Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act

Mr. President, my amendment is not a low-level yield amendment.

The amendment numbered 750 is at the desk for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are debating the question of whether this country ought to begin developing new nuclear weapons, an important debate, as about important a debate we will have in this Senate in a while. The press gallery is empty because this is not some sex scandal. It does not have sensational aspects to it. It is not a murder investigation. It is about whether this country ought to decide now to begin producing additional nuclear weapons.

I regret this is not debated and reported as a major national initiative so that the American people can be part of this discussion in our democracy. But it is not. I feel very strongly that where we are headed at the moment is in the wrong direction.

I told my colleagues before about a fellow from North Dakota I have always kind of enjoyed watching. He is called the flying farmer from Makoti. Some have heard me tell about it. The flying farmer from Makoti, a guy in a small town of 80 people, Makoti, ND, who drives a car, goes to county fairs and builds himself a ramp and jumps over cars, kind of a dare devil. His name is John Smith. He is actually in the Guiness Book of Records because he drove a car in reverse 500 miles averaging 36 anywhere. That is the claim to fame of the flying farmer from Makoti.

I think to myself, he has nothing over the Senate, especially on this issue. We are fixing to go in reverse a good long ways, with pretty aggressive speed, on the issue of nuclear policy.

We have had in this country an understanding that with respect to nuclear weapons, we have them as a deterrent. We do not have them to use; we have them as a deterrent. We now have people walking around this town engaged in policy discussions, talking about ``usable'' nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons? It is just another weapon. In fact, let's talk about not just nuclear weapons, let's talk about low-yield nuclear weapons. Programs, they say, are mininuclear weapons or micronuclear weapons, usable nuclear weapons. Let's do designer nuclear weapons, they say. Let's now build a new nuclear weapon as a bunker buster nuclear weapon. I have no idea what they are thinking about.

In the paper today we have statements in this debate. We have to go ahead and develop new nuclear weapons because we do not want to tie the hands of our military. If we would not allow additional nuclear weapons to be developed, we would be the only country in the world that cannot produce new nuclear weapons. What on Earth are we thinking about?

Here is the nuclear stockpile for those who cannot sleep at night. There are some apparently who cannot sleep because we do not have enough nuclear weapons. I want to give you a sedative. We have roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world--roughly. No one knows exactly, but these are the best estimates. North Korea, we think, has two or three. Pakistan has some, India has some, United Kingdom has more than a few, Israel, France, China, the United States, 10,600 nuclear weapons--we think, strategic and theater nuclear weapons--and Russia, 18,600 nuclear weapons.

Now, I mentioned yesterday that about a year and a half ago following September 11 there was a threat. Our intelligence community assessed a threat against this country. The threat was that someone has to have stolen a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal. Terrorists had stolen a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and was preparing to detonate that nuclear weapon in this country in either New York or Washington, DC. The intelligence threat picked up, deemed perhaps credible, who knew, and so for a period of time it did not hit the press. For a period of time there was a seizure that terrorists might have a nuclear weapon, might detonate it in the middle of an American city. And then we are not talking 3,000 deaths, we are talking hundreds of thousands of deaths. It was determined a couple of months later that was not a credible threat, and we moved on.

But interestingly enough, the lesson from it was that it was perfectly plausible, to most, that a weapon could have been stolen in Russia, and it was plausible that a terrorist having stolen a nuclear weapon in Russia could have detonated it, had the capability to detonate it. Perfectly plausible.

We have discussed before the command and control of these nuclear weapons in Russia. We know they do not have the safeguards we would like. We know there are three-ring binders with hand notations about inventories of nuclear weapons; 30,000 of them exist in this world. We had a seizure about one being stolen, one being stolen and everyone is greatly concerned, as they should be.

So today we come to the Senate with a bill that says the following: We are not strong enough. We are not secure enough. We are worried about our future. What we need to do is build more nuclear weapons. We need to build low-yield nuclear weapons.

What is a low-yield nuclear weapon? That is one-third the size of the one in Hiroshima. And we need to do bunker buster nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapons. That is my amendment. It strikes the $11 million in this bill, prevents the opportunity to continue a design, a development, or manufacturer of bunker busting nuclear weapons, development testing, engineering, no funds authorized for feasibility study on the nuclear earth penetrator weapon.

So the question for the Senate in this amendment is very simple. Do you think you cannot sleep at night because we do not have enough nuclear weapons and the only way you will get a good night's rest is if you can build an earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapon?

Is that what you think? If so, then vote against my amendment. Katy bar the door. Let's develop another nuclear weapon. We are saying to the rest of the world with this nonsense, we have the right of preemption. We will now renounce the doctrine of first use. We believe there are ``usable'' nuclear weapons, and we need to build low-yield nuclear weapons--new ones. We reserve the right to build nuclear weapons despite the fact that we have had a moratorium for a decade. We believe we ought to have a bunker buster nuclear weapon. You know what the message is to India, to Pakistan, and to other countries that want nuclear weapons: That this country doesn't think we ought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, or that we ought to prevent the use of nuclear weapons but that we need to bulk up and build new ones, and that we believe they are potentially usable in some future conflict.

That is exactly the wrong message this country ought to be sending to anybody in the rest of the world. What we ought to be telling the rest of the world is we have 10,600, roughly, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them as a deterrent against anyone who would threaten our liberty.

We don't need more. To build more is simply a green light to every other country in the world that wants to become part of the nuclear community.

I come from a State that understands defense. I support a strong defense. My votes in the Congress will show that. I support a very strong, robust defense system in this country. We have two air bases in the State of North Dakota. One is for K-135 tankers, and the other has both the Minuteman Missile with Mark 12-A warheads, as well as B-52 bombers.

Some have said that if the State of North Dakota seceded from the Union, it would be the third most powerful country in the world.

I know a little something about this. I have seen a nuclear weapon close up. I have studied what they do and what the impact of nuclear weapons are. I have tried to understand deterrent capability.

