Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was 12 years old when the Enola Gay went out of the Pacific. I remember that big mushroom cloud on the San Francisco Chronicle and then, for months afterward, I remember the pictures that came back from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It may well be that we are too far removed from that day to really understand the repercussions of what this bill is going to begin to allow to happen in the United States. What is going to be allowed to happen is a reopening of the door to nuclear development which has been closed for decades. This amendment would strike section 3131, and that is the repeal of the Spratt-Furse language which prohibits the development of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. This prohibition of nuclear development was adopted in the 1994 Defense authorization bill. It has been the law of the land for the last decade. The language of Spratt-Furse--I would like to read it--says that with respect to U.S. policy, ``it shall be the policy of the United States not to conduct research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a new low-yield nuclear weapon, including a precision low-yield warhead. The Secretary of Energy may not conduct or provide for the conduct of research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon which, as of the date of the enactment of this act, has not entered production.'' And then it has a section on the effect on other research and development, and it says that nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary of Energy from conducting or providing for the conduct of research and development necessary to design a testing device that has a yield of less than 5 kilotons; secondly, to modify an existing weapon for the purpose of addressing safety and reliability concerns, or, three, to address proliferation concerns. President Bush is right when he says the greatest threat facing the United States lies in the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist access to these weapons. But by adopting a new approach to national security in the wake of 9/11 that stresses unilateralism and preemption and increases U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, I am deeply concerned that this administration may actually be encouraging the very proliferation we seek to prevent. This bill, left intact, clearly opens the door to the development of new nuclear weapons and will, if left as is, begin a new era of nuclear proliferation, as sure as I am standing here. A couple of weeks ago, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright talked with the Democratic Senate Caucus and she said something interesting. She said, in all of American history, there never has been a greater change in foreign policy and national security than between this administration and the last one. Indeed, I deeply believe this bill places America at a crossroad in the conduct of foreign policy, and how we determine nuclear weapons policy will go a long way to determining whether we control nuclear proliferation or expand it. This bill will expand it. Let there be no doubt. To my mind, even considering the use of these weapons threatens to undermine our efforts to stop proliferation. In fact, it actually encourages other nations to pursue nuclear weapons by emphasizing their importance. For decades the United States relied on its nuclear arsenal for deterrence only. In the symmetric world of the Cold War, we faced the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons and a conventional military that was stronger than ours. Nuclear weapons were used to deter not only a nuclear attack on our homeland but also a conventional attack against our allies in western Europe and Asia. Today the Soviet Union is gone, but the world is not a safer place. Rather, we have seen new nuclear states emerge--India, Pakistan, and lately North Korea. As we continue to prosecute the war on terror, it should be a central tenet of U.S. policy to do everything at our disposal to make nuclear weapons less desirable, less available, and less likely to be used. This bill will do exactly the opposite. Instead of ratcheting back our reliance on nuclear weapons, this administration is looking for new ways to use nuclear weapons and to make them more usable. Does anyone in this Chamber doubt that others will follow? I do not. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review, released in January of 2002, did not focus solely on the role of nuclear weapons for deterrence. It stressed the importance of being prepared to use nuclear weapons in the future. In fact, the review noted that we must now plan to possibly use them against a wider range of countries. The Nuclear Posture Review said that we need to develop new types of nuclear weapons so we can use them in a wider variety of circumstances and against a wider range of targets such as hard and deeply buried targets or to defeat chemical or biological agents. And indeed, a few months after issuing the Nuclear Posture Review, President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 17, saying the United States might use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack. In the past, U.S. officials have only hinted at that possibility. But this administration has made it formal policy. In doing so, it has telegraphed the importance of nuclear weapons and the administration's apparent willingness to use them. In the legislation before us today, there is language requested by the administration asking Congress to repeal the Spratt-Furse provision--a decade old law that bans research on weapons with