Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join Senator Biden in support of this amendment to pay for the President's request for an additional $25 billion to fund the war in Iraq.

This amendment will temporarily roll back the acceleration of the President's May 2003 tax cuts for those making more than $319,000 per year by raising the income tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent for 5 years, 2005-2009.

Assuming passage of this supplemental funding request, the Iraq war will have cost the American people more than $175 billion. And without this amendment, every penny of this $25 billion supplemental request will be borrowed, becoming another debt we will leave to our children and grandchildren.

This amendment, however, offers a very reasonable way to pay for this stage of the war on terror.

By rolling back the acceleration of the May 2003 tax cut just enough to fund the $25 billion request before us, we will reduce the already serious debt burden on our Nation.

We are offering this amendment because it is essential that we begin paying for the programs that we propose.

It is important for the public to know that they--along with our soldiers--must also sacrifice during this war on terror.

Except to tell us that we should visit our shopping malls more frequently, the President has shown little leadership in asking citizens to give to this war effort.

This amendment sends a different message--one that says that it is important that those who have the capacity to pay for this war effort must step forward.

It is time for sacrifice. Deficits, interest costs and the debt are growing again.

Net interest payments on Federal debt are set to increase sharply from approximately $170 billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 2012.

And we are facing these daunting fiscal realities as we try to meet a host of new challenges: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the threat of North Korea, and, of course, securing our homeland.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 will top $470 billion--the largest deficit in our history.

A portion of every dollar we spend from this day until the end of September 2004, will be borrowed money--money our children and grandchildren will have to repay.

After this year's deficit, it is estimated that we will accumulate almost $1.5 trillion in debt during the next 5 years and a total of $2 trillion during the next decade

To help us understand the fiscal track we are on, one must understand that this year's deficit is larger than the amount the President requested for defense in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, 447 billion, and larger than the combined non-defense discretionary budget for this year, 459 billion.

Further, the budget projections we are now using do not include the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So add another $25 billion to $80 billion to the deficit.

Nor do they include long-term costs associated with correcting a growing problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. This will cost $660 billion over the next 10 years.

The current budget picture also hides the full impact of extending the President's tax cuts to just the next 5 years. Beyond this 5-year window, the costs escalate dramatically. The total 10-year cost of those cost: $1.6 trillion.

And the budget uses $1.1 trillion of revenue from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 5 years.

Overall, our Federal debt is expected to rise from $6.8 trillion today to $15.1 trillion in 2014.

Why do Deficits Matter? They matter, as the Brookings Institution points out, because they slow economic growth. By 2014, the average family's income will be an estimated $1,800 lower because of the slower income growth that results when government competes with the private sector for a limited pool of savings or borrows more from abroad.

They increase household borrowing costs by driving up interest rates: A family with a $250,000, 30-year-mortgage, for example, will pay an additional $2,500 in interest for a one-percent hike in interest rates.

They increase indebtedness to foreign creditors. Japan holds $526 billion of our debt. China holds $144 billion. The United Kingdom holds $112 billion. Caribbean Banking Centers hold $62 billion.

They require that a growing proportion of revenues be devoted to paying interest on the national debt: By 2014, this increased borrowing will cost the average household $3,000 in added interest on debt alone.

They impose enormous burdens on future generations. Today's young people will have to pay more because our generation has increased the debt so tremendously. And there will be added pressure to cut spending on health care, education, and other critical services.

Additionally, deficits will prevent us from addressing looming crises in both Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire.

In 2003, we spent $1.2 trillion on these programs and other entitlements--54 percent of the Federal budget. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation.

By 2009, we will be spending $1.6 trillion for these entitlements--57 percent of the Federal budget.

By 2014, we will be spending $2.1 trillion--59 percent of the budget.

These programs are in serious danger if we continue down this path of deficit spending.

In January of last year during his State of the Union Address, the President said the following:

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will

not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other

Congresses, to other Presidents, and to other generations. We

will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

Well, this is one challenge we are passing on to other Congresses and to other generations.

Today we have a chance to meet this challenge and demonstrate fiscal responsibility by temporarily rolling back a small portion of the accelerated tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

Everyone who is affected by this amendment makes more than $319,000 a year in taxable income, which typically means that they are making more than $430,000 a year in gross income.

This amendment does not revoke the 2001 or 2003 reductions in the top income tax rate, nor would it affect any other element of the 2001 or 2003 tax packages. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal income tax rate on the richest in our society.

By scaling back a small portion of the accelerated cut in the May 2003 tax package, we will be taking a first step toward putting our fiscal house in order and asking citizens to sacrifice for the war on terror.

Passing this amendment is the responsible thing to do. I urge your support.

Mr. President, I am very happy to join with Senator Kennedy in support of this amendment. I come at this from a passionate, moral point of view so my arguments are going to reflect that. We have been hearing for 2 years now that this is just a study. Yet the Congressional Research Service has shown in its reports that, in fact, it is much more than a study. This is the reopening of the nuclear door and the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

We, the strongest and most technologically proficient military on Earth now see fit to reopen that door and begin to study and develop a new generation of nuclear weapons: One, the robust nuclear earth penetrator, a 100-kiloton bunker buster, which at present cannot be developed to drive deeply enough into the ground to prevent the spewing of massive amounts of radioactive debris; two, something called advanced concepts initiative, which is the development of low-yield nuclear weapons, under 5 kilotons, to be used as strategic battlefield nuclear weapons; and three, the development of a plutonium pit facility with enough capacity to create up to 450 plutonium pits per year, which are the trigger devices in a nuclear weapon.

I strongly believe that to proceed on this path is folly because by doing so we are encouraging the very nuclear proliferation we are seeking to prevent. In other words, we are telling other countries, don't do what we do, do what we say. We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy. And there is now emerging evidence that others are going to follow this course.

When I stood on the floor last week, I mentioned the report that India is beginning the development of battlefield nuclear weapons. You can be sure Pakistan will follow. We also know Brazil is looking at that opportunity as well. In April of this year, Brazil refused to allow IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors to examine a uranium enrichment facility under construction. They insisted that the facility will only produce low-enriched uranium, which is legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so long as it is safeguarded. They also refused to fully cooperate with the IAEA's investigation into the nuclear black market operated by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Kahn.

These are all the signs. We saw them in North Korea as well. Brazil appears to be rebelling against what it perceives to be a double standard in the global nuclear proliferation regime. It views President Bush's proposals, which significantly curtail the sharing of potentially peaceful nuclear technology, as a radical departure from the standards agreed to under the NPT. I am quoting from a statement issued by the former Foreign Minister of Great Britain, Robin Cook, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in a document entitled ``A Nuclear Nonproliferation Strategy for the 21st Century.'' We know that other countries follow the example of the United States. Why are we doing this?

There is good news. Last week the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water eliminated all funding for these programs, everything--for the pit facility, for the advanced weapons concepts, and for the nuclear bunker buster. That was a wise decision. I believe the action of the House is a reflection of the growing bipartisan concerns that I know many of my colleagues share about this administration's nuclear weapons programs. That is why the Senator from Massachusetts and I and the Senator from Michigan and others have offered our amendment to eliminate funds for programs to develop new nuclear weapons capabilities, including the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

This administration continues to argue that no new weapons production is currently planned. But again, the facts belie this statement.

Ambassador Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated in a recent interview that it is important, in his view, to maintain a manufacturing and scientific base so that the United States can meet the goal of ``being able to design, develop, and begin production of a new warhead within 3 to 4 years of a decision to enter engineering development.''

That is the ball game--the development of a new warhead. It is not just a study; it is development.

I mentioned the Congressional Research Service report. I was staggered when I saw that it concluded that the administration's long- term budget plans, including $485 million for the robust nuclear earth penetrator between 2005 and 2009, casts doubt on the contention that the studies of a new nuclear weapon are, in fact, just studies. Why would the administration be including $485 million in future funds in its long-term budget for a robust nuclear earth penetrator if it was just a study? The fact is, they would not. The study doesn't cost $485 million. The answer is that they are planning to go into the engineering and the development phases.

What I find most troubling with the administration's approach is the suggestion that we can make nuclear weapons more usable.

I strongly believe it must be a central tenet of the U.S. national security policy to do everything at our disposal to make nuclear weapons less desirable, less available, and less likely to be used.

According to press reports, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review cited the need to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and suggested a ``new triad'' which blurred the lines between conventional and nuclear forces. I keep mentioning that because this paper is often postulated as a throwaway--don't pay attention to it--but it is a very important statement of administration policy.

As early as 2001, this administration was creating a new triad of strategic forces, and one part of that would be the nuclear triad--in other words, the creation of new weapons that could be used along with conventional weapons.

This document also names seven countries--not all of them possessing nuclear weapons--against which we would consider launching a nuclear first strike.

So this new triad, with its emphasis on the offensive capability of these weapons--even in first-strike scenarios--represents a radical and dangerous departure from the idea that our strategic nuclear forces are primarily intended for deterrence. This is significant. We have always looked at our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent arsenal. This is now changing to an offensive arsenal. If you think about how the robust nuclear earth penetrator would be used, how low-yield nuclear weapons would be used, they would not be used in a defensive posture; they would be used as part of an offensive thrust.