All of us know that with a world full of nuclear weapons we have been very blessed that we have not had a war with nuclear weapons. All of us know that. As I said yesterday, I have kept in my desk for some long while pieces of material that remind us that the proper approach to dealing with this threat is the approach we have used under Nunn-Lugar and other arms control and arms reduction treaties. This is a piece of metal taken from the shaft of an S-24 missile that had a warhead aimed at the United States. Where that missile was buried in the Soviet Union are now sunflowers. There is no missile. The warhead is gone. There are sunflowers at the place.

How that happened is we paid for the destruction of that missile. We didn't shoot it down. We destroyed it with American taxpayer dollars under arms control agreements.

This is copper metal from a ground-up Russian submarine. We didn't sink the submarine. We destroyed it under Nunn-Lugar and arms control reduction. We paid to have the submarine destroyed.

I also have a metal piece in my desk from a wing flap from a Soviet bomber. We didn't shoot it down. We paid to have the wing sawed off, and that bomber was destroyed with arms reductions and arms control money from Nunn-Lugar.

The fact is we know what succeeds. We know what has reduced tensions and reduced delivery systems. Yet we are told today that America will only be safer in this new day and in this new age of terrorism if we begin building new types of nuclear weapons. We are told by people in positions of significant responsibility in this town with policy roles and responsibility that it is not unthinkable for us to talk about ``usable'' nuclear weapons. In fact, such discussions have occurred in the pages of our Nation's major newspapers with respect to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let me talk for a moment about the so-called bunker buster or earth penetrator nuclear weapons. This is about whether we should begin the research in this new weapon. They are talking about a bunker buster. I assume they are talking bunker busters because of Afghanistan. I went to Afghanistan. I flew over the mountains where deep in the caves of Afghanistan this twisted, sick, demented murderer named Osama bin Laden with his people plotted the murder of innocent Americans. I understand. They have caves there. I understand it was not easy for us to deal with those caves.

The result is that we have people saying we need an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. They are talking the size of a bunker buster up to nearly 70 times larger than Hiroshima. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.

It seems to me that if you build a 1-megaton nuclear weapon as a bunker buster you are going to bust a whole lot more than a bunker. I am guessing you bust a mountain, you bust the territory for miles and miles and miles around, and you bust any living creature. So I don't know. If the bigger the explosion, the safer we are, the more security we have, then be my guest; I guess this would be your weapon. But the question at this moment in time, at this intersection in America history is, Is this what we want to do?

If today the trucks are moving in North Korea taking spent fuel rods from the nuclear plant, if today those trucks are moving in a way that takes that material to be produced in a nuclear weapon to be sold to terrorists, in a way that has a nuclear weapon showing up 14 months from now in a major American city, is our first responsibility in the Congress and in this country to say what we really need are more nuclear weapons? We have 10,600. Is that really our response? Or ought we decide that there are bigger issues and more important issues for us to be talking about with North Korea and the rest of the world?

Those issues include stopping the spread of nuclear weapons now. I mean stopping the spread now. We have so many countries and so many groups that want access to nuclear weapons. Our job is to be the world leader. We are the superpower. We have the largest economic engine in the world, and we are the military superpower in the world. We, unfortunately or fortunately, have the responsibility and the mantle on our shoulders to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It is on our watch. It is our job. It is not someone else's job.

How do we stop the spread of nuclear weapons and decide to send the signal to the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used in this world of ours? Once you start moving nuclear weapons back and forth in anger, this Earth as we know it is gone.

Those people who talk about ``survivable'' nuclear weapons are nuts, just nuts. They still think about tank wars. You have 200 tanks; we have 100 tanks. Then we have a battle. Who has how many tanks remaining? Or if we have 200 and you have 100, that is not the way nuclear war will exist on the face of this Earth.

The only opportunity we have for our children and grandchildren is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons--not to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, which some are now doing. It is in their minds practical to talk about this new day and new age of threat security issues, and to talk about the potential of use of nuclear weapons.

It is interesting to me that in the middle of all of this discussion--even in this bill--I mentioned yesterday that we are going to have $9 billion in this bill for a national missile defense system to intercept an ICBM sent to us by either a rogue state or a terrorist.

First, terrorists and rogue states aren't going to get ICBMs. It is very unlikely. Their delivery of choice is going to be in a container on a tanker ship. It is not going to come in at 18,000 miles an hour. It will come in at 3 miles an hour to a dock in a major American city.

The lowest threat on the threat meter in this country we are spending the most money on is national defense, and the highest threat has the least expenditure. Regrettably, that is the appetite for these programs in the Senate. But when you talk about threat, the threat, it seems to me, is that this country will decide that it makes a U-turn on public policy here with respect to nuclear policy and decide it says to the rest of the world, here is a green light. The green light is to build additional nuclear weapons. We want to build so-called low-yield nuclear weapons, which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a low- yield nuclear weapon. We want to build them. Guess what Russia will be saying. We want to build some, too, then. There you go. We want to build earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapons. So will others. So we spark a new arms race. Instead of reducing the number of nuclear weapons and making this world a safer place, we will increase the number of nuclear weapons and will actually have other countries understanding that it is our country that talks about the potential use of nuclear weapons in future conflicts.

I think this is the most Byzantine thing I have witnessed in all the years I have served in the Congress. I do not have the foggiest idea how this is not met with the reaction by the American people: What on Earth could you be thinking about? Or aren't you thinking at all? I just do not understand it.

I likely will lose this amendment. It is a small amendment. The amendment deals with a relatively small amount of money but a critically important principle. I am just trying to take one piece out of this bill, the piece that says: Let's start the research to move toward an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. Let's just start. Let's just take the first step.

I am saying: Let's not.

If you cannot sleep at night because we have 10,600 nuclear weapons, you are

not going to sleep better at night because you have a bunker buster high-yield jumbo buster nuclear weapon. That is not going to make you sleep better. Take some sleeping pills.

I am happy to yield.

That is correct.

I am sorry, I do not understand your question. Would you rephrase the question.

For purposes of the Senator from Virginia, giving him comfort, let me say my amendment will end the second step. If his point is the research for the bunker buster nuclear weapon was last year a first step, then let me suggest to you my amendment will withhold the money so we do not take the second step.

