Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Asia Foundation, a private, nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, CA, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2004.

The Asia Foundation is a national asset that has contributed in significant ways to the mutual interests of the people of Asia and the United States for a halfcentury.

Through its programs, the foundation has been instrumental at key moments in these five eventful decades. Early in its life, the foundation contributed to democracy, freedom, peace and constructive relations in post-World War II Asia. Since then, the foundation has invested in Asia's future leaders, built the capacity of democratic institutions, provided support to civil society groups, promoted the rights of women and created opportunities for economic growth and development.

Today, the foundation is contributing to new initiatives in the region, building new governance and opportunity in Afghanistan, for instance, through support to the Constitutional Loya Jirga, helping new democratic institutions in Indonesia and programs with moderate Muslim leaders, and continuing to support human rights and prospects for reform in Cambodia, Nepal, and throughout Asia.

Through its 17 field offices in Asia, the Asia Foundation has made its positive mark. The foundation identifies and supports reform-minded people at every level of society, from presidents and parliamentarians, to grassroots nongovernmental leaders. The foundation has supported educational institutions and libraries, legislatures and judiciaries, civil society and the media, all with the aim of improving the lives and helping to meet the aspirations of the people of Asia.

In every corner of Asia, the foundation's impact is felt through the fellowships it has provided to thousands of Asia's leaders since its founding, the new government and nongovernmental institutions it has supported and the new ideas it has fostered to meet the challenges facing Asia today. In so doing, the Asia Foundation represents America at its best: a private organization working in partnership with government, advancing mutual interests of the U.S. and Asia in supporting vibrant democracies, open economies, and peaceful relations.

As the United States addresses new challenges and opportunities in U.S.-Asian relations, we celebrate the Asia Foundation's history of achievement, and look forward to its continued contributions to the region in the future.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act.

This is far from a perfect bill.

But without this legislation, U.S. companies will face increasing tariffs as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling that determined that significant portions of our Federal tax code ran counter to international trade laws.

Additionally, I voted for it because on balance it provides important tax relief for California businesses and labor protections for California workers.

This bill will: effectively provide a 3 percent tax cut for manufacturers; give manufacturers a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of adding jobs; extend the research tax credit through 2005; protect hundreds of thousands of workers from cuts in Federal overtime protections; prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayer dollars on contracts with companies that use foreign labor when there are domestic alternatives; provide a tax credit for companies which produce energy by using underbrush and other potentially hazardous fuels found in our forests; provide a tax credit for consumers who buy hybrid vehicles; and protect the California film industry and the jobs it creates.

Since January 2001, California has lost 350,000 manufacturing sector jobs.

A 3 percent tax cut for manufacturers, coupled with a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of adding new jobs, will help us create more jobs in California.

The research tax credit will also help California, potentially more than any

other State. Productivity growth in recent years has been driven by the combination of new technology and investments in capital goods, research and development, workers, and public infrastructure.

To continue this pattern of growth, the focus must now be on providing incentives to companies that invest, innovate, and create the new capital and knowledge that drive the U.S. economy.

Since its enactment in 1981, the research tax credit has provided a powerful and effective incentive for firms to increase research spending.

The tax credit lowers the cost of conducting research in the United States.

This credit makes a real difference in the amount of research undertaken and jobs created in the U.S.

I also support the Harkin amendment which was adopted as part of this legislation. This amendment will prevent the White House from implementing changes in existing overtime laws that reduce the number of workers protected by labor laws.

Last year the White House proposed redefining the job descriptions of millions of workers, thereby eliminating their right to Federal overtime protection.

After many in this chamber raised serious concerns over such a change, the administration released final rules that made a significant, yet insufficient, change to those draft rules.

Unless we act, these rules will take effect later this year.

If the Department of Labor's own numbers are correct, then more the 117,000 individuals could lose overtime protection. If they are wrong, it could be millions.

These rule changes would wipe out overtime pay protections and increase work hours. In California alone, several hundred thousand workers could lose their Federal overtime protection. However, State law will continue to protect most workers from the most harmful effects of this rule change.

But, some public employees and many in the film industry won't be so lucky.

Although most workers in California will maintain their right to overtime through protections granted by State law, the rule change represents a movement in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting working families.

I also support provisions in the bill that will prevent the Federal Government from spending taxpayer money on contracts that use labor located outside of the United States.

Although our Nation has entered a period of economic recovery with significant productivity gains in the last several quarters--it is clear that a great deal of this productivity comes from two things: 1. downsizing of employees, and 2. outsourcing--turning to foreign labor in foreign countries.

In the past decade, General Electric sent 10,000 information services jobs to India; Electronic Data Systems exported 13,800 jobs to several nations; Microsoft spent $100 million on a new call center in the Philippines; and Citigroup and Bank of America both sent software development jobs to India.

And while corporate earnings are up and the stock market remains high, we are continuing to lose service sector and manufacturing jobs.

I realize that many firms benefit greatly from outsourcing, but it damages the long term health of our communities unless we vigorously support new job growth.

We must give companies incentives to keep jobs here, and we must ensure that taxpayer money is not used to subsidize outsourcing.

This legislation will also help protect our environment by providing tax credits that encourage companies to produce energy by using underbrush and other hazardous fuels from our forests.

By providing an incentive to companies to remove these hazardous fuels from our forests, we will reduce the chance of forest fires in the western United States and provide much needed energy to this region of the Nation.

Additionally, this bill contains tax credits directly to consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles. These vehicles reduce air pollution and cut ozone in California.

Having said this, however, I recognize that there are significant problems with this bill.

For instance, it is clear that multinational corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes.

This bill allows companies to bring foreign-earned profits back into the United States at a greatly reduced tax rate--reduced from the current 35 percent to 5.25 percent. This is half as much as the lowest personal tax rate paid by individuals--10 percent.

Under an amendment which I sponsored with Senator Breaux, companies would have been allowed to bring foreign-earned profits back to this country at the reduced 5.25 percent rate provided that they use those repatriated profits for activities that promote job growth or benefit employees.

Sadly, a lobbying effort by large multinational companies helped to defeat that amendment.

What is disturbing about this provision is that an unconscionable number of American companies are taking advantage of loopholes in U.S. tax law and paying no taxes.

According to a recent Government Accounting Office report, entitled ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign and U.S. Controlled Corporations, 1996-2000'', 61 percent of U.S.-controlled corporations and 71 percent of foreign-owned corporations operating in the U.S. reported no tax liability during the period studied.

This means that approximately two-thirds of all companies operating in the U.S. paid absolutely no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000.

This is stunning.

Corporate tax receipts used to account for a much greater percentage of Federal revenues than they currently do.

According to the Brookings Institution, in 1945, income taxes from corporations accounted for 35.4 percent of Federal receipts. In 1970, income taxes from corporations accounted for only 17 percent of Federal revenues.

Today, however, corporate income taxes account for only 7.8 percent of Federal revenues.

This means that corporations are paying a smaller percentage of taxes than they have in the past five decades.

We have got to change the way we tax corporations in America. We have got to provide incentives to encourage corporate responsibility.

Corporations have got to worry about more than just the bottom line. They have got to become good corporate citizens. Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to encourage that kind of corporate responsibility.

Going forward, I will seek to return balance to our tax system.

The middle class is being squeezed, while multi-nationals continue to outsource jobs and receive tax breaks for doing it.

Nevertheless, I will vote to protect California workers by helping to foster an environment where manufacturers can hire again. I will support research and development in our labs and factories. And, I will support protecting overtime protections for California citizens.

This is by no means a perfect bill.

But taken as a whole, I believe it is worthy of passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for a Senate resolution condemning the abuses in United States detention facilities in Iraq.

This resolution makes clear that the abusive behavior we have seen graphically portrayed in photographs, detailed in the report of MG Antonio Taguba, and described by Secretary Rumsfeld in testimony last week, are unacceptable.

Such conduct is wrong, un-American, and inconsistent with the history and tradition of our military services. It is critical that the Senate voices its absolute rejection of the conduct, and this resolution does just that.

It must be understood that this resolution, however, is narrow and focused. It is confined to expressing our views on the specific conduct at issue. It does not purport to be a comprehensive view

on the implications of this growing scandal, nor a conclusive statement of a congressional investigation into this incident, and its ramifications.

I believe that such an investigation is necessary and should be undertaken as soon as possible. We need to know why the Geneva Convention appears to have been ignored. We need to understand how such a debacle could have happened, and what orders were given by who, and when, which governed the prison at Abu Ghraib. We need to know why the reports of the Red Cross and others were not responded to in a comprehensive and timely manner. And why was this problem concealed for months from the Congress and the American people.

If the conflict in Iraq is seen as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then it is unfathomable how such a devastating failure in that battle could be allowed to happen. This is not just about personal accountability, or abuse--it is about the conduct of a conflict upon which the future of our security may depend.

It is also important to recognize that planning and implementing a military detention and interrogation operation is a necessary and important part of a competent and professional war plan. There are three reasons why this is so:

First, the information gained from proper interrogation is critical to protect our warfighters--it allows us to deal with the tactical risk on the ground in Iraq. Simply put, military interrogation is part of the overall intelligence-gathering mechanism which is designed to provide timely, accurate information to front line troops and strategic planners. Done correctly, a well-run, properly administered military detention system will yield information that will keep our men and women in uniform alive in the face of an increasingly violent insurgency.

Second, detention and interrogation is inherently risky, and that risk is a moral risk. It is not easy to run prisons, interrogate detainees, and maintain order in a manner consistent with our Nation's moral values. There are certainly some guides to help manage this risk: the Geneva Convention, for instance, provides a well-established set of guidelines that can not only allow American soldiers to adhere to international law, but help them ensure that their conduct is acceptable to Americans and to our moral code.