A recent report of the Pentagon's Defense Sciences Board argues that ``nuclear weapons are needed that produce much lower collateral damage,'' precisely so these weapons can be more ``usable'' and integrated into war-fighting plans.

Now, the problem in all of this is that there is no such thing as a ``clean''

or usable nuclear bomb. A lot of studies have been done.

A leader in this effort is Dr. Sidney Drell, a physics professor at Stanford University. He points out how the effects of a small bomb would be dramatic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 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.

The depth of penetration of the robust nuclear earth penetrator is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest our current earth penetrator can burrow is 20 to 35 feet of dry earth.

Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical force of burrowing through 100 feet of granite to reach a hard or deeply buried target--much less the 800 feet needed to contain the nuclear blast.

So if a nuclear bunker buster were able to burrow into the earth to reach its maximum feasible penetration depth of 35 feet, it would not be able to be deep enough to contain even a bomb with an explosive yield of only 0.2 kilotons, let alone a 100-kiloton bomb like the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

So given the insurmountable physics problems associated with burrowing a warhead deep into the earth, destroying a target hidden beneath 1,000 feet into rock will require a nuclear weapon of at least 100 kilotons. So anything short of 800 feet will not contain a fallout. A fireball will break through the surface, scattering enormous amounts of radioactive debris--1.5 million tons for a 100-kiloton bomb--into the atmosphere. Is that what we want to be doing as a Nation?

The 1962 Sedan nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site illustrates the enormous destructive effects of a 100-kiloton nuclear blast detonated 635 feet below the surface of the Earth--far deeper than any robust nuclear earth penetrator can be engineered to go. The radioactive cloud it produced continued to rise as debris settled back to Earth, and the base surge of the explosion rolled over the desert. Even at 635 feet below the ground, the blast could not be contained.

On the floor of the Senate last week, my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, argued that because conventional earth- penetrating munitions failed to knock out Saddam Hussein in his underground bunker on the eve of the Iraq war, ``only nuclear weapons can address the deeply buried targets that are protected by manmade, or even hard geology.''

I usually, on security matters, agree with my friend. But consider the implications of this statement. If we had used a nuclear earth penetrator, we might have killed Saddam Hussein--that is, assuming we had the right location in the first place, and clearly our intelligence was not right--but at the same time the United States would have used a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear weapon state, detonating it in the middle of a city of 5 million people. Would leveling Baghdad have been the right way to liberate an oppressed people from a brutal dictator? Of course not.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley- Feinstein amendment, which calls upon the President to make the decimation of the Afghanistan heroin trade one of his highest national security priorities, asked the Defense Department to devote more time, energy and resources to anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, and asks for a study into whether profits from the illegal drug trade continue to fund terrorists and others who upset the stability of that nation.

Afghanistan has long been the world's major supplier of heroin, providing the global market as much as 80% of all the heroin consumed each year.

This is a grave problem--not just because heroin is a bad thing in and of itself, but because profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan have historically been funneled, in large part, to terrorists bent on doing America harm or those that aid and protect those terrorists.

Indeed, it has been estimated that millions of dollars--even hundreds of millions of dollars--in drug profits have been funneled to al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. Those organizations, in turn, can use the money to run terrorist training camps; to buy guns, bombs and other supplies; to recruit; and to fund terrorist operations throughout the world.

Needless to say, this is a major problem. If we continue to allow terrorist organizations to rake in hundreds of millions of untraceable dollars, the war on terror is going to go quite poorly for us indeed.

This is not the first time I have raised these concerns. Last May, for instance, I expressed concern that this administration had made a decision to allow warlords and others in Afghanistan to continue to grow poppy and to produce opium, in the hopes of maintaining relationships and alliances with those who were trafficking in drugs. In other words, the administration was essentially turning a blind eye to drug production, in order to work more closely with those who were profiting from it.

This was not acceptable then, and it remains unacceptable now. The very reason we went to Afghanistan--to remove al-Qaida's means of support--will be lost if we continue to allow these drug lords to fund al-Qaida and those that hide them, protect them, fund them and help them in other ways.

More than two years after we went into Afghanistan, we don't have bin Laden. We have not stopped the terrorist attacks. We do not control the countryside in Afghanistan. And now we are standing by while the drug trade flourishes beyond levels experienced even before 9/11.

I know this is not an easy problem to solve. Farmers in Afghanistan, like in many other nation's involved in illegal drug production, often find that growing poppy is far more profitable than the country's other staples--cereals, wheat, barley, rice, and so on.

So combined with Afghanistan's foreboding terrain and chaotic political and security situation, it is not a simple matter to eliminate drug production.

Many farmers survive either solely on poppy production or by growing a mix of legal, and illegal crops.

There is hope--poppy production represents only about 8% of Afghanistan's crop production (in volume). So many farmers do grow alternate crops, and they make a living doing it.

But we need to make better efforts to provide farmers good alternatives; to deter production; and, most importantly, to eradicate the crops on the ground.

Eradicating poppy is not easy--particularly in a nation where the central government has so little control over its distant--and even not-so-distant--provinces.

Only with military assistance can anti-drug operatives go into an area and take out the poppy fields. Some of these warlords have virtual armies at their disposal--helicopters, rocket launchers, you name it. This is not your local marijuana field in someone's backyard. This, truly, is akin to war.

The war in Iraq has certainly hindered the Defense Department's ability to assist in these operations--there is only so much manpower and equipment to go around. This is one reason why so many questioned the advisability of going into Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was finished.

But tough as it may be to solve, this issue is simply too important to ignore, and we cannot wait any longer.

Recent estimates put Afghanistan's poppy production this year at more than 5,000 metric tons--more than 50 percent higher than last year.

Even if the most aggressive current efforts at eradication succeed in every respect, only 25 percent of the crop this year will be destroyed.

This means that no matter what, more heroin will be produced this year

than last. The value of that heroin could easily exceed three billion dollars. Farmers only get about a penny on the dollar. Where is the rest of the money going? Best estimates are that much of it goes to terrorists or their protectors.

This simply cannot continue if we hope to win the war on terror. This amendment calls upon the Defense Department to better assist in protecting drug eradication efforts and to work to disrupt and destroy those who aid terrorist activity through the drug trade.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Saturday, our Nation lost a strong leader and the State of California lost an adopted son.

As a citizen, Ronald Wilson Reagan embodied the American dream. He personified the image of California--can-do, risk-taking, cutting-edge. Ronald Reagan was all of those things.

As a President, he unified a country and helped bring an end to the cold war, the premier struggle of his time in public life.

My fondest memory of President Reagan took place while I was mayor of San Francisco at a March 1983 dinner the President and First Lady hosted for Queen Elizabeth II in San Francisco. The Queen was thrilled to visit California for the first time and especially pleased to be welcomed by a President from California.

During that trip the Queen quipped at one point that she knew England had exported many traditions to the United States, but she hadn't realized the weather was one of them.

San Francisco's London-like weather aside, as Mayor I was enormously proud of the wonderful welcome we had provided for the Queen of England.

Growing up in small-town central Illinois in the years leading up to the Great Depression, President Reagan was instilled with the values that would guide him as a person and as a leader. There he learned the importance of hard work and optimism as the key ingredients for success.

It was this optimism combined with his ever-present sense of humor that characterized him best, enabling him to both ``fill the screen'' and make a stellar entrance wherever he went.

After 4 years at Eureka College, where he was known as a gritty, though undersized tackle on the football team, he began searching for a job in broadcasting. In 1932, at the height

of the Depression, he headed into the job market confident that a job would be his soon.

After several years as a broadcaster covering University of Iowa football games and later recreating Chicago Cubs' games based on telegraph reports, a young Ronald Reagan traveled to California to cover the Cubs' spring training.

It was his first trip west of Kansas City and it nurtured his fascination with Hollywood. While he was there, he used his considerable charm to convince a movie agent to arrange a screen test for him at Warner Brothers Studios.

Before long, he returned to the Midwest, packed his bags and started the quintessential American journey westward in search of opportunity. Of course, he found it as a movie star.

He won many fans through his on-screen charisma. The optimism he inspired was exemplified by his role as Notre Dame football player George Gipp in the film ``Knute Rockne--All-American.'' Years after Gipp's death, Coach Rockne gave a pep talk to his team urging them to ``win one for the Gipper'' one of the more memorable lines in American sports history.

But President Reagan's greatest impact on the world was as a politician. As a labor leader with the Screen Actors Guild, his roots as an activist were shaped significantly by a deep concern about communism.

Yet despite his strongly anti-communist views, he condemned the unfair smearing of many liberals by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. He refused to reveal names publicly, but exposed some people to the FBI privately.

As Governor of California he had a strong record of environmental protection: adding 145,000 acres to the State's park system, protecting Lake Tahoe from rampant development, blocking the construction of dams on the Dos Rios and Eel rivers, and stopping the paving of a federal highway through the Sierra Nevada Mountains that would have cut through the John Muir Trail.

He also signed legislation to protect rivers on California's north coast and approved strict car emissions standards that forced the Nation's automakers to manufacture cleaner-burning cars. But he lobbied against the Coastal Protection Act approved by voters in 1972 and resisted air pollution controls imposed by the federal government.

Despite his personal opposition to abortion, Governor Reagan loosened an 1872 statute to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, when a mother's health was at stake, or when there was a high risk that a baby would be born with birth defects. Many States followed Governor Reagan's lead on this important issue.

