Floor Statements

We support these amendments, Mr. President. We move to reconsider.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3438, As Modified

The modification has been cleared on this side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, one other issue, because we are trying to push this bill very quickly, we always appreciate and admire the Senator from Virginia for his forthright statements and knowledge. We think it might be possible as we proceed on at least these amendments that some of the time could be yielded. That would be in everybody's interest, if it is possible.

Mr. President, it is very important to keep in focus what Senator DeWine spoke about. There has been much too little focus by all of us on this subject. The leadership of Senator DeWine in reminding us of what is going on is critically important, and I thank the Senator for it.

For close to two decades, the nation of Sudan has been ravaged by a civil war that has claimed over 2 million lives. This civil war, which is the longest running conflict in Africa, shows few signs of abating as many efforts to negotiate peace agreements or cease-fires have failed. What is particularly troubling is the fact that this conflict has shifted and spread to the Darfur region in Western Sudan.

Historically, this civil war has pitted Northern Sudan, which is largely Muslim, against those in the south who are predominately Christian or animist. The conflict is not only religious in nature; while setting those who would force a program of Islamization upon the entire nation against unwitting supplicants, this conflict also draws upon disputes over oil, water rights, and the future shape and form that Sudan will take as a nation.

Given the nature of this conflict, the recent announcement by the Government of Sudan that it would disarm the Janjaweed--militias supported by the government of Khartoum--is a welcome sign. The ethnic cleansing undertaken by the Janjaweed has claimed tens of thousands of lives and has created over a million internally displaced persons as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled across the border to Chad.

Furthermore, the United Nations has noted that the conflict in the Darfur has claimed over 30,00 lives. according the International Crisis Group, as many as 350,000 more lives will be claimed in the next 9 months if conditions do not improve. It is imperative for the international community to take clear and decisive steps to halt the violence and to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and displaced persons.

The Government of Sudan has a long history of denying aid to those in need. Their tactics have been developed through decades of practice and have included refusing to allow U.N. chartered planes with relief goods to land in Sudan as well as instituting delays for trucks carrying relief items. Camps that serve as home to over a million Internally Displaced Persons are in woeful condition, and only exacerbate the spread of disease and illness. It is imperative that medical supplies and foodstuffs become available immediately. Further delays only mean that more lives will be lost. Just as there cannot be a delay in the distribution of aid, the international community must take steps to provide the needed funds for this aid. The United Nations initially appealed for over $170 million in aid for Darfur and Chad. Only $50 million, the bulk of which has been provided by the U.S., has been provided while the amount of funds needed has increased to $250 million.

Food and medical aid can save lives immediately, yet steps must be taken to ensure that a lasting a sustainable peace can be reached. To that end, rebels must be disarmed. Given that these rebels operate with the approval and support of the Sudanese Government and military, this is an undertaking that can occur immediately if the political will to do so can be mustered. Disarming the rebels is a good step, but it is not sufficient. The rebel groups cannot be subsumed into the military and police forces. All those involved in the perpetration and support of ethnic cleansing must be prosecuted so that justice can be administered.

None of this will occur without the leadership of the international community. Thus far, for two decades, the world had done too little to address this threat. The United States and the United Nations must take steps to ensure that the international community is empowered to effectively and efficiently ensure that a peace resolution is reached and that it is implemented immediately.

Unfortunately, the cry of ``never again'' has been used all too frequently when lamenting the propagation of conscious, deliberative, and genocidal actions. It is imperative that decisive action is taken to help bring peace to Sudan.

I wonder if the Senator will yield.

This is really a question for the sponsor of the amendment. I say to the Senator, I understand what you have just suggested is that the information which we provide to the Red Cross be shared with Congress, not that the information which the Red Cross gives to us be shared with the Congress; is that correct?

That is the question by the Senator from New Mexico. It seems to me that makes good sense.

If the Senator would yield--and I guess I have the floor, but, in any event, this information the Senator from New Mexico is talking about is information we have which the executive branch has. Now, I believe the fear the Senator from Virginia just expressed is not that the Red Cross would leak it--because they do not----

They have proven they do not leak the information. They perform--I agree with the good chairman--a very valuable service as to what they do. But what it seems to me the chairman is saying is there is less confidence the legislative branch will protect the classification of this material than the executive branch will protect it. I do not think we can accept a premise that we are more likely to leak classified information here in the Congress than the executive branch is likely to leak it. As a matter of fact, recent history----

I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would consider this possibility as we explore ways of bridging the differences; and I, like our good friend, Senator Bingaman, very much appreciate, as always, the chairman's willingness to look for common ground. It seems to me the one sensitive area the executive branch has and that is in this amendment has to do with the name of the person.

For instance, it seems to me, if there is a number which is assigned to every prisoner--which I understand is true for every prisoner of war, every enemy combatant, or every civilian, for that matter, who is held in detention--it seems to me, if the number is given rather than the name, the rest of this information is very appropriate and will help in the oversight process.

The failure, it seems to me, to make clear to the world that we are going to abide by international conventions and that we are going to make sure our people are treated properly by our treating other people properly, that failure has cost us greatly. The purpose of the Bingaman amendment is clearly to get us back on track in terms of what our responsibilities are by giving Congress the ability to perform our oversight responsibility.

We do not have that ability now. We do not have this information. Without this information, we cannot perform the essential oversight which has been missing here, and I believe if it had been in place early enough perhaps it would have persuaded the administration to get back on course earlier than it has been persuaded.

But my specific question to the chairman would be--and I have not consulted with the sponsor of the amendment; I don't know whether he would be in an accepting mood--but if the number of the prisoner or the civilian who is being detained were substituted for the name, would that have the same problem?

When the chairman does that I would perhaps propose that one other consideration be looked at, and that is, I understand we are obligated to provide the names to the Red Cross now, and those names go back to the families in order that the families can find their loved one, if that loved one is alive, or that brother, or father, or whoever. Now, I may be wrong in that, but it seems to me the purpose of the----

I thank the chairman. I believe we ought to try to work this out. This is really moving in an essential direction for our Nation and our troops. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and thank the chairman. I think maybe we ought to lay this amendment aside temporarily. I do not know if----

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

I ask that so the Senator from Iowa can proceed with the amendment.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Wisconsin a question before the amendment is laid aside.

As I understand it, under the Senator's amendment, the CPA's inspector general which now exists will go out of existence on June 30 without the kind of careful oversight which the inspector general provides unless language is provided which continues that kind of careful oversight, which is the purpose of the Senator's amendment. Is that my understanding?

Mr. President, I think this is a very vital amendment.

As I understand it, what the Senator from Virginia is saying is there is opposition that he knows of, or there is not.

I have no problem with laying that aside.

