Floor Statements

Mr. President, I always regret having to oppose an amendment proposed by my friend and colleague from California, but I am afraid I must. I have a very hard time understanding this amendment and understanding why we would even do it.

I believe, if this amendment is adopted, it is a free gift to the French, the Russians, and other European contractors who would have been provided a majoring advantage over their U.S. counterparts. Secondly, it will only lead to a further increase of greenhouse gases in China. Thirdly, it will result in the initial loss of American jobs and potentially many thousands in the future. Finally, it would mean a lost opportunity to address our rising trade deficit with China and to cooperate in finding efficient sources of energy.

I have been going to China for over 30 years now. I try to go every year. As mayor, I started a relationship with Shanghai. I traveled east, west, north, and south in China. China needs energy. All anybody has to do is be in China in the middle of the summer or the winter and see the effect of this coal-burning country.

Do you remember when they wanted to build hydroelectric power and build the Three Gorges Dam and people in this country objected to it? They said: It is too big. And the Three Gorges Dam, the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, will only handle 5 percent of the energy needs of China. So China has to go somewhere. China has to find a source of clean power.

This provision, I believe, would essentially shut out U.S. firms from being able to compete with their counterparts in Europe and, for all practical purposes, cede billions of dollars worth of contracts to non- American companies.

No matter what our personal views on nuclear power and the construction of nuclear powerplants in the United States--that is our business--it is clear that China intends to proceed with at least 30 nuclear powerplants, the most advanced and the cleanest yet known to man, over the next decade. This is China's decision, and it is their right to make this decision.

China, as its economy continues to expand by over 9 percent annually, is deeply concerned about an energy shortfall. As the world's No. 2 consumer of energy, China currently imports 40 percent of its oil supplies.

As its economy continues to grow--and it will--China will need to find additional and greater sources of energy. We do not want them to rival us as we look for those sources of energy.

Let me give you an example. The International Energy Agency, in its 2004 annual report, predicts that China's oil imports will increase by some 500 percent by 2030.

Despite the negative impacts on its citizens' health and its contribution to greenhouse gases, China remains the world's largest producer and consumer of coal. Coal continues to make up two-thirds of energy consumption in China, and it is predicted that coal consumption will only double over the next two decades.

Currently, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases--behind us--China is expected to surpass the United States as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2025. In an attempt to increase its reliance on cleaner, more efficient energy sources, China has been working to develop natural gas, hydroelectric power, and nuclear energy.

Now, while nuclear energy is not a panacea for all of China's energy needs, it offers one of the most efficient and cleaner sources of energy. And it is certainly superior to coal.

In the next 20 years, China is expected to top the world in nuclear power development. So I ask, what is the point of this amendment? Why would we want to pass legislation that would hurt American companies and try to tell China what sort of energy it can develop?

I could understand if this was sensitive nuclear technology and had national security implications. But it has been vetted, and that is simply not the case. The administration--and, in particular, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy--has reviewed this technology and has offered its unequivocal support for American firms bidding or subcontracting on these projects.

In the first project that would involve American technology, a multinational consortium, including the American Shaw group, is looking to design and construct four AP1000 pressurized water reactors on two sites in central and southern China. This AP1000 advanced nuclear powerplant will be the new standard for nuclear power throughout the globe and lead to thousands of high-tech jobs for Americans for many years to come.

In February 2005, the Ex-Im Bank gave a preliminary commitment to provide $5 billion of assistance to this consortium. Should this amendment pass today, it would mean the loss of at least 5,000 high- tech jobs throughout the Nation and could well set a precedent that precludes any American company from bidding on nuclear powerplant projects in China.

By passing this amendment, we essentially hand the contract to either the French or the Russians, who have the full support and backing of their respective governments.

With our trade deficit with China nearing $200 billion, I simply cannot understand why we would not want to provide American firms the best opportunity to successfully bid on these projects in China. For those, like myself, who have raised concerns with Chinese leaders about this unacceptable trade imbalance, it would seem counterproductive to support such an amendment.

Some have raised concerns about the decision by the Ex-Im Bank to provide financial assistance to a multinational consortium that includes non-American companies, suggesting that the bank is going beyond its mandate.

But the fact is, the Ex-Im Bank's primary responsibility is to assist in creating American jobs and export growth for the U.S. economy.

With this mission in mind, since 1987, the Ex-Im Bank has financially supported equipment and services for several overseas nuclear power projects, providing these loans at fee-for-service.

Despite what you may hear, American taxpayers do not subsidize these Ex-Im Bank loans to other countries and are not at credit risk.

Even in cases where the primary contractor may not be an American- owned company, these projects will spawn millions of dollars' worth of business for American subcontractors.

The fact is, China already has extensive nuclear power production. This is China's choice to pursue the construction of nuclear powerplants. We should not be telling China, which needs an increasing number of energy options, what to do.

Energy sufficiency has increasingly become a central component of China's long-term economic growth and development, and could have deep security implications as well.

I believe it is vital for the United States and China to cooperate in order to avoid future tensions and conflicts over securing energy resources. If this amendment passes, you can be sure there will be these conflicts. Therefore, in my view, working with China is important.

I oppose this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are some who may disagree with the proposition at the heart of Senator Reid's amendment; that is, that U.S. Government officials who violate the laws governing safeguarding sources should not be permitted to have continued access to that information. I happen to agree with that. I happen to think it is a fair point to discuss. As the Senator from Connecticut said, it is appropriate for this discussion.

In fact, there is a document that every employee signs. It is entitled ``Department of Defense Secrecy Agreement.'' The second part of it reads:

I agree that I will never divulge, publish or reveal,

either by word, conduct, or by any

other means, any classified information, intelligence, or

knowledge, except in the performance of my official duties

and in accordance with the laws of the United States, unless

specifically authorized in writing in each case by the

Secretary of Defense.

It is my understanding Senators do not sign it, Members of Congress do not sign it, but members of the administration and staff do sign this document.

All the Reid amendment does, essentially, is codify what has been carried out informally by regulation.

The second-degree amendment is not fair or honorable. It is clearly designed to threaten a Member's unquestionably lawful conduct. It is venal. I believe it is unprecedented.

We have asked the historian of the Senate if this has ever been done before. He said, no, never in the Senate. Once, in the House of Representatives, from 1836 to 1844, the House had a gag rule on all motions pertaining to abolition of slavery. They were immediately tabled. Otherwise, there never has been an effort like this.

The problem with the substitute amendment, and let me read it, is this.

It says strike all that follows and add the following:

Any federal office holder who makes reference to a

classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the

floor of the Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a

statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as

propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our

servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access

to such information or to hold a security clearance for

access to this information.

Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Director of the FBI. We discussed many aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Supposing I had come to the Senate and discussed those aspects and Al-Jazeera picked it up and used it as propaganda. I am within my rights to discuss that. It is unclassified. I know of no Senator that has come to the Senate and used any information that was classified.

Now, there have been accusations. I got that FBI report. I have it right here. It has a big X through secret and has written on it:

All information contained herein is unclassified except

where shown otherwise.

What this amendment aims to get at is clearly a venal retribution. Candidly, I object to it. It has never happened in the Senate before. And it should not happen today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1215.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and myself. It is identical to the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. That is S. 1013.

I am very pleased to be joined not only by my colleague from Texas but, as well, by Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Nelson of Florida. And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski to the list of cosponsors.

Mr. President, a great deal has been said about how homeland security dollars should be allocated. I think it is pretty clear that the American people, and certainly major opinionmakers such as major newspaper editorials, major mayors and major Governors, believe it is time our Nation adopt risk-based analysis to guide critical resource allocation of homeland security efforts.

This legislation will do exactly that. The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment is extremely simple in approach. Its key language, which appears at its beginning, is clear. Let me quote it:

The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that

homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment

of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum

extent practicable.

This legislation will ensure that these priorities are set, and set according to analysis of risk and threat.

This bill accomplishes this through five basic mechanisms.

First, the law requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grants based on risk. The legislation will mandate that funding decisions be designed according to an assessment of risk. This is a key element of the law, which makes this clear in its very first section, entitled ``Risk-Based Funding For Homeland Security,'' which reads--and I want to repeat it--

The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that

covered grants are allocated based on an assessment of

threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent

possible.

The bill defines ``covered grants'' as including the four major first responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security. That is: First, the State Homeland Security Grant Program; second, the Urban Area Security Initiative; third, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and, fourth, the Citizens Corps Program.

In addition to these four core grant programs, the legislation also covers grants ``provided by the Department for improving homeland security,'' including grants for seaport and airport security.

The bottom line is that if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve first responders' ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. Al- Qaida and its allies do not attack based on a formula. This bill rejects the formula approach in favor of a framework that is flexible and risk focused.

Second, the legislation requires that covered grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' ``Essential capabilities'' is a concept defined in this law. It is what we get for the money spent: The ability to meet the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and diminishing the consequences by effective response.

Third, the bill requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to where they are needed. States should not hold Federal funds back from where they are most needed. This bill will ensure that States quickly and effectively move the funds through to the location.

And, fourth, the bill addresses the small State minimum issue. The underlying bill requires each State to get .75 percent of the grant funding. Now, what does that mean? That means that 37.5 percent of the funds go on a formula basis to areas that might not have risk, threat, or vulnerability. For instance, under the current appropriations bill, of the $1.918 billion appropriated, $548 million is taken right off the top, allocated to States regardless of whether they are vulnerable, whether they have risk, or whether they have threat. Thus, that $548 million is not available to meet risk.

This legislation will significantly reduce this large set-aside. It will reduce it from 37.5 percent to the .25 percent. Now, I must admit I am uncomfortable even with the .25 percent minimum and would prefer to eliminate any impediment to risk-based funding. I believe it is the right thing to do. I would believe this regardless of what State I came from. We set up a huge Department of Homeland Security and have given them the basis and the ability to do the analyses that are required and the intelligence that has moved in to determine what is vulnerable, where it is, where the threats are, and what the risks are. And these are going to be ever changing. But I understand the realities of the Senate, so we decided to track what the President requested in his budget.

In this post-Cold-War world of asymmetric threat, there are two fundamental understandings which apply to efforts to make our Nation more secure against a terrorist attack.

The first understanding is that predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that even with the best intelligence we will never know exactly how, when, and where terrorists will strike. The best we can do is to adequately assess risks and threats and make predictions.

The second understanding is that our defense resources are not infinite. The sum total of money, time, and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited.

Together these two understandings define the task for our Nation: We must accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks, measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then divide up resources based on that assessment,

not based on some arbitrary formula that will exist regardless of what kind of threat or vulnerability may emerge in the future.