However, his move to close down mental health facilities in California resulted in widespread homelessness in urban areas. Though he sought to steer the mentally ill into community-based mental health facilities the end result was a spike in homelessness, a problem that we continue to deal with to this day.

While in Sacramento, he generally approached fiscal policy as a moderate, first presiding over a $1-billion tax increase to balance the State budget and another subsequent increase. He eventually lowered taxes, but in his two terms as Governor, State spending doubled overall and the State's workforce grew by 34,000.

As President, he was a unifier and an optimist. His infectious, upbeat attitude rallied people to his goals. He was extremely successful in passing legislation by joining that optimism with a willingness to compromise with a Democratic Congress.

In his dealings, he was tough, but ready to negotiate. There is no better example of this than his relationship with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He often used harsh rhetoric in challenging the actions of our cold war adversary, but it was always backed by his core beliefs.

Once, as he prepared for his first summit with the Soviet leader, he met with a room full of foreign policy advisors, each offering their suggestions about what he should say. After a half-hour of discussion, President Reagan turned to his advisors and said, ``Gentlemen, I've been thinking about what I'm going to say to this man my whole life. And I know exactly what I'm going to say.''

Gorbachev described Reagan as ``a great President, with whom the Soviet leadership was able to launch a very difficult but important dialogue.''

His tough negotiating stance yielded some important accomplishments including signing treaties reducing intermediate-range nuclear missiles and limiting strategic arms. These acts of diplomacy combined with his relentless advocacy for freedom played a major role in bringing about an end to the cold war.

At the same time, Reagan had a tendency to overreach in the area of foreign policy. The invasion of Grenada, the intervention in Lebanon that left American soldiers uncertain of their role and vulnerable to attack, and, above all, the Iran-Contra scandal--were all cases in which the Reagan Administration went too far in seeking to reshape the world.

At home, President Reagan sought to limit the size of government and tap the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. And though he was famous for cutting taxes, he approved two tax increases during his first term in the White House.

Unfortunately, the tax cuts were coupled with sharp increases in defense spending that resulted in massive deficits. The Federal budget finally recovered from those years of deficit-spending during the late 1990s, but the surpluses that were generated disappeared in the blink of an eye under the current administration's fiscal policies.

President Reagan's cuts to public housing, job training, and the broader social safety net were another serious blow domestically. And, as cities and mayors across the country were reeling from the advent of AIDS--no place suffered more than San Francisco--President Reagan failed to act. He would not even publicly comment on the AIDS crisis.

Though people did not always agree with his policies, it cannot be denied that President Reagan redefined politics through his tremendous skills as a communicator. In particular, his ability to define clear goals and persuade others to support those goals earned him the admiration of many Americans.

As we all know, President Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's Disease during the last decade of his life.

As we honor his memory in the days and weeks to come, it is my hope that we will consider what we can do here in Congress to battle this terrible disease.

A good first step would be to approve legislation that supports embryonic stem cell research. This research offers tremendous hope, not only to those who suffer from Alzheimer's, but also the millions of people with cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries. What a fitting tribute passage of this bill would be to President Reagan.

In closing, there probably is no American who has more fully lived the American dream from actor to Governor to President than Ronald Reagan. Today, we mourn his loss, but recognize that his was a full life.

Thank you for your service to this country, President Reagan.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the Allied invasion of Western Europe.

Sixty years ago yesterday, Allied troops landed on the beaches and parachuted into the fields of Normandy in an effort that would lead to the eventual destruction of the German Army and the liberation of the European continent.

On the early morning of June 6, 1944, after years of logistical coordination and deceptive intelligence operations, U.S. troops and their counterparts from Britain, France, Canada, and Poland brought to bear their enormous power and tremendous bravery on Hitler's military.

On that momentous day, over 150,000 Allied servicemen, including 73,000 Americans, 5,000 ships, and more than 1,000 planes started to beat back the German Army.

The attack began just after midnight when more than 13,000 paratroopers carrying between 70 and 90 pounds of equipment jumped down into German-occupied territory. As these men fell through enemy fire to the fields and farmland of Normandy, the largest armada ever assembled steamed across the English Channel toward the French coast.

At 6:30 a.m., the first wave of troops arrived on the beaches, unloading tens of thousands of soldiers in the face of mortar, artillery, and machine gun fire from the cliffs above the Normandy beaches.

A second wave of Allied Forces landed at 7 a.m., charging up hills and scaling cliffs through continued firepower. The fighting continued throughout the day, and at day's end, the Allied casualties numbered nearly 10,000, of which 2,500 had died, including more than 1,400 Americans.

But more than 100,000 Allied soldiers had made it ashore and secured French coastal towns. On D-Day Plus Five, June 11, over 325,000 Allied troops, 54,000 vehicles, and 104,000 tons of supplies had arrived in Normandy.

The D-Day invasion was one of the most daring military operations in history and it succeeded because of the courage of Allied soldiers and the careful planning of Allied military leaders. These brave troops and their leaders knew that this attack would determine the fate of Europe and much of the world for many years to come.

With success on the coast of Normandy, the Allies advanced across France, liberating village after village on the path to Berlin. The massive landing and subsequent arrival of troops had allowed for a relentless advance and cleared the way to a conclusion of the war.

The Americans who survived that day and that war are no longer young. Indeed, there are fewer D-Day veterans this year than last, and there will be fewer still next year. Yet the men who fought on that day 60 years ago, and the Americans who supported their efforts at home and abroad, have created a legacy of peace and prosperity that continues to reign across Europe today.

Europe is united, not by force of arms or tyranny, but by economic strength and cooperation. Last month, 10 new countries joined the European Union. Former battlefield adversaries now enjoy freedom of movement, a single currency, and a secure future for themselves and their children.

The legacy of those D-Day veterans is also apparent in our Nation today. Just last week, thousands of veterans came to Washington, DC, to celebrate the opening of the World War II Memorial. These veterans reminded us that the prosperity we have enjoyed for most of the past 60 years came at a price--the 400,000 American lives that were lost during World War II.

The remarkable advancements in our Nation and the world during the past 60 years would not have been possible without the extraordinary effort undertaken by this generation of Americans and our allies who shared our commitment to freedom.

Today, courageous soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots continue to serve and sacrifice for this country. As we remember the brave individuals who served in Normandy and across the globe during World War II, we must also honor the men and women of today's military who are in harm's way.

As of June 3, 126 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan and another 818 have died in Iraq. Thousands more have been injured. These men and women, along with their families, have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Today, I honor them and the approximately 140,000 soldiers who continue to serve in the Middle East.

June 6, 1944, was a crucial day in the history of this Nation and the history of the world. Today we recognize the contribution of those who served our Nation on that day and thank them for staring down tyranny and liberating Europe. They continue to serve our nation through the undiminished memory of a battle fought far from home for the good of all people.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the callous attitudes of Enron employees that were brought to light recently in transcripts released by the Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington and broadcast on CBS News.

These tapes provide concrete evidence of the manipulation and fraud that was perpetrated by energy companies in the 2000-2001 energy crisis in California.

This manipulation resulted in the cost of energy in California increasing from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and 2001, respectively.

This type of price gouging and market manipulation can and will happen again if the energy market is not restructured.

I urge the California State Legislature to take action on Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez's bill--AB 2006, the Reliable Electric Service Act.

This bill would re-regulate the energy market and protect small consumers served by utilities from this type of unethical behavior.

In more than a dozen taped conversations, the Enron power traders show complete disdain for consumers throughout the West, and particularly those in California.

While I cannot read the transcripts verbatim due to the coarse language used by the traders, I would like to read to you some excerpts: One trader sang: ``Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing.''

This was in reference to a wildfire that shut down a major transmission line, decreasing power supplies and raising energy prices.

Another trader said: ``Just cut 'em off. They're so [expletive]. They should just bring back . . . horses and carriages, . . . lamps, . . . kerosene lamps.'' (Expletives Deleted)

To have traders say these things shows a complete disregard for the health and safety of Californians. And this was not an isolated trader--this was a mentality apparently endemic to Enron employees.

The only thing these traders cared about was how much money they could bleed from the California marketplace.

Let me read you a second excerpt: One trader complained: ``They're [expletive] taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?''

A second responded: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man.''

The first responded: ``Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged right up, [expletive phrase], for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour.''

To thumb your nose at a grandmother on a fixed income is completely reprehensible, but it was how these traders operated--with no compassion for those suffering from their behavior--that galls me the most.

When I heard these tapes, I knew that we could not expect any ethical conduct from traders in this energy market.

Let me read you another excerpt, this one illustrating the lengths these traders would go to manipulate the market:

Tom: The headline before that is ``California Grid

Operators Call Stage 2 Power Emergency as Reserves Drop.''

Matt: Yeah. They're on the ropes today. I exported like a

[expletive] 400 megs.

Tom: Wow.

Matt: I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine

to the desert.

Tom: [Expletive] 'em, right?

Matt: I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power

more than you.

Matt goes on to say that he and Enron were getting rich off of exporting power out of California when Californians needed it most.

The transcripts prove that Enron intentionally congested transmission lines and used its influence to delay wholesale price caps in order to maximize its profits.

Other transcripts also prove that Enron traders made secret deals with power producers, deliberately driving up prices by ordering power plants shut down.

