Floor Statements

Mr. President, this bill is called the ``Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.'' That name is

wrong. This bill is not about creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. It is about helping the elite few with large tax cuts, while burdening the majority of Americans with a huge debt.

Fairness is an American value. And this bill is far from fair.

Those making $1 million per year will get a $93,000 tax cut--more than twice the annual income of the typical working family. Meanwhile, 53 percent of Americans will get less than $100. The average tax cut in 2003 for those in the middle of the income spectrum will be $217. And married couples with two children and incomes between $10,000 and $21,000 receive no tax cut at all.

To make matters worse, the marriage penalty relief that was in this bill--something that would have helped most working families--was scaled back in order to provide larger tax cuts on dividends and capital gains--something that helps only the elite few. Only about 25 percent of Americans receive taxable dividends. And, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 39 percent of the benefits of that initiative would go to millionaires; another 44 percent would go to the top 10 percent of taxpayers; and only 17 percent of the benefit would go to the bottom 89 percent of taxpayers.

If most Americans are not getting tax relief in this bill, what are most Americans getting? Debt. This bill is fiscally irresponsible. The federal budget deficit stands at $400 billion--the largest deficit ever. And our national debt is spiraling upward. In fact, later today, the Senate will vote on a bill to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion.

These numbers sound abstract. But they have an impact on all Americans. Because of the higher long-term interest rates that will result, economists have estimated that the rising deficits and debts will, by 2012, take $1000 every year out of the pockets of working Americans.

And, the Republican leadership has indicated that they intend to come back and extend the tax cuts that are sunset in this bill. If those provisions are extended, the cost through 2013 will be between $807 billion and $1.06 trillion--even more deficit and even greater debt.

This robs Social Security and Medicare surpluses and borrows from our children's future. And it denies us the resources we need to defend our homeland from terrorists and educate our children.

In these bad economic times--times of high unemployment, slow growth, and fragile consumer confidence--our first priority should be to stimulate the economy. That is why I believe we need a tax and growth bill. The problem is, this bill does not do it.

In fact, the one provision in the Senate-passed bill that would have provided a big boost to our economy--the Ensign-Boxer amendment--was taken out of the bill.

Our amendment would have lowered the tax rate, for one year only, on the earnings of the foreign subsidiaries of American companies--if those earnings were brought back to the United States and invested in jobs and the economy. Current official estimates conclude that between $140 and $300 billion in domestic foreign subsidiary income would have been brought back into the American economy during the one-year period. These funds would have helped create American jobs and American opportunities with billions of dollars currently left overseas.

But that provision, even though it had broad bipartisan support and passed the Senate 75-25, was stripped from the bill. The one provision that would have done the most to stimulate the economy was dropped from the bill.

I am also disappointed that this bill drops my amendment to require those who fail to pay the child support they owe, to add the amount they owe to their taxable income. It was the morally right thing to do.

The conferees also failed to close the business tax loophole for giant Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). In fact, this bill quadruples that loophole. Under this bill, small businesses will be able to deduct up to $100,000 of the cost of these huge passenger vehicles in one year at least through 2005. Smaller SUVs and cars are limited to a deduction of $7,660 in the first year, and $4,900 in the second year after the purchase. This cap is not changed in the bill. But the SUV cap is. As a result, people who do not need a giant SUV for business purposes will buy giant SUVs to take advantage of the much larger tax break.

We should scrap this bill and start over. We should pass a bill that would cut taxes for every working American, providing an average benefit of over $1,600 to a family of four making $50,000 a year. We should pass a bill that would provide real assistance to the 8.8 million Americans who are currently unemployed. We should accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit, accelerate the elimination of the marriage penalty, and extend and expand unemployment insurance for those looking for work, including the one million people who have already exhausted their benefits.

We should pass a bill that really sparks economic growth. It should include the Ensign-Boxer Invest in the U.S.A. proposal. It should, as the Democratic plan did, assist small businesses with their health care expenses by providing a 50 percent tax credit in 2003. And very important for California, it should provide $40 billion in immediate aid to state and local governments.

That would be a good bill to stimulate the economy, provide help to the vast majority of working Americans, and not plunge this nation deeper into debt or plunder the Social Security surpluses. That is a bill we should pass.