I have one other additional question so that our record can be clear. Perhaps this has already been stated. As I understand it, under the current state of the law, the situation that the State Department has determined is that when the CPA goes out of existence on the 30th, the inspector general goes out of existence with them. As I understand it, the State Department would like to take the $65 million in appropriated funds remaining in the CPA inspector general's account and apply it to some other purpose in that kind of oversight.

Is that the understanding of the Senator?

It is also my understanding that the CPA inspector general has about 40 auditors and investigators in Iraq--that the State Department apparently does not have plans to establish an inspector general's office of any size in Iraq. Is that understanding correct as far as the Senator knows?

Mr. President, we have provided in the supplemental bill which was enacted last year $18 billion in a special fund for the reconstruction of Iraq, and created an inspector general, giving that inspector general responsibility for auditing the expenditure of these funds. We appropriated money for that inspector general's activities. It seems to me the Senator from Wisconsin, as he so frequently does, put his finger on a very important accountability issue to make sure the taxpayers' funds are properly spent.

This is a huge expenditure of American taxpayers' funds. We have to find a way--and I think the Senator from Wisconsin has identified the path--that we can continue this function in a way to protect the taxpayers' funds.

I congratulate the Senator for this amendment, and I ask to be added as a cosponsor.

I have no objection to the amendment being laid aside for the purpose the chairman has indicated. That is perfectly fine.

The amendment does relate to homeland security needs to fissile material security and to missile defense all in one amendment. I am happy to begin the debate tonight, but I do not want to complete the debate tonight given the fact the vote is tomorrow.

Depending on how many people are on the other side of the issue, it could be that long.

In addition, I believe one of the sponsors of the amendment may be on his way here and perhaps could use the few minutes that have been allocated.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Louisiana be recognized to call up her amendment, that she be recognized for 5 minutes, and then her amendment be laid aside and I be recognized to offer an amendment.

Madam President, I will reserve most of my comments until tomorrow as well because I understand under the unanimous consent agreement we have just adopted there will be an hour equally divided.

Madam President, this amendment will take $515 million of the $1.7 billion which is provided in this bill for interceptors, $515 million of the $3.2 billion which is provided in this bill for national missile defense, take that $515 million and put it into some of the most critically needed requirements that we have in this country, which is to address the threat of terrorism against this country.

Last week, my dear friend, the chairman, pointed out in his debate on the Boxer amendment that this Congress, in a conference report last year, approved 20 ground-based interceptors, and we did that for a 20- test-bed site.

In other words, what the chairman pointed out was accurate. Last year we decided there would be a test bed in Alaska and there would be 20 interceptors in that test bed.

Lo and behold, the budget request comes in this year for 40 interceptors, in a 40-silo test bed. Ten of those were removed in the committee. The issue we have to face as a Senate is whether

we want to add missiles 21 through 30 at the cost of $515 million--it was not identified last year for the test bed, not having been operationally tested, not needed for testing--or whether we are going to take that $515 million and address this money to desperately needed measures to go after the fissile material which is throughout this world and to try to secure it; to try to come up with technologies which can address the threat of explosive devices at a distance. We cannot identify explosive devices at a distance. So we face car bombers and we face other kinds of destruction such as the USS Cole because we cannot identify explosive devices from a distance.

Most of our ports are not yet secure. Most of the containers coming into this country are still not being identified, still not being looked at to see whether there may be material in there, either biological, chemical, or nuclear material. We still have massive insecurities in this country relative to the real, immediate threats that we face.

We have to take some resources. It seems to me the logical place to take it is where we have not had operational testing of missiles that are part of a missile defense system, which are now being produced at much higher than initial low-rate production, despite a law which says you may not go beyond initial low-rate production into full-rate production without operational testing. That is the law. Yet what we have said is, so far we are going to take this $515 million, and we are going to put this in missiles 21 through 30.

I want to emphasize to my friends, the debate over the first 20 missiles in that test bed is over in this Senate for now. The Boxer amendment was defeated. So there are going to be 20 missiles put into 20 silos. They are going to be deployed. They are going to be produced despite the fact that we have not had independent testing, operational testing, real world testing of these missiles. That debate took place on this floor last week. That is not the subject of my amendment.

My amendment has nothing to do with missiles 1 through 20. It has nothing to do with the 20-silo test bed in Alaska. It has everything to do with whether we go beyond that 20-silo test bed to missiles 21 through 30, decide to produce those missiles despite the fact that we have not had independent operational testing. My amendment would say no. No. We know what the real, most immediate threats are to this country. There may be a North Korean missile threat. For folks who believe that cannot be deterred and whether we can produce a missile that can knock down a North Korean missile, it is worth doing, fine. If that is the belief of a majority of this body, fine. North Korea cannot be deterred and we can produce missiles which can knock down a North Korean missile, so be it, if that is the decision of this body.

That is not my amendment. My amendment says hold off producing 21 through 30. Don't commit in this bill to produce 10 more missiles at a cost of $515 million. And this is just for the advanced procurement. Don't commit to that when you have not had the operational testing, when last year we said we were going to have a 20-silo test bed, when we have such major unmet needs in terms of the real, immediate, short- term threats against this country.

We had the CIA, not too long ago, that made an assessment as to what the greatest threats were against this country.

I want to read the CIA assessment as to where those greatest threats were.

In December 2001 . . . the CIA released an unclassified

document entitled ``Foreign Missile Developments and the

Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2005.''

This is what it said:

The Intelligence Community judges that U.S. territory is

more likely to be attacked with WMD using nonmissile means,

primarily because such means: are less expensive than

developing and producing ICBMs; can be covertly developed and

deployed; the source of the weapon could be masked in an

attempt to evade retaliation; probably would be more reliable

than ICBMs that have not completed rigorous testing and

validation programs; probably would be much more accurate

than emerging ICBMs over the next 15 years; probably would be

more effective for disseminating biological warfare agents

than a ballistic missile; [and] would avoid missile defenses.

Those are the kinds of choices we should face as a Senate.

We have, in the eyes of many, a potential North Korean threat.

We have a test bed which is going to proceed. Whether a majority of us decided we are going to proceed without that independent operational testing, so be it. That is a done deal. That is going to happen.

Now the question is, Do we go into the next 10 missiles, produced in this budget, paid for in the long leap for the next 10--21 through 30-- at a cost of $515 million despite the assessment of the CIA that the greatest threat we face is weapons of mass destruction using nonmissile means and all the reasons for which that is true which they laid out? Less expensive, covertly developed unlike missiles, source of the weapon can be masked in order to evade retaliation.

When we get hit by a terrorist, we can't always identify where that terrorist comes from or whether there was a state actor behind it. When a missile is fired at us, we know from where that missile comes. Any state that sends a missile our way knows it it is going to be destroyed in return. That is not true with a terrorist attack.

According to the CIA, nonmissile means are more effective for disseminating biological warfare agents than a ballistic missile and would avoid missile defense. Despite the fact there is much greater likelihood we would be attacked with nonmissile means, here is the situation we are in right now.