The 9/11 Commission agrees with us, finding that ``nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative--than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.'' The Commission concluded:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment is the only amendment that clearly does what the 9/11 Commission has recommended.

The New York Times has agreed. In an editorial entitled ``Real Security, or Politics as Usual?'' the Times wrote:

Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is

not parochialism; it is defending America.

We think that last week's tragic events in London underscore the point. The effectiveness of the British first response to these terrible attacks illustrates that they put their resources where the risks were: In London, not in some remote community, but where they knew the terrorists were most likely to attack.

Despite all recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For instance, a small State minimum in the Collins amendment is designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, a State such as Wyoming gets $27.80 per capita in funding, while New York and California get $15.54 and $8.05, respectively.

The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security inspector general report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.'' The result: ``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.''

Now, this is the IG of Homeland Security who is saying projects with low risk and vulnerability scores are currently being funded. Frankly and candidly, that is just plain wrong. It is a waste of money, and I think, to an extent, it enables--well, it really is a kind of deception because unless you can put your money where the intelligence indicates and the assessments indicate there is threat and risk, you are not protecting America.

A recently issued joint report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is:

no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and

divorces from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources

available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting

the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set

priorities.

That is what we are trying to do here. This amendment, and the bill upon which it is based, builds on efforts last year by Representatives Cox and Turner, the chair and ranking member respectively of the other body's Homeland Security Committee. That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the intelligence reform bill but was dropped at conference. Our amendment is similar to this House bill.

I understand and appreciate the efforts made by Senators Collins and Lieberman to craft the bill now before us. I applaud their leadership in this area. The Collins-Lieberman bill, while it purports to be risk based, is actually not. It incorporates complex formulae with a preordained list of factors which approximate what is believed to be the risk. Candidly, I don't think that works for the following reasons.

First, the key to responding to al-Qaida and similar organizations is flexibility. It is not a frozen formula. Al-Qaida doesn't make decisions based on formula. While today it may seem obvious that mass transit or ports are obvious targets, tomorrow they may not be. Hopefully our intelligence community will be increasingly able to ferret out our terrorist adversaries and our analysts will be better at understanding and predicting their behavior. What are today's targets could change and change yet again. Building a formula mechanism based on our best guess about what al-Qaida will do is simply not good policy.

Secondly, we created the Department of Homeland Security primarily to do exactly what this legislation calls for. The first mission statement for the Department stated:

[The Department will] identify and understand threats,

assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and

disseminate timely information to our homeland security

partners and the American public.

This is what the Department is supposed to do. It cannot be done by arbitrary formula. It can only be done listening to intelligence analysts, engaging in flexible interpretation, and being willing to move the money where the risks show up to be. That is important to do, and it should be important whether you are from a small State, a middle-sized State, or a large State. The money should go where the problems are.

This is exactly what President Bush said in announcing the creation of the Department. He stated:

This new department will bring together the best

intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to

terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect

America.

He didn't talk about an arbitrary formula. He said, the Department will bring together the best intelligence information so that flexibility becomes the watchword of the day, and money can go where it is truly needed.

Senator Lieberman was a leader in this effort, and we all worked with him to create the Department of Homeland Security. In my view, the biggest selling point for this new Department was, as the President said, that for the first time, we would have a place in the Government that would map threats against vulnerability and thus allocate our defenses in an effective, efficient way. The Department of Homeland Security can be seen as a department of risk analysis. That is what it should be doing. So it is ironic that having provided the authority and responsibility to do this, the Congress then handcuffs the Secretary by restricting these resources based on geography, politics, and parochial interests. Let's let the Secretary do the job we gave him.

Third, in addition to creating the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, again with the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman, reorganized the intelligence community. The purpose of this task was to ensure that the most important ingredient in risk analysis--good intelligence--was enough to keep America safe. So there is an irony that having gone to such trouble to improve the intelligence community, we are prepared to pass legislation which for a large percentage of funds will make intelligence irrelevant. All they need is a map, a census, and a list of important places in each State. That makes no sense to me.

I mentioned the difference in funding levels and amounts subject to risk. Last week the Congressional Research Service issued an analysis of the underlying appropriations bill, the Collins amendment, and the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. The results are startling. If we assume that the base amount of Homeland Security grant funding contained in the appropriations bill becomes law, that means the total amount available for these programs will be $1.918 billion. The underlying bill would allocate a considerable amount under the existing small State minimum framework, $579.2 million, leaving $1.3 billion to be allocated through a risk assessment process.

If the Collins-Lieberman amendment is adopted, $762 million will be allocated according to the formula--not based on risk, not based on threat, not based on risk analysis, not based on vulnerability, but simply on population and geographical distribution. That leaves even less to be allocated based on risk, only $1.155 billion. In other words, the Collins-Lieberman amendment reduces the risk-based funding in the underlying bill by nearly $150 million. If this amendment is adopted, only $251.2 million will be allocated based on the .25 small State minimum, leaving $1.66 billion for risk-based allocation.

Here is the bottom line: Put another way, under the underlying bill, only 70 percent of available funds are allocated based on risk. If the Collins-Lieberman approach is adopted, that drops to 60 percent; under the approach embodied in Cornyn-Feinstein, 87 percent of funding to risk. So between the two amendments, our amendment, 87 percent of funding to risk, Collins-

Lieberman, 60 percent, and the underlying bill, 70 percent. The choice is clear.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line is, our Nation faces danger. We have a limited amount of resources available to defend ourselves. Those resources must and should be targeted. They should be targeted to where they can do the most good and where the risk actually is. That is the simple question which faces us today. How can we best protect our country? I believe the best way to protect America is to let the Secretary of Homeland Security do the job we appointed him to do: match resources to risk, using the best available intelligence analysis. That is the only way to safety. That is the only way to reassure our people, should there be a catastrophic event, that we have put the money in the right places. Any arbitrary formula doesn't do this.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the High Threat Joint Working Group on Homeland Security. This is a group of large cities that has banded together. The letter is in support of our amendment. It is the city of Anaheim in California; city of Baltimore in Maryland; city of Baton Rouge in Louisiana; city of Boston in Massachusetts; the city of Charlotte in North Carolina; the city of Chicago in Illinois; the city of Cleveland in Ohio; the city of Columbus in Ohio; the city of Dallas in Texas; Jacksonville in Florida; the city of Kansas City, MO; the city of Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York in New York; Newark in New Jersey; Oakland in California; Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; city of San Diego in California; the city of San Francisco in California; the city of San Jose in California; and the city of Santa Ana.

I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter addressed to Senator Cornyn and me, signed by Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. What they ask is that we follow the 9/11 Commission report recommendation to better allocate Federal resources based on vulnerability.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League of California Cities be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Laura Miller, the mayor of Dallas, TX, be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the mayor of Long Beach, CA, Beverly O'Neill, be printed in the Record.

All these letters are in support of this amendment which earmarks money based on intelligence analysis of risk and threat.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

That is correct.

Mr. President, if I may respond.

I thank the Senator for her courtesy. It is my understanding we have 45 minutes this afternoon at 2:15 and Senator Cornyn will lead off at 2:15. I thank the Senator.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, how much do I have remaining this morning?

I yield, then, to the Senator from New Jersey.

How much time do I have remaining?

I will use the time, if I might, then. The distinguished chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs mentioned something which affected me a little bit, and I would like to respond to it respectfully, that our amendment was cobbled together on the Senate floor. I point out that our amendment was introduced as a bill on May 12. I also point out that prior to that we worked on this amendment for at least 6 months with high-risk areas, with cities, with States, and with law enforcement.

This amendment is born in the belief that just as terrorists in Great Britain did not go to Stratford-on-Avon, they went to London; just as 9/11 did not take place in Milpitas, CA, it took place in the financial center of America; and just as the bombers in Spain did not go to a rural Spanish community, they went to Madrid.

Now, I can only use my experience as a member of the Intelligence Committee to say whether it is advisable to have a fixed formula or advisable to give those people who have access to all of the intelligence--intelligence from CIA, intelligence from counterterrorism people, intelligence from the FBI, and all of those who do the risk analysis, whether they should have the flexibility to determine where the moneys go. From my perspective, that is the way to go. From my perspective, America is best protected if we give the people with the knowledge and the intelligence the maximum flexibility to allocate funds based on quality of grants to areas that are likely targets. Nothing can change my mind on this. If you review intelligence, you get an idea of what might be a target and what is not a target.

That is just today. It could change in 6 months. It could change in 2 years. There are many of us who believe we are in this war, this asymmetric, terrible, non-state-actor war, for a long period of time. For me, just as you would give the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ability to mount a battle plan, I think we should give Homeland Security the ability to mount the risk analysis that enables the distribution of grants in the most effective way.

We have tried to do this in our bill. The underlying bill has 70 percent of the funds based on risk; the Collins-Lieberman amendment, 60 percent on risk; and Feinstein-Cornyn, 87.5 percent on risk.

The choice is clear. People who believe differently will vote differently. There is always a question because we know the composition of this body, we know the number of small States, and we know the likelihood that people are going to vote their State. I say to them, whether they do the best thing, if something happens and people look back as to how the money was allocated, I would much prefer to be able to say that the best experts we have have made the decisions on the allocation of funds, rather than that I would doing it on any other basis, whether that basis is population, whether it is geography, whether it is based on whether you produce food or whether you produce high tech or anything else. The money must go where the threat and risk is, the money must go where the vulnerabilities in the eyes of the terrorists are, and no formula can know where those vulnerabilities are.

I yield the floor.

If I might say, Mr. President, I have great admiration for the Senator from Maine in the way she has conducted herself and the leadership she has shown.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for raising this issue again. Before the Fourth of July recess, the Senate passed this amendment 96 to 0 showing this body's united commitment to our Nation's veterans.

We worked hard with our colleagues across the aisle to ensure that the Veterans' Administration's shortfall in Fiscal Year 2005 was addressed by passing a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental.

I was disappointed that the House of Representatives did not follow our lead and instead passed a nonemergency $975 million supplemental appropriations.

I understand that the administration will be submitting a Budget amendment, shortly to address the Fiscal Year 2006 needs of the Veterans' Administration and I look forward to working with Chairman Hutchison to ensure that adequate resources are available for veterans health care next year.

In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment which addresses this year's shortfall and reaffirms our commitment to our veterans.

Thank you. We reserve the remainder of that time.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I think this small chart describes both amendments. The underlying appropriations bill has $1.39 billion. That is 70 percent of the money. Under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, $1.155 billion is based on risk. That is 60 percent. And under the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based on risk. That is 87 percent. The source is the Congressional Research Service. The Congressional Research Service was called again this morning. They stand by these figures.