But Enron did not act alone in manipulating the California energy market. In fact, this type of manipulation was pervasive among many energy companies operating in California. Here are several more examples.

Reliant, for instance, decided to game the market by deliberately holding back power generation for two days at its facility near Barstow in late June 2000. This is when the State needed power the most. Worse, these decisions were made from the top. The vice-president of power trading at Reliant directed traders to manipulate the market in this manner.

At one point, Reliant charged the State of California $1,900 per megawatt-hour for electricity, or approximately 6300 percent more than the historic standard of $30 per megawatt-hour. Yet the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission only fined Reliant $13.8 million and the company did not have to admit any guilt or wrongdoing.

Dynegy also demonstrated manipulative behavior such as load shifting, false reporting, and double selling. The company deliberately reported false gas market data to publications and created bogus trades to drive up the price of electricity.

Dynegy was only concerned with its bottom line in the first quarter of 2001, the company posted a recurring net income of $137.5 million, a 73 percent increase in net income from the $79.4 million it reported in 2000 and a 102 percent increase from the company's reported first quarter income in 1999.

For this manipulative behavior, FERC levied a fine of only $3 million, and, again, Dynegy did not have to admit any guilt.

In yet another instance, El Paso Merchant Energy and its affiliates inflated the price of natural gas by reducing deliveries to the State. In fact, El Paso withheld capacity from at least 21 percent of its pipelines that delivered natural gas to the California border. It is estimated that El Paso's price manipulation cost California's consumers $3.7 billion.

FERC settled with El Paso, letting them walk away, again, without admitting any wrongdoing, for a $1.5 billion fine. That is only a fraction of the cost that California consumers were forced to bear due to El Paso's misdeeds.

These companies used many deliberate strategies to manipulate the market, which included: Death Star, Get Shorty, Fat Boy, Load Shift, Black Widow, and Red Congo.

California is still suffering from this unethical conduct.

Californians are forced to pay higher prices for electricity because of long-term contracts that were signed when wholesale prices were artificially inflated by price manipulation.

And Californians still have not gotten the $9 billion in refunds they deserve, which were overcharges as a result of Enron and other companies' manipulation of the energy markets.

These tapes provide concrete evidence that there was intentional manipulation and fraud perpetrated by energy companies during the 2000- 2001 energy crisis in California.

That is why I have joined my colleague, Senator Boxer, in calling upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to immediately refund California the $9 billion that it is owed and to order a renegotiation of the long-term contracts that were made under manipulated prices.

These transcripts further prove that the rates Californians paid for electricity were not ``just and reasonable.''

Consumers are not served well by a deregulated marketplace where traders from companies including Enron, Dynegy, Reliant, Mirant, Williams, AES, CMS, El Paso Merchant Energy, and Duke can manipulate the market in the grossest way.

Absent strong action, I have no doubt that this unethical, immoral and illegal behavior will continue.

That is why I support re-regulating California's energy markets. Speaker Nunez's bill would create a regulatory framework that will put California back in charge of its energy future.

The bill would attempt to ensure reliable electricity at stable and affordable rates for small customers; require California's utilities to meet a renewable portfolio standard of 20 percent by 2010; and require utilities to have enough generation capacity to meet the demands of their consumers and have a significant reserve on hand in case of an emergency.

This bill will provide Californians the protection they need from exorbitant energy prices and energy traders with no ethical standards.

California was the first to experiment with de-regulation. Sadly, the 1996 deregulation was a total failure for consumers in California.

We learned the hard way that energy is not a commodity like pork bellies or frozen orange juice, but is a public good.

California needs to put in place a new framework to take regulate the energy market in order to ensure reliability and reasonable prices for consumers.

In other words, consumers should be protected from price spikes, market manipulation, and blackouts.

In closing, I cannot express how disgusted I am by the newest Enron transcripts.

I wish we could have prevented the manipulative behavior in the first place.

Congress still has not acted to pass bills that would prevent this kind of unethical and immoral manipulative behavior in the energy markets, such as those that were offered by me, Senator Cantwell and others.

As a result, I feel that California must act on its own to control its own energy supplies in order to prevent further manipulation of our markets and keep our lights on.

CBS News is to be commended for bringing these tapes to light.

It is imperative that we learn as much as we can about Enron's behavior--so that we know its impact on the western energy markets and so that this type of fraud and manipulation can be prevented from ever happening again.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I particularly thank him for being the main sponsor of this amendment.

This amendment is something about which I feel passion, and the reason I do is because the country, of which I am a part, in this bill authorizes the opening of a nuclear door to the development of new nuclear weapons.

One of the things I realized is Americans forget what a nuclear weapon does. Both Senator Kennedy and I were very young teenagers when the first nuclear bomb was dropped. The first nuclear bomb that was dropped was 15 kilotons, and it was dropped on Hiroshima. This is what Hiroshima looked like when that bomb was dropped.

Let me show you what a 21-kiloton nuclear bomb did, because that was the second bomb that was dropped, and that was on Nagasaki. In the course of a year, between the two cities, 200,000 people died-- 200,000--many of them in the most horrible of ways from radiation sickness.

Radiation is a major problem whenever you look at a new nuclear weapon--where it can be contained, how it can be contained, and where it cannot be contained.

In this bill, there is authorization for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster. In this bill, there is a request for authorization of $9 million for advanced nuclear weapons concepts which translates into strategic battlefield nuclear weapons under 5 kilotons--battlefield nuclear weapons.

Let me show you the depth to which a bomb has to penetrate to prevent nuclear fallout. If it is two-tenths of a kiloton, it has to go down 70 feet, to 120 feet, and then it throws off 25,000 tons of radioactive fallout.

If it is 1 kiloton, at 80 feet, it throws up 60,000 tons of radioactive fallout and would have to go down to 220 feet not to throw out any radioactive fallout. Five kilotons, if it goes down 320 feet, it will not throw off radioactive fallout, but at 130 feet, it throws out 220,000 tons of radioactive fallout. At 100 kilotons, it would have to go down to 800 to 1,000 feet not to throw off any radioactive fallout.

That is what we are talking about. That is what is authorized in this bill: a nuclear bunker buster of 100 kilotons, and there is no known way to drive a bomb 800 to 1,000 feet into the earth because there is no known casing strong enough to drive that bomb down to that depth.

So I ask the question: Why are we doing this? Why are we spending what over 5 years will be $500 million on this program? And why are we doing it when it is going to encourage the very proliferation everything about us wants to prevent?

We now know through newspaper articles that India may be looking at what is called a boutique nuclear weapon, a battlefield nuclear weapon. We lead the way. We do not want other nations to go ahead and develop this, and this country has the most sophisticated conventional military in the world.

I support this amendment which essentially would eliminate the authorization for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the advanced nuclear weapon concept.

I want to point out when this administration came into office, they put out a document called the Nuclear Posture Review in 2002. This Nuclear Posture Review, according to press reports, actually stated the United States would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances.

This document named seven countries against whom we would consider launching a nuclear first strike. Those seven countries as listed in 2002 were North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, China, and Russia. It also proposed a new triad in which nuclear and conventional weapons coexist along the same continuum. This effectively blurs the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and suggests that they could be used as an offensive weapon.

In addition, the Nuclear Posture Review said we need to develop new types of weapons so we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances and against a wider range of targets, such as hard and deeply buried targets, or to defeat chemical or biological agents.

I have now asked Secretary Rumsfeld, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee 2 years running, about this. The first year he said this is just a study; that is all. This year a week ago when I asked him, he said clearly, with the amount of underground activity that exists in the world, and it is pervasive in country after country that people have tunneled underground--North Korea is a perfect example; certainly Iran is--we have found this in country after country, and the question is, If that is a problem, what might be done about it. Your first choice would be to find some obviously conventional way to do it. They have looked and looked and looked, and this additional way is at least, in my view, worth studying.

In addition, the Congressional Research Service says the fiscal year 2005 budget request seems to cast serious doubt on the assertions that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is only a study because budget projections over the next 5 years is nearly $500 million for this program. So it is more than a study. It is a real program that is underway. I think it is a huge mistake.

I indicated that there is no way today to sink a nuclear weapon deeply enough into the earth to prevent radioactive fallout. Let me show what that fallout would do. This is the predicted radioactive fallout from a 300-kiloton explosion in west Pyongyang, North Korea, using historical weather data for the month of May. We see what the fallout would be. This makes no sense. We are not going to use a weapon either on a battlefield or as a bunker buster that spews out radioactive nuclear fallout. Why reopen the nuclear door? Why have other nations look at America and say, America is going to do this; maybe we should do it? India, Pakistan, historic enemies, both nuclear capable countries, rumors are that one now is going to develop a tactical battlefield nuclear weapon. They see us doing it; therefore, it is all right for them to do it.

According to press reports, in a Nuclear Posture Review, one of the countries we might consider a first use, North Korea. We then find North Korea breaks the agreed formula. North Korea is producing a nuclear capability. It makes no sense for the strongest military on Earth, the most sophisticated conventional military on Earth, to say, once again, we must reopen the nuclear door, and we must begin a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The people of California do not want this. I do not think the people of any State want that. So I believe very strongly in this amendment. I hope to discuss it more on Tuesday. I will do everything in my power to fight every way I can the reopening of this nuclear door.