Third, it should be apparent that the administration of a military prison system inside Iraq is a clear danger point in the context of our strategic goals--prisons pose a necessary, but important, strategic risk. Failure to adhere to the highest standards of conduct will fuel the increasingly hostile view of Americans and American policy in Iraq and the Middle East.

I have reviewed Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony, as well as other information provided in public statements of the administration and private briefings.

I am becoming increasingly concerned that the Secretary, and the Administration, are missing the point of this growing scandal.

Of course there is a need to investigate individual wrongdoing and hold people accountable for their acts according to the Code of Military Justice. But much more needs to be done. I see little evidence that there has been adequate planning for the management and function of military detention facilities in Iraq, and this failure needs to be addressed now.

This is critical for the three reasons I outlined above. In essence, military detention facilities should be looked upon exactly like other elements of war-planning--necessary to fight successfully, but carrying risks to our soldiers and to our mission.

I am concerned that this function has not been adequately planned. It does not surprise me that we see the lack of planning becoming apparent in the revelation of individual misconduct, but I think it is critical that the Department of Defense take on the larger issue, and take it on immediately.

The situation is grim. Each of the three risks I mentioned have come to be.

Some of our soldiers, inadequately supervised and poorly commanded, have succumbed to the moral hazards of running a prison. I do not excuse their actions, and they will be held accountable for their actions. But it is predictable that without adequate command and control such conduct will happen in a prison, and for that Secretary Rumsfeld and senior Army commanders are responsible.

It is clear that the potentially valuable source of tactical intelligence that could have been gained through the competent and professional administration of military detention facilities was wantonly thrown away by allowing those facilities to degenerate into a chaotic and ungoverned free-for-all.

It is my view that there is a place for properly conducted interrogation in the context of a military detention facility.

But it seems to me that what we have seen is not overly aggressive interrogation, but wanton cruelty and abuse, unconnected with any doctrinally acceptable method of prisoner interrogation.

We will never know what potentially valuable tactical intelligence was lost in the chaos of Abu Ghraib prison, but I am confident that whatever intelligence was there was unlikely to have been elicited in that environment.

Again, Secretary Rumsfeld and senior commanders are responsible for this failure, and I call upon them to immediately remedy this situation.

We have troops on the ground, under fire, and we cannot afford to abandon a mechanism for gathering intelligence which could help make our troops safer.

Finally, the failure to run this element of our war effort competently has resulted in a catastrophic setback to our strategic interests.

It should have been self-evident that failure to run U.S. detention facilities in a professional, competent and lawful manner would, when made public, adversely affect our prospects in Iraq and in the region.

Simply put, American soldiers will come under increasing fire because of the failure to run the prisons correctly, and whatever prospects remain for peacefully transferring power to an Iraqi government have been diminished.

In sum, it is important to recognize that planning for detention and interrogation of prisoners is as much a part of war planning as making sure that there is enough gas for tanks, enough ammunition for guns and armor for our soldiers.

I am concerned that the failure to plan for this aspect of the war is consistent with a general pattern at the Pentagon--an unwillingness to plan for the realities of Iraq and the Middle East. We will all pay for that failure.

One key part of the resolution speaks to the roll of the Congress, noting that ``the best interests of the United States and the American people will be served by a full investigation by the appropriate Committees of the United States Senate exercising their oversight responsibilities.'' This is a critical point. This body must immediately begin its task of addressing this issue.

There are a few particular questions upon which I hope we will focus:

Whether, and to what extent, the conditions and procedures in Abu Ghraib and other prisons came about because of particular policy decisions by senior officials. For instance, who made the decision, reported in the media, to use prison guards to ``set the conditions'' for interrogations?

Why was the critical task of administering Abu Gharaib entrusted to soldiers without adequate training or guidance?

Who in the command structure is responsible for maintaining and administering our military program to detain and interrogate prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere?

I hope we can answer these, and other questions, and make the changes necessary to make our nation safer.

Mr. President, tens of thousands of women will come to Washington this Mother's Day weekend to spread the word about the urgent need to renew the Federal assault weapons ban.

I thank these women, and their families and friends who will join them, for their effort to focus the American public on the fact that we could lose this important law unless Congress and the President renew the ban soon.

I ask these committed Americans to do everything they can do to help save the assault weapons ban. They should write the President and urge him to help renew the ban. They should write Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and urge them to bring the assault weapons ban up for a vote. They should make their voices heard until the ban is renewed.

Time is running out. The Federal assault weapons ban will expire on September 13 of this year if Congress and the President do not act. This means that AK-47s, TEC-DC 9s, Street Sweepers, and dozens of other types of military-style assault weapons will once again flood the streets of America. We cannot afford to let this happen. We owe the American people more than that. It is just that simple.

Assault weapons pose a grave threat to all Americans, but most especially to law enforcement officers on our city streets.

Just last month, I spoke at the funeral of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza, who was shot and killed by a gang member armed with an AK-47 and a 30-round clip. Officer Espinoza took three shots in his back as a gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds, giving Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, no time to seek refuge.

Officer Espinoza was a bright young star in the San Francisco Police Department, and he had a promising future and loving family. Now that future is gone. His wife Renata is without a husband. His beautiful 3- year-old girl Isabella is without a father.

And Officer Espinoza is far from the only law enforcement officer gunned down in his prime by an assailant wielding an assault weapon.

A recent study by the Violence Policy Center stated that one in five police officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon.

That study listed a number of officers gunned down by assault weapons, and I would just like to list a few examples because if we let the assault weapons ban expire, we can expect many more of these incidents.

On January 10, 1999:

Officer James Williams was killed with a MAK-90 or SA85

7.62mm rifle. Officer Williams was among a group of officers

who were searching for a rifle that had been discarded by the

occupants of a vehicle that was involved in a chase with

police. While they were searching for the rifle, a gunman

opened fire from a nearby overpass, killing Officer Williams.

Chad Rhodes was arrested and charged with special-

circumstances murder, attempted murder, three counts of

firing an assault weapon, and possessing an assault weapon.

Rhodes pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was

sentenced to life in prison without parole.

On June 12, 1999 in Orange County, California:

Sheriff's Deputy Brad Riches was killed with a MAK-90 or

SA85 7.62mm rifle. Deputy Riches was sitting in his patrol

car outside a 7-Eleven when his police cruiser was riddled

with assault weapon fire. The 7-Eleven clerk said that a

customer told him he was carrying an AK-47-style assault

rifle to shoot a police officer. Maurice Steksal was

convicted on November 19, 2002 of the first-degree murder of

Deputy Riches.

And there are many, many more. But the list would be far longer if the assault weapons ban were not in place, because more of these guns would be out there. They would be easier for criminals to get and to use, and more officers would be killed.

Indeed, these shootings underscore the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

The good news is that the Senate has gone on record in support of extending the ban on military-style assault weapons. In a bipartisan vote in March, the Senate approved a straight 10-year renewal of the current ban as an amendment to a bill being pushed by the National Rifle Association giving gun manufacturers and dealers protection from civil lawsuits.

But in a bizarre twist, the NRA scuttled its own bill to prevent the extension from becoming law. This is the power of the NRA.

In over a decade as a U.S. Senator, I have encountered no lobby stronger than the gun lobby. I am convinced that if the NRA is going to be defeated, it will be by the mothers and fathers of this Nation-- parents who want a future for their children free of the violence and bloodshed sparked by the vast overproliferation of guns throughout our country.

These are the people who came together in the first Million Mom March 4 years ago, and these are the people who will come together again this weekend.

These people will stand firm and say: Enough is Enough. Now is the time to protect our families from assault weapons. There cannot be any turning back.

Over the past decade, we have had a chance to examine the assault weapons ban and to determine if it works and enjoys support.

The results are in.

The ban works. Recent Department of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in crimes has declined measurably--by 65 percent in one analysis--since the measure took effect.

The men and women of law enforcement across the Nation support the ban because, on the front lines, they know it protects them and makes communities safer. The Fraternal Order of Police endorses another 10 years, as does almost every other major law enforcement organization, including chiefs of police all across the Nation.

No weapons have been confiscated from legitimate gun owners. In fact, the bill specifically protects 670 shotguns and rifles used for hunting.

Almost three-fourths of the American people, and two-thirds of gun owners, support renewing the ban.

In fact, a recent University of Pennsylvania Annenberg poll found that 71 percent of all Americans support renewing the assault weapons ban; 64 percent of people in homes with a gun supported extension of the ban; and even 46 percent of people in NRA households support extending the ban, contrary to claims by NRA leadership that its members are universally against this proposal.

Some in the Senate opposed the ban a decade ago, fearing it would do little to reduce crime, and could threaten the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners and hunters.

Now, 10 years since that vote, America has seen just the opposite: the ban has made our streets safer, it has protected law enforcement officers, and in no way has it diminished legitimate gun owners' rights.

Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since 1993. September 11, 2001, has taught us many lessons; among them that terrorism lurks in our own cities and communities. Given today's dangers, it defies logic to let suicidal terrorists, gang members and others simply walk up to a counter and buy these weapons for potential attacks.

Assault weapons pose a fundamental danger to law enforcement and our society, and we will continue to work to extend the ban in the Senate. The assault weapons ban is too important to let die.

The bottom line is this--what is the argument for letting these banned guns back on the streets?

Who is clamoring for newly manufactured AK-47s?

Who is clamoring for new TEC-9s?

These are guns that are never used for hunting. They are not used for self-defense, and if they are, it is more likely that they will kill innocents than intruders.

These guns--and everyone knows it--have but one purpose, and that purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would we want to open the floodgates again and let them back on our streets? There is simply no good reason.

For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports renewing the assault weapons ban for another decade. But he has not lifted a finger to help. Ultimately, however, the voice of the White House will be pivotal in determining if the ban is ultimately approved by Congress and signed into law.

Now is the time to renew a sound law for another 10 years.