Now, let me quickly bring to your attention the position of the administration. The position of the administration is set out in a letter of July 12 signed by Michael Chertoff to Members of the Senate. Let me just read a few parts.

The administration strongly believes that Federal homeland

security funds should be distributed to our first responders

based on risk and need.

The Administration would oppose amendments that would add

new bureaucratic requirements and cap funding for high threat

cities while not providing enough flexibility to distribute

over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of risk.

The administration's position is 90 percent of grant funds

should be distributed on the basis of risk. The closest

amendment to that is Feinstein-Cornyn at 87 percent of grant

funds distributed on the basis of risk.

And here is the reason that DHS gives.

DHS is identifying 36 capabilities that are critical to

preventing another terrorist attack and, if an attack does

occur, to respond and recover in a manner that minimizes loss

of life and other damages. We must focus our State and local

preparedness efforts on building those capabilities to the

right level and in the right places. Funding our first

responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to

ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized

and objective manner.

Mr. President, I could not agree with that more. That is why we feel so strongly about our amendment. You have to send the money where the need is.

You have to send the money where the anticipation is that there might be an attack, where the intelligence says--not this body; we don't know--this Nation is vulnerable. What Senator Cornyn and I have tried to do is see that there is enough flexibility to get enough of that money out there. The President has set the standard at 90 percent. Our bill comes to 87 percent.

Unlike the Collins-Lieberman amendment, the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment retains the high-threat cities' Urban Area Security Initiative Program. This program and these regions--some 50 cities-- have for several years been aggressively working to implement comprehensive plans. They remain intact, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security decides to the contrary. I included in the Record previously the letter from them containing 30 of the cities.

It is actually true this body can vote yes on both amendments. But my view is this: We are spending billions and billions on intelligence. We are beefing up every aspect of intelligence, creating new entities, improving interfacing, giving this huge new Department of Homeland Security all kinds of analysis responsibility. But we are also giving them a formula by which they have to allocate the money. That makes no sense at all. Let them do it on the basis of risk. Let them do it on the basis of threat and vulnerability. Let them move money around as the need indicates.

I don't believe there is anyone in this body who is prescient enough to know where al-Qaida or Gama'a al-Islamiyya or any other group might attack the United States next. One thing we do know, there are terrorist cells in this country, and they are geographically spread across the country. There is no question about that. So why shouldn't the money be based on risk and threat?

This amendment does that: 87 percent of the funds, $1.667 billion, based on risk. The administration's standard is 90 percent. Our amendment comes closest to that standard.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I thank both Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, and particularly Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Martinez, who spoke on behalf of our amendment.

Let me make clear, our amendment does not in any way, shape, or form, we believe, interfere with the authorizing committee. The authorizing committee has the absolute right to set whatever standards it might want to in operations. What we are trying to do is see that this huge new bureaucracy, which has been set up under the Department of Homeland Security, with all of its robust new intelligence capabilities, is able to put forward a plan and have that plan be funded, and that plan will be based on risk and threat and vulnerability. And, in fact, that is what Secretary Chertoff says in his letter to us, that he and the President want at least 90 percent of the funds devoted on a risk, threat, and vulnerability basis.

He also says they have come up with 36 essential capabilities they believe are critical in preventing another terrorist attack.

I don't think we should go to 60-40. I truly don't believe places should get money just to increase whatever it is they can increase with their own funds. I really believe that because the money is limited, it has to go to places where there are risks, where we know there are targets, where these targets have figured actionable intelligence that has reached us. So that is what we try to do.

Let me summarize once again. Under the underlying bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, there is $1.339 billion based on risk. The Collins-Lieberman amendment has $1.155 billion based on risk, 60 percent of the dollars. It is, in essence, less than the underlying bill. What we have tried to do is increase the amount on risk. So under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, there is $1.667 billion based on risk. That 87 percent of the available dollars is based on risk.

This does not take anybody out of applying. This does not say this city cannot apply or this town cannot apply. What it says is, if you apply, you are going to be judged on risk, threat, and vulnerability. I actually think that when you have limited numbers of dollars, that is what you have to do.

My friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, mentioned the Bali bombing. And, yes, one might say that is not the capital of Indonesia. But, on the other hand, if we look at Baghdad, if we look at Beirut, if we look at most of the places where these attacks take place, they are in highly symbolic places where the economic and individual damage is large.

When it comes to the United States, many of us fear a large attack, a major attack. So we have to figure, based on intelligence, where that attack is going to come down. Yes, someone might come in through a port, or they might come over the southwest border from Mexico. This is why we are trying to tighten our borders. All of that is true, but we have to figure, if that big attack takes place, where is it going to take place? What is the first response going to be? How fast is it going to be?

The fact is that the British people have done this. They put an emphasis on London. Therefore, when those bombs blew up, the response was fast, and the speed of the response was able

to save lives. So it is a kind of prototype, if you will, of what we are trying to achieve here.

For once, I am on the same note as the administration. We would like to see as much money as possible go to cities based on risk.

That is what our amendment does. I hope this body will vote yes.

Have I used all my time?

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, despite this vote, I wish to make a point. The administration has said in a letter dated today from Secretary Chertoff that their position is that 90 percent of homeland security funds should be distributed on the basis of risk. The Secretary goes on to say that they have 36 essential capabilities they need to carry out, and the way to do that is based on risk.

Here are the numbers: In the underlying appropriations bill, 70 percent is based on risk, $1.339 billion. Under Collins-Lieberman, less than 70 percent goes to risk. It is cut back to 60 percent, $1.155 billion. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based on risk, or 87 percent. It is the closest number to the administration's letter dealing with this issue.

I have a very hard time substituting pork for risk. I just was reading some of the intelligence. Let there be no doubt that not every State is equal in terms of target. We have set up a huge agency of 22 departments. We have given them risk analysis. We have given them intelligence. We have broken down the wall between FBI and CIA. Why? Because there is a real threat, and money should be accorded based on that threat, not based on pork.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the chairman of the subcommittee. I will very shortly propose an amendment which will stand next to Senator Collins's amendment.

The purpose of my amendment is simple. It provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security will ensure that Homeland Security grants are allocated based on the assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.

This amendment dovetails S. 1013 which Senator Cornyn and I submitted earlier. Cosponsors are Senators Lautenberg, Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, Nelson of Florida, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, and Dodd.

Amendment No. 1215 to Amendment No. 1142

(Purpose: To improve the allocation of grants through the Department of

Homeland Security, and for other purposes)

I send this amendment to the desk and ask it be set aside until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged under the control of Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate upstairs on television. I thought I might come down and indicate the reasons I am going to vote for this Central American Free Trade Agreement.

This agreement has sparked a great deal of debate about our trade agenda,

the effects of trade agreements on labor rights and the environment, and the impact of increased imports on sensitive domestic industries. I understand the concerns of my colleagues, including members of my own party, who do not support this agreement.

For me, I have always approached these agreements on a case-by-case basis. I have supported some, and I have opposed others. For example, I opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Singapore-Chile Free Trade Agreement. I opposed NAFTA because of the concerns about the impact of jobs and the environment, and I opposed the Chile-Singapore Free Trade Agreement because of the inclusion of immigration provisions.

But in my view, this is an important opportunity for this Congress to go on record in support of economic growth and political stability in these countries and new markets and opportunities for our manufacturers and farmers.

Bottom line, this agreement provides immediate benefits for American exports. It balances an uneven trading relationship. Some have said this, but I do not think it has sunk in: approximately 80 percent of goods manufactured in these countries and 99 percent of their agricultural products already enter the United States duty free. But America's exports into these countries face stiff tariffs on a number of key products. Let me give some examples.

Wood products have an average tariff of 10 percent; motor vehicles and parts, an average of 11.1 percent; vegetables, fruits, and nuts, an average of 16.7 percent--that is today--dairy products, an average of 19.5 percent and up to 60 percent in some cases. In some cases, to send dairy products into these countries, they face a tariff of 60 percent; grains, an average tariff of 10.6 percent; beef, up to 30 percent; rice, up to 60 percent; and wine is as high as 35 percent.

Upon enactment of this agreement, 80 percent of U.S. industrial exports will enter the CAFTA countries duty free, with the remaining tariffs eliminated over 10 years. That is good for us. That is good for our workers because in these industries it will produce more jobs. Fifty percent of agricultural exports become duty free immediately, with remaining tariffs eliminated over 15 and 20 years.

A World Bank and University of Michigan study estimates that with the agreement, U.S. income will rise by $17 billion and the income of CAFTA countries by $5 billion. I think that is substantial. According to the American Farm Bureau, CAFTA would increase U.S. agricultural exports by $1.5 billion annually.

Now let me just talk about my own State of California. It has often been said we are the fifth largest economic engine on Earth. We have a $1.4 trillion economy. We are a leader in U.S. and global markets, with products ranging from high tech to agriculture. Our workers, our farmers, and our businesses need access to new and expanding markets to sustain that leadership position.

In 2004, my State exports to the CAFTA countries totaled $660 million. That was the sixth largest of the 50 States. Manufactured goods accounted for 89 percent of the total, including computers and electronic equipment, fabric mill products, and coal products.

CAFTA will provide significant opportunities for several California export industries. Let me go over them. Let us take dairy, for example. California's producers represent a $4 billion dairy industry. We know it is the largest in the Nation. Their exports face duties as high as 60 percent today. Each country in this agreement establishes tariff rate quotas for certain dairy products totaling 10,000 metric tons across the six CAFTA countries. Access will increase by 5 percent a year for the Central American countries and 10 percent a year for the Dominican Republic, and all duties will be eliminated over 20 years.

Beef: Current duties on beef are as high as 30 percent. Duties on prime and choice cuts will be eliminated immediately in the Central American countries. Duties on other beef products will be phased out over 5 to 10 years.

Wine: Current duties on American wine are as high as 35 percent. Duties on standard size U.S. bottled wine will be eliminated immediately. All others will be phased out over 15 years.

Rice: Currently, U.S. rice exports face tariffs of up to 60 percent. Under the agreement, each country will establish a tariff rate quota for milled rice and rough rice, except for the Dominican Republic, which will have a tariff rate quota for brown rice. In the first year, 400,000 metric tons will be imported duty free, growing as the tariff is eventually eliminated.

Fruits: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. grapes, raisins, fresh and canned peaches, and fresh and canned pears will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement.

Tree nuts: Duties of up to 20 percent on U.S. walnuts, almonds, and pistachios will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement.

Services: The agreement provides broad market access and regulatory transparency for telecommunications, insurance, financial services, distribution services, computer and business technology services, and tourism, among others. U.S. financial service suppliers will have full rights to establish subsidiaries, joint ventures or branches for banks and insurance companies.