This bill before us should be defeated.

I cannot hear the unanimous consent request.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I just want to ask my leader if he can give me 60 seconds in the debate to speak in favor of the amendment.

I thank the Senator for his generosity.

Madam President, I will not be long at all, but I just want to support this amendment by my leader, Senator Daschle. It is really simple. It says it is the sense of the Senate that Social Security recipients should not be denied their cost-of-living adjustment.

We have just, unfortunately, passed the tax break for the wealthiest few in this country. It is astounding to me, it is sad to me, to think that those in this country who work hard every single day, the average American family, maybe will get $100--but, by the way, probably might not even get that much--whereas the millionaires, the people who seem to touch the heartstrings of the Republicans, are going to get thousands of dollars every single year. And by some magic--magic--this is going to create jobs.

We have been there and we have done that. What do my Republican friends say now? Oh, my God, we just did the tax break for the wealthy few. We had better increase the debt burden on all Americans so we can really come through with our promise. This debt, this additional debt is almost $1 trillion more.

What is my leader saying? He is saying: At least, at the minimum, there are a few things we should hold dear. One of those is a commitment to the people who are on Social Security. If my colleagues vote no against this--and, by the way, what an excuse they have: The House has gone home.

Well, too bad. Let the Speaker of the House bring back the people of the House. Let the Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, bring back the people of the House to vote for the people of this country. What an excuse. They are going to vote no, and they are going to go home and say: I was really for you, but I had to vote no because if I voted yes, then Denny Hastert would have had to bring back the people who represent you in the House.

It is time we stood up here for the people, not the wealthiest, the millionaires, and giving excuses as to why what you are doing here is good for the people.

I support my leader, and I will support a number of amendments here to keep a commitment to the average working families, and to seniors, and the children of this country.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

May I state an inquiry? Would it be possible under the rules of the Senate to hear from our leader for 1 minute since this tables his amendment and he has not had a chance to say why it is being tabled.

I would so move.

Mr. President, I want to bring to my colleague's attention to great step forward for the environment that the FedEx Corporation is undertaking. The company recently bought 20 hybrid trucks and has announced that it is planning to replace 30,000 of its delivery trucks with hybrid vehicles over the next 10 years.

This means that the FedEx Corporation is one of the first big commercial fleets to move toward using environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles.

The 20 hybrid trucks that have already been purchased are the delivery trucks that we see in cities across the Nation every day. These low-emission, hybrid electric-powered delivery vehicles will decrease particulate emissions by 90 percent, reduce smog-causing emissions by 75 percent and increase fuel efficiency by 50 percent.

FedEx Express, a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, has been working on this project for 3 years with Environmental Defense. The company and the environmental organization worked together as partners to develop the concept for manufacturers to create an ``environmentally progressive commercial delivery vehicle.''

I own two hybird cars. They are amazing because as the driver I do not have to change anything. I still fill up the car--although less often--at any gas station. I don't need to change how I drive my car.

Similarly, these new hybrid delivery trucks will have no impact how FedEx does its day-to-day business. But it will improve the environment and ultimately save the company money in fuel costs. It is a win-win situation and shows yet again that what is good for the environment can also be good for the economy and business.

I congratulate FedEx Corporation for this action, and I urge other companies with large fleets to follow FedEx's lead in transforming their fleets to protect our environment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase security and prevent terrorist attacks at our Nation's ports.

Ports are extremely important to our nation's economy, especially to my State of California. The ports of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland handle 40 percent of our Nation's cargo and generate billions of dollars in economic activity each year in California alone.

The tragic events of September 11 demonstrated that we needed to make improvements in our nation's security. Our ports are no exception.

We have begun to make improvements. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I served as a conferee on the port security bill that became law last November. This legislation mandated the creation of national and regional port security plans and better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies. It also established a grant program for port authorities, waterfront operators, and state and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements such as video cameras and more secure fencing. In addition, it calls for the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access through background checks and a transportation security identification card.

This legislation was a good first step. But, we need to do more. And I believe we should harness the best of our high-tech capabilities to improve port security. That is why today I am introducing the High-Tech Port Security Act.

This legislation has three high tech improvements for our nation's ports.

First, the bill would require that all containers used in our Nation's ports be blast resistant. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would develop a standard for such containers and would work with shipping companies to ensure that all new containers are blast resistant.