We do this in the memory of Officer Espinoza and all the other police officers shot and killed with assault weapons.

We do this on behalf of all the women who are marching on Washington this weekend.

And we do this to keep our communities safe.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to pay tribute to the struggles and enormous contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation's history and culture.

Each May since 1978, we have honored the rich heritage and countless achievements of the many Asian Pacific Americans in our country. The month of May was aptly chosen in order to commemorate both the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants in 1843, and also the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, which was constructed in large part by Chinese laborers.

``Freedom for All, a Nation We Call Our Own'' is the theme for this year's celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. This phrase beautifully encapsulates the great journey of Asian Pacific Americans to achieve the American dream and rings especially true during these uncertain times at home and abroad.

The men and women of our Armed Forces, many of whom are from the APA community, are proudly serving all over the world to secure our homeland. Currently, thousands of young Asian Pacific Americans are defending our country, joining the ranks of over 300,000 APA veterans who have served in the name of freedom.

One such veteran is my esteemed colleague, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who began his career in public service during World War II where he served in the Army's 442d Regimental Combat Team. The famed ``Go for Broke'' regiment of Japanese American soldiers courageously defended our country abroad even as their families endured unjust internment at home.

This is just one of the many achievements made by Asian Pacific Americans in the face of adversity. Despite discriminatory laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Alien Law Act of 1920, and the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, Asian Pacific Americans have forged ahead to become a very successful and fast-growing segment of American society.

Today, over 13 million Asian Pacific Americans reside in the United States. Whether through academics, technology, the arts, or business, the impact of the APA community is felt in virtually every aspect of our society.

The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that Asian Pacific American firms alone account for 2.2 million American jobs and generate over $300 billion in revenue. In California alone, Asian Pacific Americans own over 12 percent of all businesses, making them a significant force in the State's economy.

Asian Pacific Americans are also gaining an increased presence in Federal, State, and local governments. Throughout my career, I have had the distinct honor of working with many extraordinary Asian Pacific American leaders such as Senators Inouye and Akaka of Hawaii, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Each of these public servants can function as an inspiration to all Americans.

But even as we celebrate these achievements, we must continue to address the struggles and hardships experienced by certain segments of the APA community.

In California, we have large populations of Southeast Asian and Pacific Islanders who have recently sought refuge in our country as a result of war and civil unrest. As these newcomers to America pursue their dreams and goals, we need to remember the challenges they face and stay vigilant against discrimination and hate.

That is why I believe one of the most significant contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation is their role as our neighbors. America draws its strength from diversity. The presence of Asian Pacific Americans in our communities further adds to the vibrancy of the American landscape.

The strength of diversity is evident in my home State of California, where close to one-third of the entire Asian Pacific American population lives. One only needs to look at Los Angeles and San Francisco to see the rich kaleidoscope of cultures and traditions that Asian Pacific Americans have brought to their communities.

Places such as Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon and Koreatown

are no longer isolated ethnic enclaves. As the APA community has spread and grown, these historic neighborhoods have become vibrant centers of cultural exchange and learning.

As a former mayor and native of San Francisco, I can safely say that my hometown would not be the wonderfully vibrant, bustling city it is without the conditions of the Asian Pacific American community.

Finally, Asian Pacific Americans played an important role as we built our country into what it is today. I am pleased to take this time today to honor the accomplishments of these remarkable Americans during this Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Mr. President, I will try and be brief. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership on this, particularly since this is the last year that he will be in the Senate. I have had the great privilege of working with him now for 12 years on the centrist coalition and in other endeavors. He has always strived to bring parties together and to work across the aisle. Frankly, it is something that I admire and I want him to know that.

The underlying bill, as I understand it, allows companies to bring foreign-earned profits back at a greatly reduced rate. The Senator from Louisiana spelled that out. That is a rate of 5.25 percent. Remember, the minimum income tax bracket for individuals in this country is 10 percent. So it is at a rate half of what the poorest Americans pay in Federal income taxes.

Under this amendment, companies could bring foreign-earned profits back to the U.S. at this reduced rate provided these repatriated profits promote job growth and benefit employees.

Our amendment is specific. It allows for spending on R&D, acquiring plants and equipment, deducting increases in wages or the cost of creating a new job--capped at the Social Security wage limit of $87,900--and fully funding employee retirement plans.

Why is it necessary to be so specific? It is necessary because J.P. Morgan, which has conducted a survey of companies that would repatriate money, determined that most corporations will reuse the repatriated profits for buying back debt, for increasing levels of liquid assets, or even retiring equity. This is what a study of the very companies that are involved have shown. None of these items necessarily produces new jobs.

One of the things the Senate, as well as Americans, should understand is that there are a large number of American companies that take advantage of loopholes in U.S. tax law and pay no taxes. I recently took a look at a GAO study entitled ``Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign and United States Controlled Corporations.'' It covers the period from 1996 to 2000. Let me give you an idea of what they find: 61 percent of U.S.-controlled corporations pay no taxes; 71 percent of foreign-owned corporations operating in the United States reported no tax liability from 1996 to 2000.

This is stunning. I had no idea. So I began to look a little bit at the history. Let me tell you a little bit about what it was like in 1945. In 1945, income taxes from corporations accounted for 35 percent of Federal receipts. In 1970, these income taxes accounted for only 17 percent of Federal revenue. So between 1945 and 1970 there was a dramatic decline. Today, corporate income taxes account for only 7.8 percent of Federal revenues.

We are giving companies that have sequestered profits abroad the ability to bring those profits back at one-half the tax rate the poorest American pays, and we have a specific study that shows that for the most part, these corporations will not use these moneys for areas that produce jobs.

What Senator Breaux and I have tried to do is to narrow the language that describes what companies may spend repatriated profits on. We have narrowed the language to specific spending categories--categories which produce jobs. I don't think that is too much to ask.

How much will be repatriated? There are various estimates. J.P. Morgan estimates $300 billion be repatriated. The U.S. Treasury estimates it will be between $200 and $300 billion. The Homeland Investment Act Coalition, a coalition of major corporations, estimates $500 billion will come back to the United States.

Without this amendment, it is likely that corporations will take advantage of the reduced corporation tax rate and use the repatriated profits to shore up their finances. The items I have read from the J.P. Morgan study indicate just that. I will summarize the section of this J.P. Morgan study.

These were 28 firms in the study. They indicated that 46 percent of them would pay down outstanding debt with

the money, 39 percent would finance capital spending, 39 percent would fund R&D venture capital or acquisition, 18 percent would buy back stock, 11 percent would use cash for working capital, 11 percent might pay dividends if double taxation ends, and 4 percent would fund underfunded pension funds.

I have been told many of these companies would like to use the money for mergers and acquisitions, which very clearly could result in a reduction in jobs. I would not like to see this Senate have egg on its face by giving some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America the ability to repatriate funds at one-half the tax rate the poorest Americans pay and have those funds used for mergers and acquisitions which would result in employees being fired for so-called efficiency reasons. I think without this language that narrows the use of this money, that is exactly what could happen.

So I thank the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership. I want to indicate my strong support for this amendment. I hope Members will vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Cinco de Mayo, an important day in both Mexican and American history as well as a symbolic day to honor Mexican heritage.

Cinco de Mayo pays tribute to the courage and strength of the people of Mexico and to the profound contributions Mexican Americans have made to our country's history and culture.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are nearly 10 million people of Mexican descent living in my home State of California alone. Every day, Mexican Americans make huge contributions to our communities in every sector of the economy, in every level of government, and in every aspect of society.

Mexican-American leaders such as the late Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers Union, have left indelible footprints in our national memory.

Organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Council of La Raza, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund collaborate with government, civic, community, and other organizations to improve economic, educational, and civil rights for Latinos.

Truly, a comprehensive snapshot of California would be grossly incomplete without full representation of the Mexican-American community.

Many celebrations with traditional food, music, and parades take place across the country and throughout California on Cinco de Mayo. Hundreds of thousands will gather to embrace and celebrate Mexican heritage.

Cinco de Mayo celebrations can be large festivals drawing thousands of people, such as those in San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose as well as small, more intimate events among neighbors.

It is very much the same as the way we observe the Fourth of July-- both in the variety of ways people choose to celebrate and in that a specific historic event inspired the holiday, which has come to symbolize a much broader spirit.

No one would want to limit the meaning of the Fourth of July to a narrow celebration of American independence from Great Britain, nor would you reduce Cinco de Mayo to a commemoration of the Mexican military victory in Puebla by itself.

However, it is important to recall the bravery of the Mexican Army when France, under the rule of Napoleon III, sought to establish a political and economic foothold in Latin America by installing their own ruler in Mexico.

Napoleon's troops, who had not been defeated in battle for almost 50 years, entered Mexico with considerable technological advantages over the Mexican Army. The French Army moved west to attack Mexico City, mindful that if the Mexican capital fell, a complete takeover of Mexico was imminent.

On May 5, 1862, the Mexican Army defeated the invading French forces in the city of Puebla under the command of General Zaragosa and Colonel Porfirio Diaz. If not for the great courage of the Mexican Army, the course of history would be undoubtedly altered.

In my mind, Cinco de Mayo epitomizes what it means for immigrant communities to flourish, making their own unique additions to American culture.

One San Francisco family, the Ramirezes, who immigrated to the United States from Jalisco, Mexico, in 1955, are truly an American success story.

Ramon Ramirez and his wife Guadalupe worked several jobs before acquiring a San Francisco deli in 1967. Soon the space proved too small to accommodate their customers and in 1982, they expanded and opened Don Ramon's restaurant.

I used to frequent Don Ramon's when I was the Mayor of San Francisco and I was always sincerely impressed with the Ramirez family. Ramon and Guadalupe still work every day at Don Ramon's, arriving before dawn. Their three daughters remain involved in running the restaurant, though their youngest daughter, Nati, has also pursued another career as director of the San Francisco district attorney's subpoena unit.