High tech: The agreement eliminates distribution barriers for information technology products. It requires countries to eliminate information technology tariffs by signing the World Trade Organization Information Technology Agreement, and it opens up information technology services. All exports of products covered by the Information Technology Agreement, including computer equipment and communications equipment, will receive immediate duty-free treatment.

Entertainment: California is a big entertainment State, and this is very important. The agreement provides for increased market access for U.S. films and television programs through cable, satellite, and the Internet. Currently, movies face tariffs ranging from 5 to 20 percent. Compact discs and DVDs face tariffs of up to 10 percent. The agreement provides for zero tariffs on movies, music, consumer products, software, books and magazines, and nondiscriminatory treatment for digital products such as U.S. software, music, text, and videos. It also includes protections for U.S. trademarks, copyrighted works, patents, trade secrets, and penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. As a matter of fact, Peter Chernin, the CEO and president of the Fox Group, said this: This agreement sets a template for what agreements should look like.

Textiles: Apparel from garment factories in Central America supporting 400,000 jobs will be duty free and quota free in the United States if they contain U.S. fabric and yarn, thus benefiting U.S. fabric and yarn exports. The CAFTA countries are the largest market for U.S. apparel and yarn exports. That is $2.2 billion in 2003. Tariffs on U.S. textile exports are currently 18 percent, and they will be eliminated immediately upon enactment of the agreement.

Now, these are all win-win-win for my State and I believe for the United States. Perhaps because of the NAFTA agreement, which was a very different agreement, people look at this agreement as they looked at NAFTA. In fact, CAFTA countries now export most of their products into the United States at no tariff, and most of our products face tariffs which would either be eliminated immediately or eliminated over a period of time under CAFTA.

So I do not think it should come as any surprise that there is very wide support among California businesses, farmers, and agricultural organizations: the Farm Bureau, the Wine Institute, the United Dairymen, the Rice Commission, the Cattlemen's Association, the Pork Producers, the Table Grape Commission. In high tech, virtually every company: Cisco, Intel, National Semiconductor, Apple, Oracle, Hewlett- Packard, Qualcomm, IBM, Kodak, and the Telecommunications Industry of America. This is opening markets for our products. Entertainment: the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry of America, the Independent Film and Television Alliance, and the Entertainment Software Association.

As the New York Times stated in an editorial:

Denying poor people in Central America the benefits of

better access to the American market is certainly not the way

to lift them out of poverty.

That is the flip side of this, that by creating an agreement that reduces these tariffs on American products, a more competitive and higher quality marketplace is produced for citizens of these countries, and that is not bad.

Denying these countries access to the U.S. market is certainly not the way to reward them for advances made in the area of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Twenty years ago, these countries were marred by constant warfare, human rights abuses, poverty, and political instability. Since then, they have all made enormous strides, and passage of CAFTA will not only promote economic development and rising standards of living by allowing their products to compete in the U.S. market, it will also lock in economic reforms, respect for the rule of law, and solidify democratic institutions. Each country now has a democratically elected leader, and I think we should reward those allies and not turn our backs on them.

I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from former President Jimmy Carter printed in the Record.

Former President Jimmy Carter states:

If the United States Congress were to turn its back on

CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel

them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them

to cooperate with the United States.

I do not think there has been any American President that has reached out more fully to the rest of the world with more humanitarian work and more concern about human rights and labor rights than Jimmy Carter.

I understand several of my colleagues believe labor and environmental provisions of the agreement fall short of what is needed to protect workers' rights and the natural resources of the CAFTA countries. I think free-trade advocates often make the mistake of arguing that these agreements are a panacea for the ills of the developing world, including lax labor and environmental standards. I certainly do not believe that.

The passage of the CAFTA alone will not bring labor and environmental standards and the capacity to enforce those standards up to United States levels. We have to admit that. But--and I say ``but''--combined with a robust assistance package to help the CAFTA countries identify shortcomings and improve the enforcement of their laws, this agreement will mark an important step in the right direction. This is not about sacrificing the rights of workers and the protection of the environment for open markets and increased trade. We can provide new opportunities for American and Central American goods and services and establish programs to help those countries raise their labor standards.

What Senator Bingaman said when he came to the floor is very constructive. I give him a great deal of credit and credit to the administration. This is the first trade treaty I can remember when they have been open to change.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent just 5 additional minutes.

This is the first trade agreement where the administration, perhaps because they have had to struggle for the votes, has been welcoming of suggestions; not only welcoming of suggestions, they made some changes. That is appreciated.

One of the changes was $40 million earmarked for labor and environment capacity building for the CAFTA countries, from 2006 through 2009, and $3 million annually through 2009 for the International Labor Organization to monitor and verify progress in CAFTA countries in improving labor law enforcement and working conditions, with periodic reports that are transparent, every 6 months, on such projects.

That is a first and I think it is important and I do believe it can make a difference. I do believe the comments of those who are concerned about impact on Central America's labor laws are right to be concerned. I join them in that concern. This $3 million can go a long way to seeing the kind of enforcement that is necessary to begin to bring those countries up to where it is an approximately level playing field. This is a significant commitment, and I thank Ambassador Portman for his willingness to engage with the Congress on this issue.

I also look forward to providing assistance to workers in this country through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for those who have lost their jobs because of increased trade.

This is where I think the rub really is. It is always hard to see whether the benefits of free trade do in fact outweigh the negatives. But we must recognize that some workers lose their jobs and they have to be helped to learn new skills. We have to find ways to keep manufacturing in this country. We have to find ways to limit research and development tax credits to the production of jobs in this country.

Some of us were struck a mortal blow when we repatriated tax funds and there was an amendment on the floor of the Senate that said ``as long as those funds will be used for production of jobs in this country,'' and that amendment failed. That, for me, was a dark day because I believe that American corporations do have an obligation to this country, not only to the bottom line but an obligation to their workers. American workers are the best in productivity and the best in the world. We have to find ways to see that this country is competitive in education, in standards, to be attractive for manufacturing once again.

Today, the Democrats in the Democratic Policy Committee heard a very interesting presentation which pointed out how necessary manufacturing jobs, production line jobs--not high-skilled jobs--were going to be to the future of this great country. I remember when I was mayor of San Francisco, Akio Morita, the chairman of Sony, at that time he was the head of The Keidanren, saying to me that when America loses its manufacturing edge, it is the first step to America becoming a second rate power. I believe that is correct. Yet a trade agreement which reduces tariffs on our exports is not bad; it is good. I think that is the benefit of that, and of this agreement.

With that in mind, and because I believe virtually every industry in my

State is in support of this agreement, I intend to vote aye.

I thank the Chair for the extension of time, and I yield the floor.

I appreciated the recent efforts the administration made to engage the sugar industry to work out an agreement. However, I am concerned that the two sides only recently came to the table to address this divisive issue. The trade agreement has been signed for nearly a year, but talks only began about 3 weeks ago. The problem should have been recognized and truly addressed earlier in the process. I am convinced that an agreement could have been reached. As it was, the sugar industry chose not to accept a short-term offer by the administration. The offer would have provided a remedy for the length of the farm bill, this year and next year's sugar beet crop. As I stated before, sugar beet farmers in Wyoming have made long-term investments in their processing facilities. They need a long-term solution, not a short-term fix.

This problem will not go away. As the administration continues to seek additional free-trade agreements with countries that desire to send their sugar to our markets, this issue will resurface. I recommend that the administration and the sugar industry continue creative discussions to identify a long-term solution beyond the next farm bill to ensure the viability of the sugar industry and the small family farmers that the industry supports in the United States.

Beyond Wyoming sugar, Wyoming cattle producers have made it clear to me that they want mandatory country of origin labeling implemented before new trade agreements are signed that could bring in additional beef and meat products. I agree that consumers should have the opportunity to make an informed purchase regarding their meat's country of origin at their grocery store. U.S. beef is competitive, but it does not receive a chance to compete when it is not labeled as U.S. beef for consumers.

With my vote against this bill, it would be easy for my opponents to cast me as a free-trade obstructionist. I remind them that until today, I have never voted against a free-trade agreement on the floor of the Senate. The principles of fair trade, which I support, generally bring about increased democracy, more transparency in Government and increased productivity. Along these lines, there are industries in Wyoming that communicated their support of CAFTA to me. I am pleased the agreement will improve market access for important industries, such as soda ash and oil and gas. I recognize the benefits this agreement will bring to many and applaud the administration for their hard work in bringing this agreement to fruition. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the agreement today because the costs outweigh the benefits for my State as a whole.

I will take 15 minutes, Senator Kennedy 30 minutes, Senator Levin 15 minutes, and Senator Clinton 5 minutes.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kennedy, Feingold, Dorgan, Levin, Wyden, Clinton, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Boxer, Reed, Harkin, and Biden, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I was 13 years old when I saw this picture. When we discuss nuclear weapons, this is the picture I remember. The only country on Earth that has ever used nuclear weapons is our own. It has been debated ever since whether this was positive because it saved American troops and ended the war or whether it has launched our country and other countries into a race which well could prove disastrous for all of us.

This is a photograph of Hiroshima after the nuclear bomb was dropped on the city on August 6, 1945. Mr. President, 80,000 people died from the initial blast and 60,000 people died from radiation poisoning, for a total of 140,000 people dead. And that bomb was 15 kilotons.

The second photograph is of Nagasaki after August 9, 1945. Approximately 75,000 of the city's 240,000 residents were killed instantly. In total, approximately 100,000 people died in the blast.

I rise today once again to address a critical issue that is related to the security of the American people and our nuclear proliferation efforts: the renewed push by this administration to reopen the nuclear door, including funding for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster.

I have argued this on the Senate floor before, that such actions, combined with the policy of unilateralism and preemption, run counter to our values and nonproliferation efforts and put U.S. national security interests and American lives at risk. Therefore, those of us who are cosponsors of this amendment wish to delete the $4 million, for the study and development of the robust nuclear earth penetrator. The amendment redirects the funds for debt reduction.

The time has come for this Senate, like the House has done in this bill, to send a clear and unambiguous message to the White House and the Pentagon: We will not support funding for programs to develop new nuclear weapons.

Congress made a strong statement last year in deleting funding for the development of this nuclear bunker buster by eliminating $27.5 million for the bunker buster, $9 million for the advanced concepts initiative, which included the study of the development of low-yield weapons. This action was due in no small part to the leadership of Representative David Hobson, chairman of the House Appropriations Energy Committee. The House took a strong position of opposition and they are to be commended.

In fact, the House removed new nuclear weapons from all bills, including the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense authorization bill, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, and the 2006 Energy appropriations bill. This was a consequential victory for those of us who believe the United States sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear door and beginning the testing and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. That is why I was so disappointed to learn that the administration requested funds this year to resume the nuclear earth penetrator study.

