Floor Statements

Mr. President, from 10:30 until 12:30, is there any need that we, in effect, guard the floor, and that there will be no call for the vote on the Owen nomination this morning?

Reserving the right to object, we on this side are perplexed. We have indicated to the majority leader that there are at least three circuit judges who, with just a little bit of work, could be approved this week. The average during the Clinton 8 years was eight circuit judges a year. If the three were approved, that would be five already by Easter.

One of those is Edward C. Prado of the Fifth Circuit. They could go to that tomorrow--tonight. So we believe there is more here than meets the eye. There are three circuit judges who are available with just a little bit of work. This has all been discussed with the majority leader.

So for these and many other reasons, I object.

Yes. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have approved, during the time President Bush has been President, 116 judges. Two have been turned down--116 to 2. One of those who was turned down is back. Owen is back. This would be the first time in the history of this country that a judge who has been turned down is back and would be approved.

The hours that have been suggested by my friend from Utah I appreciate very much, but there are productive things that could be done during those 10 hours, including the approval of more judges. There could be at the end of this week 120 judges instead of 116.

I object.

Speaking for the Senator from Nevada, there is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would like to extend, through the Chair, to my friend from Utah the appreciation of the whole Senate for the content of the remarks of the Senator from Utah and the manner in which they were delivered.

Those of us who know Lloyd Ogilvie certainly have great respect for him. I told him personally. My first knowledge of his presence was when I attended the funeral of the late departed Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. He did such a remarkable job at that funeral. Even though I had seen him here and listened to him give prayers many times, that was the first time I had really felt his presence.

I did not know his wife Mary Jane well. I had met her, but that was all. It was good to hear from the Senator from Utah about his knowledge of Mary Jane Ogilvie, who Reverend Ogilvie talked to me about many times, as every morning we were here together.

So I think the remarks of the Senator from Utah were timely. And I, on behalf of the whole Senate, extend my appreciation to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, before the majority leader finishes, I ask him are we going to vote on the California judge today, and then did he say he is going to go to Owen next?

The majority leader is going to move to that tonight?

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessary absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) would each vote ``Aye''

Reserving the right to object.

I hoped my friend in his statement tonight would indicate why we are moving to this woman, when we have people here--we have Edward Prado, who is from Texas, Dee Drell from Louisiana, Richard Bennett from Maryland--who, it appears, will go through here very easily.

My friend should understand, as I told him privately, there will be some people wanting to speak about this at some length.

The majority leader has indicated there will be no more votes today so there is no need for anyone to hang around on this tonight--that's true? You are going to speak, but there is

going to be no action taken on this other than the motion?

I withdraw any objection.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time is equally divided this morning; is that true?

We have a lot of speakers here. How much time does the minority have?

And how long does the majority have?

We have a problem right here to begin with.

OK.

I will yield whatever time needed to the Senator from Minnesota.

I am happy to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Montana, who represents, among other things, the Marine Corps.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, it is not Senator Stevens asking for additional time, it is Senator Schumer.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the time for the Senator from California been exhausted?

Mr. President, I failed to tell the manager of the bill that Senator Kennedy wants 10 minutes. So it would be 30 minutes and whatever time you want to respond to that.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida takes the floor.

It is my understanding on this amendment there will be 30 minutes--20 minutes to the Senator from Florida and 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska; is that right? Does Senator Stevens want to look at the amendment first?

We will withhold the request until the Senator reviews the amendment.

We can renew that request after Senator Stevens has had a chance to look at the amendment.

I renew that request, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote on or in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida occur third in line; that is, Boxer, Bayh, and Graham.

As per the other agreements, there will be no second-degree amendments in order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I say to the manager of the bill, I am going to talk to Senator Biden. He has called the cloakroom. I will see how he feels about this. He is at a Foreign Relations matter.

Mr. President, I have spoken to the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, and he is unable to be here right now. He will be here in the next 15 minutes or thereabout. He indicated he would take a relatively short period of time. He may have an amendment to offer and he can discuss that with the sponsor of the bill when he arrives. So we will stay on this amendment until Senator Biden arrives.