According to the head of the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization, fewer than 6 percent of the world's seaports and ships meet rules aimed at preventing terrorism attacks. Six percent of the world's seaports and ships now meet the rules that have been adopted to prevent terrorist attacks.

We have millions of cargo containers that enter this country's ports uninspected. I have one of the biggest ports in my home State of Michigan, by the way. But we have ports on the coast. We have ports on the Great Lakes with millions of containers coming in uninspected. We cannot identify suicide bomber strikes because we cannot identify explosives at a distance. We have to put money into technology in order to do that.

These are the most current, the most imminent, the most immediate, the most likely ways this Nation is going to be attacked. We have to put resources there.

My amendment would transfer some of those extra 10 missiles that were not projected last year. Last year we were told we had a test bed with 20 silos. This year we are asking for these 10--originally 20--extra missiles to be produced. We simply have greater priorities and greater threats.

Let me spend a couple more minutes tonight, and I will expand on this in the morning. Senator Feinstein, Senator Domenici, and others proposed that we develop at the DOE an enhanced nuclear security program to accelerate the pace of securing and eliminating nuclear weapons and materials all over the world.

This is what the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Abraham, announced at the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of May. The Secretary of Energy said the Department of Energy would begin such a new program called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, and that this initiative would ensure that nuclear and radiological material and equipment did not ``fall into the hands of those with evil intentions.'' How would we do that? In his words, we would secure, relocate, and dispose of these materials and equipment.

This is an expansion of the idea of Nunn-Lugar. But this is based on the belief, which has been stated by so many outside independent groups, that fissile material in the hands of terrorists would be the greatest threat that this Nation could face.

Senator Abraham in making this announcement said, ``It has become clear that an even more comprehensive and urgently focused effort is needed to respond to emergency and evolving threats,'' and that the United States plans to devote $450 million to this effort.

We have an announcement by the Secretary of Energy that we are going to have an effort aimed at reducing the greatest single threat in the eyes of most people to this Nation and to others, which is the fissile material would fall into the hands of terrorists to produce either a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. That is the greatest single

threat--$450 million the Secretary of Energy says the United States is going to devote to this effort. Yet there is nothing in this budget, no funding for this President.

This is perhaps the greatest of all the terrorist threats. It is real. The fissile material is out there. Yet this new initiative announced by the administration has no funding. Instead, we have funding for missiles--21 through 30--for a test bed that was only supposed to have 21 missiles to begin with, and the additional 10 missiles are not tested by an independent testing agency.

We are not even sure they would work against a threat which may or may not occur. North Korea has never tested a missile which could reach the United States. The last test they had was 6 years ago.

So we have to weigh the threat. We have to make a decision as a Senate as to whether we are going to put some resources into addressing the most real threats, the most real terrorist threats, or whether we are going to put money into advanced procurement for the next 10 missiles--missiles 21 through 30--for a 20-bed test site.

That is the kind of decision we are forced to make. We have resources that have to be allocated. We can't just say, well, we are going to face a missile threat some day, so we are going to need an extra 10 missiles even though they haven't been independently tested. So we are going to put $515 million into that advanced procurement when we have ports that are facing huge numbers of containers which have not been inspected, and when we have fissile material around the world which has not been secured.

That is the choice which this amendment will offer to the Senate tomorrow. I reserve the remainder of my argument for the morning.

I ask that the amendment which I filed at the desk, No. 3338, be called up. I failed to do that when I started. I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Jack Reed, Landrieu, and Feingold be added as cosponsors to that amendment.

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

I think it would be easier to not modify it. That is not my plan at the moment. I don't think it will be in the morning. But I would not even seek to modify it in a way which changes its character, nor would I ask for the right to do so.

If the Senator from Arizona will yield for one inquiry, I have to leave the floor for a couple of moments.

Is it the Senator's understanding that after Senator Kyl has completed there are no more speakers? After Senator Kyl has completed this statement, there are no more speakers?

The current unanimous consent provides after an hour debate on my amendment we would vote on my amendment with no intervening first-degree or second-degree amendments.

Where does the Senator want to include this?

I have to check. Offhand, I don't know of a reason, but I have to see if there is a reason I don't know of.

I will do my best to clear that.

I don't think there is an issue on this side in terms of voting in the morning, but Senator McCain wanted to speak on that.

Madam President, I will be very brief, given the hour. First, as to our friend's comment that this amendment suggests that we never build, only research, this amendment doesn't touch the 20 missiles slated to go into those silos in Alaska. It is my understanding, by the way, that those missiles in the Alaskan silos are not going to be launched as part of a test. I wonder if the Senator from Arizona would disagree with that. He talked about the necessity of those missiles being placed in silos in Alaska in order that they be realistically tested. I am wondering if the Senator from Arizona would agree that the DOD has determined, due to safety considerations, that no tests are currently planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile fields; is that his understanding also?

To launch. There is no decision currently made.

That is correct. It is my understanding there are no tests planned to launch interceptors from those missile fields. If there is any change in that, I think we will find out tomorrow morning.

This amendment does not touch those 20 missiles. I want to reiterate that point. It does not touch the money. It does not cut the missiles. Those missiles will be there. They are not going to be launched from there.

Nonetheless, they are going to be there. How that leads to realistic testing beats me, but nonetheless that debate is passed.

What has not passed is the most unmet emergency threat to the United States. This is according to the Russia task force of the Secretary of Energy advisory:

The most unmet national security threat to the United

States today is that the danger of weapons of mass

destruction or weapons usable material in Russia could be

stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and

used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.

That task force was cochaired by Senator Baker, our former colleague, and a former White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler. The Baker-Cutler task force also concluded that the limited mandate and funding falls short for what is required to address adequately the threat.

Looking at those nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, that task force concluded that the funding falls short of what is required to address adequately the threat.

Then we have the Department of Energy making an announcement that it has become clear, the Secretary of Energy said, that even more comprehensive and urgently focused effort is needed to respond to emerging and evolving threats, referring here to the Russian fissile material, saying the Global Threat Reduction Initiative announced by Secretary Abraham at the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of May would ensure that nuclear and radiological material and equipment did not ``fall into the hands of those with evil intentions'' by ``securing, relocating, or disposing of these materials or equipment.'' There is supposed to be $450 million that would go into this effort. There is nothing, or virtually nothing, in the 2005 budget to address that threat.

The Senator from Arizona is correct that we have given the administration what they asked for in their budget request. Despite the words saying this is a major threat to this country, they have asked for nothing. We should correct that deficiency and address the most serious threat we face in terms of terrorism by using some of the money for these extra 10 missiles--not the first 20 but the extra 10 that are now being requested--in order to address the most real, the most dangerous threat we face.