As a matter of fact, this year Secretary Rumsfeld asked the Department of Energy to place the $4 million in the energy budget and $4.5 million in the defense budget, thereby splitting the amount requested for the bunker buster. He hoped to weaken opposition and split the budget between two Departments so that if it could not get funding in one, he could get it in the other. The House had the foresight to reject this idea and has reasserted its determination not to move forward with the bunker buster study.

During its markup on the 2006 Defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee eliminated all the Department of Energy funding for the RNEP, and transferred the $4 million to the Air Force budget for work on a conventional nonnuclear version of the bunker buster. The House Armed Services Committee member, Silvestre Reyes, stated: The committee took the ``N,'' or ``nuclear,'' out of the RNEP program.

Following the Armed Services Committee action, Chairman Hobson and Representative Ellen Tauscher led the effort to eliminate the Department of Energy funding of $4 million for the bunker buster in its markup in the 2006 Energy and Water appropriations bill. That bill also eliminated funding for the modern pit facility and banned site selection for the facility in 2006.

Finally, the House 2006 Defense appropriations bill limits research for a bunker buster to a conventional program. These three actions by authorizers and appropriators, Republicans and Democrats alike, have dealt another blow to the administration's plans to develop new nuclear weapons and reinforced the clear intent of Congress that we should not go down that path because it will only encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent.

Why should the Senate continue to fund programs that are rapidly losing support in the House and the administration? Now the Senate has an opportunity to follow the House's lead. Senator Kennedy and I and others have come to the floor to offer this amendment to do just that.

During previous debates on this issue, we have argued that according to the laws of physics, it is simply not possible for a missile casing on a nuclear warhead to survive a thrust into the earth to take out a hard and deeply buried military target without spewing millions of tons of cubic feet of radiation into the atmosphere. Consider this: A 1- kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 25 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air.

Given the insurmountable physics problems associated with burrowing a warhead deep into the earth, one would need a weapon with more than 100 kilotons of yield to destroy an underground target at a depth of 1,000 feet.

Now let me explain. The maximum feasible depth of a bunker buster is 35 feet. At that depth, a 100-kiloton bunker buster would scatter 100 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the atmosphere. There is no known missile casing that can survive a 1,000-foot thrust into the Earth and avoid overwhelming and catastrophic consequences. That is a fact. There is not a single scientist who will say that.

The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration agrees.

At the March 2, 2005, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked Ambassador Linton Brooks, the following question:

I just want to know is there any way a [robust nuclear

earth penetrator] of any size that we would drop would not

produce a huge amount of radioactive debris?

The Ambassador replied:

No, there is not.

When Congresswoman Tauscher asked him how deep he thought a bunker buster could go, he answered:

. . . a couple of tens of meters, maybe. I mean certainly--

I must apologize for my lack of precision if we in the

administration have suggested that it was possible to have a

bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't

believe that--I don't believe the law of physics will ever

let that be true.

Here is the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration saying there is no way one can drive a missile casing deep enough to prevent radioactive spewing.

Let me just show what this means. For a 100-kiloton weapon, one would have to drive it 800 feet deep into the earth to contain the nuclear fallout. One can only drive it a small distance: 35 feet. So the result is 1.5 million tons of radioactivity. If it is 5 kilotons, one would have to drive it 320 feet. One could only drive it 35 feet. The spewing of radioactive debris is 200,000 tons. If it is 1 kiloton, one would have to drive it 220 feet. One could only drive it 35 feet and the radioactivity is 60,000 tons. If it is .2 kilotons, one would have to drive it 120 feet. One can only drive it 35 feet, and the radioactive spewing is 25,000 tons.

This is not from me. This is the National Academy of Sciences, nuclear scientists, physicists, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. There is widespread agreement about this. So why are we doing it?

On April 27, the National Academies of Sciences study commissioned by Congress to study the anticipated health and environmental effects of the Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapon found that current experience and empirical predictions indicate that the Earth-penetrating weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion. It would take a 300-kiloton weapon at a penetration of 3 meters, or 10 feet, to destroy hard and deeply buried targets at 200 meters, or 656 feet.

To destroy a hard and deeply buried target at 300 meters you would need a 1-megaton weapon--not kiloton, megaton. The number of casualties from an Earth penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that of a surface burst of the same weapon yield.

That is what the National Academies of Sciences studies say. For attacks near or in densely populated areas, using Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapons on hard and deeply buried targets, the number of casualties can range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield.

The bottom line is that a bunker buster cannot penetrate into the Earth deeply enough to avoid massive casualties and the spewing of millions of cubic feet of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. It would result in the death of up to a million people or more if used in a densely populated area.

This chart shows that. The source is the National Resources Defense Council and the EPA. What it shows is the predicted radioactive fallout from a B61-11 300-kiloton explosion in West Pyongyang, North Korea, using historical weather data for the month of May.

Here is the blast, here is Seoul, here is the radioactive fallout.

Why are we doing this? It makes no sense.

I think this is the strongest evidence to date that we should not move forward with this study and that we should put a stop to it once and for all. In reality, this has never been about a study. It has been about the intent of this administration to develop new nuclear weapons. While the administration is silent this year on how much it plans to spend on the program in the future, last year's budget request totaled $485 million on the robust nuclear earth penetrator over 5 years. This 5-year figure was omitted this year.

Let's look, for a brief moment, at the policies underlying this request, for they, too, have not been changed. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review places nuclear weapons----

Mr. President, I yield myself another 5 minutes.

The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review places nuclear weapons as part of the strategic triad. Therefore, the aim is to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. This makes them easier to use.

National Security Directive 17 indicates that the United States would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons--a historic statement in itself. We have never had a first-use policy. We have always had strategic ambiguity, but we have never before said we would ever countenance a first use of nuclear weapons. In Security Directive 17 it is said in response to a chemical or biological attack--and seven nations are actually named--we would consider a nuclear response. In essence, these policies encourage other nations, and they have encouraged North Korea and they have encouraged Iran--those are two of the nations suggested--to develop their own nuclear weapons, thereby putting American lives and our own national security interests at risk.

We are telling the world, when it comes to nuclear weapons: Do as we say, not as we do. I object to that policy. It is hypocrisy.

There are alternatives. I have just been briefed by Northrop Grumman on a program they are working on with Boeing to develop a conventional bunker buster, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which is designed to go deeper than any nuclear bunker buster and take out 25 percent of underground and deeply buried targets. This 30,000-pound weapon, 20 feet in length, with 6,000 pounds of high explosives, will be delivered from a B-2 or a B-52 bomber. It can burrow 60 meters into the ground through 5,000 psi of reinforced concrete. It will burrow 8 meters into the ground through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete.

We have already spent $6 million on this program, and design and ground testing are scheduled to be completed next year.

We should focus on conventional programs. The House has said this. The Senate should concur.

We have a solemn obligation to spend our resources in the most effective manner and to make this country safer and more secure. That is why I am so concerned about this administration's decision to come back to Congress and request additional funds for new nuclear weapons.

I would like to give my kudos and congratulations to the House of Representatives. They truly have their heads on straight. I am delighted that they have eliminated the authorization and the funding for this entire program in the 2006 appropriation. I urge us to do the same on just one part of this, which is the nuclear bunker buster, $4 million.

I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.

The Senator is right. I change that to a half-hour.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I thought the remarks were excellent. I think they were really right on. The tragedy of this is that people do not listen. I hope, Senator Kennedy, your words were heard.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Yes.

Mr. President, there is a desire for back and forth. That is perfectly fine with me. I think the Senator from Arizona wanted to say something, and then if we could go to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I think Senator Clinton has asked for 5 minutes, and I yield that time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for those comments. She put all of this in both a practical and fiscal perspective. I also thank the Senator from Michigan because he was right on. Do what we say, don't do what we do to every other nation. The nonproliferation treaty does not matter. It is just a terribly arrogant position for the United States to take and I think a morally wrong one.

How much time do I have, Mr. President?

I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has made some excellent points. I very much appreciate them.

I retain the remainder of my time.

What would the Senator from New Mexico propose?

Make it 5 and 5.

Five and 5.

Mr. President, I think we have had a good discussion. I was somewhat interested in the comment that: We have done this before, why should we do it again?

Probably this is one of the most important issues we have to deal with because it will affect, I believe, my family's lifetime and my grandchildren's lifetime. I think if we have learned anything, it is that human nature is better off without nuclear weapons.

In this case, I would like to sum up with one of the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences' recent reports. It is conclusion No. 3: Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion.

That is not my view. That is the view of the National Academy of Sciences. To my knowledge it has been backed up by everybody. So why does the administration persist?

The one bright light in this is the House of Representatives. They have removed the money from all programs, from time to test readiness, increasing it from 3 years to 18 months; money for the 400 new plutonium pits; and money for the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

This year the administration did not come back and request the so- called advanced weapons concepts, which is essentially low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. It has been stated here, and I believe it has been stated correctly, that you cannot have a policy which says, ``Do as we say but don't do as we do.''

I do not believe we can have a policy that puts at risk hundreds of thousands, and, yes, even millions of lives. And I do not believe we can develop a weapon and then say: Well, this is just to protect us. It will never be used. I do not believe that.

I truly believe the documents coming out of this administration, from the Nuclear Posture Review to the National Security Directive No. 17, clearly indicate that it is the goal of this administration to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. For those of us who do not believe that is the way to go, they must vote. To those of us who are not on this side, I want to say we will be back, and back, and back. So get used to hearing from us because it is not going to end here.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Yes, there is only $4 million in this budget and there is $4.5 million in defense. It is a different strategy this year. The money was split.

Last year the request was for $27.5 million and a 5-year projection of $486 million. That is fact.

Now, their projection over 5 years is not this year in the budget so it is a little tricky because they have split it up and they have operated it into two budgets. The House removed all of the money. The House removed the authorization.

Clearly, there are people on this Hill who believe it is a mistake. Last year, the money was removed. So this year is a slightly different approach by the administration.

What we are saying is, it is a new weapon. If you do not have it today, and you might have it tomorrow, it is a new weapon. What we are saying is, there is not one physicist who will say that a casing can be built to drive a weapon deep enough into the Earth with enough explosive power that will take out a bunker and not spew radiation that can kill hundreds of thousands and, yes, even millions of people. We urge a ``yes'' vote.

It is our understanding that the Agriculture Committee is considering a CFTC proposal to clarify that its antifraud authority in the Commodity Exchange Act clearly covers principal-to- principal off exchange transactions and a second CFTC proposal to clarify its existing authority to bring civil and administrative actions, including false reporting cases. We would also hope that the committee would add language to clarify that exempt energy transactions are subject to the CFTC's antimanipulation and false reporting authorities.