Reserving the right to object, as I have explained to the managers of the bill, we have been waiting now for some time for the Senator from Delaware. He will be here and he will now speak after the Senator from Arizona. It is my understanding on the Ensign amendment there are others who wish to speak so Senator Biden would not be the last.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Senator from Arizona, it is my understanding there are others who wish to speak on your amendment. The reason I mention that is because what we would like to do is arrange a vote on your amendment in the order that has been set to begin at 1:50.

Prior to that, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee is here to speak on the preceding amendment. As the Senator from Arizona knows, we took the Senator from Arizona out of order.

How long does the Senator from Idaho wish to speak?

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senator from Idaho finishes his remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized and we would return temporarily back to the Ensign amendment.

The Senator from Delaware.

He is going to speak on the Ensign amendment. Then we would immediately go back to the McCain amendment.

I am happy to. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes on the pending amendment, the McCain amendment, and that following his statement, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be recognized to speak on the Ensign amendment; and that following the statement of the Senator from Delaware, we will go back to the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

If the senior Senator from Arizona said the junior Senator wanted to speak, we would have no objection. He wants 2 minutes.

And that there be no second degree amendments in order.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl has an amendment, and he wants 5 minutes on it. It may require a vote; we have not had a chance to look at it.

Also with no second-degree amendment in order.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the manager of the bill and the leaders have agreed this vote would occur at a later time.

Mr. President, if I may direct a question.

Mr. President, I direct a question to the manager of the bill. I have indicated to Senator Stevens that Senator Feinstein is ready to offer an amendment. It is my understanding that there has been some arrangement made on the amendment she is going to offer.

I see my friend from Missouri. Does he wish to offer an amendment? I thought we were going to the Feinstein amendment. May I have an indication from the Senator from Missouri how long he is going to take, or what the subject matter is?

I thank the Senator.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that a number of Senators want to speak for a brief time on the amendment the Senator from Missouri sent to the desk that is now pending. I ask they be allowed to speak on this amendment but that no action be taken until we have had a chance to review it on our side.

Yes.

Mr. President, Senator Feinstein has been waiting here all day. She has a speech she wants to give and an amendment to offer. This will not be part of the voting in 45 minutes because she and Senator Stevens have been in discussions about how to resolve this issue.

If I could have Senator Cochran's attention, Senator Byrd is here. You and Senator Breaux used up all the time on the amendment, the Breaux amendment pending, which we will vote on at quarter to 5. Senator Byrd will ask for up to 15 minutes to speak in favor of the Breaux amendment. We have no objection to that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from California be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

Following that speech, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized to speak in favor of the Breaux amendment for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we all know the President pro tempore of the Senate, the manager of this bill, is one of the great legislators in the history of this body. We also believe we have been acting responsibly on this side of the aisle during the last 2 days. We have been admonished for 2 weeks now by the Democratic leader that we must finish the bill this week.

We have tried to be responsible with the amendments we have offered. We have negotiated with the Senator from Alaska and his staff in good faith, and we have been able to work out some very big amendments, I think, to the betterment of this country.

We have not tried in any way to alter the financial package that is going to the President that relates to the military. I have told the Senator from Alaska, and anyone else who would listen, that I am grateful he was able to put in the bill something that will help bolster the airline industry in this country, which badly needs help.

But we also believe on this side of the aisle--and I personally support all $9 billion that the President has put in this bill for foreign aid--that if we can get $9 billion for foreign aid, we can reexamine what is being done for homeland security, and that is in effect what we are doing--reexamining what is taking place in the bill relating to homeland security.

So the Democratic leader and all the Senators on this side of the aisle are committed to finishing the bill tonight. We understand the importance of it. Nobody should criticize any of the amendments that we have filed. They have been responsible, targeted, and they are not political in nature. They are responsible in nature.

Before I yield the floor, the Senator from Mississippi is here. It is my understanding that we are going to have a vote in about 7 minutes. The Senator from Louisiana has an amendment to offer that has been worked out on the other side. I think it would be to everyone's advantage that we go to her until the vote. There will not be a vote required on her amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

Mr. President, I am in the process of working. During the vote, I was not able to contact everyone. If we could go to the next amendment, it would be better in a few minutes from now.

We have been able to work quite well with Members who have offered amendments, amendments that others have offered. We still have a number of amendments Senators want to offer. I could go over those now if the Senator wanted. We are down to about half a dozen amendments over here.