Second, the bill would require that all containers be inspected with advanced technology before leaving our ports and entering our roads, highways, and communities. The Department of Homeland Security would establish a standard for cargo screening technology and ensure that this technology is installed at all ports, so every incoming container is screened before it leaves the port. This is extremely important because currently only two to three percent of all containers are inspected.

Third, this bill will focus protection on the Nation's largest ports by establishing high tech command and control centers to coordinate and monitor security at the 20 busiest ports in the United States.

The technologies needed to secure our Nation's vital ports are available today, and they should start being used now. There is no time to lose. The vulnerability of our seaports is no secret; it is a well known gap in our homeland defense. This legislation will help close that gap.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase security and prevent terrorist attacks at our Nation's ports.

Ports are extremely important to our nation's economy, especially to my State of California. The ports of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland handle 40 percent of our Nation's cargo and generate billions of dollars in economic activity each year in California alone.

The tragic events of September 11 demonstrated that we needed to make improvements in our nation's security. Our ports are no exception.

We have begun to make improvements. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I served as a conferee on the port security bill that became law last November. This legislation mandated the creation of national and regional port security plans and better coordination of Federal, State, local, and private enforcement agencies. It also established a grant program for port authorities, waterfront operators, and state and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements such as video cameras and more secure fencing. In addition, it calls for the development of regulations to determine secure areas in ports and to limit access through background checks and a transportation security identification card.

This legislation was a good first step. But, we need to do more. And I believe we should harness the best of our high-tech capabilities to improve port security. That is why today I am introducing the High-Tech Port Security Act.

This legislation has three high tech improvements for our nation's ports.

First, the bill would require that all containers used in our Nation's ports be blast resistant. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would develop a standard for such containers and would work with shipping companies to ensure that all new containers are blast resistant.

Second, the bill would require that all containers be inspected with advanced technology before leaving our ports and entering our roads, highways, and communities. The Department of Homeland Security would establish a standard for cargo screening technology and ensure that this technology is installed at all ports, so every incoming container is screened before it leaves the port. This is extremely important because currently only two to three percent of all containers are inspected.

Third, this bill will focus protection on the Nation's largest ports by establishing high tech command and control centers to coordinate and monitor security at the 20 busiest ports in the United States.

The technologies needed to secure our Nation's vital ports are available today, and they should start being used now. There is no time to lose. The vulnerability of our seaports is no secret; it is a well known gap in our homeland defense. This legislation will help close that gap.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Warner for working out this arrangement whereby we can have a definite vote on two alternatives that deal with, in my opinion, competitive bidding-- that is what we are talking about--in the rebuilding of Iraq.

I send my amendment to the desk, and I ask that the amendment be read.

Mr. President, at this time, does my friend want to bring his second-degree amendment to the desk or, rather, his substitute?

Amendment No. 826

I prefer to have it as a first-degree amendment. It will be much better, and I appreciate that.

Mr. President, the spirit of my amendment is very clear. I am very resolute about it. I appreciate the fact we are going to have a vote on the Warner first-degree amendment and the Boxer amendment.

All the years I was in the House of Representatives, part of the time

I am proud to have their support. There can be no stronger advocate of the strongest possible military than Senators Lieberman and Graham. We know that. We have seen them here. They are supporters because they understand, as I do, that it weakens our country when we do these kinds of deals.

The amendment that my friend has offered is fine; there is nothing wrong with it, but it does not get to the heart of this particular contract. It is general, whereas the amendment I have offered--and, by the way, it is just a sense of the Senate. It is nice. But what I have offered says that if the Secretary of Defense finds that the Army Corps has not, in fact, put the rest of this contract out for bid by the date of September 30--and they have promised to do so by August 31--then they have to tell us why they did not bid out this contract.

I am going to put up a chart that shows a copy of the congressional notification of this contract. It looks scary when one sees it because there is lots in it, but I have highlighted in yellow the things my colleagues ought to know, because maybe they do not know this.

I want to compliment the minority ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform in the House, Henry Waxman, for doing so much of the research.

I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet called the Bush Administration's Contracts with Halliburton, put out by the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform, be printed in the Record.

