[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.

                          ____________________