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

I have spoken to the manager of the bill. The ranking member of the Appropriations Committee has an amendment to offer. He has agreed to have a time agreement. Would 30 minutes equally divided be appropriate or 40 minutes equally divided?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia be allowed to proceed with his amendment and that there be 40 minutes equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the Senator from West Virginia, I forgot that the Senator from Louisiana has been here all day. She has 5 minutes on an amendment that is agreed upon. There would be no vote on it. I apologize because it is my fault totally. Would the Senator from West Virginia allow the Senator from Louisiana to proceed for up to 4 minutes?

I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be temporarily set aside and that the Senator from Louisiana be allowed to offer her amendment and to speak up to 4 minutes and then we would return to the Byrd amendment.

If the Senator will yield, Senator Stevens has indicated it has been cleared by both leaders that we could have a vote around 6:30.

I ask unanimous consent, in keeping with the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, that we have a vote in relation to the Byrd amendment at the

expiration of 20 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina, and 10 minutes for the Senator from Mississippi, and that there be no second- degree amendments. Following that, there would be a motion on or in relation to the Hollings amendment, there would be no second-degree amendments ordered, and we would vote on that following the disposition of the Byrd amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between the two votes be 10 minutes; the second vote be 10 minutes.

I don't know if the Senator from Mississippi can answer this question. The Senator from Louisiana had talked to Senator Stevens' staff and Senator Stevens on the amendment. We will work on this during the vote.

We will go ahead and start the vote then.

Vote on Amendment No. 508

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''

I would say, if I could, if the Senator would yield, through the Chair, I think we have a real good opportunity of finishing the bill quickly after these two votes. We will need cooperation of both sides but I think we can do that.

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Would the Senator renew his request?

Reserving the right to object, the first amendment offered by the Senator from Alaska when we started yesterday, that is going to be withdrawn; is my understanding correct?

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``Aye.''

I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that he is correct: I have discussed this matter with the Democratic leader and others, and we fully understand the importance of ensuring that the borrowing authority of the Treasury is not impeded, and we appreciate the interest of the Senator from Alaska making certain that the full faith and credit of the United States is never called into question. While we on this side cannot commit to supporting a bill we have not seen, we do assure the Senator from Alaska that when a freestanding bill to increase the debt limit in the usual form is brought to the floor, we will work with him to see to it that the bill is passed in a timely and orderly way, without any unncesssary delay. The Senator has our commitment on that.

Mr. President, I rise to support this important bill that will provide $60 billion for our troops in Iraq. I am especially proud of the Nevada sons and daughters who have been deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As many of you know, Nevada has the finest military aviation training facilities in the world.

Nellis Air Force Base and Fallon Naval Air Station train the aviators serving on the front lines of this battle. Hundreds from Nellis--pilots and other mission critical personnel--are right now serving on the front lines. Hundreds trained at Fallon are there too. When you see those Navy fighters taking off from carriers in the Gulf, chances are they were trained at Fallon.

Nevada's Guard and Reserve troops are also playing a significant role. Nevada's percentage of Guard and Reserve call-ups and deployments has been one of the highest in the Nation. I understand why so many Nevadans have been called up. They are talented. They are heroes. When this action started, I promised to do everything in my power to ensure that Congress fully funds and supports the needs of our troops as this conflict proceeds. This bill provides more than $60 billion to make good on the commitment that my colleagues and I made to support our troops.

I am also encouraged by the efforts the administration made to provide additional funds for protecting our frontline defenders here at home--the emergency responders we depend on to respond to a terrorist attack. I believe we could have done more to give cities and counties in each of our states the resources they need to ensure our homeland is as secure as it can be. I am pleased that we were able to add an additional $150 million for securing nuclear materials at home and abroad. This amendment will provide additional resources to keep terrorists from getting the ingredients they need to make a dirty bomb. I want to thank my colleagues for completing this bill in a timely manner to help our troops as they help bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``aye''.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I announce for Senator Byrd that at the time of final passage, he was necessarily absent, but if Senator Byrd had been here, he would have voted aye.

If the Senator would yield.

If I could direct a question to the Senator from Rhode Island: Is this the understanding the Senator had with the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. President, if I could make a suggestion: If we could modify the leader's request that there be a motion to strike in order if the Senator from Pennsylvania can't work this out with the Senator from Rhode Island, this one provision.