When we look at this congressional notification, which was very late in getting there because there were already five task orders under this Halliburton contract, finally they gave this information over: They have obligated first $17 million, then $6.7 million, $22 million, $5 million, and $24 million, with no competitive bidding.

Originally it was, oh, they have to put out the oil fires. Okay. We understand that. But what about the rest? The estimated face value of this contract is $7 billion. What do we spend on all of our afterschool programs, I say to my colleagues, in 1 year? A billion dollars. How many kids are waiting in line to get into that program? Millions.

We cannot afford it, but we can afford to give a sole-source $7 billion to one company named Halliburton. We all know the power of that company.

I want my colleagues to see I am not making this up when I say this was a sole-source contract. Estimated face value, $7 billion. Bids solicited, sole-source procurement; bids received, one. What a happy day for Halliburton that was.

The subsidiary of Halliburton is Brown & Root. That is the corporation that is the subsidiary of Halliburton that received this contract. One might say, well, maybe this is such a great company, maybe there is a reason why we would go sole source with this company.

Well, GAO has found serious problems with contract work that Brown & Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, GAO found that the Army was unable to ensure that the contractor adequately controlled costs. For example, Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14 sheets of plywood from the United States of America. The Army official in charge was shocked when he found out.

In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was inflating the Government's costs and its products by, for example, overstaffing work crews and providing more goods and services than necessary. And how about this: Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation for overbilling the Government on another contract. According to a former employee, the company routinely and systematically inflated contract prices it submitted to the Government for work it performed on a military base in California, and Brown & Root paid $2 million to settle that case.

Brown & Root's parent company Halliburton has its own problems. The SEC is investigating accounting practices of the company. The company recently restated its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002 and Halliburton has admitted paying $2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian official in an attempt to gain favorable tax treatment in the country.

So I say to my colleagues, why on Earth would the Army Corps give this company this incredible sole-source contract to the tune of $7 billion?

We have had a series of answers to that question. At first we were told this was just for emergencies. Remember those newspaper articles, just for

emergencies? Now we are finding out it goes well beyond emergencies.

In March 2003, the administration awarded Brown & Root a contract to repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration has been reluctant to provide complete or even basic information about the contract. Remember, the contract was awarded March 8 but it was not publicly disclosed until March 24. The Corps did not reveal until April 8, in response to a letter from Representative Waxman, that the contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion.

It was not until May 2, in response to another request from Representative Waxman, the Corps disclosed the scope of the contract was significantly broader than previously provided information had suggested.

We have a chance to end this embarrassment today. If we have a strong vote on the Boxer-Lieberman-Lautenberg-Durbin-Graham of Florida-Clinton amendment--and I hope many other colleagues will join. I hope many on the other side will join--what are we saying? We are saying if they do not correct the problem as they have stated they would do--and they have stated they would in fact end this sole-source contract and they would go out for bid by the end of August--all we are saying is send us a report, tell us the reason why you are carrying on.

Under Senator Warner's amendment, which I have no objection to at all, and I am going to vote for it, let's hear what it says. It says it is the sense of the Senate--which, by the way, has no force of law-- that the DOD should fully comply with the Competition in Contracting Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and should conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as soon as practicable.

I am not a lawyer, but I can tell my colleagues when we see the words ``as soon as practicable,'' get nervous.

I would be so happy to yield.

Absolutely. My particular amendment that will be voted on is more than a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate plus it is a requirement that if the Department of Defense does not meet its own stated goal of having a fully competitive contract in place by August 31, 2003, to replace this boondoggle, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 2003, detailing the reasons for allowing this sole-source contract to continue.

Yes.

That is correct, they have. In a letter to Representative Waxman, who has kind of uncovered this entire matter--if it was not for him, this thing might be buried somewhere in somebody's drawer--they said, we are now completing--this is the Department of the Army: We are now completing the competitive acquisition strategy and plan, preparing the statement of work, and preparing the solicitation that will request proposals to perform work. The solicitation will be advertised on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site by late spring or early summer and the estimate for the award of the contract is approximately the end of August.

So they have given a date by which they say they will be able to take the rest of this contract and bid it out.

By the way, there is nothing to say that the Halliburton subsidiary, Brown & Root, can't compete on the rest of the contract when it goes out. It ought to be open.

That is all I am doing.