yields of 5 kilotons. Now, that is a third the size of the bomb used at Hiroshima. I believe Spratt-Furse is an important prohibition with positive security equities for the United States. Since it has been in effect, no nation has developed lower yield nuclear weapons. This administration wants to repeal Spratt-Furse for one reason, and one reason only: to build new nuclear weapons, particularly for missions against the hardened bunkers that rogue states may be using to store chemical and biological weapons. By seeking to build nuclear weapons that produce smaller explosions and develop weapons which dig deeper, the administration is suggesting we can make nuclear weapons less deadly. It is suggesting we can make them more acceptable to use. But there is no such thing as a clean nuclear weapon that minimizes collateral damage. Consider the following facts: According to a Stanford physicist, Sidney Drell, destroying a target buried 1,000 feet into rock would require a nuclear weapon with the yield of 100 kilotons. That is 10 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. According to Dr. Drell, even the effects of a small bomb would be dramatic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. According to models done by the Natural Resources Defense Council, detonating a similar weapon on the surface of a city would kill a quarter of a million people and injure hundreds of thousands more. So there really is no such thing as a ``usable nuclear weapon.'' Moreover, nuclear weapons cannot be engineered to penetrate deeply enough to prevent fallout. Based on technical analysis at the Nevada Test Site, a weapon with a 10-kiloton yield must be buried deeper than 850 feet to prevent spewing of radioactive debris. Yet a weapon dropped from a plane at 40,000 feet will penetrate less than 100 feet of loose dirt and less than 30 feet of rock. Ultimately, the depth of penetration is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest our current earth penetrators can burrow is 20 feet of dry earth. Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical forces of burrowing through 100 feet of granite, much less 850 feet. In addition, the United States already has a usable nuclear bunker buster, the B61-11, which has a ``dial-a-yield'' feature, allowing its yield to range from less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. When configured to have a 10-kiloton yield and detonated 4 feet underground, the B61-11 can produce a shock wave sufficient to crush a bunker buried beneath 350 feet of layered rock. We have the weapons to do the job. We don't need another. But the U.S. military, the strongest and most capable military force the world has ever seen, bar none, has plenty of effective conventional options at hand designed to penetrate deeply into the earth and destroy underground bunkers and storage facilities. Those conventional bunker busters range in size from 500 to 5,000 pounds, and most are equipped with either a laser or GPS guidance system. A 5,000-pound bunker buster like the Guided Bomb Unit 28/B is capable of penetrating up to 20 feet of reinforced concrete or 100 feet of earth. It was used with much success in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Other conventional bunker busters were used to take out Saddam Hussein's underground lairs in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, the U.S. military possesses a conventional bunker buster, the GBU-37, which is thought to be capable of taking out a silo-based ICBM. With this conventional arsenal at our disposal, there is little military utility that a low-yield nuclear weapon provides to the U.S. military. While I agree that nuclear weapons may have some military utility in certain circumstances, the benefit of the development of new mini-nukes appears to me to be far outweighed by the costs. But with the sought- for repeal of Spratt-Furse, the administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons--in which their purpose is not simply to serve as a deterrent but as a usable instrument of military power, like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a cruise missile. But there are several things wrong with that logic. Nuclear weapons are different. First, using them--even small ones--would cross a line that has been in place for 60 years. If the Spratt-Furse prohibition is repealed, the development of new nuclear weapons could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing in order to test the new weapons. This would overturn the 10-year moratorium on nuclear testing and could lead other nuclear powers, and nuclear aspirants, to resume or start testing, actions that would fundamentally alter future nonproliferation and counterproliferation efforts. I understand Secretary of State Powell has written a letter supporting this, and I must express my profound disappointment. I must restate something he said last year on ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.'' I quote Secretary Powell: I mean, the thought of nuclear conflict in 2002, with what that would mean with respect to loss of life, what that would mean to the condemnation--the worldwide condemnation--that would come down on whatever nation chose to take that course of action, would be such that I can see very little military, political, or other kind of justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in this day and age may serve some deterrent effect, and so be it; but to think of using them as just another weapon in what might start out as a conventional conflict in this day and age seems to me something that no side should be contemplating. This was 1 year ago. What has