I apologize to the leader. If I could make a suggestion, I know how deeply the Senator from Pennsylvania feels about this legislation. I am confident he wouldn't do anything that was untoward purposely. So I hope the Senator from Rhode Island will accept this agreement, and we will work with Senator Santorum to see if something can be done. I will personally work with Senator Santorum to see if he would allow us a motion to strike, but that is not part of this deal.

Mr. President, I wish to state how much I appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It took a few minutes to do this, but it has taken weeks to get to this point. I express my appreciation to all Senators involved. It was very hard to do.

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

Madam President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, and I am going to speak on an amendment I will offer at some subsequent time. Senator Stevens has indicated the amendment that is the first one that was offered here today will not be discussed until after we have the cloture vote on the Estrada nomination. That will be at around 2 o'clock. After that time, we will again discuss that, if necessary.

Madam President, as I indicated, at some subsequent time, I will offer an amendment. The Democratic leader has indicated he wants just a few amendments offered. He has gone over the amendments he feels would be appropriate, and this is one of them.

So I would just simply say, if you watch television--as we all do every night--you see the explosions going off in Baghdad and other places in Iraq. Lights coming up, flashes--they go away very quickly. These violent occurrences we see on television are tiny, little babies compared to what this amendment is all about.

A nuclear explosion makes everything that has happened in Iraq appear as if it is nothing. For everything that has happened in Iraq to this point, one nuclear explosion would be far more devastating than everything that has taken place throughout the country of Iraq these past 2 weeks.

We have some knowledge in Nevada of the violence of a nuclear explosion. For those who have been to the Nevada test site, as you drive through the very remote area, you see holes in the ground that are bigger than the United States Capitol, where a nuclear explosion has taken place--bigger than the United States Capitol.

You see where they have done aboveground tests. They still have the remnants of a small town that was destroyed. There are parts of it left, but not much.

And then throughout the desert, where you do not see the large holes bigger than the United States Capitol, there are almost 1,000 indentations in the land where shafts have been sunk and these nuclear devices set off far in the ground, thousands of feet into the ground-- not hundreds, thousands of feet in the ground--but yet the ground settles. And as you drive through it, it is like the landscape of the moon.

And then, things you cannot see are the tunnels. There are tunnels all over those mountains in the Nevada test site, where scores of nuclear explosions have been set off. We cannot see the devastation that takes place inside the earth, but it has taken place.

We were concerned here in the Capitol when Senator Daschle's office was anthraxed. Somebody sent him some poisonous material, and it took millions of dollars to clean up the building the anthrax was in, the Hart Office Building--millions of dollars. It took several months to clean that up.

We hear so much about dirty bombs. The explosion in most dirty bombs would not be real big. It would be plenty big, but not as big as what I have described at the Nevada test site. But one dirty bomb would so contaminate a building, a neighborhood, a community, that it would be basically useless for scores of years.

The amendment I am going to offer provides $400 million to the Department of Energy to safeguard nuclear weapons and nuclear material in the United States and throughout the world.

I want to make sure that Members in the Senate understand what I am doing, what this amendment is attempting to do. The amendment provides $300 million for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Program and $100 million in additional funding to the Department of Energy to fund enhanced safeguards and security programs at the Nation's nuclear weapons laboratories and plants, at environmental management cleanup sites throughout the Nation, and at DOE Office of Science laboratories. All of these sites are home to nuclear material which needs to be protected.

There are large amounts of money in the supplemental appropriations package for the Department of Homeland Security. And I supported that. It is for first responder training and chem-bio detection and related activities. It is a good thing. There will be efforts made to increase that.

However, most of our Nation's nonproliferation activities and nuclear detection activities are not housed within the Department of Homeland Security. These activities are funded under the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous organization within the Department of Energy. The administration request for nonproliferation and nuclear security was zero--nothing.

The broad authority to transfer funds to meet homeland security needs would placate me a little bit if it were not for the fact that the transfer authority is only available within the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Homeland Security is not in a position to transfer funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration for nuclear nonproliferation or security activities.