I say to my friend, I can tell from the sound of his voice, he is a little incredulous that this has not been accepted by the other side. This is such a simple, straightforward commonsense kind of approach.

We are saying that this was not right. The Army Corps has said they will fix it. They have given us a date; they will fix it. All we are saying is, if you do not, we want to hold you accountable. We want a report.

I am trying to say what you stated. If Halliburton or subsidiaries wish to do more work in Iraq, let them stand shoulder to shoulder, toe to toe with every other company in this country.

I have heard from so many businesspeople who are outraged at this. That is why the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and you and others is a probusiness amendment; it is a protaxpayer amendment and a proconsumer amendment.

I think my friend, a very successful businessman, has put his finger on it: It is business unusual.

I say to my friend, it is very unusual. When we ask them, they say: We are just going to use this contract to put out the fires.

Then it turned out, thank God, there were not that many fires; and we thought, OK, fine, it was a sole source.

Another excellent point.

I am happy my friend from New Jersey is back. I was losing my sense of humor. I am glad he is back.

This chart shows the congressional notification of this contract. The light of day never came to this until way after it was issued. Now we finally got it after the fifth task order. Estimated value, $7 billion.

They called it a bridge contract, by the way, when they started out, and they started to let out these task orders.

The estimated face value.

Legally, as I look at it, it says estimated face value.

Here it says ``bids received: One.''

``Bids solicited, sole source.''

This is stunning.

I ask the President how much time remains on my side?

I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, I don't know whether I will object. I would like a chance to look at it. I just got a chance to look at it a minute ago. So if you could put the unanimous consent off for a couple of minutes so I can take a look at it?

If the Senator wants to give me 2 minutes, I am just looking at it now. You can read it to me or I can get a copy and read it myself. Either way is fine. I do not have it in front of me.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am just going to chat with my friend for a minute.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to say, I am very supportive of this. I just want to ask if it is the right thing for me to withdraw my amendment, or is that not necessary?

I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment because it has, in fact, been made a part of the Warner amendment.

I thank my colleague from Virginia.

I think when the Senate can work together, when we can cross over, one side to the other, we do good work. What we did is literally take one half of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia and one half of mine. What is important to me is, if the Senate will speak in one voice, we will have a vote. I trust it will pass with a very wide margin, if not unanimously. The Senate will go on record, if we pass the Warner-Boxer amendment, as saying the following: We don't approve of this sole-source contract continuing, that we want to make sure the Army Corps, which says it is going to end this contract, is held accountable; that they are going to have to let us know if by August 30 they don't end the sole-source contract, and every 60 days thereafter they are going to have to let us know why they are continuing a $7 billion sole-source contract.

That is all I wanted when I stood up a couple hours ago. That is all I want now. I am grateful to my friend for being openminded. It was a good debate.

I also say to my leader on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, the ranking member, how helpful he has been to me. When I started, I had a proposal that might never have seen the light of day. He worked with me to make it relevant, make it work. Again, to Senators Graham and Lieberman and Clinton and Durbin and Lautenberg, before we looked like we had a winner here, they were with me. This is really very nostalgic for me. In my time in the House, I worked on the Armed Services Committee on military procurement before. I had hoped I wouldn't have to be standing here worried about military procurement, but it looks like it comes back like a bad dream.

I am hopeful the action we take this afternoon, just to let the Army Corps know we are all watching, Republicans and Democrats, will have a salutary effect on the termination of the sole-source contract and fair and open bidding. The taxpayers deserve no less. The business community deserves no less. Consumers deserve no less. Frankly, the people of Iraq deserve no less because we are trying to rebuild their country in the most efficient way we can.

I thank my friend again, Senator Warner. I urge a yea vote on the Warner-Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I support passage of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill.

Our military men and women can rest assured that the Congress of the United States stands behind them--especially when they are doing so much for this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout world. I appreciate their dedication and service to this grateful nation.

That is why it is important to support the many good provisions that are in this bill--especially a well-earned pay raise and improved benefits for our uniformed men and women. I applaud the work of Senator Warner and Senator Levin on these quality of life issues and am especially pleased that they supported my amendment to study how we can provide additional benefits to those who are so frequently deployed that they are only home for hours at a time. This bill also includes a provision to address the issue of children who are left behind when both military parents are deployed to a combat zone--an important priority of mine since I was a member of the House of Representatives.