changed, Mr. President? Why would we open the door to nuclear development at the very time we are trying to say to North Korea this is unacceptable, at the very time we are worried as to whether Pakistan can securitize its nuclear weapons, and whether there may be a nuclear holocaust between Pakistan and India? I have never been more concerned about where this Nation is going than I am today. Let me give another example. China has a no-first-use nuclear policy. Their warheads have been stable at between 18 and 24 ICBMs. Yet we have a policy document, the Nuclear Posture Review, that says we would countenance a first use of nuclear weapons against China if they were to use military action against Taiwan, and we said the same thing about North Korea going into South Korea. This is in writing. Does no one think anybody reads these things? Does no one believe that we do not set the tenor of the world with respect to weapons? We are the largest weapons seller on Earth, and I do not want to see us develop more nuclear weapons, nor do I believe the American people want to see it either. This bill allows that to happen. I do not believe this side of the aisle can sit by and let it happen to our children and our grandchildren. Tactical nuclear weapons in the most sophisticated military in the world should play no part. I cannot think of a single issue that should more define the political agenda today than whether the United States should go back into the nuclear business again, and repeal of Spratt-Furse is the first step in that direction. In the Energy Committee, I suspected this was coming, and I asked Secretary Abraham: Are there any plans? He said no. Last Wednesday, in Defense Appropriations, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld what is going on. He said: Oh, it is just a study. Just a study, baloney. Does anyone really believe that? The repeal of Spratt-Furse opens the door for America to begin to develop nuclear weapons again, and I for one do not believe we should sit by and see that happen. We are telling others not to develop nuclear weapons. We are telling others not to sell fissile materials. We are concerned when North Korea has plutonium and uranium and Iran begins to start up refining uranium. Yet it is all right for us to go out and begin to develop weapons that are one-third the size of the weapon that hit Hiroshima and killed instantly 175,000 people? I do not think so. And I do not believe that is what the American people stand for either. This is a big vote. This is a vote that opens the door. How we can repeal language that says to all the world the United States is not in the nuclear development business, I do not know, but I find it absolutely chilling and even diabolical, particularly when we preach to other nations. At a time when we brand as evil certain countries based in part on their pursuit of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction, we must be careful how we consider our own options and our own contingencies regarding nuclear weapons. So I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about the implications this defense bill is going to carry throughout the world. The 10-year old prohibition on study, on testing, and on developing nuclear weapons is going to be thrown out the window, and it is a major signal that the United States is going to get back into the nuclear arms business. I urge this Senate to join Senator Kennedy and I in support of this amendment. I yield time to Senator Kennedy, as much time as he requires.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Biden as a cosponsor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank all of those who have come to the floor to speak. I think this is a very important debate because I think we are at a crossroad. Clearly, this Defense authorization bill, when coupled with the repeal of the Spratt-Furse amendment, opens the door to new nuclear development. In my tenure in the Senate, in either a classified or unclassified session, I have never had any information provided that this is necessary or that there is a military requirement to do so. One of the reasons this should not be repealed is, when it is combined with other provisions in the Defense authorization bill, one can really see where this is going. For example, this bill authorizes $15 million for the study of the robust nuclear earth penetrator. It authorizes $6 million for advanced nuclear weapons concepts. Then if we look at page 448 of the report, we see that the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and thereafter maintain a readiness posture of 18 months for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests. This moves up a 3-year period to 18 months. So if we combine all of these, it is very clear to me that where this country is going is toward the resumption of nuclear development. I wish to rebut a couple of arguments. It was said that we need capabilities for any possible contingency, and I could not agree more. But if we read Spratt-Furse, it allows research but it disallows development and production. In other words, it allows research on existing systems; it does not allow research on new systems. Consequently, if Spratt-Furse is repealed, what automatically is being said is that we begin study, research, and testing on new systems. If research is promising and there is a military need, the administration can come back and ask for specific authorization. As I said, there is no specific military requirement for these weapons that we know about. It has also been said today that developing low-yield weapons is important to preserve U.S. credibility in determining