This is only one of many examples of how Mexican Americans have helped our country to flourish.

Finally, I am pleased to join every American and every Mexican in celebrating this important day in Mexican history. On Cinco de Mayo we pay tribute not only to the bravery shown at

the Battle of Puebla, we also recognize the contributions of Mexican Americans to our country as well.

Mr. President, last year the White House proposed redefining the job descriptions of millions of workers and thus eliminating their right to Federal overtime protection.

After several in this Chamber raised serious concerns over such a change, the administration released final rules that make significant, but insufficient, changes to those draft rules. Left alone, these rules will take affect later this year.

I support the Harkin amendment because it is sensible and protects hardworking employees. The amendment simply prevents the White House from implementing changes in existing overtime laws that reduce the number of jobs protected by those laws.

The stated objective of the administration is to increase worker protection. This being the case, I would think this amendment would be an easy accommodation for the President to make.

However, if the numbers of the Department of Labor are correct, then more the 117,000 individuals could lose overtime protection. If they are wrong, it could be millions.

These rule changes would wipe out overtime pay protections and increase work hours. In California alone, several hundred thousand workers could lose their Federal overtime protection. However, State law will continue to protect most workers from the deleterious effects of this rule change. But some public employees and many in the film industry won't be so lucky.

Although most workers in California will maintain their right to overtime through protections granted by State law, the rule change represents a movement in the wrong direction when it comes to enhancing worker protections.

As we all know, losing overtime pay protections would also result in huge pay cuts for many workers. This is an issue of fairness. Our workers are more productive then ever and yet President Bush feels that it is necessary to penalize those very individuals who have literally built this Nation.

Those hurt most will be disproportionately women and minority. They will be mostly middle and lower income. They will be struggling to make ends meet and they will be worrying about paying the mortgage.

Given the still high unemployment rate and the uncertainty still plaguing our economy, this is not the time to be making it harder for workers; rather, it is a time when we should be helping all workers achieve fairness in the workplace.

It is well known that by requiring companies to respect the 40-hour work week, we encourage businesses to hire additional workers. With more than 8 million people still out of work, we should continue to encourage companies to maximize employment while respecting the workforce they have.

I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.

That would be fine.

Mr. President, I have sent a modification to the desk to amendment No. 3052.

Mr. President, essentially, this is a one-line amendment. It takes page 5 of the bill and strikes the date 2005 and inserts 2007.

Essentially, this amendment makes both grandfather clauses in the bill 4-years in duration. This would mean no new taxes for the industry that is concerned, and the cities and counties would not lose the revenue they currently receive, for at least 4 years.

I want to say again--I said this yesterday--not one single California company that supports this bill has contacted me, but I have heard from representatives of 478 cities in the State saying: Please, don't do this. It may well be because in California, local jurisdictions have very limited revenue sources. It is either the property tax or a small amount of sales tax or if they have a hotel tax, but there are not many tax vehicles. So utility user taxes, as well as telephone taxes, have for many cities been a critical part of their budget, for some up to 15 percent. That is just a fact. California may be an anomaly. Maybe I know this because I have been a mayor for 9 years and a county supervisor for 9 years.

This would affect telecommunications services, taxes that have been in place since the old moratorium was enacted, particularly local exchange.

For the city of Los Angeles, whose chief administrative officer, William Fujioka, has said his city could lose $40 million a year if local exchange service is not protected. So this grandfather clause to the largest city in my State is worth $40 million a year of taxes that have been levied, of revenues that are counted upon to balance the budget.

Senator Inouye joins me in cosponsoring this amendment, as do Senator Carper, Senator Alexander, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Hollings.

It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to say to hard-pressed cities and counties that you have 4 years to find other revenue sources or make the necessary cuts. This does not have to be done immediately. None of the companies who benefit from this bill are suffering. As a matter of fact, most of them are doing very well. It is the cities that have the hard time funding police officers, funding firefighters, and it is not easy. Nearly every city in the State of California has a deficit and is losing revenues. I cannot just stand here on the floor of the Senate and let this happen because I have news for everybody: Where people want their services is on the local level.

Some say: Oh, no, this will not happen. But when you ask the technical analysts and the attorneys of these communities whether it will happen, they say yes.

I very much appreciate the change that was made in the Voice Over Internet Protocol language of the bill. This goes a long way. I very much appreciate the 4-year grandfather clause given for Internet access. That goes a further distance.

There is this 2-year grandfather for those who use DSL or these local exchanges--and I do not understand why one is 4 years and the other is 2 years. I do not understand why these companies cannot wait 4 years before they are going to end up socking it to the cities. It may be that in some States this is not the case. I know it is the case in my State.

Again, I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Inouye, Alexander, Carper, Voinovich, and Hollings as cosponsors of this amendment. It seems to me to make sense. It seems a compromise which for the proponents should be relatively easy to make. I think it will make a big difference to the cities of California.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

This would come off Senator McCain's time.

Mr. President, I would like to be sure the record is correct. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Oregon. He knows I respect him and enjoy working with him. There is no problem there.

Let me make sure the record is correct. California's cities do not tax DSL. We are not one of the 27 states.

That is not the issue. The issue is the local exchange and because of the particular ``proposition 13'' situation where local revenues are so restricted, property taxes are so restricted, it is extraordinarily difficult. So utility user taxes, local exchange taxes actually play a substantial role in some smaller cities' budgets. That is just a fact.

Los Angeles, the biggest city, a city with a lot of problems, a city with a big gang population, needs a lot of police. Some of that police force is actually funded from this local exchange money, which totals $40 million a year.

I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. May I ask how much time he would like.

I yield 3 minutes of my time to Senator Alexander.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments and for his leadership.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I want to comment for a couple of minutes on the discussion that was had with Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Wyden and the concern here of the telecommunications taxes which have been exempted from the bill--in other words, those that have always been a legitimate source of revenue raising. I have an Ernst & Young study going back to 1999 that shows, for example, in the taxes collected by California in the year 1999, on telecommunications transaction taxes, the amount was $802 million. It doesn't say which precise taxes those are. This is the depth of this problem. This is not a small problem. What bothers me is we are moving on without really knowing. The finance officers of the larger cities of California tell me one thing. The Senator from Arizona believes that is not correct and says the intention of the bill is not, in fact, to make these non-DSL telecommunications services tax-exempt.

I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona.

Correct.

If I might respond to that question through the Chair, we have worked with a group--the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Tennessee--all along on this. I don't know the particular situation of their States. I don't know whether they tax DSL. I do know that the bill exempts telecommunications, and telecommunications has been a legitimate source of revenue which is now affected by this grandfather clause. Obviously, if I could get half a loaf for my State, I do not want to sell out those whom I have been working with over the last week.

Mr. President, I would like an opportunity to talk with the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from Delaware to see if we can work something out that might meet the concern of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the discussion. The discussion shows how rapidly we are doing something about all the ramifications we may not know. This concerns me greatly.

This amendment is a simple amendment. It simply extends the grandfather clause and secures the telecommunications areas for those cities and States that have been using this methodology for revenue raising for years. In California, in 1999, the amount was $802 million that came from this area. For Los Angeles, in 1 year it is $40 million.

I hope Members of this body would be willing to move the 2-year grandfather clause to 4 years. This gives an opportunity for this to be sorted out. There is a Ninth Circuit Court opinion affecting DSL and cable. No one knows how that will sort itself out because it just came out a few weeks ago. The legislation may well be affected by it.

All I am asking is, make the grandfather clauses in both areas even. Raise the 2-year in this one--which affects the local exchange of telecommunications--to 4 years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, three law enforcement officers in the State of California have been murdered in the past three weeks in gang- related slayings. And a fourth was killed in February.

I come to the floor to pay tribute to these brave officers and discuss the perils police face every day, especially from gang members armed with high-powered assault weapons and other guns.

Late Saturday night, April 10, one of San Francisco's finest young police officers, Officer Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed.

Officer Espinoza was gunned down with an assault weapon, an AK-47, taking three shots in the back as the gunman fired 15 rounds in just seconds. Officer Espinoza and his partner, who was also shot, had no time to seek refuge. The suspect in the shootings is a known gang member.

Officer Espinoza, at 29 years of age, was a distinguished police officer, one of the Department's bright young stars who worked in one of the City's toughest areas.

In fact, Officer Espinoza received three major service awards in his eight years with the Department including: the Silver Medal of Valor for his bravery in a shoot-out that occurred on October, 20, 2000; the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in a foot pursuit as he and his partner attempted to make a drug arrest on May 5, 2002; and the Police Commission Commendation for his work to reduce crime in the Bayview neighborhood.

He was also recognized as Patrol Officer of the Month by the Captain of the Bayview Police Station in June 2003.

Officer Espinoza also served as a new board member of the Police Officers Association. He was Assistant Commissioner of the softball league. And he planned to take the next Sergeant's exam.

His death is a great loss to the Department and to the City. It is a particularly great loss to his wife and 3-year-old daughter.

On April 15, Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray was shot and killed when a suspect he was chasing on foot turned around and fired two bullets into his chest.

Officer Gray, 34 years of age, worked in the Merced Police Department's gang violence unit, working with some of his community's most dangerous offenders. In fact, the suspect in his killing is a gang member with whom he is believed to have had previous encounters.

Officer Gray had served with the Merced Police Department for seven years. And in those seven years of service, he earned the admiration of his colleagues and once received a commendation for resuscitating an 11-month old baby.

Being a police officer was not just a job for Officer Gray, it was a way for him to change the world. He not only patrolled the streets, but he went out and got to know the neighborhood children in the communities he served. He shot baskets with the kids and, drawing on his days as a high school track star, taught them how to sprint.