Madam President, I yield the floor. I do not know if that unanimous consent request relates to this matter or not.

In terms of launching interceptors from that test bed in Alaska, that would be a stunning change in

terms of the safety of the people of Alaska. I am sure if that plan has been made, there is a plan to launch missiles from that test site as part of a test, not in response to some accidental launch--and I could not agree more with the Senator from Arizona, if we had missiles in the ground and if we saw a launch come at us, we would use them in the hope that they might work. I have no doubt about that. I would hope they would work. It would be useful to take the time, expend the energy and the money to make sure they work.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt if we thought they would work 1 in 10, 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 2, we would try.

We agree on many things, and that would surely be one of them. I think we would also agree that it would be nice if we could expect they would work. I think the Senator from Arizona would agree with that. The greater likelihood they would work, the greater good it is for our Nation.

Madam President, this week people all across the Nation are engaging in the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. It was in June of 1865, that the Union soldiers landed in Galveston, TX with the news that the war had ended and that slavery finally had come to an end in the United States. This was 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation, which had become official January 1, 1863. This week and specifically on June 19, we celebrate what is known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date, June 19, that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country.

In recognition of Juneteenth, I would like to call my colleagues' attention the Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center and Museum founded in Saginaw, MI by Lula Briggs Galloway on June 19, 2003. The Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center & Museum will be celebrating its first year anniversary with the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration on Saturday, June 19, 2004, hosted by its founder and volunteers. They are proud to present the ``Tuskegee Airmen'' and the ``Triple Nickles'' who will be performing as part of the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration.

Many years before ``black pride'' became a popular slogan, a small group of black soldiers gave life and meaning to those words. This is their story. Born within an army that had traditionally relegated blacks to menial jobs and programmed them for failure, the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion, or ``Triple Nickles'' Succeeded in becoming the Nation's first all-black parachute infantry test platoon, company, and battalion.

The Tuskegee Airmen, a black Army Air Force unit, were dedicated, determined young men who enlisted to become America's first black military airmen, at a time when there were many people who thought that black men lacked intelligence, skill, and courage to become pilots. Although the Tuskegee Airmen flew more than 15,000 combat missions, once home, they had to give up their seats on the bus to Nazi prisoners of war who were being transferred to holding camps.

Since that time, men like Chuck Simms Sr., John Weldon, and Toney Muzon, have continued the legacy for the Triple Nickles and the Tuskegee Airmen. This celebration will honor them, and their fellow soldiers and airmen, who have since passed away.

The Triple Nickles' and the Tuskegee Airmen's families can be proud of their dedication to their country, and their great commitment to honor the values and principles of democracy and freedom. We as a nation have benefitted from the extraordinary contributions--and sacrifices--of these veterans who bravely went off to war, despite turmoil and racism at home.

I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center and Museum's first year anniversary, and the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration honoring the Triple Nickles and Tuskegee Airmen veterans.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?

In the form of a question to the Senator from Washington, whose amendment fills in such a gap and really meets such an incredibly important need for childcare, but is it not true that in section (a)(3), the bottom of page 2, you do provide specifically:

The Secretary shall prescribe in regulations priorities for

the allocation of funds for provision of access to child

care. . . .

So the amendment itself does provide for those regulations to be adopted by the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. President, let me first commend the Senator from Washington. She has been tenacious, absolutely determined to provide childcare for military personnel. She has devised this amendment to take care of the ones who are currently employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, because their families surely are the ones who, first and foremost, we have to try to take care of, where they have no other alternative on base because they are geographically dispersed.

This amendment provides funds for childcare for members of the Armed Forces who do not have access to military childcare programs because they are geographically dispersed and there is no military childcare program available to them. These will mainly be Guard and Reserve people but not exclusively. There may be families of Active-Duty people who are normally on active duty, who because their loved one is now in Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance, take the family back home and who also will have access to childcare because of this amendment.

It is discretionary spending. I note the Department of Defense supports this amendment. It seems to me the fact that the Senator from Washington was able to work with the Department of Defense to actually obtain their support for her amendment is a notable success for which she is entitled to the commendation of this body and the thanks of this Nation.

I hope this amendment will be adopted by the Senate. I do not know if a rollcall is necessary. If it is, I hope we strongly support this amendment, and I commend Senator Murray for her tenacity and for the sensitivity which she shows in so many issues, but in this case on the childcare needs of this country.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the pending amendment would prevent deployment of the missile defense system before that missile defense system is shown to be workable by operationally realistic testing. That is what we are supposed to do around here. This is nothing new. What is new is the deployment of a system before it has been realistically tested and operationally tested with no plans to ever test the system.

There are a couple of examples where we have deployed systems, but we have never deployed a system without a plan to at least operationally test at some point. There are no such plans here. It violates the spirit and, in one case, the letter of the law relative to testing and relative to ``fly before you buy.''

These laws are intended to prevent the purchase and deployment to the field of billions of dollars in military equipment prior to it being adequately tested. What we have heard on the floor is a giant rationalization for deploying a system which may or may not work. We have been told this morning that we have to deploy in Alaska because that is where the operational testing is going to take place. How can there be operational testing unless these missiles are put in the ground?

The problem is, that is not accurate. There is not going to be flight testing of these missiles from Alaska. That is not just me saying that; this is what the Department of Defense has told us. I will quote from the DOT&E fiscal year 2003 annual report:

Due to safety considerations, no tests are currently

planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile

fields.

I am going to repeat it:

Due to safety considerations, no tests are currently

planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile

fields.

So these missiles are not going to be put in Alaska in order to have some place from which to operationally test a missile. It is not going to happen.

I would be happy to yield.

At these sites, they are not going to be fired. So you want to deploy before you test. Do not deploy because you think that is where you are going to be testing from. We are not. That is according to the Department of Defense.

Now another reason we are given is that will work against the real North Korean missile threat. That is what we are told. Yet on March 11, the Pentagon's own chief tester, Tom Christie, testified in front of the Armed Services Committee and Senator Jack Reed asked him whether it was true that at this time we cannot be sure the actual missile defense system would work against a real North Korean missile threat, to which Mr. Christie replied, ``I would say that's true.''

Now, there are good arguments to test a missile defense system which will work. It seems to me to say that a missile defense system which may or may not work, which we have not tested operationally or realistically, is a deterrent against some potential threat, is totally inaccurate as well. It is wishful thinking. Something is not deterred with a system which may not work. There is testing to get a system which does work and then deterrence may be possible, because if there is going to be a missile attack against us, we always have to remember that the people who would shoot at us, No. 1, would destroy themselves, not us. They may or may not destroy us depending on how accurate the missile is, but they would destroy themselves because the retaliation would be swift, clear, certain, and massive. That is the deterrent that works and has always worked in the area of missiles.