threats. In fact, we already have over 6,000 nuclear weapons in our stockpile, and we already have a warhead that can be dialed down to 1 kiloton or less. So what is the need to go to 5 kilotons of new development? We do not know because it has never been presented to us. We also have an overwhelming conventional military advantage over any other country. We have conventional bombs that range in size from 500 to 5,000 pounds. A 5,000-pound bunker buster, like the guided bomb unit 28B, is capable of penetrating up to 20 feet of reinforced concrete or 100 feet of earth. This was used with success in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. To my knowledge, we have never been told that this is inadequate or that there is no other way, other than a nuclear way, to get at a deep bunker; we have never been told that our intelligence does not work or you cannot plug an air hole or you cannot use a number of conventional bunker busters to achieve a similar result. We have been told that repealing Spratt-Furse will not affect proliferation because others will seek nuclear weapons anyway. Well, our standing in the world, I have thought, really rests on our moral case, our sense of justice, our sense of equity, our freedom. In fact, since 1992, the United States has not developed new weapons and others have followed suit. Russia has not tested since then and has not developed new weapons. China stopped testing. India and Pakistan have not tested for 5 years and are not currently developing new weapons. But we can be sure, when it is learned that the United States is going to go ahead with new studies, new feasibility tests on up to 5-kiloton new nuclear warheads, that others will follow suit. I believe U.S. restraint is, in fact, an important element of our nonproliferation effort. This is a very big vote that is before us right now because the only reason to repeal Spratt-Furse is to signal that we are, in fact, going to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. This is a horrible mistake. I think it is a mistake morally. I think it is a mistake militarily. I do not know a commander who would want to send his troops onto a battlefield where a 5-kiloton nuclear weapons device had been utilized. So why are we doing this? It makes no sense to me. I hope this body would vote against it. I leave with one point. A 1-kiloton weapon detonated at a depth of 20 to 50 feet would inject more than 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris and form a crater about the size of ground zero in New York. If we fail to repeal the repeal, we will allow research to go ahead to develop up to five times that when we have conventional weapons that can do the job as well. I have very strong feelings on this subject. I thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, and all Members who have come to the floor to speak in support of our amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed from Rhode Island be added as a cosponsor, Senator Durbin of Illinois, I believe Senator Dayton already is, and Senator Bingaman, as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. At the end. If it is a unanimous consent agreement, I don't want to be cut off.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Greg Brown, be granted the privilege of the floor for the debate on the Defense bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and pay tribute to Mike Jendrzejczyk, a tireless and dedicated champion of human rights who passed away earlier this month. A gaping hole has been left with his passing, but his life and commitment to fundamental values we all cherish will continue to inspire and motivate us all. As the Washington director for the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch for 13 years, Mike became an institution in this city and a leader in his field. Few human rights issues in Asia escaped his attention and few of his colleagues could surpass his knowledge and level of expertise. As Human Rights Watch noted, ``There's no one in D.C. who didn't know him, and no one in military fatigues in Asia who didn't have a reason to fear him.'' From Burma and Indonesia, to Vietnam and North Korea, Mike spoke up for those who could not speak for themselves. He shined a light on human rights abuses and made it his mission to see that justice was done. Time and time again he called on the United States to live up to the values that made this country great and be the leader for human rights that the world so desperately needed. Recently, my office had worked with Mike on the need to bring safety and stability to the people of Afghanistan, particularly women and girls. We have lost a partner in that endeavor, but we have not lost the example he set, and I know his memory will push us to work even harder in the days and weeks ahead. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Janet and his colleagues and friends at Human Rights Watch. Mike Jendrzejczyk will be sorely missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 1 minute to Senator Durbin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today with Senators Leahy, Clinton, Durbin, Jeffords, Harkin, Lautenberg, Reid, Schumer, Corzine, Boxer, Feingold, and Biden to offer an amendment to strike the earmark included in the bill which mandates that 33 percent of all prevention funds must be used exclusively for abstinence before marriage programs. I deeply believe this bill has one major flaw. I appreciate the bill, and I know the effort that went into it. It is a big step forward. But when it comes to AIDS, prevention is the name of the game. Over one-half of the AIDS cases that are expected between today and 2010 can be prevented. The World Health Organization says of the 45 million new HIV cases anticipated, 29 million could be averted with effective prevention. I was mayor of San Francisco when AIDS was discovered. We had one of the first AIDS program in the country. I spent 9 years of my life as Mayor developing AIDS prevention programs, seeing what worked and what did not work. What I found was that there has to be flexibility. What works for one group of people or community might not necessarily work for another. I believe one of the major flaws of this bill is the earmark which would require that 33 percent of the prevention funds--that is $1 billion over 5 years or $200 million a year--must be spent exclusively on abstinence before marriage programs. Abstinence will not work for everyone. We offer this amendment not because we are opposed to abstinence programs or do not want to see them funded. Rather, there are many additional approaches that are also effective and we believe it is critical that there be the necessary flexibility for a particular community or country to design a prevention program that best meets the needs of its people. I deeply believe that when we look at prevention, we have to consider a number of programs. Let me give a few examples of prevention programs that should be funded under this bill: Voluntary counseling and testing. This is an important component to stop the spread of the virus. Access to testing is important to ensure that one knows they are infected. Often, the disease is spread from husband to wife because he does not even know he is HIV positive. So testing is prevention. Another form of prevention is stopping the spread of HIV from mother- to-child. Nevirapine is effective in preventing the transmission of HIV from a mother to her child. Studies have shown that combining drug therapy with counseling and instruction on use of such drugs can reduce transmission by 50 percent. Blood safety is also an important preventive measure. While the U.S. has taken the necessary steps to nearly eliminate the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion, many countries lack resources and infrastructure to take similar action including the creation of a national blood supply, use of low-risk blood donors, screening of blood donations, and reducing the number of unnecessary transfusions. Sexually transmitted disease control is another prevention tool. Left unchecked, sexually transmitted diseases can expand the risk of HIV/ AIDS two to five times. Lastly, empowering women is an important component to prevention. In Africa, women account for 58 percent of HIV/AIDS cases, and the number is rising. This means that providing women around the world with health and educational opportunities, equal rights before the law, protection from sexual violence and sexual trafficking, can help them take control of their lives and help reduce the spread of HIV. It is unrealistic to think that sexual abstinence is the most appropriate prevention strategy in every community. There has been research conducted in our own society on how an abstinence only approach fails to reach everyone. Therefore, I fail to understand then how this approach will work in the developing world. I deeply believe that the 33 percent earmark is the wrong approach to take with this bill. The amendment we have submitted would replace that 33 percent earmark with language that would give local communities the flexibility necessary to design prevention programs that work for them. It includes abstinence. It includes faithfulness. It would also include the use of condoms for sexually active people. I believe our amendment is simple and straight forward. Let local communities, working in conjunction with the USAID and others, develop prevention programs that work for them. Congress should be passing legislation that simply gives local communities and health care providers the necessary resources to implement programs that are effective given their unique cultural, social, and medical circumstances. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining balance of the time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, this is a very important issue to virtually every urban community. For California, the cuts to Medicaid DSH payments means a loss of over $184 million a year. At Fresno Valley Hospital alone this cut is worth $6 million a year. We have had a number of our hospitals close, due in part to cuts to disproportionate share payments. I want to particularly thank the Senator from Massachusetts, and the manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, and the ranking member for their commitment to take this matter up on the Medicare bill. I look forward to working with them to fix this important program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much respect the Senator from Ohio. He has been both a distinguished mayor and a distinguished Governor of his State. I hate to disagree with him, but in this case I find the ethanol mandate in this bill to be egregious, to be wrongheaded, to be just terrible public policy. I will go through my concerns about this mandate point by point, and then I will end by offering a second-degree amendment. My first concern is this: Only 2.1 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2002. The ethanol mandate before us requires 5 billion gallons by 2012. This fuel additive is not necessary to make clean-burning gasoline. Yet it is mandated into our fuel supply. Under the credit trading provisions of the ethanol mandate, States are going to be forced to pay for ethanol whether they use it or not. Let