It is our hope that the Agriculture Committee will include these proposals in legislation when reauthorizing the CFTC this year. However, should the committee report a mark that does not include similar provisions when placed on the Senate Calendar, we would like assurances from the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that we will have the ability to offer an amendment to address these issues when this bill is considered by the full Senate.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Murray and Senator Byrd for working tirelessly with me to try and find a solution to the VA budget crisis that faces our Nation's veterans. I very much appreciate their leadership on this issue.

During the emergency supplemental under Senator Murray's leadership we brought this issue before the body and warned of the impending crisis.

As we all know, at that point Secretary Nicholson sent a letter to Chairman Hutchison stating that ``I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that is always our goal.''

We now know this is not the case. Yesterday, Secretary Nicholson testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and acknowledged that in fact the VA is at least $1 billion short this year in veterans' medical care.

The VA is resorting to shifting funds from capital accounts as well as spending money budgeted as carry over for next year to make up the shortfall. Additionally, the Secretary stated that the VA budget request for next year is short by at least $1.5 billion.

As I have always stated, the care for our veterans should never get tangled up in partisan gamesmanship. This is why we have been working hard with our Republican colleagues to find a solution to this problem.

I am pleased that the modifying amendment would add an additional $80 million to help shore up this year's budget problems at the VA, and I commend Senator Hutchison, my chairman on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, for her leadership and commitment to the needs of America's veterans.

However, let us not forget that while the emergency funds that I hope we will pass today helps solve the problem for this year, Secretary Nicholson testified yesterday that the budget request for next year is insufficient as well.

I am hopeful that the administration will take the necessary steps to transmit to the Congress an amended budget which provides an accurate estimate of the VA's needs for fiscal year 2006, and a realistic blueprint for meeting those needs.

I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd and my other colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to make sure that we provide sufficient funding in 2006 to keep the VA from being awash in red ink again next year.

Let me close by again thanking Senator Murray and Senator Byrd. Their leadership has been instrumental in helping to solve this problem.

I also want to thank Senator Hutchison and Senator Craig for working hard with us to try and ensure that veterans receive the care they need.

Mr. President, I start by thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work on this bill. They said they were going to work to get a bipartisan bill and they accomplished their goal.

Overall, however, I believe that this Energy bill will help the country meet its energy needs in a number of important ways.

This bill provides strong consumer protections, aggressive energy efficiency standards, and a focus on new technologies to meet our energy needs in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Additionally, the bill takes a step in the right direction to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, especially natural gas. This is a major improvement over past Energy bills, which have done nothing to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

As we learned during the Western energy crisis, Federal energy regulators did not have enough authority to prevent widespread market manipulation.

Through the course of the crisis in California, the total cost of electricity soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and $26.7 billion in 2001. The abuse in our energy markets was pervasive and unlawful.

So I am pleased to report that this bill includes provisions that I have sought over the past 4 years to strengthen consumer protections and hopefully prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West.

These consumer protections include: a broad ban on manipulation in the energy markets; stronger criminal and civil penalties in the energy markets to provide stronger deterrents to violations of Federal energy laws; elimination of the unnecessary 60-day waiting period for refunds at FERC, which may cost Californians millions of dollars; new provisions to make the energy markets more transparent; and a ban on traders who manipulated the natural gas or the electricity markets from ever trading in energy markets again.

I am also very pleased that Senators Grassley and Baucus included in the Energy bill much of the energy efficiency tax incentives that Senator Snowe and I sponsored.

The simplest, most effective thing we could do today to reduce our electricity use would be to use more energy-efficient appliances, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers.

We know that energy efficiency works. In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption increased 50 percent.

During the Western energy crisis, California faced energy shortages and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and helped ease the crisis.

By creating incentives to reduce demand, the energy efficiency tax incentives will help us avoid power shortages and blackouts in the future.

In addition, encouraging more efficient technologies will also reduce pollution and save consumers billions of dollars in the long run.

America cannot solve its energy challenges by simply adding more supplies. We must find ways to reduce demand for energy and create more efficient technologies. Including the energy efficiency tax incentives is a big step in the right direction.

For all of those reasons, I am supporting this bill. However, I still have some major reservations about the legislation as it now stands. Among them are:

Ethanol. The bill includes an 8 billion gallon mandate for ethanol when my State does not need it to meet clean air standards. I think this mandate is bad and costly public policy.

LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. I believe States should have a strong voice in this process.

Global Warming. Although we can already see the real effects of global warming, this bill takes no effective action to curb greenhouse gases.

Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed.

Essentially, this bill takes no risks whatsoever to do the right thing. And though I will vote in favor of this bill, I would like to discuss these serious reservations that I have with it.

I am extremely concerned about the bill's 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate.

First, though, I would like to thank the committee for accepting an amendment I offered to protect California's air quality. It waives the requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up polluting the air more than protecting it.

Despite this win for California's air quality, I still have concerns about the impacts of mandating that refiners use 8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012.

President Bush has said over the past few months that this Energy bill will not do anything to reduce gas prices at the pump. I would like to add another note of caution: I hope this bill does not actually increase the price at the pump for consumers.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices in California have been anywhere between 4 and 8 cents higher since ethanol replaced MTBE in California's gasoline, starting in 2003.

In May 2005, the Director of the Petroleum Division at the Energy Information Administration stated before

the House Government Reform Committee that:

. . . refiners lost production capability when replacing MTBE

with ethanol. This, along with continued demand growth, has

contributed to price pressures. From 2000 through 2002,

California retail gasoline prices averaged about 19 cents per

gallon more than the U.S. average gasoline price, but in 2003

as MTBE began to be removed, California prices averaged 27

cents per gallon higher than the U.S. average, and remained

at that level through 2004.

So far this year, California's gasoline prices are at least 23 cents higher than the national average. To be clear, adding ethanol to our gasoline has increased the cost at the pump.

In addition, when the 8 billion gallon mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-half of 1 percent.

Since ethanol has a somewhat lower energy content than gasoline, more of it is required to travel the same distance. This results in a vehicle's fuel economy being approximately 3 percent lower with ethanol-blended gasoline.

Further, this provision is both a mandate and a subsidy. Ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. An 8 billion gallon mandate means a $2 billion loss to the U.S. Treasury over today's receipts.

I do not believe that we should be imposing this huge mandate at a time when there is already such a huge subsidy to the ethanol industry, and when the Nation has such huge budget deficits.

We should have either the subsidy or the mandate, but not both.

I also remain concerned about the provision in the bill that provides exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Increased demand for natural gas means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us.

States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located.

For LNG facilities that are sited more than 3 miles offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project.

Yet for facilities that are located onshore, in our busy ports and near our closely packed communities, States have less input.

That is why I offered an amendment to provide Governors the same authority for siting onshore facilities that they already have for offshore facilities.

To give a remote Federal agency control when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site is a mistake.

I firmly believe that States should have the right to veto a project that could endanger the public safety of its citizens.

I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for their efforts to address the growing and imminent problem of global warming.

I strongly supported their amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions at the year 2000 levels by 2010 and implement a market-based emissions cap and trade system.

The United States has only 4 percent of the world's population, and yet we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a duty to act.

We have already begun to see the very real effects of global warming. The polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting, snowpacks are dwindling, and coastlines are falling away.

If we do not act, these problems will only grow worse. California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of this snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people--equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin.

Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and they are counting on us to do the same.

It is time that the United States--the world's largest contributor to climate change--stepped up and took responsibility for our actions and their impact on the world. Global warming is too serious a problem for us to keep ignoring it.

Yet the Senate voted against the McCain-Lieberman amendment. We missed a big opportunity to do the right thing for our country and for the world.

I am also concerned because the bill includes a provision that would allow the Department of Interior to conduct an inventory of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf.

I joined my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to strip this provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was not agreed to.

Why would we need to inventory the resources on the Outer Continental Shelf unless we intend to drill there? I believe this provision is the proverbial ``nose under the camel's tent.''

I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our coast is too important to California's economy and to our quality of life.

Despite soaring gas prices, this bill does not take any steps towards reducing our oil consumption, which could easily be done by holding SUVs and light trucks to the same fuel economy standards as passenger vehicles.

SUVs have gained popularity to the point that they now make up more than half of new car sales in the United States. That is why I believe SUVs and light trucks should be held to the same fuel efficiency and safety standards as the smaller passenger cars they are replacing on our roads.

This would both reduce our oil consumption and imports as well as curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition, increasing fuel economy in SUVs and light trucks would save owners hundreds of dollars each year at the gas pump.

Consumers are concerned about high gas prices, yet we do next to nothing in the bill to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so that they use less gasoline.

Our dependence on oil is reaching critical levels. Crude oil is hitting record highs at nearly $60 per barrel this week and it is not going to fall any time soon.

Crude oil is a global commodity and global oil demand is rising, especially in China and India.

In the past 5 years, China's oil imports have doubled, and show no signs of slowing down. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double again by 2025, while its imports will quadruple to 60 percent of its total oil consumption.

China is now the world's second biggest oil consumer, behind only the United States. And today we heard the news that China wants to buy an American oil company.

In addition, India's oil needs are expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. Last year alone, India's oil consumption grew by 10 percent.

Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our limited fuel supplies more wisely.

That is why I am so disappointed that the Senate did not include any provisions to increase fuel economy in the bill.

I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member were able to work together on a bill that does not roll back environmental protections, as the House bill does.

I want to take a minute to point out the most egregious House provisions that I hope we will not see in a conference report. They include:

Retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers despite the fact that the courts have already found that they make a defective product. This provision protects oil companies from having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the water supplies across the country that MTBE has contaminated.

Even though I am supporting the Senate Energy bill, I will not hesitate to vote against the conference report if it includes MTBE liability protection.

Allowing communities to get out of requirements to clean up their air if they claim that part of its problem is a result of transported air pollution. This provision severely weakens the Clean Air Act.

Exempting the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Weakening the ability of States to have a say in Federal activities that affect their coasts, including limiting appeals related to pipeline construction or offshore energy development under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Further, the House $8 billion tax package is completely lopsided in favor of oil and gas production--only 5 percent of the $8 billion goes toward incentives for renewable energy production.

While I am pleased that the bill includes strong consumer protections that will hopefully prevent another energy crisis, incentives for energy efficiency, and promotes new energy technologies, I am disappointed that the bill does not do the right thing on global warming, ethanol, fuel economy, the Outer Continental Shelf, or LNG siting.

And so, it is with reluctance that I cast my vote in favor of this Energy bill.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran to establish a Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Washington Mall.

A memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. in the heart of the Nation's Capital is a fitting tribute to a man whose vision and courage transformed the face of our Nation. Only a short distance from us here in the Capitol, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous ``I Have A Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. His inspirational words resonated with many Americans and helped spark the civil rights movement.

Dr. King started as a civil rights leader during the Montgomery bus boycott. Despite the bombings, arrests, and violence that Dr. King faced as a leader of this boycott, he continued to push for change. The Montgomery bus boycott successfully brought the glaring inequities facing African Americans to the fore of the American consciousness. In response to the boycott, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on intrastate busses. However, as we know, Dr. King did not stop with this one legal victory.

Dr. King continued to tirelessly advocate for the principles of nonviolent protest as a means of addressing the injustices facing African Americans. Even in the face of tremendous opposition and cynicism, Dr. King persevered and helped concentrate the civil right movement's momentum for change. It is largely due to Dr. King's efforts that Congress rightly passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Over 4 decades later, I believe we are coming closer day by day to achieving Dr. King's dream, but still, more progress must be made. To memorialize Dr. King's dream here in our Nation's Capital would serve as a powerful reminder of the strides we have made but the steps we must still take together as a nation to weed out inequity.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to cosponsor this amendment with Senators Byrd and Cochran to honor this great individual with a memorial in Washington, DC. The $10 million authorized by this amendment will help expedite the building of this memorial, which shall serve to remind future generations of Dr. King's sacrifices and his lasting legacy.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record immediately following this statement.

Amendment No. 1003

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment that I am sponsoring with Senators Murray and Byrd, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with an additional $1.42 billion in emergency funding to shore up dramatic new shortfalls in the VA health care system.

Our soldiers are returning home from Iraq and the front lines of the War on Terror by the hundreds, to begin their transition back to civilian life--and they deserve our assistance and respect.

In California alone, there have been nearly 100,000 men and women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, all of whom will be eligible for at least two years of VA medical services when they return.

Over 1,400 Californians have been wounded during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these recent veterans suffered injuries that will require specialty care for the rest of their lives.

Moreover, many of our combat veterans could have mental wounds we are not even aware of yet.

A report issued by the Government Accountability Office in September of last year found that:

Mental health experts predict that because of the intensity

of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 percent or more of the

servicemembers returning from these conflicts will develop

post-traumatic stress disorder--PTSD.''

This is in addition to the veterans currently accessing the VA health care system.

And now, we have learned that the VA's budget forecast projections did not adequately provide for soldiers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

How, if we know this, can we sit by and insist that there is no problem? This budget crunch is not just on paper.

In San Diego County alone, 4,000 more veterans have been treated by the VA this year as compared to last, and we are still three months from the end of the fiscal year.

This includes over 1,700 soldiers returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, the number of backlogs for appointments is growing, leading to longer wait times for veterans.

And the Los Angeles Times reported on March 20, 2005, that over the last decade, the VA hospital in Los Angeles has reduced the capacity of in-patient psychiatric beds from 450 to 90. Meanwhile, over the same 10 years, Los Angeles has seen an increase of 28 percent in mental health patients.

The crunch is coming and we need to start preparing. This amendment starts the preparation.

But I want to be crystal clear, this amendment only addresses needs this year. Much more work will need to be done in fiscal year 2006.

It appears that the fiscal year 2006 VA budget request also made use of similar data forecasting as this year's, making it highly probable that we will see a repeat of this shortfall next year.

Secretary Nicholson testifies today before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and acknowledge that the fiscal year 2006 budget request is insufficient. We look forward to the Administration's budget amendment for fiscal year 06 to deal with this problem.

Clearly, we will have a lot of work to do in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. In the meantime, this amendment would add needed funding this year and help to alleviate the budget problems we are seeing in VA hospitals across the country.

In closing, I would only add that this is not a Democrat issue and this is not a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to the very heart of how we treat those men and women who have fought bravely on behalf of our nation and we need to be unified in showing them our support.

I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor an outstanding American whose tireless work helped bring to national attention the matter of gay civil rights. Jean O'Leary represented the ideals of a truly integrated society, a Nation that saw equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people of this world. On June 4, 2005, my dear friend, Jean O'Leary died at the age of 57, in her home in San Clemente, CA. Her passing is a great loss to her family and she will be missed by all who knew her. I offer my deepest condolences to her family and am joined by the thousands of Californians, as well as those throughout the country, who have benefited from her work to end the injustices that segregate this great Nation. Jean O'Leary's was a light, a remarkable voice in an area that needed a champion. Her legacy will live on through the passion and energy she gave to the gay rights movement.

Jean Marie O'Leary lived a life of extraordinary accomplishments. Born in Kingston, NY, but raised mostly in Ohio, Ms. O'Leary attended parochial schools from third grade through high school and in 1966 joined the Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary to become a nun. Many were surprised by her decision which contradicted her independent and rebellious nature. Years later she revealed that she wanted to become a nun because she ``wanted to do something special, to have an impact on the world.''

Jean O'Leary left the covenant in 1971, returning to New York where she immersed herself in the gay rights movement. She was a member of the Gay Activists Alliance, founder of the Lesbian Feminist Liberation, co-executive director of the National Gay Task Force, and head of the National Gay Rights Advocates where she helped bring visibility to the movement.

In 1977, Ms. O'Leary through her close friendship with Midge Costanza, an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, organized the first- ever meeting of gay rights advocates in the White House. This historic gathering of gay and lesbian leaders spurred a national discussion to review and begin to correct the antigay policies by Federal Government agencies. President Carter later appointed her to the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year where she negotiated the inclusion of gay and lesbian rights on the commission's conference held in Houston. In her work as a Democratic Party activist, O'Leary was a pillar of strength and support that helped advance the rights of gay men and lesbians, women and people living with HIV and

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 841.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators Snowe, Reed, Sessions, Kennedy, Collins, Dodd, Boxer, Clinton, Lieberman, Cantwell, Kerry, Schumer, and Murray, to offer this amendment to the Energy bill on the siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals. Let me clearly state that the problem is not whether to site these LNG terminals, but where. To give control to a remote Federal agency, when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site, we, the cosponsors of this amendment, believe is a mistake.

This Energy bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas facilities. Our amendment would provide each State's Governor the same authority to veto, approve, or attach conditions to onshore liquefied natural gas facilities as they now have with respect to offshore liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment is not concurrent siting. It does not require the applicant duplicate the application process, nor does it add additional time and money to the entire application process. It simply states Governors will have 45 days to approve, veto, or attach conditions to a project after FERC issues its final environmental impact statement.

This chart, I think, says it all. Increased demand for LNG means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us. Let me be clear. I do not oppose liquefied natural gas sites in California. Liquefied natural gas is clean energy and it is less costly than other forms.

What this chart shows is there are 34 potential sites for liquefied natural gas. Those are the blue circles, clustered around the gulf, off of Florida, off of the northeast coast, off of California, and one in the Pacific Northwest. It points out that eight sites in the United States have already been approved by FERC. It shows three are approved for Mexico, two are approved for Canada, and there are five existing sites at this time. Clearly this Nation is on its way to using liquefied natural gas.

The United States holds less than 4 percent of total world reserves, and California produces less than 15 percent of the natural gas it consumes, so if there is to be this form of clean energy, it must be imported. That is why Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the State Governors Association, all agree the State needs new natural gas supplies and that LNG terminals may help put downward pressure on increasing natural gas prices.

The chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee believe FERC should have the final say over siting LNG terminals. On the other hand, we agree with the Governors of California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, who stated in a letter dated May 25, that:

Without State jurisdiction, there is no guarantee a project

will be consistent with the homeland security or

environmental requirements for a particular locality, or

whether the project adequately addresses the energy demands

of the respective State or region. We support legislation

that would provide for concurrent State and Federal

jurisdiction over LNG and other energy facilities.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this letter is buttressed by the letter just received from the National Governors Association, supporting this amendment, which will shortly be on everyone's desk. I ask unanimous consent that second letter be printed in the Record.

States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located. For LNG facilities that are being sited offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project now, yet this bill gives the State less input for facilities that are located on shore, in our busy ports, and near closely packed communities. This is completely illogical to me. It simply does not make sense. To give the Governor the veto power over a deepwater port more than 3 miles from land, and yet refuse to give that Governor any veto power over a site that might be located in the heart of the densest metropolitan areas of our country is completely illogical.

In a conversation I had recently, last week, with Chairman Pat Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he said even if the Federal Government sited an LNG facility, it would not be built as long as a Governor opposed it. If that is in fact the case, then why not give the Governor of a State the necessary authority?

Let me explain how this works. Under the Deep Water Port Act, which was amended in 2002 to regulate the process for siting offshore LNG, an LNG terminal that is located in Federal waters beyond the 3 miles of the State's territorial waters must be approved by the Federal Government, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and the Governor of the adjacent coastal State.

Under the pending Energy bill, the Governor would have no veto authority for siting onshore LNG terminals. In other words, if the Governor of California or Massachusetts or anywhere else were to decide an LNG terminal posed too great a safety risk to the 400,000 people living close--let's say to the Port of Long Beach; that is the only proposed onshore project in California--then the Governor would have no authority, the State would have no authority to veto that project. But if that same project were located offshore, more than 3 miles away from the Port of Long Beach, the Governor would be able to veto it. That is nonsensical, in my view.

Some of my colleagues will argue that States already have a veto under the Coastal Zone Management Act. However, I have received a letter from Chairman Wood that says in fact the State does not have a veto authority under this law. In a letter to me dated June 15, Chairman Wood states that:

. . . [F]ollowing an adverse consistency determination by a

State, the Secretary of Commerce can, on his own initiative

or upon appeal by the applicant, find after providing a

reasonable opportunity for detailed comments by the Federal

energy agency involved, and from the State, that the activity

is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone

Management Act or is otherwise necessary in the interests of

national security.

What does this mean? That means if the State were to find that the onshore LNG terminal would negatively impact the State's coastline, the Secretary of Commerce could take it upon himself to overturn that decision. Clearly, this removes any State authority.

I ask unanimous consent to have a series of letters that I have exchanged with the Chairman of FERC printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that is why my colleagues and I are offering this amendment today, to provide States with a real veto authority if a project were to violate the State's environmental protection, land and water use, public health and safety, and coastal zone management laws. In this post-9/11 world, I think we have to look a little differently at the siting of all facilities, and especially the specific risk that LNG terminals pose. A December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories concluded that LNG tankers could, in fact, be a potential terrorist target. If the worst case scenario were to occur, a tanker could in fact spill liquefied natural gas that, in about 30 seconds, could set off a fire that would cause second-degree burns on people nearly a mile away.