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and Advanced Concepts Initiative are only part of a movement to expand the development of new nuclear

weapons. There are also plans to develop a modern pit facility, and that modern pit facility would provide the capacity to create up to 450 more plutonium pits per year. The plutonium pit is the shell which is effectively the trigger of a nuclear device which compresses and therefore detonates. That is not necessary to maintain the current nuclear numbers that we have. It is only necessary if you are going to build new nuclear. In addition, last year the Administration urged Congress to eliminate the Spratt-Furse provision which for the past 10 years provided that there could be no research, no development, no study of low-yield nuclear weapons.

So the evidence is there that this administration is proceeding along the lines to reopen the nuclear door to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons while at the same time preaching to the world, thou shalt not; we are opposed to nuclear proliferation. Yet we are willing to open that door and proliferate ourselves.

In my view, this is hypocrisy. In my view, this is not good public policy. In my view, this is immoral and unethical.

I represent a constituency that does not think we need a new generation of nuclear weapons. So this amendment would remove that authorization from the Defense authorization bill, and I stand in support of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to co-sponsor, along with my colleague Senator Grassley, the Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act. This legislation will help us combat an often overlooked killer on our Nation's roads--drugged driving.

Drivers who are drugged are not as easy to catch as drivers who are drunk. We have not yet developed technology to quickly identify drivers who operate vehicles under the influence of drugs. States do not have consistent laws to punish drugged driving. And law enforcement does not have adequate training to detect and prosecute drugged drivers.

To help make our roads safer, this legislation takes a tough stance while respecting State's traditional law enforcement powers.

First, the bill directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to draft a model law to suggest to the States. That model law will make it a crime for an individual to drive with ``any detectable amount'' of a controlled substance in his or her system, or when drugs noticeably affect mental or physical abilities. For the worst repeat offenders, the law has tough penalties to show that we mean business--over a year in jail.

Second, the law calls for research into technology to let us detect drugged drivers quickly. Right now, there is nothing like a ``breathalyzer'' test for drugs.

And third, this legislation will have the Department of Transportation develop training programs so that law enforcement departments throughout the Nation can learn how to better detect drugged drivers.

Why do we need this bill? Because drugged drivers are a reckless danger to everyone else on the roads. Consider the following: In 2002, 11 million people drove while under the influence of drugs in the United States. Those numbers translate into tragedy. Illegal drugs are used by about 10 to 22 percent of drivers involved in all motor vehicle crashes.

Despite this documented risk, drugged driving is tricky to catch. We catch drugged drivers less often than we catch drunk drivers. Too few police officers have received training that would help them take drugged drivers off the streets. And in the fifty States, there is simply no consistent method to identify drugs in the bodies of drivers.

Not surprisingly, this legislation has wide support. The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy is backing it. So is the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America,

and other groups. The House of Representatives has already voted to approve the legislation, as part of the Transportation Equity Act.

This legislation will help the states keep drugged drivers off our roads. It will do so by encouraging the States to make the laws against drugged driving uniform, by researching better technology to test for drugs, and by giving law enforcement more training.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Memorial Day and pay tribute to the brave men and women who have given their lives in defense of the freedom and liberties we cherish in this great Nation.

Throughout this country, Memorial Day, originally recognized as Decoration Day, is a day to remember those who have died in service to our Nation.

It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. Over a century later, in 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be celebrated the last Monday in May. Today, thousands of people attend Memorial Day ceremonies across the country to commemorate this special day.

This year, our observance of this national holiday is marked by the opening of the National World War II Memorial in our Nation's capital. Authorized by President Clinton in 1993, this national memorial will be the first of its kind dedicated to all who served during World War II.

It is during this Memorial Day weekend, in conjunction with the new memorial dedication, that Americans will honor the nearly 16 million who served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort from home.

According to the Department of Defense, more citizens from California served in World War II than any other State. And an estimated 457,000 World War II veterans currently live in California. That generation, led by the Nation's Armed Forces, defended America's ideals during World War II and changed the world in the process.

At this moment, another generation faces an equally difficult challenge that will define the world for many years to come. Today, we face a new foe, terrorism, which threatens the very freedoms that World War II was fought to protect. The battleground this time is less clear. Indeed, the threat of terrorism exists all over the world--not merely in the Middle East, but also on our shores.

The war on terror is a massive effort that will require the highest level of commitment and dedication possible to enable America and her allies to prevail. Today over 1.6 million men and women serve in active duty spread throughout 67 countries. California alone provides over 182,000 military and civilian personnel.

In Afghanistan, American troops, along with a multinational coalition, have defeated the Taliban regime, striking a severe blow to al-Qaida's operation in that country. Our forces have enabled Afghans to draft a constitution, laying the groundwork for a democratic government. Women will soon have the right to vote and hold office. Girls are being educated in schools again. Nonetheless, there is still much work to be done to secure the country and ensure the basic rights of Afghan citizens.

The military success in Afghanistan has not come without sacrifice. No example drives home this point more than the death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, killed in action a few weeks ago while on a mission in southeastern Afghanistan.

Tillman, a native of San Jose, California, was an All-American football player at Arizona State who later went on to play professionally with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals.

At the height of his career, he walked away from pro football to serve his country during wartime. On April 23, 2004, Tillman became one of 110 U.S. soldiers killed during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. His life was a model of sacrifice.

The war in Iraq has proven to be an even more difficult task. Although our Armed Forces have removed Saddam Hussein from power and taken steps to set up a transitional democratic government run by the people of Iraq, our troops are in a very dangerous situation. It is rare that a day goes by without the report of another American who has fallen victim to the attacks of Iraqi insurgents. As of May 21, 92 Californians have lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

One of them was Marine Lance Corporal Brad Shuder, 21, of El Dorado Hills, east of Sacramento. He enlisted a month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and fought in the invasion of Iraq last year before returning for a second tour.

Shuder, a South Korean native, was adopted at 22 months and grew up to be a gourmet cook and opera lover. He was killed on April 12 of this year.

I would also like to take a moment to name the other Californians who have given their lives in Iraq.

Specialist Marcos O. Nolasco, Chino; Private 1st Class Michael A. Mora, Arroyo Grande; Sergeant Brud J. Cronkrite, Spring Valley; Private 1st Class Brian K. Cutter, Riverside; Private 1st Class Lyndon A. Marcus Jr., Long Beach; Sergeant Marvin R. Sprayberry III, Tehachapi; Specialist Ramon C. Ojeda, Ramona; Specialist Trevor A. Wine, Orange; Specialist James L. Beckstrand, Escondido; Sergeant Adam W. Estep, Campbell; Staff Sergeant Abraham D. Penamedina, Los Angeles;

Private 1st Class Leroy Harris-Kelly, Azusa; Corporal Christopher A. Gibson, Simi Valley;Captain Richard J. Gannon II, Escondido;Sergeant Brian M. Wood, Torrance;Staff Sergeant Jimmy J. Arroyave, Woodland;Staff Sergeant Victor A. Rosaleslomeli, Westminster;1st Lieutenant Oscar Jimenez, San Diego;Private 1st Class George D. Torres, Long Beach;Private 1st Class Eric A. Ayon, Arleta;Staff Sergeant William M. Harrell, Placentia;1st Lieutenant Joshua M. Palmer, Banning;Lance Corporal Kyle D. Crowley, San Ramon;Staff Sergeant Allan K. Walker, Lancaster;Lance Corporal Marcus M. Cherry, Imperial;Lance Corporal Travis J. Layfield, Fremont;Specialist Casey Sheehan, Vacaville;Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, Porterville;Lance Corporal Wiscowiche, William J. Victorville;Lance Corporal Andrew S. Dang, Foster City;Major Mark D. Taylor, Stockton;1st Lieutenant Michael W. Vega, Lathrop;Private 1st Class Joel K. Brattain, Yorba Linda/Brea;