He was admired by his friends and neighbors for his loyalty to the police department, but also his devotion to his family.

Officer Gray was a true pillar of his community. He is survived by his wife and three children, ages 13, 5, and 3.

California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, 35 years old, was murdered April 21 in a drive-by shooting in broad daylight. Officer Steiner had just walked out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying on a series of traffic cases when a 16-year-old shot him three times with a handgun, hitting him once in the head.

According to Pomona Police Chief James Lewis, the teenager charged with the shooting did not know Officer Steiner, but was merely intent on ``killing a cop.''

Apparently, the 16-year-old wanted to kill a cop in an attempt to prove himself to a Pomona street gang.

Officer Steiner had been a member of the California Highway Patrol since 1999. His colleagues described him as a positive influence on the police force, the kind of guy who never had anything bad to say about anyone.

On top of being a well-respected cop, he was an excellent marksman and an avid sports fan. Officer Steiner is survived by his wife, his 13-year-old stepson, and his three-year old son.

These three killings occurred in an 11-day period in April. They are but the latest deaths to report.

Two months ago, Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizzaraga was killed while responding to a domestic violence call.

At the apartment where the call originated, Officer Lizarraga confronted a man. Within seconds, the individual drew a gun and shot Lizarraga twice in the back as he and his fellow officers fled from the apartment. The suspect in the shooting was a known gang member.

Officer Lizarraga, 31, had served two-and-a half years on the force. In that time, he quickly became a well-respected police officer known for his strong work ethic and great attention to detail.

He was viewed as a gentle giant by his colleagues, friends and family. Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton described him as the ``face of Los Angeles.''

Officer Lizarraga is survived by his wife Joyce.

These stories are chilling. They remind us that even those charged with protecting us are vulnerable. They reveal a segment of society that is utterly lawless, unbound by any code of decency.

And sadly, they are just a few of the stories that we will tell this year of cops being killed in the line of duty.

These tragic deaths are sure to continue because we have not done enough to stem the availability of guns nor curb the viciousness of gangs.

This body knows well that the assault weapons ban is on the verge of expiration. However, what this Congress has failed to recognize is that if we allow assault weapons to be more freely available, law enforcement officers will be in even greater danger.

Around 70 officers are killed each year by criminals. And, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center, 1 in 5 law enforcement officers killed between 1998 and 2001 were shot with assault weapons. Now, police officers in San Francisco and other cities are exploring whether to equip officers with military-style assault rifles and Kevlar-plated vests.

And that's why nearly every law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing the ban on assault weapons--they know that the lives of their officers are at risk.

The expiration of the ban would mean that assault weapons like the one used to kill Officer Isaac Espinoza will be easier to obtain whether at the nearest gun shop, sporting goods store or in someone's home.

The easier it is for criminals to get their hands on these weapons, the easier it will be for them to terrorize communities.

To honor the many law enforcement officers who have given their lives in

service to their communities, we must renew the assault weapons ban before it expires on September 13.

But there is much more that we need to do to make communities and cops safer in America. In particular, we must check the rampant gang violence that plagues our city streets and, increasingly, our suburbs and rural communities.

Gang violence used to be a local problem, demanding local solutions. But over the last 12 years, since I have been in the Senate, I have seen this problem spread from isolated neighborhoods to communities across this country.

Gangs have become more sophisticated and more violent criminal enterprises. What were once loosely-organized groups centered around dealing drugs within a particular neighborhood are now complex criminal organizations whose activities include weapons trafficking, gambling, smuggling, robbery, and, of course, homicide.

In 2002, over half of the 1,228 homicides committed in Los Angeles County were gang-related. Similarly, over half of the 499 murders committed in the city of Los Angeles during 2003 were the result of gang violence.

The reach of gangs, however, extends far beyond Southern California.

In fact, Los Angeles serves as a ``source city'' whose gang members migrate to other communities across the country and set up new criminal entities. One such operation, the L.A.-based 18th Street Gang, is known to have initiated gang activities all over California, in Southwest border and Pacific Northwest states, and in East Coast states including New Jersey and New York.

Today's gangs are more sophisticated, more violent, and more numerous than they were 12 years ago. And that is why we need a strong federal response.

I have introduced legislation with Senator Hatch that will give law enforcement and local communities the tools to deal with gang violence.

Our legislation: Creates new federal crimes to enable prosecutors to target violent gang members; makes changes to current law to allow for effective prosecution for violent street gang crimes; authorizes $650 million for law enforcement and community groups for suppression, prevention, and intervention programs.

This bill gives us an opportunity to do something about the gang violence that beleaguers our communities and endangers our cops. We owe it to these fine officers who were killed so viciously to do what we can to prevent more violence by gangs.

If we fail to act on both these measures, I am sad to say that I will be back here before long telling the story of some other fine law enforcement officer who is patrolling the streets of one of our communities right now. We must do everything possible to prevent these killings from happening over and over again.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary

Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few words in support of this effort.

I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete import ban on products from Burma.

Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government to have those sanctions lifted.

The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in custody.

Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to democracy. That included a national convention to take place the following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party.

Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, and sex trafficking continue unabated.

The most recent State Department report indicates that:

The Government's extremely poor human rights record

worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous

abuses.

Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet with an organization not favored by the government, you could be sentenced to death.

Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three political prisoners died in custody last year.

The government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine.

The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like- minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this week's session.

For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored those efforts.

So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate the implementation of this new roadmap.

But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty statements and failure to deliver on commitments.

For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election victory.

For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened.

I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing more than what she was elected originally to do.

So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to power.

Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place.

Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress.

``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking their word on virtually every statement they have made.

So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. He recently stated:

I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu

Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in

Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from

the strong position we have taken.

So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta made violated.

So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this extension legislation.

S.J. Res. 36

Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has

failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward

implementing a democratic government in Burma;

Whereas the courage and determination of the people of

Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains

steadfast and strong;

Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the

SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until

Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that

includes the full and unfettered participation of the

National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the

country; and

Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation

of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress

approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in

section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of

2003.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Arizona for their words. I had hoped to join them on the floor earlier, but I was in the Judiciary

Committee. So I am very pleased to be able to be here now to say a few words in support of this effort.

I first became involved in the Burmese, or Myanmar, dilemma back in 1995-1996 with then-Senator William Cohen, and we offered some legislation at that time. So we have had the opportunity to follow this situation. I then worked with Senator McConnell a year ago on this legislation. And now I am very pleased to support the renewal of the sanctions imposed on Burma by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Last year, in response to a brutal and vicious coordinated assault by progovernment paramilitary thugs on members of the National League for Democracy (NLD), and the arrest and detention of NLD's leader, the Nobel Peace Price winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed this act. The purpose was to impose a complete import ban on products from Burma.

Working together, the Congress and the administration demonstrated our determination to put pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development Council--that is the military junta formerly known as the SLORC--to release Suu Kyi, and also to respect the 1990 elections decisively won by the National League for Democracy party in Burma and put Burma on an irreversible path of national reconciliation and democracy. One year later, it is clear that the SPDC has failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward implementing a democratic government to have those sanctions lifted.

The junta has failed. The world has condemned the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. They have called for her unconditional release. She still remains under house arrest. NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo also remains in custody.

Last August, the junta proposed a seven-point ``roadmap'' to democracy. That included a national convention to take place the following month to draft a new constitution. Yet there is no timetable for restoration of democracy, no assurance that the junta will give up power, and no meaningful participation for Suu Kyi and her party.

Numerous human rights abuses, including torture, forced labor, rape, and sex trafficking continue unabated.

The most recent State Department report indicates that:

The Government's extremely poor human rights record

worsened [in 2003] and it continued to commit numerous

abuses.

Recently, the junta sentenced three Burmese citizens to death for one thing: for meeting with representatives of the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That is how repressive this regime is. If you meet with an organization not favored by the government, you could be sentenced to death.

Mr. President, 1,300 political prisoners are still in jail, many of them elected parliamentarians. According to the State Department, three political prisoners died in custody last year.

The government engages in the production and distribution of opium and methamphetamine.

The Thai-sponsored ``Bangkok Process''--designed to mediate a solution to the political situation in Burma--collapsed after one meeting with the SPDC's refusal to attend further sessions with ``like- minded'' countries. The regime said it was ``too busy'' to attend this week's session.

For years, we have been working with ASEAN nations to put pressure on the military junta to make changes. But these nations were reluctant to do so. The Thailand-sponsored Bangkok Process aimed to do the same thing. However, what is clear is that the military junta has ignored those efforts.

So over the past several months, the regime has gone to great lengths to rehabilitate its standing with neighbors and the international community. Some thought this was evidence that the junta was committed to national reconciliation, that engagement works, and that the sanctions and other pressures on Rangoon should be eased to facilitate the implementation of this new roadmap.

But I think they are mistaken because I think we have learned something now about this regime's intentions. So what we need is substantive and meaningful action, not more promises and empty statements and failure to deliver on commitments.

For over 15 years, this junta has engaged in a systematic campaign to wipe out the democratic movement in Burma and the NLD's 1990 election victory.

For over 15 years, we have listened to assurances that the junta was committed to national reconciliation and a dialog with all parties on restoring democracy, and still nothing has happened.

I was actually cautiously optimistic when Suu Kyi was first released from house arrest 2 years ago. Yet sure enough, 1 year later, she was back in custody. The regime showed its true colors in orchestrating and carrying out a brutal attack. After her release, Aung San Suu Kyi had gone on the road. She was greeted with enormous popularity. The junta's forces attacked her caravan. Many of her people were killed; many were arrested; and she was shoved back into house arrest for doing nothing more than what she was elected originally to do.

So whatever the regime might say about ``roadmaps'' and ``national conventions,'' their actions have clearly demonstrated they are uninterested in restoring democracy to the Burmese people and, more importantly, they are going to take any steps they can to hold on to power.