I admit this is a small probability. Nonetheless, it is such, and therefore it has to be considered. In siting these terminals, that factor is a factor of relevant consideration. That is why this amendment is so important. States must have a role in siting LNG facilities in order to protect the welfare of their citizens.

Out of the 40 proposed LNG terminals in this Nation, the FERC believes only a dozen will actually be built. Since Governors have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their constituents, it makes sense to me to allow the States to have a significant role in the siting of these facilities. If there are other options besides putting these facilities in busy ports or near population centers, they should be sited where they pose the least danger to people, not just where they make the most economic sense. Therefore, we present this amendment to the bill.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I turn the floor over to Senator Kennedy for as much time as he consumes.

It is.

Senator Durbin

I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe. Then I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to Senator Reed from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Massachusetts for their comments. I believe that consumes the time I have; is that correct?

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

Mr. President, I understand I have a minute remaining.

However, Senator Sessions has asked to speak for 3 minutes, and then I would like to have 1 minute to wrap up, if I might. I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended in that regard.

Three minutes for Senator Sessions, and 1 minute for Senator Domenici, and 1 for me?

Three additional minutes?

OK.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Chafee as an original cosponsor.

In the first place, there is no Federal delegated authority for safety. Let me give you an example, a case in point of what that means. That case in point was presented by Senator Kennedy on the Fall River placement of an LNG facility in the heart of river territory in Massachusetts. Three schools are in the area, with 9,000 people in the immediate area. It was opposed by the State government and every local city and town. But the FERC staff recommended the project go forward in the final environmental impact report.

FERC is no guardian of safety. This is a case in point to give Governors some authority. The Deepwater Port Act gives Governors authority offshore. They should have it on shore, too.

I yield the floor.

The Senator's generosity overcame me for a minute.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, the Deepwater Port Act gives Governors the right of veto over an LNG port 3 miles or more offshore, but this bill prevents them from having any authority if there is a proposal for an LNG terminal right on State land, right in the heart of a metropolitan area, right where it presents a danger to citizens, right where it could present an environmental disaster. This is an idiosyncracy which is wrong. All we have done is replicate the Deepwater Port Act's authority.

The other point I wish to make is there is in this bill the right of appeal. There is the right of the Commerce Department to step in and reverse anything a State does in this regard. There will be LNG terminals sited, let there be no doubt about it. The key is to site them smartly, to site them where they make the best sense.

I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Christine Henneberg of Palo Alto, CA, for winning Second Prize in the prestigious Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics Essay Contest. This represents a tremendous achievement, and I am pleased to recognize her today.

Rooted in the memory of the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel and his wife, Marion, started the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity to combat indifference, intolerance, and injustice through international and youth-focused programs. Each year, they sponsor the Prize in Ethics Essay Contest to challenge college students to analyze the urgent ethical issues confronting them in today's world. Now in its 17th year, the contest encourages our Nation's students to submit personal essays that raise questions, single out issues, and are compelling arguments for ethical action.

As a senior at Pomona College in California, Christine entered the national essay contest under the sponsorship of Pomona College Professor of Philosophy N. Ann Davis. In her prize winning essay, ``The God on my Grandfather's Table,'' Christine explores the role of the elderly in our society and the implications of the unfortunate and frequent negative perception of the elderly.

Chosen from over hundreds of essays from more than 200 colleges and universities nationwide, Christine's work demonstrates her tremendous maturity and devotion to important issues facing our society.

Christine now plans to attend medical school. I want to wish her the best there and in all she does. She has made our great State proud, and I am happy to commend her today.

Mr. President, I rise to say thank you to both Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for giving this Senate the first real start to reduce global warming. I was one who voted for the Hagel amendment, but I did so realizing it really had very little bang for the buck. This is the first real global warming bill this body will come to grips with. I think it is extraordinarily important.

In real terms, passage of this bill would mean that instead of having 8 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted into the air in 2010, as would be the case if we do not pass the amendment, we will emit slightly less than 6 billion tons in 2010. That means this amendment would reduce emissions by almost 2 billion tons, or 25 percent, by the end of the decade.

In order to achieve the goal, the amendment would implement a market- based emissions cap and trade system. Currently, the United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. We account for one-fourth of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

In a single year, the average American produces the same greenhouse gas emissions as 4.5 people in Mexico or 18 people in India or 99 people in Bangladesh.

In the past 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen by roughly 30 percent. If we do nothing to reduce these emissions, CO2 levels are estimated to again rise by 30 percent in only the next 50 years.

Here it is on the chart. You see, as temperature rises, global warming takes place, and carbon dioxide emissions increase.

The hottest year on record is 1998, followed by a tie for the second hottest year between 2002 and 2003.

Let me say what the National Academy of Sciences has reported. Let me just briefly quote:

Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically,

particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceding

years.

Carbon dioxide is the No. 1 global warming gas. We have already begun to see, as both Senators McCain and Lieberman have said, the real impacts of global warming.

Glaciers are beginning to disappear throughout the United States and around the world at a rapid rate. This chart demonstrates the rapid loss of the South Cascade Glaciers in Washington State. In addition, it is predicted that all the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana will be gone by 2030.

Here on the chart, you can see the South Glacier. In 1928, you could see the full glacier. Then, this is what you saw in 1979. And you can see that in 2003 it was just about one-half of what it was.

Since 1979, more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has melted away due to the increase of global temperatures. Senator Lieberman mentioned that in his speech, but I think this chart shows it dramatically. This line indicates the Arctic sea ice boundary in 1979. You can see how large it was. And you see more than 20 percent of the polar ice cap has already melted away. That is disastrous because the top of the planet is more impacted than the bottom of the planet.

Now, this is forcing Eskimos in Alaska to move inland. My husband just visited an Eskimo village. They were preparing to move their village because it was being inundated by the ocean.

Over the last century, the global sea level has risen by 6 inches. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that by the next century, the global sea level will rise even higher to anywhere from 4 inches to 3 feet. That is enormous when you look at these changes.

Let me just speak for a moment about my State.

Since 1900, California has warmed by 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation has decreased over much of the State--by 10 to 25 percent in many areas. The EPA estimates that the temperature in California could rise by as much as 5 degrees by the end of this century if the current global warming trends continue.

That increase is going to have a drastic impact on many facets of California life--water, for one. As the largest agricultural State in the Union, we need it to farm and grow our crops. We need water to keep the ecosystem in balance, and we need water for 37.5 million people to drink, to wash, and to water crops and plants.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack is the largest source of water. The snowpack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California's man-made reservoirs. It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of the snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people. That is equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin. That is how big this is.

What this chart shows is, if we take strong action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, 27 percent of the snowpack will remain in the Sierras; strong action will only protect 27 percent. If we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, only 11 percent of the Sierra Nevada snowpack will be left by the end of the century. You clearly see it. That is Armageddon for California. That is Armageddon for the fifth largest economy on Earth.

Now, we have already begun to see a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack due to warmer winter storms that bring more rain than snow and also cause a premature melting of the snowpack.

If just a third of the snowpack is lost, it would mean losing enough water to serve 8 million households. So you can see how big this is. That is why this bill is so important--the first bill that actually does something about it.

Let me talk for just a second about our wine industry. It is recognized throughout the world. It is a $45 billion industry in sales, jobs, tourism, and tax revenue.

Grown throughout the State, wine grapes are sensitive to temperature and moisture. It is predicted that by the end of the century, grapes will ripen up to 2 months earlier and will be of poorer quality. The result is a decline for California's premier wine industry.

Let me talk about dairy. We are the largest dairy-producing State in the Union, much to the chagrin of my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. Studies indicate that due to increased temperatures, our milk production could be reduced anywhere from 5 to 20 percent. This would not only have a drastic impact on California's agriculture industry, but it would also affect other States that rely on California to provide milk and other dairy products.

Beaches and coastlines--we are known for them. When most people think of California, they think about our beaches. The rising sea level, due to global warming, is slowly swallowing these beaches and eroding the coastline. Over the last century, the sea level has risen 3 to 8 inches. Scientists predict it will continue to rise an additional 13 to 19 inches by the end of this century. This will force municipalities to replenish land on beaches stretching from Santa Barbara to San Diego. The EPA says this could cost from $174 million to $3.5 billion.

Global warming is California's No. 1 environmental problem.

Now, let me talk for a moment about what cities are doing. Cities are not waiting for us. Cities are moving. Members of the United States Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a resolution earlier this month that requires their member cities to attempt to meet or exceed emissions standards set by Kyoto. They have agreed to try to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in various communities around the Nation. They have agreed to urge their State governments and the Federal Government to enact policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they have agreed to urge us to pass the McCain-Lieberman bill.

So far, 167 cities have signed up to enforce the Kyoto requirements.

Nearly 40 States, to date, have developed their own climate plans. Four-fifths of the United States is moving on its own because we are so slow to act.

An emission trading system is emerging in the Northeast that will require large power plants from Maine to Delaware to reduce their carbon emissions.

Eighteen States and the District of Columbia have enacted standards to require that electricity be generated with renewable fuels rather than fossil fuels. These States include California,

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The point is, our States are moving. Why are we so bloody slow? California has enacted legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes. It is expected that the Northeastern States and Canada will also follow California's lead.

Yet, without concerted Federal action, the United States will not be able to achieve real, significant greenhouse gas reductions. If Members of the U.S. Senate agree with the science, if they agree with virtually all of the literature to date, if they look out and study the weather and they see the changes, if they see the fluctuation in weather patterns, the aberrant behavior of weather, they will come to the conclusion that global warming is real. It is real, and we now have the first bill to do something positive about it, and that is the Lieberman-McCain legislation.

I believe all of California supports it. I am proud to support it. I urge its passage to this distinguished body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader and Senator Inhofe for this courtesy.

I don't think there is a Member of this body who hasn't gone to an event, made a speech, answered a question, advocated a cause, who hasn't said: Oh, I wish I had done it differently. I don't think there are any of us who haven't awoken the next morning and said: Gee, I really meant it, and I am sure it is going to be taken out of context, or they are going to think I meant this or that. I don't think there are any of us who haven't sometimes written letters to correct what we have said.

We know Dick Durbin. We know he is patriotic. We know he cares about the men and women serving. And we know that he would do nothing to ever mean anything to the contrary.

I was very much taken by his remarks. More importantly, I was taken by the emotion behind the remarks. We have been having in the Judiciary Committee a legitimate debate on Guantanamo. Hearings have been held. Debate is taking place. That is healthy. That is what this system is all about. Senator Durbin has played a role in that debate. I hope, too, that this will mark the end of it.

I thank, too, the Senator from Arizona for what he said. No one has a more distinguished military record than he. I also hope that everyone who has heard Senator Durbin tonight recognizes his sincerity and his depth of concern. Let this be the end of it.