Specialist Christopher K. Hill, Ventura;Specialist Eric U. Ramirez, San Diego;Sergeant Patrick S. Tainsh, Oceanside;Master Sergeant Jude C. Mariano, Vallejo;Sergeant Eliu A. Miersandoval, San Clemente;Specialist Jason K. Chappell, Hemet;Sergeant Keicia M. Hines, Citrus Heights;Specialist Michael A. Diraimondo, Simi Valley;Private 1st Class Jesse D. Mizener, Auburn;Specialist Justin W. Pollard, Foothill Ranch;Specialist Michael G. Mihalakis, San Jose;Staff Sergeant Richard A. Burdick, National City;Staff Sergeant Steven H. Bridges, Tracy;Specialist Arron R. Clark, Chico;Sergeant Ryan C. Young, Corona;Staff Sergeant Stephen A. Bertolino, Orange;Chief Warrant Officer (CW2) Christopher G. Nason, Los Angeles;Staff Sergeant Eddie E. Menyweather, Los Angeles;Specialist Rel A. Ravago IV, Glendale;Sergeant 1st Class Kelly Bolor, Whittier;Specialist Genaro Acosta, Fair Oaks;Staff Sergeant Paul A. Velasquez, San Diego;Private 1st Class Karina S. Lau, Livingston;2nd Lieutenant Todd J. Bryant, Riverside;Private 1st Class Steven Acosta, Calexico;Sergeant Michael S. Hancock, Yreka;Specialist Jose L. Mora, Bell Gardens;Corporal Sean R. Grilley, San Bernardino;Private 1st Class Jose Casanova, El Monte;Private Sean A. Silva, Roseville;Private 1st Class Pablo Manzano, Heber;Lieutenant Kylan A. Jones-Huffman, Aptos;Private 1st Class Daniel R. Parker, Lake Elsinore;Staff Sergeant David S. Perry, Bakersfield;Corporal Evan Asa Ashcraft, West Hills;Lance Corporal Cory Ryan Geurin, Santee;Lance Corporal Jason Tetrault, Moreno Valley;Specialist Paul T. Nakamura, Santa Fe Springs;Sergeant Atanasio Haro Marin Jr., Baldwin Park;Lance Corporal Jason William Moore, San Marcos;Captain Andrew David LaMont, Eureka;Corporal Douglas Jose Marencoreyes, Chino;Private 1st Class Jose F. Gonzalez Rodriguez, Norwalk;1st Lieutenant Osbaldo Orozco, Delano;Sergeant Troy David Jenkins, Ridgecrest;Corporal Jesus A. Gonzalez, Indio;Sergeant 1st Class John W. Marshall, Los Angeles;Private Devon D. Jones, San Diego;Corporal Erik H. Silva, Chula Vista;Lance Corporal Patrick T. O'Day, Sonoma;Gunnery Sergeant Joseph Menusa, San Jose;Private 1st Class Francisco A. Martinez-Flores, Los Angeles;Lance Corporal Jesus A. Suarez del Solar, Escondido;Sergeant Michael E. Bitz, Ventura;Corporal Randal Kent Rosacker, San Diego;Corporal Jose A. Garibay, Orange;Corporal Jose A. Gonzalez, Los Angeles;Lieutenant Thomas Mullen Adams, La Mesa.

The Pentagon reports that through today, America has incurred 797 casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 120 deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom. And more than 4,800 men and women have been wounded in these conflicts.

Such grim statistics underscore the fact that the current administration must do more to seek international help, especially in Iraq, during these trying times. Additionally, we must provide the equipment necessary to keep our soldiers safe. At the very least, we owe our soldiers this for their tremendous sacrifice.

In closing, I am honored to take this time to join every American in saluting those individuals who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to uphold the ideals of our democratic Nation.

On Memorial Day, we renew the commitment of this great Nation to the common defense of the country and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Coleman to introduce the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act also called the ``Ryan Haight Act'', a bill which is vital to protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescription drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic website to sell prescription drugs legally, the website would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the website.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can and do, it would look something like this: A physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs every day all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates

that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy websites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, approximately 29 states and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice. Of the other 21 States, 13 have medical or osteopathic medical boards that have taken disciplinary action against a physician for prescribing medication online.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say:

No person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or

cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous

drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device

unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any

person in this state, without a good faith prior examination

and medical indication . . .

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and state medical and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State Attorneys General the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act, or the INFO Act. This legislation will help safeguard Americans' most important and sensitive personal information when it is sent abroad for processing to countries that may have lax security and privacy standards.

The bill will ensure that American companies notify consumers of a business's outsourcing practices. It will require American companies to certify the adequacy of their outsourcing protections. And it will require American companies to hold their foreign business partners accountable for protecting Americans' data.

In order to protect the information of Americans that is now vulnerable abroad, this bill calls for the following key safeguards:

First, the bill requires American health and financial companies to notify consumers when sending their information abroad, and to certify the safety of the overseas processing. We drafted provisions carefully to minimize the burden on businesses, so they will expand on privacy disclosures that companies already make under Federal law.

Second, American companies processing health or financial data must include clauses in contracts with their foreign partners to allow audits of their foreign information processors and to enforce American privacy standards.

Third, the bill creates a system to inform American companies and Federal regulators of any security breaches involving American health or financial information at facilities operated outside the United States.

And fourth, the bill gives Americans the right to have workers at foreign call centers disclose where they are calling from.

The bill also gives Federal agencies the power to enforce these provisions. It is important to emphasize that this bill is drafted to minimize the burdens on businesses, by expanding on existing privacy data and security laws.

While many are concerned about how outsourcing abroad hurts American workers, outsourcing also poses risks to the security and privacy of American consumers' personal data. The recent wave of international outsourcing means that we are flooding the entire world with our most sensitive information.

Once sent abroad, the information is at risk because our Federal laws do not apply to foreign companies operating overseas. Another reason is because many foreign countries have far weaker security laws than our own. For instance, India still has no laws to protect personal and private data. And still another reason is because it is extremely difficult for Americans to use foreign courts to sue foreign companies that misuse American data.

These factors leave the most intimate details of the lives of uncountable Americans vulnerable to lax security and to malicious identity thieves.

And there is even more at stake. Information outsourcing poses a direct risk to national security. We are painfully aware that some people want to steal the identity of individual Americans in order to evade our homeland defenses and harm us all.

International information outsourcing has skyrocketed in recent years. Consider the following:

Tax returns for about 200,000 Americans were prepared in India this year. To put this number in context, India workers processed only about 1,000 U.S. tax returns 2 years ago. Tax returns have Americans' names, Social Security numbers, income, employers, addresses, and other details.

The American Association of Medical Transcription estimates that 10 percent of all medical transcription of doctors' notes is being done abroad.

An executive from Trans Union, one of the major credit agencies in the United States, told The San Francisco Chronicle that:

A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes

is going to go to India at some point.

If anyone doubts the risk that international outsourcing poses to Americans, consider these incidents:

Recently, a low-paid transcriber in Pakistan was working as a subcontractor to the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. That foreign worker threatened to post confidential patient information on the Internet unless the university coaxed her boss into paying some of her bills.

Three weeks later, a strikingly similar incident occurred with a worker in Bangalore, India.

In another incident, in Noida, India, an employee working at a call center used an American's credit card information to buy electronics equipment from Sony.

Also in India, there is a burgeoning black market in personal identity information. According to one report, stolen names, addresses, phone numbers, the bank a person has an account with, and even bank account numbers are sold on the streets for mere pennies.

These are just a few incidents. No one knows how many other times workers have done similar things. And that is a big part of the problem. It is not merely that Americans' identities are vulnerable when sent abroad. The problem is that American companies obscure how much outsourcing they do, and when they are doing it.

For example, according to the San Jose Mercury News, a worker at a call center dealing with State benefits refused to identify his location. The supervisor, when she picked up the call, refused to say anything more than that she worked for Citicorp.

In essence, the problem of obscurity is so bad that we can list only a few incidents reported by the media. How many security breaches have taken place? Have consumers been informed when their information is abroad and at risk? How much money has this cost consumers? We don't know.

And so far, American regulatory agencies have been unable to say despite their oversight of these industries. And American companies have stayed mum. We need to break the silence.

The fact is, our Government is simply not doing enough to protect consumers. Earlier this month I received a letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., who is the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. He heads one of the agencies that regulates U.S. financial institutions and banks.

Mr. Hawke wrote to me that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, does not directly regulate foreign contractors that work for U.S. banks. Specifically, he wrote:

[T]he OCC focuses its supervisory reviews regarding foreign

servicing relationships on whether the serviced banks have

adequate procedures in place. . . .

That means the OCC is focusing on the American companies, not the foreign ones.

I also learned from the OCC that it already suggests certain safeguards for American banks to use when they hire foreign information processors. The OCC asks U.S. banks to use contract provisions to make sure that foreign companies use secure methods to process data, and to let the U.S. companies audit the foreign companies.

But the OCC only suggests that companies adopt these safeguards. The legislation we are introducing today would take safeguards like the OCC's a step further, and make them mandatory.

Now is the time to act. We know that there are criminal syndicates, such as in Nigeria, that have fraudulently obtained bank information to steal untold fortunes. We can hardly imagine the damage such organizations can do with a vast new source of sensitive financial data from international information outsourcing.

In short, this bill accomplishes four goals crucial to protecting Americans' sensitive data sent abroad. It requires companies to give notice that they send consumers' sensitive data abroad. It ensures that U.S. companies can audit their foreign partners, and impose U.S. privacy standards on them. It establishes a system to ensure that foreign and U.S. companies will report security breaches to the U.S. Government. And it allows American consumers to demand to know where foreign call centers are located.

This bill helps to protect outsourced information while minimizing burdens on American businesses. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Coleman to introduce the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act also called the ``Ryan Haight Act'', a bill which is vital to protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescription drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic website to sell prescription drugs legally, the website would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the website.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can and do, it would look something like this: A physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs every day all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates

that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy websites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, approximately 29 states and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice. Of the other 21 States, 13 have medical or osteopathic medical boards that have taken disciplinary action against a physician for prescribing medication online.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say:

No person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or

cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous

drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device

unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any

person in this state, without a good faith prior examination

and medical indication . . .

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and state medical and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State Attorneys General the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act, or the INFO Act. This legislation will help safeguard Americans' most important and sensitive personal information when it is sent abroad for processing to countries that may have lax security and privacy standards.

The bill will ensure that American companies notify consumers of a business's outsourcing practices. It will require American companies to certify the adequacy of their outsourcing protections. And it will require American companies to hold their foreign business partners accountable for protecting Americans' data.

In order to protect the information of Americans that is now vulnerable abroad, this bill calls for the following key safeguards:

First, the bill requires American health and financial companies to notify consumers when sending their information abroad, and to certify the safety of the overseas processing. We drafted provisions carefully to minimize the burden on businesses, so they will expand on privacy disclosures that companies already make under Federal law.