However, I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. The step this country wants to take, to say there are usable nuclear weapons, that there are designer nuclear weapons that can be produced with lower and higher yields for special kinds of uses is a very dangerous step and exactly the wrong step for those of us who believe our leadership responsibility is both to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. But if he is more comfortable with my saying we will stop the second step rather than the first step, we will stop whatever steps are taken in the wrong direction, in my judgment.

If I may use the word credibility, as the Senator from Virginia did, let me say to those who might listen to this debate or watch this debate, it is incredible to believe Congress will be in charge of every step of the development of this program. That is preposterous. That is not the case on any defense system of which I am aware.

My amendment is very simple, I say to the Senator from Virginia. My amendment prohibits the use of these funds. You did not talk about prohibiting funds. You want to fund it. You want to authorize it. You want to move ahead with it. That is fine. We have a disagreement about that. But there is no credibility issue here.

The question is whether this country wants, with this legislation, to say to the rest of the world, By the way, we have embarked on a new venture here and with this new venture, whether it is last year or this year, it is decided we need new nuclear weapons including bunker busting nuclear weapons.

If the answer to that is yes, that's what we want to do, then the answer is we vote with my colleague from Virginia. If you believe it is moving in exactly the wrong direction, it is driving 500 miles in reverse like the flying farmer from Makoti, if you really believe this is stepping backward, as I do, and dangerous for the rest of the world, you vote no. You vote to strip the money.

Look, money is money, as you know. This $11 million, $15 million is probably not a lot of money to some. But my amendment strips that money to say let's stop this. We do not need earth penetrating bunker busting nuclear weapons. Does the Senator from Virginia believe at this moment we can't sleep because we don't have bunker busting earth penetrating nuclear weapons?

I am sorry, if the Senator wants to talk about credibility, let me correct the Senator, if you do not mind. On page 2 of my amendment it prohibits it for the year 2004, because that's all I can do, with respect to 2004.

And for the year 2004 it says: No funds authorized or appropriated or otherwise made available, et cetera, for a feasibility study.

Let me finish my point. If we are going to be completely accurate here.

That was my understanding.

Let me just make this point because I think it is important. I, too, want to be accurate. I want to be accurate on my side and your side. My amendment prohibits the use of funds

for the earth penetrator weapon to be ``obligated or expended for development, testing, or engineering on a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.'' That is perpetual. And ``(b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal Year 2004 Funds'' deals only with this fiscal year.

So to be perfectly accurate, the question of the withholding of funds with respect to the feasibility study only applies to this fiscal year. It is not permanently banning that funding because I can only ban it for this year. So I just want to make that point.

I am happy to yield and happy to engage in this colloquy, but I think the issue is quite simple actually: Either one believes we ought to have new nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker busters--and I don't remember exactly who showed up to testify yesterday; someone from the Joint Chiefs, I guess, and they have told us that somewhere around the world, somebody is auguring deep into the earth, God forbid, and we might well need a nuclear weapon to go get them.

I would say to people who come around here with those stories: Go get some fresh air. Put some sugar on your cereal. I don't, for the life of me--there are people around here, I swear to you, who, if told our adversaries were creating a cavalry, would be on the floor trying to buy horses. I don't understand this notion that there is a rumor that somebody is doing something, so let's create a new nuclear weapon.

The reason I offer this specific amendment, I say to the Senator from Virginia, is that I know they talked about this in Afghanistan, in Iraq. And they talked about the issue of ``usable'' nuclear weapons. They talked about the difficulty in caves. I have flown over those mountains. I have seen those mountains and the caves. But for us to come back here and say: Oh, by the way, our new global strategy is to create a new class of nuclear weapons--I think that has profound implications with respect to the stability and the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

No, it does not.

First of all, read the last words, ``development, testing, or engineering,'' and then compare that to (b) in which I am talking about the feasibility study. I am withholding the funds from the feasibility study. I was attempting to make that distinction for you.

I am all for that statement: Why waste money? I am all for that. If the proposition is, what I am trying to do is tell the Defense Department, don't waste money, then sign me up and count me in.

I have deep respect for my colleague from Virginia. We are friends. We disagree on this issue.

Let me make a final point. I know others want to speak on this matter. We are now in a new environment in which the language about the nuclear threat has changed dramatically. We have people who say we really need to begin nuclear testing once again. We have people who say we ought not forswear the first use of nuclear weapons; first use might in some circumstances be perfectly plausible. We have some who say nuclear weapons are ``usable'' as tactical issues, as strategic issues on the battlefield, they are usable nuclear weapons we ought to be considering. There are people who say we need new kinds of nuclear weapons--bigger ones, the jumbo ones, which is the earth penetrator, and smaller ones, the smaller, mininuclear weapons that would be one- third the size of Hiroshima, which certainly is not mini, but that is what they say.

We have people saying all these things in this country, some of them in very responsible policy positions. I think the rest of the world sees all that, listens to that, looks at bills such as this, and says: You know what, the United States has 10,600 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. And they say they need more? And they say they have a right to use them? They will not renounce first use.

They say they want specific, more designer kinds of weapons for battlefield use.

They are saying: You know, the United States has changed. It used to be the United States did everything conceivable in its power to say: Never shall a nuclear weapon be used. Our nuclear weapons are deterrents, deterrents so they never can be used against us and never used against others. But now it has all changed, and there are people who think it is perfectly plausible, it is just another weapons program, just part of our weapons system.

Well, in 2003, with what is happening around the world--terrorists, India, Pakistan, North Korea--I cannot think of a more destructive piece of public policy than to continue with this kind of nonsense. It is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong, in my judgment.

I yield the floor.

I am happy to yield the time to the Senator.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I have sent a modification to the desk, a technical modification. I ask to have the modification agreed to.

Madam President, let me conclude with a few comments and indicate, as I should have, that Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Byrd, and Senator Bingaman are all cosponsors of my amendment. Let me conclude by saying I understand there is a difference of opinion about what defending America really is. I don't think it is defending our interests or providing greater national security to be involved in the creation of new nuclear weapons.

I believe the best way to defend our country, especially in a new day and age of terrorism, is to understand we must find ways to prevent terrorists from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, for they surely will use them. We saw what they did with a low-tech weapon, with jet airplanes full of fuel. That was a low-tech weapon.