Even if, as we all hope, Aung San Suu Kyi is released and is invited to take part in a national convention, I think we should maintain the pressure on this junta and keep the sanctions in place.

Now, earlier this week, the junta allowed members of the NLD, the democratic party, to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi to discuss their participation at the convention. But this is hardly progress.

``Substantial and measurable'' progress is just that, and we should not settle for lofty pronouncements when they have a record of breaking their word on virtually every statement they have made.

So I am very pleased that Secretary of State Colin Powell has testified that the administration supports reauthorizing the sanctions. He recently stated:

I have seen no improvement in the situation. Aung San Suu

Kyi remains unable to participate in public political life in

Burma, and we will not ignore that. We will not shrink from

the strong position we have taken.

So now is not the time to reduce our support for this brave leader. Now is the time to stand with her side by side, to buttress her, to reinforce her, to point out, over and over again that she is the elected democratic leader of that country; now is the time to show the SPDC that America is not going to stand by and see members of the parliament jailed, not going to stand by and see her people continually attacked, and not going to stand by and see every promise the junta made violated.

So I feel very strongly and am very pleased to join with the distinguished Senators from Kentucky and Arizona in supporting this extension legislation.

S.J. Res. 36

Whereas the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has

failed to make substantial and measurable progress toward

implementing a democratic government in Burma;

Whereas the courage and determination of the people of

Burma in their struggle for freedom and justice remains

steadfast and strong;

Whereas import sanctions and other restrictions against the

SPDC and its affiliated entities should remain in force until

Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that

includes the full and unfettered participation of the

National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the

country; and

Whereas the Department of State supports the continuation

of sanctions against the SPDC: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress

approves the renewal of the import restrictions contained in

section 3(a)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of

2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to address what I consider a large and serious issue--U.S. nuclear weapons policy--and update the Senate on what has been happening.

In particular, I am concerned about the apparent reopening of the nuclear door by the United States and the further research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

I serve as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on both the Energy and Water and Defense Subcommittees, and have had an opportunity to participate in the committee and conference debates on this issue.

Despite earlier claims to the contrary, by all appearances the Bush Administration is seeking to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.

This includes both the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which is a 100-kiloton ``bunker buster'', and so-called Advanced Concepts, which translate into low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons, below 5 kilotons.

The first hints of this policy came in the administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review--which was leaked to the press in early 2002.

The review cited the need to develop a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons, blurring the lines between conventional and nuclear forces.

According to press reports, it named seven countries against which it would consider launching a nuclear first strike: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, China, and Russia.

And it proposed a ``new triad,'' in which nuclear and conventional weapons co-exist along the same continuum.

This blurs the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and suggests that they could be used as offensive weapons.

Subsequently, in the Defense Authorization Bill last year the Administration sought, and ultimately obtained permission, to repeal the 10-year old Spratt-Furse Amendment, which prohibited research to develop a low-yield, less than 5 kiloton, nuclear weapon.

Spratt-Furse has served as a ``brake'' on nuclear weapons development for the past decade. Now, it is gone.

I argued against the repeal of Spratt-Furse on the floor, and working with Senator Kennedy, I offered an amendment to maintain it. Unfortunately, we did not prevail.

What really concerns me is that, throughout all of this, the Administration continues to deny their intention to develop new nuclear weapons.

For example, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, in a Washington Post op-ed on July 21, 2003, stated: ``. . . we are not planning to develop any new nuclear weapons at all.''

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in response to a question I asked him at a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on May 14, 2003, stated that the work the Administration was undertaking was ``just a study'', and that there were no plans to build new weapons.

This defies credibility.

Well, if one really wants to know what is happening, the best thing to do is to track where the Administration is asking for and spending money.

And when you do, you find that the administration is putting major resources into researching new nuclear weapons.

For instance, last year's budget request included: $15 million for the study of the development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; $6 million in funding for Advanced Nuclear Weapons Concepts, including the study for development of low-yield, battlefield weapons; $24 million to increase the Nevada Test Site's time-to-test readiness posture from the current 36 months to 18 months; and, $22 million for site selection for the Modern Pit Facility, which is a facility to build nuclear triggers for our Nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons.

This would be a $4 billion plant to make up to 450 new ``pits'' per year, some of which could be designed for new weapons.

Four-hundred-and-fifty pits is larger than China's entire nuclear arsenal, so this production capacity raises questions about the number of weapons the Administration wants in the U.S. arsenal.

Currently, the United States has approximately 15,000 warheads. Under the Moscow Treaty, the U.S. is to decrease its strategic nuclear force to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012.

To maintain a 2,200 warhead nuclear force at replacement level, we would only need to build 50 pits a year, not 450. Fifty pits a year can be handled at Los Alamos. So why build a new facility, with a production capacity of 450 pits a year?

This country doesn't need that much production unless plans are underway to increase the size of our nuclear arsenal, including a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Last year, those of us opposed to developing tactical nuclear weapons did have some success in limiting these programs.

Working with others in the House and Senate, we managed to: cut the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in half, to $7.5 million; condition $4 million of the $6 million for Advanced Concepts on further reporting and planning on Stockpile Stewardship; and contain spending on the Modern Pit Facility to $10 million, a $12 million reduction.

Critically, we also managed to win passage of a requirement that any move to develop a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator further than the 6.2A phase require a specific congressional authorization.

As many of my colleagues know, there is a formal set of phases by which new and modified nuclear weapons move through research, development, production, deployment, and retirement.

As a recent CRS report states, ``The Key phases for Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator are: phase 6.2, feasibility study and down select; phase 6.2A, design definition and cost study; phase 6.3, development engineering in which the nuclear weapons labs produce a completed warhead design; and phase 6.4, production engineering, in which the design is a adopted for production and a system to manufacture the weapon is created.''

So when the administration wants to move beyond 6.2A to 6.3 and into the development engineering phase, they need specific Congressional authorization.

Continuing its efforts, the administration came back this year and asked for significantly more funding for research into new nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the administration's budget requests before Congress this year total some $96.5 million, and makes it clear that there are those in this administration who are deadly serious about the development and deployment of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The administration's FY 2005 budget request calls for: $27.5 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; $9 million for Advanced Concepts Initiative, which includes so-called ``low yield'' weapons (under 5 kilotons); and $30 million for the Modern Pit Facility.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The Congressional Research Service now reports that the administration's own long-term budget plans, including $485 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator between 2005 and 2009, ``cast doubt'' on the contention that the study of new nuclear weapons are, in fact, only a study.

This ramp-up in funding can mean one thing: the administration is determined to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Yes, the administration is seeking to re-open the nuclear door and is seeking more ``usable'' nuclear weapons:

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, for use in launching first strikes to reach deeply embedded command bunkers; and

Tactical nuclear weapons, for possible use on the battlefield.

The logic of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, for instance, is that there are certain scenarios in which the United States could need a nuclear weapon to destroy deeply buried targets--such as command bunkers--which could not be effectively targeted by conventional weapons.

The goal would be to develop a weapon that could burrow into the earth deep enough so that it would be ``antiseptic'', with fallout contained deep beneath the surface, 500-1000 feet below the surface.

There are three problems with this:

First, a casing that can drill down 800-1000 feet before the warhead explodes does not exist. While the U.S. has technologically sophisticated missiles, there is no such casing at this time.

Second, advanced conventional munitions can shut down air vents, cut- off electricity, and render these targets harmless.

Third, and most critically, it is not possible to contain the radioactive fallout from these weapons--and the radioactive fallout is enormous.

According to Stanford University physicist Sidney Drell, even a one- kiloton weapon detonated 20-50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of ground zero and eject a million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is a 100 megaton weapon, so magnify that by 100-fold.

You would need to burrow more than 800 feet into the earth before the weapon exploded in order to contain the fallout from the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The maximum feasible depth we can bury a warhead into the earth today is about 35 feet.

Use of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would be a cataclysm of the highest order. Using one might well take out a buried North Korean bunker, but would also kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in both North and South Korea and, depending on wind patterns, either China and Japan as well.

So the idea that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator would provide the United States with a usable nuclear weapon--perhaps even a weapon that would be an effective first strike weapon--is absurd.

Furthermore, it represents a major departure from U.S. policy and makes our nation less safe--not more.

This is in fact part of the administration's broader policy in the international arena that can best be summed up in two words: Arrogant unilateralism.

This administration has: engaged in unnecessarily belligerent unilateralist rhetoric and action; dismissed arms control and nonproliferation efforts as ineffective; emphasized the role of pre- emptive military action; and pursued new nuclear weapon capabilities.

The administration is sending the destabilizing message that nuclear weapons have utility, thereby encouraging the proliferation the United States seeks to prevent.

Instead, I believe that the United States' top priority for nuclear security should be preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the means to deliver them.

Leading non-proliferation efforts and actions, and convincing the world to follow, that's how the world will be safer today and safer tomorrow.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: I am not a supporter of unilateral disarmament. I am a supporter of treaties, agreements, and programs with strong enforcement and interdiction programs to accomplish multi- lateral disarmament.

I believe that this Nation should always be in a position to protect itself, with a strong military, and the most advanced technology available to that military.

But I believe that moving ahead with these programs is folly.

First, who would want to send their son or daughter to a battlefield with tactical nuclear weapons?

Second, under what circumstances would a President push the ``Red Button'' for a nuclear first strike that would launch a nuclear missile of 100 kilotons, 4 or 5 times more devastating than Hiroshima, which killed 140,000 in just the first four months after the Bomb was dropped.

The United States has the most advanced conventional strike forces in the world. We have conventional bombs that can burrow into the earth and deliver thousands of pounds of explosives.

If the United States develops new nuclear weapons, what do we think India will do?

If the United States develops new nuclear weapons, what do we think Pakistan will do?

And what about Iran and North Korea?