Nonetheless, if one wants a defense against such an attack, if they do not think they can deter an attack by the certainty of massive retaliation, if they think some country is going to shoot a missile at us even though it will lead to their own destruction, then the value of that system would be ``if it works.'' But no operational testing here.

Senator Boxer's amendment would prevent deployment of the administration's national missile defense before the capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing. This amendment does exactly the right thing. The administration currently plans to deploy a national missile defense before the capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing. This violates the entire spirit, if not the letter, of the ``fly-before-you- buy'' laws, because these laws are intended to prevent the purchase and deployment to the field of billions of dollars of military equipment prior to it being adequately tested to show that it would work in actual combat.

Sometime in September of this year, the Bush administration will declare a national missile defense system deployed and operational, probably with much fanfare. However, the system has never been realistically tested, against targets that actually look like an enemy missile. Instead, the targets have had beacons on them, telling the national missile defense where they are, instead of using the national missile defense radars to do that. An enemy missile will not have a beacon on it. Yet, the DoD has never yet tested this system without the target having one. Nor has the system been tested against targets that look like a threat missile might look, with the simple countermeasures that any ICBM-capable country would almost certainly have.

The Pentagon's chief test official, who is required by law to independently oversee and approve all operational testing of major weapon systems, has not been given any authority over the missile defense test plans. This chief test official is the only true independent judge of the Pentagon's weapon system. The law established his position to ensure that political or other pressures did not result in a weapon system being deployed before it was ready. But the Bush administration has consistently tried to marginalize the role of the Pentagon's test official in missile defense.

The result is that the testing for the national missile defense system has remained unrealistically simple. The tests have been designed to ensure test success, and ``rack up the score,'' not to ensure the system actually works in wartime. Despite the artificial simplicity of the tests, the last major test of the system was a failure. That was back in December of 2002, and the DoD has not conducted another such test in the 18 months since then. This long delay has been due to a number of developmental problems with the system's interceptors. The Pentagon still has not fixed the developmental problems with the system, which is why the next test, originally scheduled for March, has been delayed by 4 months. Yet despite these continuing problems, test failures, and the substantial delays, the administration still plans to deploy the system in September, as it has for more than a year. This is putting perceived political advantages of a Presidential election-year before technical reality, and fiscal responsibility.

Senator Boxer's amendment would require realistic operational tests, under the control of the Pentagon's chief tester, prior to deployment of a national missile defense. I support Senator Boxer's amendment, which would put common sense ahead of missile defense politics, and would reinforce the intent of existing ``fly-before-you-buy'' laws which protect men and women in uniform, the taxpayer, and our national security. I urge others to support this amendment as well.

Hopefully, we can work out a time agreement after we see the second-degree amendment.

And the second-degree amendment is not available at this point?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the suggestion of an hour on this side relative to the Reed amendment, would that include the proposed time for the second- degree amendment to be offered by Senator Warner? Does the hour that you have estimated you would need include time for debate on the Warner second degree?

The next question is this: If the Warner second-degree amendment prevails, which is a substitute, then the question is, Would the hour that you are referring to, then--without seeing, knowing exactly what would be in the second-degree amendment that would be offered--cover the debate time for your second-degree amendment to the substitute?

If that substitute were adopted----

Immediately.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Rhode Island have remaining?

I ask the Senator if he will yield me 8 minutes.

Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island simply says that the usual rules will apply in this case, that we are not going to change the rules because some people believe strongly this is an important weapons system. We have lots of important weapons systems of which we apply the rules that you must have operational testing at some point.

Now, there have been a couple of instances where operational testing has been delayed until after there has been some deployment, but there has been operational testing then. There have been plans for operational testing. The two examples which are used frequently are JSTARS and an unmanned aerial vehicle called Predator. Those are the two examples that have been used where a system has been deployed or partially deployed, and then the operational testing has occurred after that deployment.

But in those two cases--this is the critical issue which the Senator from Rhode Island addresses--as in all other cases, operational testing has occurred; and it has been designed by and implemented by the independent Office of Test and Evaluation.

The difference between the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and the second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia is that the Senator from Rhode Island preserves the rule, which as far as I can tell has never been violated, that the Office of Test and Evaluation does the testing. That is an independent test office.

Too often these days we see rules being ignored in order to meet some particular goal: We are not going to apply the Constitution here because we have needs over here. We are not going to apply the usual rules as to how we treat captives and how we treat prisoners because we have other needs over here. We are going to bend rules. We are going to ignore rules because of some particular goal that exists.

In this case, there is a proposal made that we ignore the rule, which has been in place for I don't know how many years, with a very important purpose behind it: that we have independent testing of weapons systems before or during or at some point after deployment by an independent test office--not by the Department of Defense in consultation with the test office but by that test office itself. It is the way we have protected our men and women in the military, to make sure that weapons systems work. It is the way we have protected this Nation, by making sure that weapons systems work.

We should not make an exception for it here. No matter how strongly people feel national missile defense will contribute to our national security, it will only contribute to our security if it works. To make sure it works, you need an independent testing office to do the testing and to lay out the criteria--not to consult, not to have a voice, but to do what they do with all other weapons systems that we deploy, which is to do the testing themselves.

This amendment does not prevent the administration from deploying missile defenses prior to operational testing. That was the amendment which was just defeated. This amendment allows that deployment but says you have to have operational testing sometime, at some point, and--this is the difference between the first-degree and the second-degree amendment--in the case of the first-degree amendment, that testing has to be done by that independent Office of Test and Evaluation, as all other testing of all other weapons systems that we have been able to research. You have to have plans. You have to make a decision: Yes, we are going to test this, and we are going to have our independent Office of Test and Evaluation do it.

Now, as I said, some defense programs have been deployed before operational testing was completed, and among them is the Predator, which was deployed in Kosovo in 1999, prior to the initial operational test and evaluation. But the operational testing for the Predator was planned for long before the Kosovo deployment, and it was completed in the next year after that deployment. The testing was done by that independent office, not by people who are out there in the field arguing for a system, but independently by the independent test office.

The JSTARS surveillance aircraft is another example of a military system which was deployed prior to operational testing. There was a great need. It was decided they could do the operational testing after the deployment. So two JSTARS aircraft were deployed during Desert Storm in 1991.

Interestingly enough, following that deployment, the Senate Armed Services Committee wanted to accelerate the program, but the Air Force thought the effort in the gulf war had not alleviated the need for operational testing. Indeed, it illuminated areas that needed more attention in development. So operational testing was performed on JSTARS in 1995, and the operational tests revealed some significant problems. Some of those problems in JSTARS, which independent operational testing--and the word ``independent'' is just as important as the word ``operational'' and just as important as the word ``testing''--those independent operational tests revealed some significant problems, including the inability to operate at the required altitude, inadequate tactics and procedures, and inadequate mission reliability and time-on-station.