The ability to acquire nuclear weapons will be a devastating consequence, especially for us in the United States, because terrorists will surely want to use them. It seems to me our job is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, do everything conceivably possible to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and provide no green lights, no go signs for anybody in the world to believe that we think it is acceptable for the use of nuclear weapons; that we believe nuclear weapons are ``usable'' in battlefield circumstances; that we believe we ought to build additional nuclear weapons, understanding that others will as well. If we want to do low yield, they will also want to. If we want to do penetrating bunker busters, they will want to do them.

Our job, it seems to me, is to say the only success we will be able to claim in the future is that we prevented the spread of nuclear weapons and prevented their use and, over a long period of time, began to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

Thirty thousand nuclear weapons exist on this earth. The detonation of one will represent the greatest calamity, or potentially represent the greatest calamity in the history of the world. The detonation of one relatively small nuclear weapon in the middle of a major American city could likely cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.

This is a big issue. This is very important. I think people walking around this town talking about usable nuclear weapons, beginning to test nuclear weapons once again, building new designer nuclear weapons, is a terrible mistake. It is sending a signal to the

rest of the world that nuclear weapons are like other weapons. They are not. They are not like other weapons. The only value of a nuclear weapon for us has been as a deterrent to prevent others from using them.

We must, it seems to me, from this day forward, with the world populated by 30,000 nuclear weapons, find a way to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people, to stop the proliferation, and to begin to reduce their number. That ultimately represents our security. That is the way to defend this country: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, not to build more.

I suspect we will see on this amendment, as we have on the previous amendments, that I will come up short on the vote. I regret that very much. I so strongly believe this country is sending a terrible signal to the rest of the world--Russia, China, Pakistan, India, you name it. I think this is a dreadful mistake. It does not strengthen this country. In my judgment, it makes this country more vulnerable in the long term.

Let me finish as I started. I have been the strongest supporter of this country's system of defense. I voted for the Defense bills. I worked on weapons systems. I think this country needs a robust, strong defense. I have always felt that way. I come from a State with two military airbases and the best Air National Guard in the country. I understand B-52s, KC-135 tankers, and Minuteman missiles.

I support a strong, robust defense. Nuclear weapons are different. They are different. They threaten the very existence of the world as we know it, and that is why it must be dealt with differently. That is why I offer this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

What is the balance of time remaining?

Mr. President, I thank both colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. I pick up on the statement of my working partner here for so many years, the distinguished ranking member.

What the Senator from Virginia is endeavoring to do today is much like what the Senator from Michigan was endeavoring to do during the markup.

Let us quietly try to assist our colleagues as they formulate their decisions as to what position to take. The Senate spoke yesterday to the effect that we are not going to impose a ban on research. I say to the Senate, that was a wise decision. We should continue with the basic theme that we are not going to impose a ban on this Nation with respect to this system or any other system which may be needed for the defense of this Nation--hopefully, never in terms of weapons of mass destruction--but we cannot send a message to the world that we are just going to ignore the fact that they exist in many parts of the world. We have to maintain a credible inventory ourselves as a deterrent against others who might threaten us. So we should not have a ban. But what we should have is in place a law which is clearly understandable.

Now my colleagues go back and try to revise the existing law which has been in effect since 1994, which I say, with no disrespect to my colleagues. But when it was written--it is very convoluted, it is very difficult to understand because it says: ``LIMITATION--The Security of Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of, research and development''--now they strike those words and put in their own-- ``which could lead to the production by the United States of a low- yield nuclear weapon. . . .''

Now, I have here a list of the seven steps followed in the life of a nuclear system. The first three--the concept study, the feasibility study, the design definition and cost study--have been authorized by the Senate as of yesterday in this amendment.

So we are at this juncture, as my colleague from Rhode Island points to his chart, where the balance of these steps toward the full implementation of a nuclear system should be put in control of whom? And I say it should be put in control of the Congress of the United States, with very clear language.

The statute, I say to my friend from Rhode Island, which you are trying to amend simply says, ``The Secretary . . . may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of'' this next step, full-scale engineering development.

Theoretically, if you are so distrustful of the executive branch-- whether it is this one or a subsequent--they could jump over that--not easily but they could jump over and go on to the other steps. So the way this thing is written, it is very awkward. It says it only stops one step.

So I say that is a bad way to go about it. I say the better, wiser way, as Senator Levin said, is the constructive way, as he pointed out in my amendment. It simply says we are not going to point to one step, we are going to point to all the steps and say as follows: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the one you are endeavoring to block by amending this old statute--but I go on: ``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

That language is as clear as crystal. This language is very awkward to interpret and read. It has a flaw in it, that you could literally jump over the one step that you are blocking and proceed, in some manner, albeit not the best, but proceed to the other steps.

My amendment stops it. It is like a stop sign that says: We will not proceed as a nation until this body, the Congress of the United States, acts to authorize and appropriate the funds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, in the spirit of fairness, I am going to read, once again, the Warner amendment, which says: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the phase blocked--``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

Where in the old statute is there any phrase as clear as the one in the Warner amendment which says: Mr. Secretary, you cannot do anything until you are authorized by the Congress?

Yes.

Let me provide it to you.

Mr. President, I reclaim my time.

You cannot point to any language which speaks to this issue with clarity, so it can be understood the world over, as does the Warner amendment. It is as simple as that.

Mr. President, the Senate did that yesterday.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I could address the Senate----

This amendment is in the nature of a substitute. However, in fairness to my colleagues, last night the distinguished ranking member and I made an agreement that we would vote once again because there could be colleagues who wish to now join in supporting this amendment.

The yeas and nays have been ordered. Am I correct?

Perhaps we could have a 10-minute vote.

Mr. President, I share the sentiments of my distinguished colleague, but I do observe that the delay on this vote, while it was the last vote on this side, there was a vote on the Democratic side not more than 5 minutes before. We share equally the burdens of the need to move forward on both sides of the aisle.

Right.

Mr. President, I will speak with my distinguished leader and ask if he will give me that unfortunate authority to exercise. If he does, I will exercise it appropriately.