Second, American companies processing health or financial data must include clauses in contracts with their foreign partners to allow audits of their foreign information processors and to enforce American privacy standards.

Third, the bill creates a system to inform American companies and Federal regulators of any security breaches involving American health or financial information at facilities operated outside the United States.

And fourth, the bill gives Americans the right to have workers at foreign call centers disclose where they are calling from.

The bill also gives Federal agencies the power to enforce these provisions. It is important to emphasize that this bill is drafted to minimize the burdens on businesses, by expanding on existing privacy data and security laws.

While many are concerned about how outsourcing abroad hurts American workers, outsourcing also poses risks to the security and privacy of American consumers' personal data. The recent wave of international outsourcing means that we are flooding the entire world with our most sensitive information.

Once sent abroad, the information is at risk because our Federal laws do not apply to foreign companies operating overseas. Another reason is because many foreign countries have far weaker security laws than our own. For instance, India still has no laws to protect personal and private data. And still another reason is because it is extremely difficult for Americans to use foreign courts to sue foreign companies that misuse American data.

These factors leave the most intimate details of the lives of uncountable Americans vulnerable to lax security and to malicious identity thieves.

And there is even more at stake. Information outsourcing poses a direct risk to national security. We are painfully aware that some people want to steal the identity of individual Americans in order to evade our homeland defenses and harm us all.

International information outsourcing has skyrocketed in recent years. Consider the following:

Tax returns for about 200,000 Americans were prepared in India this year. To put this number in context, India workers processed only about 1,000 U.S. tax returns 2 years ago. Tax returns have Americans' names, Social Security numbers, income, employers, addresses, and other details.

The American Association of Medical Transcription estimates that 10 percent of all medical transcription of doctors' notes is being done abroad.

An executive from Trans Union, one of the major credit agencies in the United States, told The San Francisco Chronicle that:

A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes

is going to go to India at some point.

If anyone doubts the risk that international outsourcing poses to Americans, consider these incidents:

Recently, a low-paid transcriber in Pakistan was working as a subcontractor to the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. That foreign worker threatened to post confidential patient information on the Internet unless the university coaxed her boss into paying some of her bills.

Three weeks later, a strikingly similar incident occurred with a worker in Bangalore, India.

In another incident, in Noida, India, an employee working at a call center used an American's credit card information to buy electronics equipment from Sony.

Also in India, there is a burgeoning black market in personal identity information. According to one report, stolen names, addresses, phone numbers, the bank a person has an account with, and even bank account numbers are sold on the streets for mere pennies.

These are just a few incidents. No one knows how many other times workers have done similar things. And that is a big part of the problem. It is not merely that Americans' identities are vulnerable when sent abroad. The problem is that American companies obscure how much outsourcing they do, and when they are doing it.

For example, according to the San Jose Mercury News, a worker at a call center dealing with State benefits refused to identify his location. The supervisor, when she picked up the call, refused to say anything more than that she worked for Citicorp.

In essence, the problem of obscurity is so bad that we can list only a few incidents reported by the media. How many security breaches have taken place? Have consumers been informed when their information is abroad and at risk? How much money has this cost consumers? We don't know.

And so far, American regulatory agencies have been unable to say despite their oversight of these industries. And American companies have stayed mum. We need to break the silence.

The fact is, our Government is simply not doing enough to protect consumers. Earlier this month I received a letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., who is the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. He heads one of the agencies that regulates U.S. financial institutions and banks.

Mr. Hawke wrote to me that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, does not directly regulate foreign contractors that work for U.S. banks. Specifically, he wrote:

[T]he OCC focuses its supervisory reviews regarding foreign

servicing relationships on whether the serviced banks have

adequate procedures in place. . . .

That means the OCC is focusing on the American companies, not the foreign ones.

I also learned from the OCC that it already suggests certain safeguards for American banks to use when they hire foreign information processors. The OCC asks U.S. banks to use contract provisions to make sure that foreign companies use secure methods to process data, and to let the U.S. companies audit the foreign companies.

But the OCC only suggests that companies adopt these safeguards. The legislation we are introducing today would take safeguards like the OCC's a step further, and make them mandatory.

Now is the time to act. We know that there are criminal syndicates, such as in Nigeria, that have fraudulently obtained bank information to steal untold fortunes. We can hardly imagine the damage such organizations can do with a vast new source of sensitive financial data from international information outsourcing.

In short, this bill accomplishes four goals crucial to protecting Americans' sensitive data sent abroad. It requires companies to give notice that they send consumers' sensitive data abroad. It ensures that U.S. companies can audit their foreign partners, and impose U.S. privacy standards on them. It establishes a system to ensure that foreign and U.S. companies will report security breaches to the U.S. Government. And it allows American consumers to demand to know where foreign call centers are located.

This bill helps to protect outsourced information while minimizing burdens on American businesses. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, to introduce an amendment to address one of the critical security issues in the post-9/11 world: the existence of weapons-usable nuclear materials at hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world.

President Bush has singled out terrorist nuclear attacks on the United States as the defining threat our Nation will face in the future.

In making the case against Saddam Hussein, he argued: ``If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of uranium a little bigger than a softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.''

What he did not mention is that with the same amount of uranium, al- Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, or any terrorist organization could do the same and smuggle a weapon across U.S. borders.

And the fact that Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's network put actual bomb designs on the black market only heightens the need to make sure these materials are not available.

Nonetheless, there are hundreds of vulnerable facilities around the world that store from kilograms to tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The State Department has identified 24 of these locations as high priority sites.

In response to this threat, the administration has focused its efforts on removing vulnerable international nuclear materials through four projects: the take-back by Russia of highly enriched uranium fuels from Soviet-supplied reactors; the ongoing effort to convert Soviet- designed research reactors from using highly enriched uranium to using non-bomb-grade fuels; the decades-long effort to convert U.S.-supplied research reactors from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium and the on-going effort to take back U.S.-supplied uranium.

These are important steps, but I am deeply concerned that these efforts are

not sufficient and do not adequately address the seriousness of the issue. For example, the current approach will take 10-20 years to complete at the current rate of about 1 facility per year. This time frame ignores the near-term dangers we face.

Under the current approach to the take-back of Soviet-supplied uranium, there have been only two successful removals of highly- enriched uranium in more than two years, at Vinca and at Pitesti. But the Vinca operation also required the additional contribution of $5 million from the Nuclear Threat Initiative to complete, because of the Bush administration's claim of inadequate authority to pursue various actions to facilitate Serbian cooperation.

The U.S.-Russian bilateral agreement on a broader take-back effort has taken years to complete--and even once final Russian government approval is secured, many obstacles remain. Indeed, Russia has never prepared certain types of environmental assessments related to these weapons. To move forward with this agreement, it will require sustained, high-level pressure.

U.S. efforts to convert highly enriched uranium-fueled reactors within Russia are still moving slowly on the technical front, in part because of insufficient funding. And we are only now beginning to take the first steps toward providing incentives directly to facilities to give up their highly enriched uranium.

The scope of the conversion effort in Russia is inadequate. It covers only research reactors, ignoring critical assemblies, pulsed powered reactors, and civilian and military naval fuels. This leaves numerous vulnerable HEU stockpiles scattered across the former Soviet Union.

Under the current U.S. uranium take-back effort, if no new incentives are offered, tons of U.S.-supplied nuclear materials will remain abroad when the program is complete. And scores of U.S.-supplied reactors may continue to use highly enriched uranium indefinitely.

If weapons of mass destruction, WMD, out of the hands of terrorists is the defining threat to our Nation, then removing weapons-usable material from facilities susceptible to terrorist theft should be a top priority for U.S. national security policy.

Yet, currently there is no single, integrated U.S. government program to facilitate the removal of these materials. To address this problem, Senator Domenici and I have offered this amendment to: urge the President to establish a task force within the Department of Energy on nuclear removal; provide a specific mandate for a program to remove nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world as quickly as possible, whether the material was supplied by the U.S. or the Soviet Union; provide flexible approaches, tailored to each site, to encourage facilities to give up their nuclear material, and; authorize funding to begin these efforts.

Osama bin Laden has declared the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a ``religious duty.'' After the Taliban was defeated, blueprints for a crude nuclear weapon were found in a deserted al-Qaida headquarters in Afghanistan. It is clear that obtaining a nuclear weapon is a top priority of al-Qaida.

And a report released last year by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University demonstrated the severity of the threat posed by a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists.

The report described a scenario in which a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb is smuggled into Manhattan and detonated, resulting in the deaths of 500,000 people and causing $1 trillion in direct economic damage.

We must do everything in our power to prevent this from ever happening.

This amendment will give our Government the direction and resources necessary to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world in an expeditious manner.

We have little time to spare. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Lautenberg and Feingold in cosponsoring an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

This amendment will close loopholes that have allowed some American companies to skirt U.S. law by working with and operating in countries that have been identified by the President as supporters of terrorism.

Although Federal law prohibits U.S. companies from conducting business with nations that sponsor terrorism, a few firms have exploited a loophole in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and are doing business through foreign subsidiaries, thereby providing terrorist states with revenue and other potentially important benefits.