What this amendment would do is to insist that the usual rules about operational testing by an independent test office apply here, not before deployment--that approach was defeated when the Boxer amendment was defeated--but at least sometime, and sometime is critically important, and just as critical is that those tests be done not just in consultation with but by the Office of Test and Evaluation.

If you do not like the rules, change the rules, change the law about OT&E, the Office of Test and Evaluation, change the law, but do not simply say we are going to ignore the law here because that law has an important purpose. That law requiring independent test and evaluation is a law which every Member of this body ought to defend. We fought a long time to put it in place. It has had some wonderful results. Our weapons systems have worked better because we have an independent office that does the testing.

So it is not good enough, as the second-degree amendment says: Well, we will have some consultation with that independent office. That does not give them the critical decision as to whether a weapons system is effective or is not effective. To put billions of dollars into systems which are not shown to be effective at some point, which are not operationally tested at some point by an independent office, is to increase the likelihood that billions of dollars will be wasted.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Reid and Senator Warner are here. I want to clarify the length of time which the next amendment will take. My understanding is that Senator Reed's amendment might take as little as 10 minutes; in which case, it would make sense to stack his vote with the vote on the Biden amendment which would then be 2 hours later. However, if there is objection to that, I think people should be informed there could be another vote after this final vote on judges in about 10 or 15 minutes.

I am wondering if Senator Warner is here.

Is Senator Reid here?

Senator Harry Reid, too.

Should I make a unanimous consent request? I think Senator Hatch----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after this vote, there then be a period of time to debate the Senator Jack Reed amendment, which we expect would be short. We would immediately go to the Biden amendment.

I will amend that to ask that immediately after Jack Reed's amendment, there be a Sessions amendment for 30 minutes equally divided, and that we then go to a Biden amendment for perhaps as much as 2 hours, and there be three votes stacked at that point.

Excuse me. Do we have a copy of the Sessions amendment? Is Senator Sessions here?

So there will be no time agreement on the Sessions amendment until we know which amendment it is.

Mr. President, I revise that unanimous consent request to ask that immediately after the debate on Senator Reed's amendment, it be laid aside and we proceed to a debate on the Sessions amendment; that it then be laid aside and we then go to the Biden amendment, and we will hopefully have three votes at that time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Then we will clear those amendments after all of that?

Mr. President, can we just do this one step at a time, before we agree to any amendment? If there is going to be a second- degree amendment as part of a unanimous consent, I think we better withhold that piece. We didn't realize there was going to be a second- degree amendment. Is it to the Brownback amendment? If this is in the form of a unanimous consent request, we can't at this moment agree to it.

These amendments have been cleared, I believe, on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this week, the Million Mom March entered the tenth week of its ``Halt the Assault'' bus tour. The bus tour is traveling across America in a pink RV and making stops in nearly every major metropolitan area in the country. Their message is simple. They are asking Congress and President Bush to act now to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. They are in Illinois this week and they will be in my home State of Michigan at the beginning of August. I hope folks in each State will join them to help convey their important message.

In addition to banning 19 specific weapons, the ban makes it illegal to ``manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic'' firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of several specific military features, such as folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. These weapons are dangerous and they should not be on America's streets.

The ban was designed to reduce the criminal use of military-style semiautomatic firearms, and it has done just that. According to statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, from 1990 to 1994, assault weapons named in the ban constituted 4.82 percent of guns traced in criminal investigations. However, since the ban's enactment, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61 percent of the crime-related guns traced.

According to the Brady Campaign, throughout the 1980s, law enforcement officials reported that assault weapons were the ``weapons of choice'' for drug traffickers, gangs, terrorists, and paramilitary extremist groups. In response, our Nation's first responders asked Congress and President Bush to limit access to such weapons so that our streets and communities might be safer.

In order to keep these deadly, military-style weapons out of our communities, America's moms are joining gun safety groups and the law enforcement community in urging us to extend this critical gun safety law that is about to expire. Without action, firearms like UZIs, AK- 47s, and other semiautomatic assault weapons could begin to find their way back onto our streets again.

Unfortunately, despite Senate passage of a bipartisan amendment that would have reauthorized the ban, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire on September 13, 2004. The House Republican leadership opposes reauthorizing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in thanking America's moms for their efforts in the battle to reauthorize the assault weapon ban.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut. I think this amendment is essential if we are going to make a statement about who is going to do the interrogating of prisoners. We are bound by treaties, and when these treaties are ignored, this country is damaged.

We cannot have contractors where there is no accountability. You can fire a governmental employee. You can demote a governmental employee. You can discharge someone who is in the military who is doing the interrogating. When a contractor does this, there is no accountability except criminal law with all of its difficulties.

An Army memorandum dated December 26, 2000, that is still in effect today, made the express determination that gathering tactical intelligence is an inherently governmental function. According to our law, ``Contracts shall not be used for the performance of inherently governmental functions.''

We must make a critically important statement here today: We are going to hold people accountable for the kind of abuse that occurred. The only way you can do that is by having governmental employees-- either uniformed or civilian--carry out these interrogations.

Madam President, first, let me congratulate our good friend from Illinois for his leadership and determination to offer an amendment which will reflect our best instincts, our best values and our laws, both domestic and international laws to which we have subscribed. This amendment reaffirms the military's high standards, which are embodied in the Army's own field manual. Army regulations, which are cited in the ``findings'' sections of this amendment, explicitly require that all prisoners will receive humane treatment. They prohibit, among other things, torture and all cruel and degrading treatment.

The high standards in the manual, which are reinforced by this amendment, protect American soldiers. It is not just the right thing; it is not just

representing our own values. This protects American soldiers. If we lower our standards, it is only going to encourage others to engage in the torture or mistreatment of American prisoners of war in enemy custody.

The reaffirmation of our commitment to treat detainees humanely preserves our ability to demand full protections for American prisoners of war. This amendment is a clear way of reaffirming to the American people and to the world that the United States recognizes it is legally bound by international agreements. Indeed, we have promoted, we have been the leader in producing many of those international agreements relative to torture. We are going to comply with those obligations. There is one rule that applies to all. It applies to us. It applies to every other country. And we accept--indeed, we promote and proclaim-- the wisdom of that rule.

I congratulate the Senator from Illinois.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3438

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I wonder if my friend from Virginia would yield for a question relative to his amendment?

I listened to most of the debate--I had to leave for a moment.

I understand the position, or the statements of the Senator from Virginia. Much of his opposition to the language of the Senator from Vermont is that it is in the form of a criminal statute.

I understand that.

I do understand that. There is no reason both of these amendments should not be adopted. They are perfectly consistent with each other.

That is my question to my friend from Virginia. My question is, Is the objection to his language that it is a criminal statute--if this, for instance, simply restored the civil penalty for this material overvaluation of a good and service, would the Senator from Virginia still object to it?