This is really a big concern. The GAO issued a Weapons of Mass Destruction report last week concerning the faltering cooperation the United States is receiving from Russia in terms of securing fissile nuclear material, and other weapons of mass destruction, in the former Soviet Republics. After years of effort, the United States is still struggling to get access to most locations where nuclear material is stored. The ramifications of this report should frighten everyone. More importantly, it is time for Congress to get moving on doing something about this problem.

We have not even talked much about it, let alone done anything about it. It is incumbent upon this and all future administrations to get the material secured as quickly as possible just as it is critical to ensure that we do a better job protecting nuclear material in the country. However, since September 11, it has been like pulling teeth, for lack of a better description, to get this administration to request supplemental funding to better secure nuclear material at our weapons labs and plants, DOE sites, and other laboratories run by the Department of Energy.

The administration has paid little heed to calls from within the Department to do a better job of transporting this stuff safely. Last year, the Department requested hundreds of millions of dollars but OMB simply wouldn't approve anything other than $26 million. In response, Congress appropriated $300 million in contingent emergency funding. The President refused to release this.

These moneys go to making a safer world. The reason we are doing this is to try to make sure that homeland security really means something and we have a program to do something about nuclear materials.

The neglect we have shown as a country is frightening. I am grateful to my colleagues and good friends, Senators Domenici and Stevens, for adding almost $100 million to this supplemental for many activities about which I have spoken. They also added $54 million in additional safeguards for Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation facilities. That was important. My amendment seeks to build on that base. This amendment pays for everything in the underlying amendment Senator Domenici worked to put in this and then funds many additional activities that are crucial to our Nation's efforts to keep nuclear materials safe and secure.

The $400 million in this amendment is spread out as follows: The largest proportion of this money goes to nuclear detectors at mega- seaports around the world, not here in the United States necessarily. The global shipping system can deliver a containerized weapon of mass destruction more accurately than a missile from the Soviet Union, according to the Department of Energy. This isn't something I am making up. Vessels move 90 percent of our warfare fighting material and the bulk of goods our Nation purchases from abroad. Current U.S.-based systems for protecting radioactive weapons are not oriented toward when a port itself is a target of a weapon of mass destruction.

The Department of Energy has performed an analysis of shipping in the United States and has identified 60 foreign mega-seaports overseas where goods/containers from many nations first go before they are shipped to the United States. DOE indicates that, for example, about 10 percent of all containers shipping to the United States go through Hong Kong and about 6 percent go through Shanghai and Singapore.

DOE has developed nuclear detectors that can be given to port authorities in such mega-seaports in conjunction with U.S. Customs which provide port-wide alert of nuclear material. Detecting and impounding illicit nuclear material before it is even sent to the United States provides the best protection we can get.

We have the technology; it is just expensive. This amendment would pay for our going to Shanghai, to Singapore, to Hong Kong, these mega- ports where we get so much of our material, and determine if any of those shipments are nuclear in nature before they get here.

DOE is in the process of deploying the first radiological detection system to a foreign mega-seaport, but it has no funds appropriated in the 2003 fiscal year or even budgeted for 2004 to do this. They are in the process of deploying, but you can't deploy if you have no money. This additional $135 million would provide protection for nine mega- seaports. It would not get all of them, but it would get the big ones. This would be for a total of 10--the 1 they are trying to work out and the 9. This additional money would allow screening of approximately half of all containerized shipping entering the United States. Right now, we basically check none of it. This amendment would allow us to check 50 percent of it. This is something that is vitally important.

I talked about dirty bombs; radiological dispersal devices is the technical name. On March 11, Secretary Abraham addressed an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, which he initiated to discuss the menace of radiological dispersal devices, with over 600 people from 100 nations in attendance. It was our meeting, the United States of America. The use of radioactive sources for peaceful purposes is widespread. They have many beneficial industrial, agricultural, research, and medical applications, but terrorists also may seek such devices for their radiological content to construct dirty bombs and cause panic and economic disruption by spreading radioactive material over a wide area and detonating high explosives. I repeat, what happened in the Hart Building with anthrax is nothing compared to any dirty bomb.

The Secretary said at that international gathering:

``It is our critically important job to deny terrorists the

radioactive sources they need to construct such weapons. The

threat requires a determined and comprehensive international

response. Our governments must act, individually and

collectively, to

identify all the high-risk radioactive sources that are being

used and have been abandoned.'' The Secretary told the

conference ``We are ready to assist other interested

countries to speed the needed improvements, and we want to

begin immediately.''