Under the amendment we are introducing today, foreign subsidiaries are barred from engaging in commercial transactions with terrorist- sponsoring states under the same standards and under the same circumstances as their parent companies.

The definition of corporate entity would include not only U.S. companies and all foreign branches, but also foreign subsidiaries.

Subsidiaries of certain companies have been using foreign subsidiaries to conduct business in countries such as Iran.

Many of these foreign subsidiaries are often formed and incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. sanctions laws.

This amendment does not change which countries are subject to U.S. sanctions or interfere with the President's ability to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; and it does not change the sanctions under the act in anyway.

It simply clarifies who is subject to the sanctions when and if they are invoked by the President.

Currently Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Libya have been targeted by the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, all countries that we can agree deserve to be on the list.

Despite the tens of billions of dollars that we are spending on the defense of our homeland, we still have a law on our books that allows U.S. companies to assist the very nations that support terrorist activities aimed at us. This is unconscionable.

I want to applaud the efforts of New York City Comptroller, the New York Police Department, and the New York Fire Department to bring this problem to the Nation's attention.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

I had the privilege of listening to the Senator from Maine. I feel very privileged to join in this effort along with the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from North Dakota. The Senator from Maine made an excellent case, and I concur wholeheartedly.

Specifically, what we are trying to do with this amendment are two simple things: modify the 2005 base closure round to make it apply solely to military installations outside the United States. As Senator Snowe said, we need to begin to look at the 700 operations and installations we have around the globe and make some decisions with respect to them in this new asymmetrical war on terror we face.

Secondly, provide for expedited consideration of a request for a domestic base closure round in 2007.

I thought the Senator made the excellent point that Congress authorized the 2005 base closure round in 2001. Our military and our Nation have been confronted by several new challenges since that time: 9/11, the war on terror, the overthrow of the Taliban and the Hussein regime, and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. We now know our enemy may well be rogue states, may well be nonstate entities who seek to find weapons of mass destruction. They may well be international groups which have replaced the Soviet Union as the greatest threat to American interests and security.

These challenges, we believe, mandate us to reexamine the role and composition of our military in this new era: What kind of force structure will be needed? How many troops will be sufficient? And, yes, what sort of infrastructure and basing needs will be required to meet these new threats?

It seems very shortsighted to me to proceed with a new round of domestic base closures that was approved before 9/11 took place and before any of these questions were raised. In fact, the criteria for the 2005 base closure round is almost identical to the criteria for the past four rounds. How can we be sure this process will be fair and balanced and in the best interest of our military and our national security interests if it is based on criteria appropriate for 1995?

For example, as Senator Snowe pointed out, there was no Department of Homeland Security in 1995. We are only beginning to understand how our domestic military infrastructure can play a role in providing for the actual defense of our homeland. That is a very important point. I do not think there is anyone who would say our homeland is beyond attack. As a matter of fact, I think a majority of us, certainly on the Intelligence Committee, would say there are very good chances that there will be another attack; therefore, domestic military has a new and different role to play in our country.

I do not think now is the time to rush forward. We still have 112,000 troops based in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, 45,000 in Japan in bases designated, devised, and intended for cold-war-era threats. Those threats have changed.

We see on the Military Construction Subcommittee how the thinking is now changing with respect to force structure, the location of force structure in Korea, as well as in Europe, moving more of the European components south of the Alps so that we may be able to move them more rapidly into the Middle East and into Africa.

Suppose after the 2005 round is completed it is determined several overseas bases need to be closed and the troops relocated to the United States. Where will they go? Will closed bases have to be reopened?

Let us also remember there is an economic impact on a community that must be taken into consideration. When a base is closed, jobs are lost, economic growth is stunted. Even the threat of a base closure is enough to scare away investment.

Should we not take a look at our overseas basing structure first before we ask our communities to make additional sacrifices?

Senator Hutchison, who is the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and I, as ranking member, introduced legislation last year to create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas bases. We met with that commission last week and gave them their charge to look at the mission and then make some recommendations to us with respect to the placement of bases needed by that mission.

It seems to me the way one approaches this issue is to build on that legislation and first look at overseas basing needs in 2005, since they are, in fact, changing, and then turn to domestic bases, if necessary, in 2 years' time.

I also want very briefly to mention the impact of base closures on my home State of California. California has had 29 military bases closed. It has cost the State more than 93,000 jobs, of which 40,000 were civilian positions.

According to the executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research, California lost more jobs than all of the other States combined in the last four rounds. While at the time we had only 15 percent of the Nation's military personnel, we shouldered 60 percent of the net personnel cuts. I believe we have sacrificed enough.

If California is called on to make additional sacrifices and additional bases are closed in a future domestic BRAC round, we should know that our Government did a complete and thorough examination of the threats our country will face in the future and the military capabilities we will need to face those threats.

While we are mentioning this, I also want to raise another real problem and that is the gross underfunding of cleanup and remediation of the bases. This has been short funded by literally billions of dollars. Let me make a couple of points.

It is estimated it will cost $1.3 billion to clean up the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento. That process will not be finished until 2033. The cleanup of Fort Ord will not be finished until 2031. Castle Air Force Base will not be completed until 2038, and the list goes on.

What is the rush to close more bases that cannot be rapidly transitioned into civilian use because of the inability to fund remediation and cleanup of environmental hazards?

So I think Senator Snowe made an excellent argument with respect to the need to take a good look at the overseas bases first--700 of them-- and make some decisions with respect to where we are going in this new asymmetric war on terror and to leave intact America's bases for the next 2 years and then, in 2007, to consider an expedited round.

I am very proud to join with Senators Dorgan, Lott, and Snowe in this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the special education reauthorization bill, S. 1248, that was passed on the Senate floor today.

I start by thanking Senators Gregg and Kennedy, in particular, for their hard work in crafting this bill over the course of the last two Congresses. This reauthorization process has truly been a bipartisan effort and is an example of what happens when partisan differences are set aside to work toward common goals. There are few more appropriate issues on which to work together than ensuring all children, regardless of their lot in life, are guaranteed an education that suits their needs.

I support this bill because it is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but it reaches a fair compromise by giving States and schools greater administrative and fiscal flexibility, while continuing to provide parents with disabled children the assurances that their children will continue to get an appropriate education.

This bill focuses on two main concepts: aligning special education law with No Child Left Behind and ensuring greater mechanisms are in place to allow disabled students to transition into mainstream society after high school graduation.

No Child Left Behind requires States and school districts to ensure that all students are learning and are reaching their highest potential. Special education students should not be left out of these accountability mechanisms. They should have the same level of support and guidance as nondisabled students, and have the same opportunities to enter the workforce and continue their education after high school. The goal of this reauthorization bill was to put provisions in place to allow teachers and parents to plan early for special education students to make a life for themselves after graduation.

I believe it is going to really help my State and other States around the country by giving teachers more guidance and support to do their jobs, and

giving parents greater involvement in how their children are educated. I also hope that it will help identify children early--as infants and toddlers--so that they can receive the services they need before it is necessary for them to enter a special education classroom.

One notable provision that the Senate attached to this bill on the floor this week is a mechanism to guide Congress toward meeting its commitment to provide States with 40 percent of the excess costs associated with educating students with special needs.

Although the original special education law, which was passed in 1975, gave States assurances that the Federal Government would reimburse States for the cost of educating special education students, Congress has never come close to meeting its goal.

Today, for instance, States are receiving about 19 percent or $10 billion in Federal funding to be used for educating special needs children. And while Congress has worked hard over the last 7 years to make greater investments in special education, States continue to struggle to educate special needs students because of how costly it is to teach them.

The amendment offered by Senator Gregg and supported by myself and 95 other Senators sets up a timeline by which Congress will move toward its goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of special education. Every year, from now until 2011, Congress can use its discretion to appropriate up to $2 billion each year for special education.

This new funding mechanism will mean States could see their Federal share of special education funds double over the course of the next 6 years.

In California, where State schools educate 11 percent--or roughly 675,000 students--of the Nation's special education K through 12 population, school districts will receive $1.7 billion in Federal dollars this year. In spite of the large amount of funding the State receives, I am told that they have been forced to transfer billions of dollars annually from general education to special education due to Congress' failure to keep its promise to fully fund special education.

An increase in the Federal funding commitment will mean that California could receive up to $2.7 billion a year in special education funding by 2011 and will no longer have to shuffle money from their general education budgets to underwrite the cost of educating special needs students.

So this funding promise will make a huge difference to States and school districts and one that I was happy to support. Schools will now have predictable special education funding that they can count on when balancing their budgets and planning for future years.

I also urge the Senate's support, in conference, of a provision adopted by the House which would require that increases in Federal funding above fiscal year 2003 levels be directly allocated to the local level. This would ensure that all IDEA funding gets down to our school districts that are responsible for providing quality education to children with disabilities.

In California, this provision is critical in meeting the Federal responsibilities to assist all students with disabilities, including the thousands of students with physical and mental disabilities served by the State's large county education offices, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, that are tasked with educating the State's vast majority of special needs children.

So I am satisfied that this bill will meet the needs of both school districts and parents. I hope it will help give students the tools they need to become productive citizens, teachers more flexibility to do their jobs, parents greater ability to work with schools to ensure that their children are getting the services to which they are entitled, and States the funding and oversight necessary to make sure that education for disabled students is as seamless as for nondisabled students. I am pleased to support it.