Which is the reason--if I can be recognized?

The reason I sought the floor to ask the Senator from Virginia the question is because the argument he makes seems to be based on a premise that there is a civil penalty history to this language but not a criminal penalty history. It would seem to me that would be greater protection for any potential defendant or contractor because there is a higher standard of proof.

But putting all that aside, my question is, then, would there be any objection to simply restoring the civil penalty for that violation, material overvaluation of any good or service? Since the Senator says there is a history in terms of civil penalties for that activity, then I was very curious to find out whether he might object if we simply restore the civil penalty for that violation.

If I could reclaim the floor, what the amendment of the Senator provides, and I have no objection to it although I don't believe it adds much to existing law--I don't have any objection to the Senator's amendment making clear there is this extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is fine. But what it leaves out is the language previously in the law providing for a civil penalty for material overvaluation of a good or service. What it says is ``with the specific intent to excessively profit.'' That is a specific intent which is appropriate, I believe, either to civil or criminal law. From my perspective, this can be either civil or criminal. But the key point is that the amendment of the Senator does not include that subsection 1(d), which, it seems to me, is essential if we are going to get to that profiteering issue which the amendment of the Senator from Vermont gets to.

But I would be interested, if the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is defeated, and I hope it is not, as to whether then the Senator from Virginia might accept a civil penalty for this exact same language which was previously a civil penalty.

And I yield the floor.

That is my understanding.

After Daschle.

Before I make reference to the missile defense amendments, which it is our hope that we would be able to take up and dispose of tomorrow, the reference that the chairman made to the end strength amendment, I understand the Senator from Rhode Island, his end strength amendment at the moment could lead to a second-degree amendment.

But there is still an effort being made, as I understand it, to see if there can't be a resolution to that.

We are also hoping to dispose of either three or four amendments tomorrow relative to missile defense. We would like to talk to the Senators involved in that during these votes. But I believe the logical order here is that the Boxer amendment be first and then Reed, either one or two amendments on missile defense after the Boxer amendment, and then I would have an amendment after the Reed amendments. That is the current informal intention. We would talk to those Senators to see if they agree that that is the logical order, try to get time agreements on all of these amendments.

Well, there are a lot of outstanding amendments.

If the Senator will yield, in fairness to our colleagues, we do have listed a number of amendments from a number of colleagues who expect--and I think reasonably so--their amendments would be addressed before this bill goes to final passage. I wouldn't want to give an assessment that we are near the end because there are many Senators. We are, by the way, successfully reducing the number of amendments. We want to give credit to Senator Reid as always for his Herculean efforts in this regard. We have, under his leadership on our side, been able to successfully reduce the number of outstanding amendments, but there are still many left.

If we spend a couple more days, yes, we are near the end.

I subscribe to my leader's comment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I will ask unanimous consent the resolution relative to the Detroit Pistons victory be introduced in 1 minute, but first I ask unanimous consent that I temporarily turn the floor over to Senator Biden. Then I will introduce this unanimous consent resolution, Senator Stabenow will be recognized for 5 minutes, I will be recognized for 5 minutes, and then Senator Miller will be recognized for 8 minutes after that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 380, submitted earlier today by myself and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow be recognized for her approximately 5-minute statement, and that I then be recognized for my statement.

Mr. President, last night before 22,000 fans, a gritty bunch of Detroit Pistons achieved one of the biggest championship basketball upsets in history. In a league that has long emphasized the role of its star players, the Detroit Pistons bring to mind another famous team, the 1980 U.S. Olympic gold medal hockey team, and remind us that teamwork, perseverance, desire, and defense win championships.

The Detroit Pistons president Joe Dumars and his staff, with the full and total support of the owner Bill Davidson, put together a team not built around one or two superstars but on the solid play of all of its members. In their effort to build a team that could advance through the playoffs and win a championship, the Pistons made a midseason trade for Rasheed Wallace, a talented and multidimensional power forward.

In a league where bold season-changing trades are rare, this move gave the Pistons a potent front court scoring option and another rebounding and shot blocking presence to compliment two-time defensive player of the year Ben Wallace. Throughout the series the Pistons were the true definition of a team, with each and every Piston contributing in some way during their run for the championship.

NBA finals MVP Chauncey Billups, who has played for five teams in his short career, looked at home with the Pistons and played a stellar series on both ends of the court. For this year, at least, they could have renamed MVP the MVT for the ``most valuable team,'' because this was truly a team effort. It must have been extremely difficult for the people who selected the MVP to single out just one Piston because they truly were a unit.

In Larry Brown, the Pistons had obtained a coach who over the course of 31 years of coaching had developed a reputation as a keen student of the game, able to motivate players and respect his players and make gametime adjustments with great skill. Focusing his players on his favorite mantra--play the right way--Coach Brown was able to prove that by sharing the ball and sharing the glory, even the star-studded Lakers could be defeated. Over the course of the season Coach Brown became the first coach in basketball history to win both an NBA and NCAA championship title.

The country may have viewed the Pistons as the underdog, but thanks to Coach Brown, his players remained hungry for a championship and always believed in their hearts that they were up to the challenge.

So our heartiest congratulations to the Detroit Pistons, as the players, coaches, staff, and fans celebrate their third NBA championship. The effect of these finals will be felt for a long time.

As a Detroiter and proud citizen of Michigan, I know the huge impetus, the wonderful momentum, the great feeling that pervades and permeates my home State tonight. Since Detroit is now home to both the WNBA and NBA champions, perhaps Detroit, long known as Hockeytown USA, will now be recognized as Hoopstown USA as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relative to the resolution be printed in the Record without intervening action or debate.

I thank our friend from Georgia for his patience as we let out our feelings about what happened yesterday in Detroit.

Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes allocated to me.

Mr. President, I very much support the pending amendment because I believe if this country is going to have any credibility in our argument that countries such as Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, we ourselves must reduce our own reliance on nuclear weapons and not move in the direction of new nuclear weapons.

We undermine our position when we put money into a budget which says we are going to start doing and continue research on new types of weapons and on advanced concepts for nuclear weapons, when we have been a party to a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which says:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty--

That includes us--

undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective

measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an

early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty of

general and complete disarmament under strict and effective

international control.

We have told the Indians, we have told the Pakistanis: Do not move down that nuclear road.

We have told the Iranians: We are not going to let you go down that nuclear road. We are going to take actions to prevent you from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is at the same time this administration is moving this country toward additional reliance on nuclear weapons, new types of nuclear weapons, and new uses for nuclear weapons.

It is totally inconsistent for us to be moving in the direction we talk about when it comes to other countries but in the direction that we literally live out when we come to our own activity. Too often this country has been portrayed as saying that the rules that apply to everybody else do not apply to us. We have seen too much evidence of that approach recently. It has dramatically weakened our position in this world and strengthened the terrorists' position when we say we are not governed by the same rules by which everybody else is governed. There is a nonproliferation treaty out there, Iran. You are a member of that treaty, and you have to live up to it.