I thank our distinguished leader. May I propound the UC first on the time? Then we will recognize the Senator from Maine for not to exceed 5 minutes. Then the distinguished Senator from North Dakota can proceed under the time agreement; is that agreeable?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes equally divided for the debate in relation to the Dorgan low- level yield amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no amendments be in order to that amendment prior to the vote.

The Senator is correct. There is a misstatement in the written text handed to the manager. I apologize. I read it. The Senator is correct. It is the other subject. I ask that the UC be amended accordingly to the statement by the Senator.

I think it is a fair issue to be raised. I was unaware there were additional speakers. If the Senator will give me a moment.

Ten minutes allocated? I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I will make a deal, I will yield 10 minutes of my time under this UC request to take that up. How about that?

I thank the Senator.

I likewise encourage the adoption of the amendment. I think it is cleared on both sides. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their hard work.

Under the order, my understanding is now we go to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, with 90 minutes equally divided.

Amendment No. 750

Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?

I listened very carefully to your statements. You say let's see if we can't stop taking the first step. Am I correct in that?

Am I not correct, last year the Congress of the United States spoke to that issue and took that first step and initiated that program? The first step has been taken.

Last year the Congress in the military authorization bill took the first step on this program, and put money in the bill. The research has already commenced.

I think the point of reference, to be accurate, I would say to my good friend--you are not taking the first step. In other words, this program is ongoing. In this bill are simply the funds to continue what the Congress authorized last year after debate and vote.

I just think accuracy on these very important subjects is absolutely vital to establish credibility among our colleagues. I read from the report language. It says:

This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of

which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility

study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

So the Senator was incorrect in his representation that he was endeavoring as if to say I am going to stop it now before it gets started. I think that is fair, to let the Congress know, and particularly the Senate, this thing was authorized last year and voted upon, approved, funded. This is a second tranche of funds for research.

Essentially the amendment of the Senator is to establish a total ban on this entire program.

If I may say on my own time, of course, it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, again in total fairness to our colleagues, to incorporate in this legislation, in this bill, a provision which is identical in purpose to the one we just voted on, the Warner amendment. It will say: The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, that's the next phase, or any subsequent phase of the nuclear earth penetrator program unless specifically authorized by Congress.

So into this legislation--it had been my intent to put it on in the second degree, but the time agreement understandably precluded that. It may well be other Senators will join us. But this is the intention of the Senator from Virginia. I wish to represent to all colleagues I will endeavor, and I have every reason to believe there is going to be support on the other side, to incorporate this language which will put Congress entirely in control of this program, entirely in control, just as I amended the previous legislation to put Congress entirely in control of every step as it goes along.

The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is here. I asked him to address the strategic implications and the necessity. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just yesterday, when I was consulting with him, said there is now a proliferation of effort by nations which have interests antithetical to ours, going deep into the ground to establish facilities to manufacture poison weapons, biological weapons, gas weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. I think it is prudent that our arsenal of defense deterrence have in it weapons, if I may finish, both nuclear and conventional.

Mind you, there is an ongoing effort parallel to this one to determine whether or not we can achieve the same strategic goals of destruction of deep underground facilities with conventional weapons, which would certainly be used prior to the use of any nuclear weapon. So it is a parallel program of conventional and nuclear.

But I respect my colleague whose views are different than mine. His amendment bans forever this type of weapon--research, development, everything. It stops it cold.

That is correct.

Which study was authorized, I say to my colleague, last year.

Mr. President, I think I said when I took the floor, it would be charged to the Senator from Virginia. It is in the nature of a colloquy which takes place, so statements on my behalf are charged against my time, statements by the Senator from North Dakota on his time.

I readily state you have one position on the concept of whether this Nation should, you said, start up--but I think you agree with me now, it is ongoing--so stop where it is, this program. You make your point. I make my point.

What I am trying to do is to clarify, for the benefit of our colleagues, precisely what I understand your amendment does. What this Senator, or perhaps joined by others, intends to do is, namely, make the effect of the amendment parallel to what we have done three times now. Three times this body has voted not to ban research on a nuclear system. You are asking for a ban.

I draw your attention to your first sentence: ``Effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for development, testing,'' and so forth.

Does that not capture the existing funds that were appropriated last year?

But if your amendment would pass, wouldn't it be the effect to the Department of Defense: Why waste last year's money if you are prohibited from spending another nickel?

I think we have clarified this situation as best we can. But I wish to state to my colleagues, it is the intention of this Senator--I hope to be joined by others; and, indeed, one on the other side of the aisle--to put in legislation, as a part of the consideration of this subject of the penetrator, the exact language we had and voted on very strongly here just 15 minutes ago.

Mr. President, that fence was met. The Department submitted its report. On receipt of that report, the program, as authorized last year, commenced. It is an ongoing program.

Mr. President, the use of fences is quite common in a number of areas in the Defense authorization process.

Is this a UC request?

That's correct. If I may add a word or two to this. In the course of my colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota, it was indicated there would be an effort to place in this bill language comparable to what was in the amendment that was voted on immediately prior to this one to give a consistency in the manner in which we are treating these very serious questions. So I will put this on the desk and I will represent to our colleagues that this language will be forthcoming and a part of this bill.

I have indicated to the ranking member that this language, I think, could be voice-voted because I think there is consensus on both sides in an effort to make parallel and to put the Congress clearly into play.

We are prepared to enter into that now.

It is my hope that in the course of Senator Byrd's 20 minutes, if that decision could be made, Senator Byrd would certainly understand the need to maintain the momentum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the time on our side. It is my understanding they will be yielding back time on their side.

All time having been yielded back, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to table the amendment.

Madam President, we will consult with the proponent of the underlying amendment. But for the moment, the Senate has tabled this matter.

It is my hope we could proceed to the Nelson amendments. I thank our distinguished colleague from Florida for his cooperation. We can do both by voice vote, it is my hope.

On the one amendment, I would like to be associated with you because I represented throughout the vote, to my side, that the language be incorporated. I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could bring some new information on that subject? The majority leader had a conversation with me just a minute ago. I have not had a chance to share it.

I intend to stay here, as will other Members on my side, tonight. The majority leader is open to having votes, if necessary, at about 9:30 tonight.

As we say in the law, I plead nolo contendere.