I am also pleased that the Congress passed my amendment to provide fairness to taxpayers and businesses by making sure that the Department of Defense replaces its sole source contract with Halliburton to provide oil related services in Iraq with a contract that is subject to full and open competition.

However, this does not mean I support everything in this bill. Most alarmingly are the provisions in the legislation that advance the research and development of new high-tech nuclear weapons. These weapons will not make us more secure, but instead encourage other nations to join us in a new nuclear arms race. I urge the President to reverse his dangerous policy of advocating the development of new ``usable'' nuclear weapons.

I am also disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to address the issue of a future round of base closures. California was disproportionally impacted by previous rounds of the base closure process. Even years later, my state continues to wait for the Department of Defense to meet its responsibility and provide funding for the environmental cleanup of former military installations. For these reasons, I believe the next round of base closures should not go forward in 2005 as scheduled.

It is my hope that these unfortunate shortcomings in the bill can be addressed either in a conference committee with the House or during consideration of the fiscal year 2004 defense appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, in support of this fine nominee,

To support Consuelo ``Connie'' Callahan to be a judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Callahan is a native Californian, born in Palo Alto. She is a graduate of Stanford University and the

McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific.

She was the first female and the first Hispanic judge to sit on the San Joaquin County Superior Court. She currently serves on the Third District Court of Appeals located in Sacramento.

She has been a champion of protecting children. When she served as a prosecutor, she focused on major felony prosecutions in the area of child abuse. She has received public recognition for her work on this issue.

She also is a former board member and President of the San Joaquin County Child Abuse Prevention Center. I applaud her involvement in this very serious cause.

I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to support this nominee. In addition to having the support of both of her home- state senators, Judge Callahan received unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this well-qualified, mainstream nominee.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Violence Against Children Act of 2003. The legislation, modeled on the successful Violence Against Women Act, will both toughen Federal penalties for crimes against children and assist local communities in their efforts to fight violence against children. It has been endorsed by over 100 prominent individuals and organizations.

We were all horrified by the tragic murders of Samantha Runion and Danielle van Dam. We were horrified by the kidnaping of Elizabeth Smart, Erica Pratt, and Nichole Taylor Timmons who were snatched right from their homes. We were horrified by the kidnaping and rape of Jacqueline Marris and Tamara Brooks.

But there are thousands more stories we do not hear--thousands of children who each year are victims of sexual molestation, kidnaping, murder--thousands of children whose stories do not make the nightly news--thousands of children and thousands of families who suffer in silence and often without help.

In fact, 71 percent of all sex crime victims are under the age of 18--and 38 percent of all kidnaping victims are under age 18. Those between the ages of 12 and 17 are over two times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than adults. And as alarming as those statistics are, according to a study published in 1999, only 28 percent of all crimes against children are actually reported.

While we are horrified by these and other stories, we must not let them paralyze us. We must do for children what we have done on behalf of women, by changing attitudes and changing the culture. The Violence Against Children Act would create a new Federal criminal statute for willfully injuring or attempting to injure any person under the age of 18. Those who injure a child or try to will be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined. And if the crime is kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or murder, the maximum penalty will be life in prison.

In addition to enhanced penalties for crimes against children, the Violence Against Children Act provides Federal assistance--including technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance--to any State, Indian tribe, or local government that requests assistance with a violent felony against a child. The bill also establishes a grant program to help local police and prosecutors to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution for these crimes.

This Act builds upon the Protect Act, recently signed into law, by requiring that States have an Amber Alert system to help locate missing children in order to qualify for the local law enforcement grants. In addition, to cut down on the number of abused and neglected children, states are required to have a Safe Haven program that would allow parents to leave newborn babies in hospital emergency rooms, anonymously and with no fear of penalty. These requirements will ensure that states take action to improve systems that can protect our Nation's children.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Biden, who I teamed up with over a decade ago in introducing the Violence Against Women Act. And Representative Millender-McDonald is the sponsor of the House bill.

