would appear to be welcome news to
Florida's citrus industry, we need some more information.
I am going to continue to fight to preserve the tariff on imported
frozen concentrated orange juice and ask for a commitment from the
President. I believe the President must state publicly, in clear
language, that we will not negotiate any reduction of the tariff on
imported orange juice. It is not only important to Florida, it is
important to the consumers of orange juice all over this country.
Now, why is this so important? Let me tell you. Because if the FTAA
negotiated out an elimination of the tariff, it would not be free and
fair trade because Brazil would become a monopoly. Here is what
happens. Right now, basically, of the world's production of frozen
concentrated orange juice, you have Brazil basically producing about 60
percent and the remainder--around 40 percent--is produced by the
Florida citrus industry.
Of the world's production, the Florida citrus industry basically
produces the supply for the domestic orange juice market; that is, the
U.S. market. Brazil supplies some of that domestic United States
market, and basically the markets in the rest of the world. There are
other producers, but I am simplifying it. The two big producers are the
United States--mainly Florida--and Brazil.
Now, what happens? If you eliminate the tariff protecting the Florida
citrus growers, and therefore the 40 percent that is produced in
Florida, since Brazil has cheaper land and cheaper labor, Brazil then
takes over 100 percent of the world's market for frozen concentrated
orange juice. That is not free trade. That would be a monopoly. And
what happens in a monopoly? In a monopoly, then, the producers can
determine whatever price they want because they are the sole suppliers.
And what happens to the consumer? The consumer gets it in the neck, and
the price goes up.
Well, you will hear those people who say: Oh, don't worry. There is
competition among the growers in Brazil. The truth is, there are about
five major producers in Brazil and, in effect, they operate as a cartel
with collusion among themselves. So if they took over the entire
world's market, ran the Florida citrus industry out of business, they
would start to set the price, and that is not free and fair trade.
I can tell you, this Senator, who is someone who is for free and fair
trade, and has voted that way--is not going to stand for that because
that is not in the best interests of consumers.
I might also tell you when I went to Brazil last December, I had
several very pleasant meetings with members of the Brazilian
Government, including the chief negotiator for the FTAA, and a number
of other ministers in the Government. I visited with the Acting
President, who is the Vice President of Brazil, and he becomes Acting
President when the President is out of the country, as the President
was in South America in a Mercosur meeting at the time.
When I told the Brazilian Vice President about this problem for
Florida, his response was--half in jest, but half seriously--well, why
don't you just have the Florida citrus growers move to Brazil where our
land is cheaper and our labor is cheaper? That is exactly what we do
not want to happen. We want to keep a vital industry alive in the
United States.
Florida has 12,000 growers, many of whom operate small family-owned
operations. Unlike almost all agricultural commodities, the citrus
industry receives no U.S. production subsidies. The tariff on Brazilian
orange juice is the only offset the industry receives. Any reduction in
that tariff would simply devastate Florida's citrus industry.
This citrus industry is Florida's second largest. It is responsible
for generating over $9 billion for the economy and providing nearly
90,000 jobs. It accounts for $1 billion in revenue for the State and
local governments, which, of course, funds our public hospitals and our
schools and our fire and our police services.

So back on Brazil, I am disappointed that Brazil reportedly does not
view a proposal to exclude certain agricultural products from ``total
tariff elimination'' as a constructive step. I do not think we are
going to see them take that position.
Excluding the tariff on imported orange juice from the negotiations
would actually represent an important step toward completing, not
retarding, an FTAA agreement that will benefit all of the Western
Hemisphere. And regardless of the progress of the FTAA negotiations,
our industries should focus on expanding global markets for orange
juice and not waste our efforts on fighting over the tariff. Greater
cooperation is needed between Brazil and the United States.
On a tangential matter, I want to encourage the administration to
select Miami as the U.S. candidate city to serve as the home of the
FTAA secretariat. Miami's special and close relationship with our Latin
American neighbors makes the city a natural choice as the city to play
this important role. The administration should announce this decision
soon so we can put the full efforts of the U.S. Government behind one
U.S. city; and that is logically Miami.
As a matter of fact, from different destinations in Latin America, it
is a lot easier to get to Miami from those locations in Latin America,
in many cases, than it is to get from one location in Latin America to
another.
Miami is the logical choice. It is a place of significant Hispanic
culture and population. La lingua is spoken there every day on la
calle, on the street. It is a place that is a logical location for the
everyday transaction of business for trade in the Americas.
Miami is the gateway to Latin America. It should be the gateway for
the FTAA. I believe the administration should act right now in going
ahead and determining that so as they negotiate between different
cities in the hemisphere, the United States will be unified behind one
city it is putting forth, which should be Miami, FL.

[[Page S6440]]

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________