If we get the cooperation and Senators call--we are right here on the floor--and indicate that you desire to have an amendment, we will see if we can accept it. If we cannot, we will proceed to put it in line.

I say to the leadership that we are going to hear from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Following that, I know of one amendment on this side by Senator Hutchison, the Senator from Texas. And we have the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey.

Is that my understanding?

Could we put those in order now, but maybe not lock them in?

I think I can make those arrangements.

Fifteen minutes, or less. We may be able to accept it without requiring a vote.

I am agreeable to that unanimous consent request.

How soon would the Senator be willing to share the text of the amendment with the managers?

We thank the Senator from Iowa for that cooperation because, frankly, we don't know of many more amendments. We are nearing the end.

There is no objection on this side.

I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, I join in this amendment. It had been my intention to add the second-degree amendment to the amendment we just voted on. I so indicated to my colleagues on this side, recognizing I think it is a benefit for the amendment to originate by our distinguished colleague and member of the committee from Florida on this side of the aisle. This makes ``parallel'' almost to the exact word treatment of both of these initiatives with regard to nuclear weapons in the current 2004 authorization bill.

I commend the Senator. I urge its adoption.

Madam President, the modesty of my distinguished colleague sometimes is overwhelming. The concept of this language which he described and written in the King's English originated with him in the course of the markup of our bill. I then plagiarized it for the purpose of earlier legislation. I don't know whether the Senator from Florida has plagiarized it. But we owe him a great debt. I am so glad we had the early discussion today about the clarity of certain statutes and that the Senator recognized this one speaks with great clarity. That is why it prevailed on our side.

I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I wish to endorse the amendment because it has a very sound predicate, a very sound philosophy; namely, that we should do everything possible to channel all of our scientific efforts toward not using a nuclear weapon, and this does just that.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we thank our colleague from West Virginia. He has shown us the usual senatorial courtesy to allow the managers to move timely amendments.

The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized now for a period of 20 minutes. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner second- degree amendment to the Reed amendment in the form of a substitute.

The amendment would strike the Reed-Levin amendment, thereby retaining the repeal of the ban on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons that is in the committee bill. The amendment would also require that the Department of Energy receive an authorization from the Congress for engineering development, and all subsequent phases of weapons development, before commencing with such activities. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that it is the prerogative of Congress to decide on the funding necessary for the administration to proceed with engineering development of a low-yield nuclear weapon, but it will not stop the military planners and weapon designers from considering and proposing such development.

Even after repealing the ban, as we did in the committee bill, the administration is still required to specifically request funding at each phase of research and development, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. With this amendment, the Department of Energy would be required to receive an authorization from Congress before commencing with the engineering development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Congress would have another opportunity to review such activities if they are requested by the administration.

This amendment provides for appropriate congressional review and oversight without incurring the disadvantages of an outright ban on some portions of research and development. Retaining a ban on development, acquisition, and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons, would continue the ``chilling effect'' on exploration of certain advanced nuclear weapons concepts because few will choose to work on these concepts if their development or production is prohibited. Also, the Department of Defense will not spend precious research dollars on a weapon type they have little chance of fielding.

I urge support of this amendment. I believe this amendment addresses in a serious way the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. This amendment would provide all the transparency required to ensure the administration can proceed with research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, but not until Congress has an opportunity to review the request and affirmatively authorize engineering development activities.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. Before I make any more comments, right at the very start, I want to make one thing clear: We are not building new nuclear weapons. We are modifying existing nuclear weapons. Somehow the other side is trying to imply that we are building new nuclear weapons, and we are going to continue to add to the number of nuclear warheads we have. We are continuing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads under the Moscow Treaty.

The Senate bill includes an authorization of $15 million to continue a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear penetrator. I repeat, to continue the feasibility study. This is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, the Congress authorized $15 million for the first year of the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator which is now under way.

This bill authorizes only the continuation of the feasibility study. It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a capability.

The RNEP for feasibility--referring to the robust nuclear earth penetrator--will determine if one of two existing nuclear weapons can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply buried target. That is the challenge we face. Our potential enemies are trying to avoid any vulnerability to targets by going deeper and deeper underground. In order to destroy deeply buried targets that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets, this new technology needs to be an option, not that we are necessarily going to use it.

The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their safety, security, and reliability aspects. We also modify existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. The B-61-11, one of the nuclear weapons being considered for the RNEP feasibility study, was also modified once before to serve as an earth penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the modification was to ensure the B-61 would penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is attempting to determine if the same B-61 or another weapon--for example, the B-83--can be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced, underground facilities. Authorizing research on both options, nuclear and conventional--and we hope we will never have to use the nuclear; we hope we can continue to advance the conventional technology so that would be the preferred method of choice to go after these deep underground hardened targets--for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take

Again, we are not producing new nuclear weapons. We are doing a modification. It is a continuing modification. We have modified the B- 61 before. We are looking at the B-83 to see if perhaps we can't do a modification on that.

The sponsor of the amendment made the comment that the United States is setting an example for the rest of the world. We are continuing to set the example for the rest of the world by reducing the number of nuclear warheads. The problem is countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan don't care what we are doing. Despite our best efforts to set an example, they are continuing to develop nuclear warheads. They are doing more than we are today as far as the triggering mechanism for nuclear warheads. If that continues, where will that put us as far as the defense of this country is concerned?

I commend President Bush. He has taken the lead in reducing the number of nuclear warheads. It is great that we are able, through these kind of programs, to take covert silos, as my friend from North Dakota mentioned, and we are planting sunflower seeds. We are still doing that today as a result of the Moscow Treaty. Even before the treaty, the President announced that he would take down the Peacekeeper which is buried in silos in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. That effort is moving forward. We are continuing to do that. The point is, we need to have some flexibility. Times are changing. Our targets are changing. We need to have new technology. We need to study. That is what this provides, a feasibility study of these various options. We simply cannot afford to be caught shorthanded. Too much is at risk. America is at risk.

ADM James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed in testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, that not all hardened and deeply buried targets can be destroyed by conventional weapons. That is his view. Many nations are increasingly developing these hardened, deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. It is prudent to authorize the study of potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat.