me repeat that. Under the credit trading provisions in this bill, States are going to be forced to pay for it, whether they use it or not. Secondly, this is going to drive up the price of gasoline. It can only do so. The Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Trade Commission have advised President Bush that the ethanol mandate is: Costly to both consumers and the Government and will provide little environmental benefit. So this provision will force up prices. California's costs are already high. I just paid $50 for a tank of gasoline when I was home in California. Wait until this bill goes into operation. Ninety-nine percent of all ethanol production is based in the Midwest. States outside the Corn Belt have severe infrastructure and ethanol supply problems. This, too, means higher gas prices. Finally, we have a dangerously high market concentration in this bill. The ethanol industry today is highly concentrated, with the largest supplier, Archer Daniels Midland, controlling 46 percent of the market, and the top seven firms controlling 71 percent of the market. That is according to the GAO. ADM admitted to price fixing in 1996. Its executives went to jail. Last year, ADM purchased its largest competitor, Minnesota Corn Processers, which controlled 5 percent of the ethanol market. I believe we are taking a great risk by allowing one firm to control such a large percentage of the ethanol market, and this shows it: 46 percent, ADM; Williams Bio-Energy, 6 percent; Cargill, 5 percent; High Plains Corporation, 4 percent; New Energy Corporation, 4 percent; Midwest Grain, 3 percent; Chief Ethanol, 3 percent. These are the top seven ethanol producers in the United States. So you have a huge market concentration by a company that pled guilty to price fixing. It makes me, a Californian, very uneasy about what the future may bring under current law. Gasoline is taxed by the Federal Government at 18.4 cents per gallon. Yet gasoline blended with ethanol is only taxed at 13.1 cents per gallon. The other 5.3 cents per gallon is credited to ethanol producers instead of funding the highway trust fund. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the past 20 years, this ethanol subsidy has cost the highway trust fund over $11 billion in foregone income. Under the proposal in the Energy Tax Bill, these ethanol subsidies will be paid not from the highway trust fund, as was before us last year, but from the general fund, at the expense of taxpayers. So instead of spending money for education or Cops on the Beat, or parks, we are funding ethanol with billions in subsidies. It makes no sense to me. The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the ethanol mandate will cost approximately $7 billion. This means $7 billion is diverted away from either the highway trust fund or the general fund, which means either we will have fewer jobs and roads or taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. As I said, this future $7 billion loss is on top of the $11 billion in gas tax revenue that has already been lost by giving ethanol a partial exemption from the fuel tax. My sixth reason is that ethanol has mixed environmental and health results. Evidence suggests that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide air pollution. However, evidence also suggests that mandating more ethanol will produce more smog in the summer months because ethanol produces nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Studies also show ethanol accelerates the ability of toxic gasoline additives, such as benzene, to break apart and seep into the ground water. Recently, the EPA disclosed that ethanol plants are emitting many more dangerous toxins than previously thought. I do not believe we should mandate so much use of something we know so little about. One other thing on the benzene plumes, once they break away, they actually spread faster in water and soil than MTBE plumes. We know benzene is carcinogenic. My seventh reason is that there is unprecedented liability protection. A safe harbor provision in the ethanol mandate will prevent legal redress if ethanol and other fuel additives harm the environment or public health. How will communities afford cleanup costs if there is liability protection for ethanol? I find this really egregious. This reduces carbon monoxide but it increases nitrous oxide. The benzene plumes will break away. They spread more rapidly than MTBE. They can pollute our ground water but there is no remedy. There is no liability. They are liability-free. One of the reasons you now have the large oil companies going along with this bill is because they have liability protection. So we are mandating something we do not know all of the results of in huge amounts, that are unnecessary in the first place, that may have adverse consequences, and then we are saying to the consumer, sorry, the damage is your problem, you cannot even go to court to get redress in the form of damages. What a sweetheart bill. My goodness, people should be embarrassed. Ethanol already has a high tariff to keep imports out. If there is an ethanol shortage in the United States, States will not be able to import ethanol from countries abroad because of a high 54-cent-per- gallon tariff on foreign ethanol. So what are they doing? They already have a high tariff on foreign ethanol. Now we are mandating 5 billion gallons? That is egregious. It is wrong public policy. My ninth reason is an ethanol mandate will strain the fuel supply. Using ethanol will constrict the overall gasoline supply because mixing MTBE with gasoline produces more fuel than mixing gasoline with ethanol. Consequently, in