Does this encourage them to develop battlefield nuclear weapons? I believe it does.

This administration is placing too great an emphasis on efforts to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons.

This is the wrong policy and, in my view, will only cause America to be placed in greater jeopardy in the future.

What should be done?

First, Congress should cut the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and Advanced Concepts entirely.

Second, Congress should close an inadvertent loophole that appears to allow the Administration to go forward with design engineering of low- yield or other Advanced Concepts weapons, but requires specific Congressional action for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Congress should put the same restrictions on Advance Systems that are required for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator--and require specific Congressional authorization for design engineering and development of battlefield nuclear weapons.

I will propose such an amendment most likely in mark-up or Conference Committee.

Third, Congress should postpone funding for the Modern Pit Facility until we receive a joint laboratory report that will include the finds of ``accelerated aging'' experiment, due in 2006,

Although it is true that the pits in current U.S. warheads are expected to slowly deteriorate as they age--and at some point will need to be replaced if the warheads are to remain in the stockpile--until that study is completed we simply have insufficient data to measure either the urgency by which pits need to be replaced or how many pits a year the United States needs to be able to manufacture to meet replacement needs.

Finally, Congress should deny any funding for new nuclear weapons until the reports we are awaiting justify these programs, including:

The report on stockpile stewardship required by last year's Energy and Water bill and which is intended to help inform decision making; and,

A formal report that spells out the specific military necessity of any of these new weapons. Usually, the military requirements for a specific weapons system--nuclear or nonnuclear are provided before well before funds are provided for design engineering.

These steps are necessary to bring this administration's unrestrained enthusiasm for developing new nuclear weapons under control, and assure that the United States proceeds in this area with all the seriousness and restraint that is fitting for a great power.

Now, I want to take a moment to say what I believe the United States should be doing with regard to nuclear policy.

First and foremost, the United States must work with others in the international community to address the larger nuclear non-proliferation problem.

Proliferation poses a clear and present danger not only to our nation but to the world.

President Bush offered a glimmer of hope two months ago, when he called for international cooperation on controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech, President Bush called for: expanding efforts to obtain multilateral cooperation in interdicting land, sea and air shipments of WMD-related equipment, materials and technology.

Early adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution that would require all Nations to criminalize certain proliferation-related activities, enact strict export control regulations, and ensure adequate security for nuclear and other sensitive materials within their borders.

Expansion of threat-reduction assistance programs that are designed to secure sensitive materials and prevent former weapons scientists from selling their expertise on the black market.

Closing a loophole in the Nonproliferation Treaty--NPT--that has enabled countries like Iran to acquire dual-use facilities capable of producing bomb-grade plutonium under the guise of a civil nuclear energy program.

Strengthening verification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by calling on countries to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency's--IAEA--Additional Protocol.

The creation of a special committee of the IAEA Board to deal with verification and compliance.

Ensuring that no country under investigation for violating nuclear proliferation obligations should be allowed to serve on the IAEA Board of Governors.

These are important steps, but they do not amount to a comprehensive non-proliferation strategy.

Building on what the President suggested, I believe the following actions are needed to implement a comprehensive approach to non- proliferation:

First, the U.S. should support strengthened international monitoring and inspection capabilities, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol.

The Additional Protocol is an addendum to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would expand the amount of information that Nations will have to provide the IAEA--including, the location, operational status, and production of any uranium and thorium mines.

It also would expand IAEA's ability to check for clandestine nuclear facilities by providing the agency with authority to visit, on short or no notice, any facility to investigate questions or inconsistencies in a state's nuclear declarations.

The Additional Protocol has now passed the Senate, and I believe that the United States must work with the IAEA to give it reality and force.

Second, the U.S. and other global powers can no longer ignore the possession of nuclear weapons by allies and friends.

India and Pakistan are not a direct threat to the United States, but they do threaten one another, and, as we recently learned, Pakistan has been at the hub of a global black market in nuclear technology.

According to a press report last Friday, it is possible that India is now seeking to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon of less than one kiloton, following in the footsteps of the Bush administration's nuclear weapons policy.

Such a move by India would likely be extremely destabilizing for Asia. We must realize that the way in which the United States and our friends and allies approach nuclear weapons has a profound impact on global security, and we must be willing to make sure that our friends, no less than states of concern, adopt a responsible approach to nuclear weapons.

Third, the international community must consider new ways to restrict access to dangerous nuclear technologies.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty guarantee of access to ``peaceful'' nuclear technology has allowed states such as Iran to acquire uranium enrichment or plutonium production facilities useful for weapons without adequate oversight and monitoring.

I support efforts in the UN Security Council to effectively criminalize trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, and work with other nations to make sure that effective means to control the spread of any WMD technology are in place.

Fourth, the United States should expand and accelerate Nunn-Lugar threat reduction programs.

This initiative has helped make the United States and the world safer over the past 10 years by improving security and taking much of the Soviet era nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons arsenal and infrastructure out of circulation. Yet funding for Nunn-Lugar has remained flat at about $1 billion annually over the past several years.

The bipartisan Baker-Cutler Commission proposed last year that U.S. efforts for nuclear security should be increased to $30 billion over ten years, and I believe it is critical that we increase Nunn-Lugar funding so that resources are commensurate with the challenge.

Fifth, we must redouble our efforts to secure and remove all unprotected nuclear material, especially material at the world's most vulnerable sites.

During the Cold War more than twenty tons of HEU were distributed around the world to research reactors and other facilities. Most of this material is poorly guarded and much is stored at extremely vulnerable sites.

Along with Senators Reed, Nelson, and Levin I recently introduced legislation to give our government the direction, tools, and resources necessary to secure and remove nuclear materials from around the world in an expeditious manner by creating a single, integrated U.S. government program, with a defined budget and resources, to facilitate the removal of these materials. It is my hope that Congress will take action on this legislation soon.

Sixth, the United States should work to achieve a global halt to the production of weapons usable fissile materials through the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty--FMCT.

Progress on multilateral negotiations to end the supply of new material for nuclear bombs has been stalled for years.

Now, a shift in China's position opens the way for progress. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has decided to reevaluate its support for such an agreement.

Seventh, the United States should seek to engage in discussions with ``states of proliferation concern'' to look for ways to bring such states into the community of responsible nations.

These are states that have nuclear weapons or may be pursuing them and include: India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Brazil, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Despite the administration's claim of a Libya success story, other nations appear to be drawing different conclusions from the Administration's approach on these issues.

We are experiencing on-going crises involving the North Korean nuclear weapons programs, and Iran now appears to be on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability.

Finally, the United States and other nuclear weapon states must reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their own thinking.

For the United States to be increasing funding for the research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons even as we are telling others that they should not pursue these weapons themselves may well provoke the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

I strongly support a robust military to safeguard America's National Security interests.

But I believe we will make our nation and our allies less secure--not more--if the United States opens the door to the development, testing, and deployment of new tactical and `low-yield' nuclear weapons.

The administration claims that it is not seeking to develop these nuclear weapons.

But I think we've seen that the facts demonstrate that this is not the case.

That is why those of us who do not want the nuclear door opened need to stand firm and oppose these efforts by the administration to develop these weapons.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the victims of the Armenian Genocide, one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. Last Saturday, April 24, 2004, marked the 89th anniversary of the beginning of that tragic period and I urge all Americans to take time to remember, reflect, and pledge never to forget what happened.

On April 24, 1915, under the guise of collecting supplies for its participation in World War I, the Ottoman Empire launched a brutal and unconscionable policy of mass murder. The New York Times reported that the Ottoman Empire had adopted a policy to annihilate the Armenians living within the empire. Throughout the following years, Armenians faced violent attacks, starvation, deportation, and murder. Sadly, the world took little notice.

Before the violence began in 1914, 2.5 million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire. As a result of the genocide, 1.5 million Armenians had died and another 500,000 had been driven from their homes and villages. We must remember and pay homage to those that died. We must remind the world of these deaths and renew our commitment to ensure that such tragedies never happen again.

I am proud to represent an Armenian community of half a million in my great State of California. They are a strong and resilient community, taking strength in the tragedies of the past and the promise of a better tomorrow. This community is leading the effort to preserve the memory of the Armenian Genocide not only for future generations of Armenian Americans, but, indeed, for all Americans and all citizens of the world.

I urge my colleagues to join me in remembering the first genocide of the 20th century. Through our commemoration of this tragedy, we make clear that we will not tolerate mass murder and ethnic cleansing ever again and we will never forget.

I would be happy to speak after the vote.

Madam President, we are not on the bill, is that correct?

Madam President, I rise to claim an hour under the motion to proceed to speak on the bill.

Before I do, I compliment the Senator from Florida on his comments on Venezuela. He may not know this, but I had the pleasure of spending some time in Venezuela when I was mayor, leading a delegation. We had a sister city relationship with Caracas. I saw the vibrancy of that democracy at that time. This was in the mid-1980s. All the progress that had been made in the Bolivar nations and the closeness that existed between Venezuela and our country, it was something very special to see. You could say, I think, that Venezuela led all the nations in terms of its relationship to us. So the deterioration of that relationship is very much regretted by me. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Florida and thank him very much for making them.

I wish to speak about a bill that I am not sure everybody understands very well, let alone exactly what it is. There are essentially three bills floating around. One of them is S. 150. This is a permanent measure. It includes a 3-year grandfather on Internet access if the taxes existed in 1998. That is the Allen-Wyden bill.

There is a McCain proposal that may be brought forward. And, as I understand it, in would last for 4 years. It includes a 3-year grandfather on Internet access taxes that existed in 1998 and a 2-year grandfather on Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) taxes.

And there is the Alexander-Carper bill, of which I am a cosponsor. This is a 2 year temporary moratorium that includes a 2-year grandfather on Internet access taxes that were in place in 1998 and a 2-year grandfather on DSL service.