I am sure his heart was in the right place, but he had no ability to deliver on the statement he made to this conference.

He went on to say:

We are prepared to work with other countries to locate,

consolidate, secure, and dispose of high risk radiological

sources by developing a system of national regional

repositories to consolidate and securely store these sources.

The administration has never requested a penny for this purpose. It seems now that this supplemental appropriations bill is where we should make the Secretary's offer of assistance to the international community credible.

This bill calls for $20 million for nonproliferation assistance to nations other than the former Soviet Union. The Materials, Protection, Controls, and Accounting Agency nuclear nonproliferation programs to date have only targeted nations of the former Soviet Union. There is no money to do anything about it, to assist countries all over the world, especially in Southeast Asia--no money. Obviously, the point is made there.

We have $20 million in this bill for funds that are needed to develop the analytical capability to determine the nature and origin of a stolen nuclear weapon or captured improvised nuclear device or what happened and who did it in the event of nuclear detonation on U.S. soil.

We need research and development. If a nuclear device is found, we need to be able to determine what kind of a device it is, how it will detonate, how to defuse it. We have $20 million, a relatively small amount, the Department needs to improve material and radiochemical analysis methods, the sampling and modeling of nuclear explosion debris, and the implications of nuclear weapons design.

Our weapons labs around this country have the best scientists in the world. I have been to the weapons labs: Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos. They have the best and the brightest. But they can't do anything to help us unless they have money to do the research. That is what this will do.

In this amendment, we have $15 million for nuclear nonproliferation verification, $12 million for nonproliferation assistance to Russian strategic rocket forces. What is this amount? Certain elements of the Russian military prefer to deal with our Department of Energy rather than the Department of Defense. For example, all work by the United States to secure Russian Navy warheads has been done by DOE. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes for the first time for DOE to assist the Russian strategic rocket force ICBMs to secure its weapons. It contains funds to secure 2 of the first 10 most viable sites. Additional funds in the supplemental would start the program much earlier and increase the number of sites to be protected.

I have worked with Senator Domenici for many years, as the ranking member and chairman--going back and forth--of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. We have the responsibility to take care of our nuclear weapons. Large amounts of money are appropriated every year. We in the United States appropriate large sums of money to make sure our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. A nuclear stockpile is not like storing a car. It is not like storing canned goods. These weapons have elements that go bad, and you need to constantly review, examine these weapons to find if they are safe and reliable. The Russians know this. But they have not had the resources to help. It is in our best interest to work with them, with Nunn-Lugar and other such methods, to try to help them make their stockpile safe and reliable. Here is $12 million for additional funds that, as I have indicated, would help the ICBMs in Russia be safe and reliable.

When the war with Iraq ends and we find weapons of mass destruction in with nuclear material, we need to make sure we will have some way of disposing of them. We have provided in this bill for that. We want to make sure there is money for nuclear material detection regarding materials and devices.

Funds are also needed to help develop advanced materials that will enable the fielding of room-temperature, high-resolution, hand-held and portable radiation detection and identification equipment. Our labs can do that with the scientific community, many of which are in the private sector.

We have another problem. We need to be able to detect any nuclear explosion from proliferant countries that have very low yield. We don't have the equipment to do that. We need $10 million to do that. What we have in this amendment is a number of efforts to simply make our country safer, to make homeland security apply also to things nuclear.

I am going to offer this amendment when we get the parliamentary problem worked out. The threat of loose nukes worldwide scares me as much as anything that I am afraid of. We have to do something about it. We have not talked about it. It is like the perennial ostrich sticking his head underground so he cannot see what is going on. I see what is going on, and the Senate must see what is going on. This bill, which is extremely important--as important as anything we do for homeland security--contains $400 million, directed totally to things nuclear.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, Secretary Rumsfeld will be here at 2:30. I spoke briefly to the manager of the bill, Senator Stevens. He indicated to me he would have no problem with a recess. I checked with our leader. He said he would have no problem with it either. During this break, the two leaders will have to determine whether there is going to be a recess for Secretary Rumsfeld. I wanted to say this to alert Members that there may be a break after this vote to go listen to the Secretary.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessary absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.