Now, of course, Iran can pull out of that treaty. They can withdraw from that treaty, too, just as we withdrew from the ABM Treaty. But they are a member of that nonproliferation regime now. So we tell them: You have to live up to that regime. We are not going to sit by and allow you to get nuclear weapons.

That is what we say over here. But over here we put millions of dollars into doing research on new types of nuclear weapons and new uses for nuclear weapons which already are in the inventory.

This is a grave danger to us. We undermine our own security when we talk out of the right side of our mouth when it comes to what other people can do, and out of the left side of our mouth when it comes to our own activity.

The effort to move toward more usable nuclear weapons is what this argument is all about. This is what Administrator Brooks talked about in answer to a question by Senator Reed, when he says:

And I accept Senator Reed's point that . . . I have a bias

in favor of things that might be usable.

Here is the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration talking about that we have to move toward more usable nuclear weapons. And why do we need these weapons? We are told because there are underground bunkers that might be the targets, and that those bunkers might not be reachable except through nuclear weapons.

Can we just imagine having dropped nuclear weapons going after Saddam Hussein? We had this intelligence that said he was in an underground bunker. And that underground bunker, we were told, was something we could hit with a conventional weapon at the time. It was one of, apparently, 50 airstrikes that we used against the high-value targets in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein and his sons.

Well, according to the press, there were about 50 of those airstrikes. Not one of them was successful. It turns out there apparently was not even a bunker at the one we were sure Saddam Hussein was in. But if there was a bunker, he was not in it. According to this report in the New York Times of June 13, a Central Intelligence Agency officer reported that Hussein was in that underground bunker at that site. So we went after him. We directed the airstrikes against that bunker.

But then, after the main part of this war was over, we went and inspected where we had struck based on intelligence that there was an underground bunker containing Saddam Hussein. And lo and behold, not only wasn't there Saddam Hussein--we knew that already--but there wasn't even a bunker at the location.

And the suggestion that we are going to design nuclear weapons to go after bunkers, despite the huge result in terms of human loss when nuclear weapons are used, assumes we have intelligence which is so reliable that we can, with great certainty, reach a leader who otherwise would not be reachable with conventional weapons. If anything has been demonstrated recently during this Iraq war, it is that our intelligence is not only not particularly accurate but it is wildly inaccurate at times.

The idea that we project to the world that we are going to design nuclear weapons to go after bunkers--nuclear weapons which have yields which will kill tens of thousands of people if they succeed with their low yield--it seems to me is not only a message which undercuts our position against proliferation and our position in support of the nonproliferation treaty but a message which totally weakens us, which opens us up to the attacks of the terrorists who would kill us, that the United States lives by one set of rules when it comes to its own activities at the same time it wants to apply another set of rules to the rest of the world.

The administration's Defense Science Board, last year, called for a strategic redirection of the stockpile stewardship priorities in favor of nuclear weapons that previously had not been provided for and supported.

The legislative justification for the administration's position on this matter says we should be exploring weapons concepts that could offer greater capabilities for precision and earth penetration and weapons which are more ``relevant.'' More relevant nuclear weapons is what this is all about, relevant and usable nuclear weapons. A more relevant stockpile, according to their definition, will have reduced efficient yield.

But when you look at what the real yield is of these so-called reduced weapons, reduced yields, a 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated at a depth of 25 to 50 feet would eject more than 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air and leave a crater about the size of the World Trade Center. A 100-kiloton weapon that was detonated 635 feet below ground in Nevada formed a crater 320 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter. If a target were so deeply buried that a conventional weapon could not effectively harm a target, neither could a low-yield nuclear weapon. To successfully reach one of those targets would require a large yield and a large yield cannot be contained.

According to Sidney Drell, a noted physicist at Stanford University and a member of the NNSA advisory panel, a target buried at 1,000 feet would take a nuclear weapon with a yield greater than 100 kilotons to do any damage.

This body is again faced with a decision: Do we want to continue to walk down a road which we are urging and demanding that others not walk? The greatest fight we must wage is against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that could reach the hands of terrorists.

The determination to develop new nukes and new uses for nuclear weapons undermines that fight. It weakens us in that fight and it makes us less secure in the war against terrorism.

I strongly urge that the pending amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, we have no objection. However, there may be some Senators who relied on this vote starting later, and we ought to accommodate them and keep the vote open a little longer.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

If whoever has the floor will yield, I understand we have now received the documents. We received the documents which we sought from the Army. I have not read them yet, and I do not know if the Senator has had a chance to review them.

As I understand it, Mr. President, both are proponents of the amendment. I do not know who would be controlling the opponents' time. Is there opposition? If so, I wonder if the chairman knows who the opponents are who would be controlling the time.

In terms of the proponents' time, I understand that will be divided between the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Massachusetts.

I understand that Senator Durbin, if he could, prefers to lay it down tomorrow, and Senator Reed can lay his amendment down.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Senator Dodd's modified amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3192 which was adopted.

I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to work with the Chairman and me on this amendment. The amendment addresses a number of important issues that face the Department of Defense's contracting out policies.

For the first time, this amendment would make permanent provisions that require a most efficient organization and a minimum cost differential in almost all competitions. It ensures that contractors do not have incentives to offer inferior health insurance packages as a way to cut costs and make their bids more appealing. And it sets up a process for Federal employees to gain opportunities to conduct new work and work performed by contractors.

The amendment would, on a government-wide basis, put Federal employees and contractors on the same basis with respect to competing to perform new work. Contractors are not required to compete against Federal employees for new work, either under the FAR or A-76. The amendment would eliminate the requirement in A-76 that forces Federal employees to compete for new work or to retain their own work when the scope of that work expands.

That is my hope and expectation. I note that the House bill contains a similar provision, so the differences between the two provisions will have to be worked out by the conferees. I commit to working with my colleagues in the conference to ensure that the final language in the conference report achieves the purposes of the amendment.

commission on the future of the national technology and industrial base

The Senator from Illinois has indicated--if I could just ask whoever has the floor to yield?

His amendment will be back in order when the chairman and ranking member so designate it. He is not trying to use his amendment as a gatekeeper. Why don't we just leave it pending and then set it aside?

Mr. President, may I suggest this. If I could have the chairman's attention, if we have a unanimous consent agreement that is entered into tonight, and if we include Senator Durbin's amendment in that list, that would supersede whatever status that amendment has at this point. Would that be agreeable to everyone?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3395; 3392, As Modified; 3402, As Modified; 3346, As Modified; 3326, As Modified; 3349, As Modified; and 3385, As Modified,

En Bloc

No objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.