What the Senate bill authorizes is simply the second year of the 3- year feasibility study and nothing more. Should the National Nuclear Security Administration determine through this study that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a hardened and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full- scale weapons development, production, or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress.

We do the study. Say the study says there is a feasible alternative. Still they cannot move forward until they have the authorization for development and production through authorization and appropriation from the Congress.

We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets to assess what would be collateral damage associated with such a capability. Then Congress would have the information it

would need to decide whether development of such a weapon is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Dorgan amendment as it now stands. This is an important issue. We are talking about the defense of this country. A lot is at stake. I think we need to keep in mind that despite the fact we are doing a lot today to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, other countries are continuing to test. I put in the Record yesterday a whole page of tests that have occurred since we quit testing underground. Other countries are continuing to develop their weapons. We need to continue to use our technology to make sure we have the proper defenses and the wherewithal to protect our troops in the field, to protect America, and to protect freedom.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

There is no objection on this side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote at 12:30 relative to the Dorgan amendment; that our time be equally divided between both sides; and that after the vote, Senator Byrd be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.

It is my understanding Senator Reid discussed this with the chairman and it was agreed that Senator Byrd would have an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes after the vote.

Madam President, I renew my request.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for this very important amendment. The bill before the Senate, unless this amendment passes or the Warner amendment passes, removes a 10-year prohibition we have had on research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production.

Yesterday, we were assured by speaker after speaker who supports removal of that prohibition that all that is intended is to remove the prohibition of research. So the amendment of Senator Reed says, let us put that, then, clearly, into this bill; that what will be prohibited will be the development of new nuclear weapons.

What is very disturbing and why this amendment is so essential, the administration's position is reflected by the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Energy, a man named Fred Celec, who says that if a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock, it will get fielded.

We have been assured by the opponents of the prohibition that, no, this is just research we are talking about. So the amendment of Senator Reed puts that clearly into law that what we are now allowing is research; that the prohibition on development will stay. That is a very important, clear message to the rest of the world. We are telling North Korea we do not want you to go there. We may militarily act to prevent you from going to the development and the production of new nuclear weapons. So it is essential that this body send a clear statement that we still have a prohibition on development, although now research would be permitted.

I thank, also, Senator Warner. Even though I think the Reed amendment is clearly better, and the message stronger that we are not removing the prohibition on development by allowing the research, Senator Warner's second-degree amendment is also a constructive addition to this debate and would be surely better than not acting at all.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I will indicate our strong support for this amendment. A few years ago, we actually made an effort to get this amendment, or something very close to it, adopted. In fact, it was in our bill. It went to conference, where we ran into a real roadblock.

We are going to give it a go again. In addition to the usual suspects, we have the two Senators from Maine and Missouri who will be with us in conference, and I am very hopeful that this time, with their support, we will be able to get it over the goal line with the House, because that is where the impediment was a few years ago.

It is an important amendment. I very much support it. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I note that Senator Kerry has been working very hard in this area. I want to make that clear for the record, because of his strong interest and support for this approach.

Again, I very much thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Missouri for their strong initiative in this area.

Mr. President, may I just have 3 minutes from the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I think for the reasons he gives, we should not walk down a road which tells both our people and the rest of the world that we are going to consider the development of what was called the bunker buster, which, as a matter of fact, is from 28 to 70 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

What we decided last year was we would put a fence around the first year's study and we would get, indeed, a report before that money was spent. It is a report which is totally unsatisfactory.

So there was a lot of doubt--a lot of doubt--in this body about whether we should proceed down a road which considers the utilization of nuclear weapons in new forms that are 28 to 70 times the size of Hiroshima.

Now we are also told, this morning, that now there may be some chemical and biological sites that could be underground for which these weapons would be used.

Well, first of all, conventional weapons are perfectly adequate to close entrances and holes. But putting that aside for a minute, just think about it. The intelligence community said they had identified 590 suspect sites in Iraq--590 sites, according to Secretary Rumsfeld. Now, that used to be a classified number, but apparently the other day it was just declassified by Secretary Rumsfeld, so I will use that number. The intelligence community said 590 sites over there in Iraq are suspect chemical and biological weapons sites.

We are going to drop a nuclear weapon on those sites based on the intelligence of the CIA? Are we kidding? Do we know what we are dealing with when we are talking about nuclear weapons 28 to 70 times the size of Hiroshima? Those are the weapons being considered for modification for the so-called bunker buster. They are not

bunker busters. These are world peace destroyers. These are city destroyers. These are nation destroyers.

For us to casually--and I think it is casual--talk about, ``Let's go down this road, we are not talking about development here, we are only talking about research,'' we have the person who is the top person in the Defense Department as the adviser to the Secretary of Defense on nuclear matters, Fred Celec, who says, ``If a hydrogen bomb could be successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock, it will ultimately get fielded.''

Now, that is not one of the supporters of the Dorgan amendment who is saying that. That is the top adviser to the Secretary of Defense who is saying: If we can show that it will work, and design it, it will be fielded.

The rest of the world does not ignore what we do here. What we are doing here is marching down a road which is dangerous and reckless in terms of world peace and security. And we should not do it.

This is not just simply a study. This is a step--a very important step--down a road, in a direction which, apparently, according to Fred Celec, who is the Deputy Assistant Security of Defense for Nuclear Matters, will be ultimately fielded.

I support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I do point out that there was a fence around last year's money. It was not as though last year we decided to proceed. There were some conditions which were attached. As far as I am concerned, when you read that report, it is very unsatisfactory, very general, and not at all sufficient to justify moving to the next $15 million.

The Senator is correct. But it is important to point out that there was so much concern about step 1, there was a fence or a condition attached to the expenditure of the money. It is incumbent upon all of us to read the report and ask, does that satisfy us that we ought to take the next step?

It is, indeed.

What dinner would we also be missing?

We are not invited.

That is correct.

Will the Senator be able to go immediately after the disposition of the Lautenberg amendment, which would be about 2 o'clock, or 1:30 or 2?

It may be later than 2.

It would be about 2:30 or quarter to 3. Would the Senator from Iowa be able to do it in that time period?