a State such as California where you have no extra refinery availability, you have to produce more than you did with MTBE because of the properties of ethanol which take more gasoline. That is going to be a real problem and that, too, will force up prices. Tenth, ethanol is not a renewable fuel. According to many scientists and experts, including Cornell Professor David Pimentel, it takes more energy to make ethanol than we save by using it. So we can hardly call ethanol a renewable fuel. Eleven, the ethanol mandate will largely benefit producers, not farmers. Ethanol subsidies pay more money to ethanol producers like ADM than farmers. Twelve, the bottom line, this is a very bad deal. The ethanol mandate reflects a deal worked out behind closed doors, between ethanol lobbyists and oil interests that is going to harm consumers. Mandating 5 billion gallons by 2012 is terrible public policy. Since there are high costs for States like California to comply with any mandated Federal fuel requirement, these costs will only be passed on to drivers at the pump. The ethanol mandate, as I have said, will drive up the price of gasoline. Instead of imposing a new mandate on our fuel supply, we should be lifting the one that already exists. On July 29, 1999, the nonpartisan broad-based U.S. EPA blue ribbon panel on oxygenates and gasoline recommended that the 2 percent oxygenate requirement be removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits. It is long past the time for Congress to act on that. Instead of mandating ethanol into our fuel supply, we should be lifting all mandates or at least allow States a choice. We need to provide flexibility to refiners to allow them to optimize how and what they blend instead of forcing them to blend gasoline with MTBE or ethanol. California has long sought a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have written and called former EPA Administrator Browner and the current Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, both former President Clinton and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver for the State. Yet both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have denied California's request. I know during the Clinton years an affirmative finding came from EPA to the White House. I also know that Members of both parties went to the White House to stop it from happening. I believe EPA would have no objection. In the campaign, when I heard both Al Gore and George Bush say: We are for ethanol--I thought, oh boy, here it comes. And here it is today. MTBE, methyl tertiary butyl ether, has been the oxygenate of choice by main refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline requirements. Governor Davis of California has ordered a phaseout of MTBE in our State by the end of this year while the Federal law requiring 2 percent oxygenate remains, putting our State in an untenable position. This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the 2 percent requirement is ethanol, but it is tremendously costly to blend ethanol from the Midwest into the specially formulated California gasoline. Without eliminating these mandates, we can expect disruptions and price spikes during the peak driving months of this summer on top of the high prices motorists are already paying. Just remember, you heard it here. California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the predictive model which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent oxygenates and with no oxygenates. As Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in March before the Energy Committee: Refiners have been saying for years that they can produce gasoline meeting clean-burning fuels and federal reformulated gasoline requirements without the use of oxygenates. . . . In addition, reformulated blendstocks--the base into which oxygenates are added--typically meet RFG requirements before oxygenates are added. So they are not necessary. These facts demonstrate oxygenates are not necessary. I believe it is egregious to require this Nation to use more ethanol than we need in our fuel supply. Mandating 5 billion gallons into our fuel supply is terrible public policy. This amounts to a wealth transfer of billions of dollars from every State in the Nation to a handful of ethanol producers. It is families and businesses who will pay the higher costs that result from increased gas prices. This sweeping policy will have long-term repercussions in our environment, on our health, our fuel supply, and the price of gasoline. Since ethanol production is subsidized by the Government with a credit from the Federal motor fuels tax, $1 for ethanol firms like ADM means $1 less to improve our Nation's roads and bridges. The Congressional Research Service has indicated the ethanol mandate in this energy bill will divert $7 billion away from the highway trust fund. If the energy tax bill is passed into law, this money will no longer come from the highway trust fund. It will come from the general fund. As I said, it will be paid for by taxpayers. This future $7 billion payout is on top of the $11 billion in gas tax revenue that has already been lost by giving ethanol a partial exemption from the fuel tax. Ethanol is a subsidized product. It is protected from foreign competition by high trade barriers. And now we are going to mandate a market for it. This is unconscionable. Forcing States to use ethanol we do not need, and forcing States to pay for ethanol we do not use amounts to a transfer of wealth from all States to Midwest corn States. Under the credit trading provisions in this bill, if we do not use ethanol, we still have to pay for