This is a critical issue to safeguard our children and youth nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section summary of the bill and a list of those who have endorsed it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Violence Against Children Act of 2003. The legislation, modeled on the successful Violence Against Women Act, will both toughen Federal penalties for crimes against children and assist local communities in their efforts to fight violence against children. It has been endorsed by over 100 prominent individuals and organizations.

We were all horrified by the tragic murders of Samantha Runion and Danielle van Dam. We were horrified by the kidnaping of Elizabeth Smart, Erica Pratt, and Nichole Taylor Timmons who were snatched right from their homes. We were horrified by the kidnaping and rape of Jacqueline Marris and Tamara Brooks.

But there are thousands more stories we do not hear--thousands of children who each year are victims of sexual molestation, kidnaping, murder--thousands of children whose stories do not make the nightly news--thousands of children and thousands of families who suffer in silence and often without help.

In fact, 71 percent of all sex crime victims are under the age of 18--and 38 percent of all kidnaping victims are under age 18. Those between the ages of 12 and 17 are over two times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than adults. And as alarming as those statistics are, according to a study published in 1999, only 28 percent of all crimes against children are actually reported.

While we are horrified by these and other stories, we must not let them paralyze us. We must do for children what we have done on behalf of women, by changing attitudes and changing the culture. The Violence Against Children Act would create a new Federal criminal statute for willfully injuring or attempting to injure any person under the age of 18. Those who injure a child or try to will be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined. And if the crime is kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse, or murder, the maximum penalty will be life in prison.

In addition to enhanced penalties for crimes against children, the Violence Against Children Act provides Federal assistance--including technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance--to any State, Indian tribe, or local government that requests assistance with a violent felony against a child. The bill also establishes a grant program to help local police and prosecutors to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution for these crimes.

This Act builds upon the Protect Act, recently signed into law, by requiring that States have an Amber Alert system to help locate missing children in order to qualify for the local law enforcement grants. In addition, to cut down on the number of abused and neglected children, states are required to have a Safe Haven program that would allow parents to leave newborn babies in hospital emergency rooms, anonymously and with no fear of penalty. These requirements will ensure that states take action to improve systems that can protect our Nation's children.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Biden, who I teamed up with over a decade ago in introducing the Violence Against Women Act. And Representative Millender-McDonald is the sponsor of the House bill.

This is a critical issue to safeguard our children and youth nationwide. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section-by-section summary of the bill and a list of those who have endorsed it.

Madam President, I am very concerned that the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization Act provide $15 million of funding for the continued study into the feasibility of developing a robust nuclear earth penetrator.

The robust nuclear earth penetrator is a bomb designed to bury itself deep into the ground before it explodes. This is not a low-yield nuclear weapon. According to reports, this weapon would be five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima--and would have an even greater impact because a nuclear weapon's force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the crust of the Earth.

The aim of those who support this research into the robust nuclear earth penetrator believe that a usable nuclear weapon will be able to destroy deeply buried targets with few casualties and little fallout. Unfortunately, science is not on their side.

Last year, a number of scientists, including Sidney Drell of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center wrote, ``an earth-penetrating warhead with a yield sufficient to destroy a buried target cannot penetrate deeply enough to fully contain the nuclear explosion; it would necessarily produce an intense and deadly radioactive fallout. Thus, it is not technically possible to use nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried targets without at the same time causing significant radioactive contamination and collateral damage if used in an urban area.''

Another argument pushed by those in favor of these nuclear weapons is that they would be useful in destroying stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

While a nuclear weapon could, in fact, incinerate biological and chemical weapons if the nuclear blast is nearby, it is unlikely that we will ever have perfect intelligence about the location of these weapons. Our continued inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a perfect illustration.

In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that the robust nuclear earth penetrator could actually disperse biological and chemical weapons by spreading them into the resulting crater and surrounding air. These weapons are not usable weapons.

Finally, our continued development of new uses for nuclear weapons will only spurn other nations to do the same.

As Rose Gottemoeller, the former Deputy Secretary of Energy, has said, ``I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a really enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to renuclearize. And I think definitely there's going to be an impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the world.''

The war in Iraq showed our Nation has overwhelming superiority when it comes to conventional forces. It doesn't make any sense to promote the development of nuclear weapons and signal to the world that weapons of mass destruction have other uses other than a means of last resort.