Madam President, I very much support this effort on the part of the Senator from Florida. It is a very precise, straightforward, and short amendment. The language has great meaning. The Secretary of Energy is not allowed, under this language, to commence the engineering development phase of a robust nuclear earth penetrator without specific authority of the Congress. Each word has meaning. There are not a lot of words in this amendment. It is one of the shortest amendments we have seen around here. But every single word in that amendment has meaning.

I thank not just my good friend from Florida but also the Senator from Virginia because they have really made a constructive contribution to this entire debate by supporting this approach. It is not as strong as some of us would have liked, but it nonetheless is very clear and very specific and says you may not proceed to engineering development unless Congress specifically authorizes that action. It is a significant improvement of the bill.

I thank the Senator for his generosity. His mind works extremely clearly and extremely quickly. However, the good Senator from Florida deserves much of the credit because he has been taking the lead in a whole lot of these areas. I thank both of them.

Mr. President, I very much support the amendment for the reasons given by the Senator from Virginia. I commend our good friend from Florida for his initiative.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Talent, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Snowe, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes we have been allocated be allocated among the three of us as follows: 3 minutes for the Senator from Maine, 3 minutes for the Senator from Missouri, 3 minutes for the Senator from Texas, and 1 final minute for the Senator from Maine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, our amendment addresses an increasing practice in the Department of Defense to bundle contracts to award a larger contract. The problem with that is it disadvantages smaller companies that cannot bid on a giant contract but would be perfectly able to responsibly perform the work if the contract were broken up into smaller segments.

Contract bundling has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. In fact, it has reached record levels. Contract bundling is up by 19 percent since 1992, and the result of this is the shutout of many small firms from doing business with the Federal Government.

Our amendment would require that the Department of Defense perform rigorous analysis on bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It would require that alternatives to bundling be considered and that a determination be made that the benefits of bundling the contracts substantially exceed the benefits of identified alternatives.

We have focused on DOD because the Small Business Administration indicates that ``bundling is rooted at the Department of Defense.''

The Collins-Talent-Hutchison-Snowe amendment is necessary because bundling has had an unfortunate effect on the U.S. Government contractor base. According to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles:

This issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, and

the mounting lost opportunity cost of choosing among fewer

firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products

and services at lower prices.

She noted:

The negative effects of contract bundling over the past 10

years cannot be overestimated. . . . Not only are there fewer

small businesses receiving Federal contracts, but the Federal

Government is suffering from a smaller supplier base . . .

when small businesses are excluded from Federal opportunities

through contract bundling, our agencies, small businesses,

and taxpayers lose.

That is exactly the case. When contracts are bundled so that only a few large firms can bid on them, the United States does not get as good a deal. The United States Government is not taking advantage of the many innovative small firms that are capable of doing the work for the Federal Government if the contract was awarded in smaller amounts.

This is a matter of making sure we have a healthy industrial base, that we have as many firms competing as vigorously as possible to do work for the Federal Government, and of making sure our smaller companies have a fair shot at competing for Federal contracts. This amendment will make a real difference for our small businesses.

I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his hard work. He has been an advocate for attacking this problem for some time and it has been a pleasure to work with him.

One woman business owner really summed up what this is all about. She said, bundling is a shield that keeps large companies from having to compete with smaller firms.

Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for the Federal procurement system. We rely on a vigorous competition to keep prices low and to ensure we are purchasing high quality goods and services. This amendment is going to make a difference in our procurement system and a difference for small businesses. For that reason, it has been strongly endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

I end my remarks by thanking the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their cooperation and assistance. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, our amendment addresses a practice known as ``contract bundling,'' which has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. An October 2002 report for the Small Business Administration that measured the trends and impact of bundling over the last decade concluded that: the number and size of bundled contracts issued by federal agencies has reached record levels; small businesses are receiving disproportionately small shares of the work on bundled contracts; although only 8.6 percent of contracts were bundled, bundled contracts accounted for 44.5 percent of the money spent through contracts from 1992-2001; large firms won 67 percent of all prime contract dollars and 75 percent of bundled contract dollars; and small firms won only 18 percent of prime contract dollars and 13 percent of bundled contract dollars.

Moreover, the problem is getting worse. In 2001, 29,000 contracts were bundled government-wide, up eight percent from 2000 and 19 percent since 1992.

Our amendment would require that DOD perform rigorous analysis on bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It would require that alternatives be considered and that a determination be made that the benefits of bundling ``substantially exceed'' the benefits of the identified alternatives. Savings in administrative or personnel costs alone would not constitute a sufficient justification for consolidation ``unless the total amount of the cost savings is found to be substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.''

Our amendment focuses on DOD where, the SBA report notes, ``Bundling is rooted.'' Although bundling rates occur at levels as high or higher at the General Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, and Treasury, ``the high level of spending by the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Office of the Defense Secretary focus attention on defense contracts as the primary source of bundling.''

This amendment is about more than just allowing small businesses to compete for contracts on a level playing field; it is about preserving our government's contractor base.

According to Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles the issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, which has created a lost opportunity cost caused by choosing among fewer firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products and services at lower prices.

Further, she notes that when small businesses are excluded from federal opportunities through contract bundling everyone, including our agencies, small businesses, and the taxpayers lose.

Our amendment sets in place a higher level of scrutiny than exists under current law and will be a good start in beginning to reverse a problem that has been building up over the last decade. For that reason, small business advocates such as the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Black Chamber of Commerce support it.

This amendment will make a real difference for small business. One small business owner wrote to me in support of my amendment because, she said, bundling had made contracts of the size they could hope to obtain disappear. She had, she wrote, been knocking on the doors at the Department of Defense for years, without any success due to bundling.

Another small business owner wrote to me that bundling had essentially created a monopoly in his line of business. Even small businesses that have a federal preference in contracting under various programs have seen the beneficial effects of the preferences all but wiped out due to bundling. One woman business owner pointed out in a letter to me what bundling truly is: a shield that keeps large companies from having to compete with smaller firms.

Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for a federal procurement system that relies primarily upon vigorous competition to keep prices low and the quality of goods and services high.

I am pleased that our amendment has received the support of the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and that it will become part of the defense bill the Senate passes today or tomorrow.