What all that means is very difficult. The last time this bill was on the floor was November 6 and 7 of last year. I remember coming to the floor and saying I had been approached by more than a hundred California cities to oppose the bill. It was a deluge. I had never had that kind of opposition from California cities before in my 12 years in the Senate. That deluge has only increased.

Interestingly enough, I have not received a single letter from a telephone company in support of any of these bills, which is very interesting.

The most dominant voice has been the League of California Cities, firefighters, labor. The League in particular represents over 470 California cities. These cities believe this bill, S. 150, will cost billions of dollars nationwide, and in California it will cost local jurisdictions as much as $836 million once it really gets started.

Cities and counties across the Nation are facing budget crises. These cuts only make the situation worse. There would be less money to pay for police officers, firefighters, libraries, and parks. Passing this bill, which essentially would end revenue streams which cities have counted on for years to fund vital services, is something I can't do. That is why you have Senator Carper, a Governor, Senator

Voinovich, a former mayor and Governor, Senator Alexander, a Governor, and myself, a mayor, all saying, please don't do this.

I support legislation sponsored by Senators Alexander and Carper which would extend the recently expired moratorium on Internet access by 2 years, and make the moratorium technology neutral.

The Allen-Wyden bill changes the definition of Internet access significantly. That is the problem. Simply put, the definition included in the bill before us is far too broad. The bill says that telecommunications are taxable, and then it adds this:

. . . except to the extent such services are used to provide

Internet access.

But what does the phrase ``to provide Internet access'' actually mean? Cities, counties, and States believe it means they won't be able to tax telecommunications services, which they currently can, to the tune of $2 to $9 billion annually all across the United States. So that is really what is at stake.

Let me read what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says about the definition contained in Allen-Wyden:

The ban on State and local taxation of telecommunications

services used to provide Internet access would effectively

eliminate billions of dollars' worth of taxes on voice

telephone service as the provision of that service is

migrated to the Internet, a process that is well underway.

Then it goes on and it says there will be substantial revenue losses for State and local governments. It points out that 11 States would lose between $80 million to $120 million: Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. It says 28 States and the District of Columbia would lose $70 million annually. Let me quickly mention which ones they are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

A lot of States stand to lose. It goes on to say many more State and local governments would lose their ability to tax telecommunications services purchased by Internet access providers, such as the high-speed lines providers use to link to the backbone of the Internet.

A lot of States stand to lose. Now, you can talk to authors of the bill and they will say, oh, no, that really is not true. But the fact is that even CBO cannot give you a real estimate because companies don't maintain records; but cities, interestingly enough, have retained specialists to estimate for them.

Let me read from one of those specialists. His name is William T. Fujioka. He is the administrative officer for the city of Los Angeles. He points out that:

In California, the utility user tax has been applied to

telecommunications services on a technology-neutral basis for

over 30 years. With 150 cities receiving over $830 million--I

have been over that.

He goes on to say:

For the city of Los Angeles, our telecommunication's

utility user tax covers local exchange service, long

distance, and wireless, which total $260 million. S. 150

places all of these revenues in jeopardy. The loss would come

from: 1, the migration of traditional telephone services to

Internet-based telephone services, or Voice over Internet

Protocol; and 2, the application of S. 150 to local exchange

and wireless services that also provide voice and Internet

access (in the same manner as DSL and cable modem), which

would prevent the city of Los Angeles from taxing these

services.

He then goes on to point out:

The migration of telecommunication services to the Internet

is not just speculation. AT&T, SBC, Verizon, and Time-Warner

have all announced their intent to introduce Internet

telephone service in California this year.

It is important to note that currently, DSL and cable modem are not subject to the Federal excise tax, or UUT, utility user tax, because until recently these broadband communication services were not used for voice and were properly deemed private communication services.

Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has changed even that and is essentially saying that both cable and DSL can be taxed. That just came out. I am told that it will take another 18 months to 2 years just to straighten that out and to see if there is an appeal on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So this whole area is in flux and it could change dramatically. It makes no sense to do a permanent piece of legislation at this point in time, in my view, particularly with this Ninth Circuit case recently coming down.

If Allen-Wyden is approved, phone services, which are currently taxable, will become tax exempt. This means local jurisdictions will lose revenues they can collect today. In turn, this means less revenue to pay for local priorities.

I support making business and residential access to the Internet tax free. There are primarily three ways to access the Internet today: dial-up service; cable modem; and DSL, digital subscriber lines. Under the recently expired moratorium, two of these methods--dial-up service providers and cable modem--were exempted from taxation. The third, DSL, could be taxed, though many jurisdictions, including California, didn't tax that. But, as I have just told you the Ninth Circuit has just made a change by saying that you can now tax cable modem.

Alexander-Carper--the bill I support--would level the playing field and make DSL tax exempt, except in those jurisdictions which already taxed it. This grandfather would last for 2 years. And, it would grandfather access taxes in place in 1998--again for 2 years. It is hoped that this will ensure that the Internet could continue to mature.

I must say, also, it is my understanding that Senator Enzi is going to introduce a bill that will be a simple extension of the 2-year moratorium, which expired a few months ago. If the Alexander-Carper bill isn't successful, I will support this solution.

I really believe that is the solution--that we should simply extend it, let the Ninth Circuit case go up to the Supreme Court, and let the Supreme Court speak. Or we should add an amendment to S. 150 that says that all present taxes remain unaffected, so that cities, counties, and States, through your State, Madam President, and my State, as well as every other State, can know with certainty that the revenues they have counted on they can continue to count on.

If you ask people whether they want police and fire, the answer is yes. If you ask them whether they want local services, the answer is clearly yes. To pass a bill that ends the method of revenue collection and funds up to 15 percent of these local services in many jurisdictions, I think, is an unconscionable thing to do.

Much like the tax cuts, they explode in outer years. So while Members that vote for that may be popular for a short period of time, to be able to go home and say they are assuring their local jurisdiction that they are protecting their revenue sources, they cannot do that by voting for S. 150. Just too much is unknown.

Fifteen percent means layoffs, and it could mean major cuts in service. It could mean higher local taxes.

The cities that have contacted me, large and small, are like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, LaVerne, San Leandro, and Santo Rosa.

Let me quote from the comptroller of the city of San Francisco, Ed Harrington. Again, this is a technical person writing:

For the city of San Francisco, our telecommunications UUT--

utility users tax--covers local exchange service, long

distance, and wireless, which totals $32 million a year. S.

150--that is Allen-Wyden--places all of these revenues in

jeopardy.

The loss would come, again, from the migration of

traditional telephone services to the Internet-based

telephone services or Voice Over Internet Protocol; and, 2,

the application of S. 150 to local exchange and wireless

services that also provide voice and Internet access, which

would prevent the city of San Francisco from taxing these

services.

That is the same as Los Angeles.

So you have two of the major cities in the State and their technical and financial people both saying the same thing.

The League of Cities, which represents all of California's 478 cities, its county administrators, its police officer associations, its firefighter associations, all oppose this bill.

In the city I served as mayor for 9 years, the current definition of telecom

services could lead to a loss of $32 million annually. This translates into 300 police and firefighters.

I want to also cite the city of Pasadena. Mayor Bill Bogarrd wrote my office to protest that his city would lose $11.4 million under Allen- Wyden, and he writes:

By using vague language to include broadband Internet under

the moratorium, we fear that the bill will allow telephone

and cable companies to use that protection to avoid paying

local franchise or utility fees.

Which is exactly what is going to happen.

He goes on to state:

It is our understanding that it was not the intent of the

bill sponsors to endanger local franchising authority, but

the legislation has yet to be changed to correct these

unintended consequences.

Virtually every technical person who looks at this bill--the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, as well as every controller, technical professional employee of cities and counties--says the same thing: The definition is flawed, it is vague, and under that definition, any number of things can happen.

Madam President, 150 cities in my State levy a utility user tax. That includes telephone and cable television services. These taxes provide the contribution that I mentioned of approximately 15 percent in general purpose revenues. So they make a utility user's tax vital in helping fund critical city services.

I know why telephone companies do not want this. They do not want to be bothered by local taxes. But on the other hand, why not say that present taxes are excepted, present taxes would not be covered? Cities can continue those taxes where they are.

I believe that because of the determination that this bill is an unfunded mandate and other reasons, S. 150 is subject to a point of order when it is under consideration, and I fully expect that this point of order will be raised. For this Senate to pass a bill that further ties the hands of local government I think will be unfortunate just at a time when so many States face budget deficits and so many cities have the same situation.

In short, the problem with Allen-Wyden is that it changes the definition of Internet access in the recently expired Internet tax moratorium in such a way that cities lose billions nationally, that this escalates over time, and that this will lead to reduced preparedness of our cities, to fewer firefighters, and to fewer police officers.

Anyone who has ever done a city budget knows you cannot lose up to 15 percent of your revenue and keep services at the same level.

I am hopeful that as the days go on and as we consider amendments to the bill, there will be a straight amendment that will just simply extend a 2-year moratorium to give the Supreme Court case Brand X Internet Services v. the FCC the opportunity to go up on appeal, hopefully for the Supreme Court to take it up, or else to leave in place the appellate court opinion which makes very clear that States will be able to tax cable modem service since the 1996 act allows States to tax telecommunications services.

One of the most disturbing aspects about the bill is some people think that it imposes Internet sales taxes when this is not true at all. These taxes are all at the point where the Internet comes in to the home, and yet they reach back in the chain as various services come together substantially before the Internet reaches the house. I think if that currently taxable aspect of the service is made unavailable to local communities that have very few revenue sources, it is going to present a substantial hardship for the quality of life of the people we care about in our cities and in our States.

I will oppose S. 150. I will vote for the Alexander-Carper bill and will also vote for Senator Enzi's bill should he make that available.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.