I urge the passage of the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I just want to say to my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Washington State--who has been such a leader on women's issues, family issues, and children's issues--and to my friend from Illinois, who is in the Chamber, who I know is also concerned about this--this is really the first time I have ever seen a circumstance quite like this.

When the Senator from North Dakota says it is putting the Senator

from Washington at a disadvantage, I have a question for the Senator from Washington.

When the Senator from North Dakota says she is put at a disadvantage, let me just say it goes far beyond that. Who are being put at a disadvantage here, I would say, are the women who serve in the Armed Forces. My God, we lost them in Iraq. We all know the story of Jessica Lynch. We all revere the men and women in uniform. And in this bill, we know, unless my friend gets a chance--a chance--to remove a restriction, a woman in the military who finds herself in a very troubling situation, who wants to exercise her legal rights, a health care right that is legal and constitutional--she cannot even use her own money and have a safe abortion. This is the fact.

I say to my friend, yes, my friend is being inconvenienced, but I know she stands up for the women in the military tonight. It is a very sad night to hear that the most relevant of amendments that deals with women in the military cannot be offered.

I say to my friend--because I will ask her a question--does she not believe this is a slap from the Senate to the women who are serving so bravely in uniform?

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Rabbi Martin S. Weiner, who is retiring after 31 years of dedicated service to the community.

Rabbi Weiner, a San Francisco native, was educated in the city's public

schools. He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of California at Berkeley and his rabbinical training at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati.

In 1964, Rabbi Weiner was ordained from the College-Institute, where he earned a master of arts in Hebrew Letters with honors.

Rabbi Weiner came to Temple Sherith Israel in 1972, where he serves as the Senior Rabbi. Rabbi Weiner also is the immediate past president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reform movement's rabbinical union. In addition, Rabbi Weiner sits on the board of the Reform Pension Plan and the Bay Area Chapter of the American Jewish Committee.

Among his many accomplishments, Rabbi Weiner has served as president of the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis and as chair of the San Francisco Interfaith Council. He has also served as vice president, treasurer, and a member of the Central Conference of American Rabbis Executive Board, in addition to the Jewish Community Federation, the National Commission on Reform Jewish Education, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and the Jewish Family & Children's Service. Rabbi Weiner also bravely offered his services during the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center. He comforted those in need and aided several traumatized patients at New York City's Beth Israel Hospital.

Rabbi Weiner's service to the Jewish community, both in San Francisco and nationwide, is truly inspiring. I am confident that, even in retirement, Rabbi Martin Weiner will continue to inspire people with his humanity and dedication.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to increase penalties for terrorists using false identification.

This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession, or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID, that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle is reflected in Federal law.

Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism, but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those relating to international terrorism.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill to increase penalties for terrorists using false identification.

This legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress. It mandates prison time for anyone who produces, transfers, possesses, or uses a fake ID in connection with terrorism. Currently, in Federal law, there is no mandatory imprisonment for the production, transfer, possession, or use of a fake ID. This is true under any circumstances, even those involving terrorist acts. This, to me, seems wrong. If an individual at any time facilitates an act of terrorism by providing someone with a fake ID, making a fake ID, possessing a fake ID, or using that fake ID, that person should go to jail. Period. My bill make sure that principle is reflected in Federal law.

Second, my bill closes the loophole that provides enhanced penalties for fake IDs used in connection with acts of international terrorism, but not domestic terrorism. My bill makes sure that fake ID offenses related to domestic terrorism get the same enhanced punishment as those relating to international terrorism.

I ask for 10 seconds.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for this one-time infusion of private sector dollars to create jobs and encourage business investment in plants and equipment. This infusion will happen immediately. I think it is what we need to fight for because our people are hurting out there.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Ensign for his leadership on the Invest in the USA Act. As we said earlier, this infusion of cash will provide an immediate and much needed boost to the economy. Over the next year, it is estimated that this legislation, which is included in this bill as an amendment, will bring $140 billion in foreign earnings back into the United States.

As my friend is aware, under our amendment, which is the Invest in the USA Act of 2003, these funds are to be used as a source for worker hiring and training; infrastructure; research, and

development; capital investments; or the financial stabilization of the corporation for the purposes of job retention or creation. Any attempt to use these funds to increase executive pay would be a violation of the intent of this legislation.