it. Proponents of the ethanol mandate argue that gas price increases will be minimal, but the projections do not take into consideration the real-world infrastructure constraints and concentration in the market that can lead to price spikes. I believe everyone outside of the Midwest will have to grapple with how to bring ethanol to their States since the Midwest controls 99 percent of the production. California has done more analysis than any other State on what it will take to get ethanol to the State. The bottom line is that it cannot happen without raising gasoline prices. I am particularly concerned, as I pointed out, about the limited number of suppliers in the ethanol market. This leaves consumers vulnerable to price spikes as it did when electricity and natural gas prices soared in the West because a few out-of-State generating firms dominated the market. If we have learned anything from the recent western energy crisis, it is that when there is not ample supply and adequate competition in the market, prices soar and consumers pay. I also mention that Archer Daniels Midland is the dominant producer in the highly concentrated ethanol market. It has purchased its largest competitor. It controls 46 percent of the market, and that is only what is now produced. The company has an even greater control over how ethanol is distributed and marketed. I am also concerned about the long-term effects of mandating such a large amount of ethanol in our gasoline supply. I mentioned the health effects about which we do not know much. I mentioned the environmental effects. The scientific evidence is mixed. I believe it is bad public policy to mandate this amount before scientific and health experts can fully investigate the impact of ethanol on the air we breathe and the water we drink. We made this mistake with MTBE and now we have learned that MTBE may well be a human carcinogen. Ethanol is often made out to be an ideal renewable fuel, giving off fewer emissions. Yet, on balance, ethanol can be a cause of more air pollution because it produces smog in the summer months. Smog is a powerful respiratory irritant that affects large segments of the population, and it has an especially pernicious effect on the elderly, on children, and individuals with existing respiratory problems, as I mentioned, such as asthma. Earlier this month, the American Lung Association named California the smoggiest State, by listing nine counties and six metropolitan areas as having the worst conditions. A 1999 report from the National Academy of Sciences found: The use of commonly available oxygenates [like ethanol] in reformulated gasoline has little impact on improving ozone air quality and has some disadvantages. Moreover, some data suggest that oxygenates can lead to higher Nitrogen Oxide emissions. Nitrogen oxides, as we have said, cause smog. The American Lung Association report also noted that half of Americans are living in counties with unhealthy smog levels. Why would we want to take the chance of increasing these unhealthy smog levels by mandating billions of unnecessary gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply? Ethanol can be both good and bad for air quality. To me, it would make sense to maximize the advantages of ethanol while minimizing the disadvantages. This is exactly why States should have flexibility to decide what goes into their gasoline in order to meet clean air standards. All we should care about is if the clean air standards are met. Let the States have the flexibility. If we are mandating, why exempt manufacturers and refiners from their legal responsibility to provide a safe product? Evidence also suggests that ethanol accelerates the ability of toxins found in gasoline to seep into our ground water supplies. The EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates found ethanol: . . . may retard biodegradation and increase movement of benzene and other hydrocarbons around leaking tanks. According to a report by the State of California entitled ``Health and Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel Oxygenate,'' there are valid questions about the impact of ethanol on ground and surface water. An analysis in the report found that there will be a 20-percent increase in public drinking water wells contaminated with benzene if a significant amount of ethanol is used. Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and we are giving them liability protection. At a hearing held on the House side last year, Professor Gordon Rausser of UC Berkeley commented on the potential harm of ethanol in the ground water. Professor Rausser testified: When gasoline that contains ethanol is released into ground water, the resulting benzene plumes can be longer and more persistent than plumes resulting from releases of conventional gasoline. Research suggests that the presence of ethanol in gasoline will delay the degradation of benzene and will lengthen the benzene plumes by between 25 percent and 100 percent. This evidence on the potential harm of ethanol is extraordinarily troubling. For these reasons, I cannot support the amendment offered by the majority leader. I would like to offer a second-degree amendment that would require the Governor of a State to opt into the ethanol mandate. If the ethanol mandate is such a great mandate, then Governors should want to include their States in it. Why are we forcing them to do it? Everybody who comes down here for ethanol says it is the best thing since sliced bread. If it is so good, let that case be made to the Governors of States and let them opt into the program. The Senators from Alaska and Hawaii have worked it out so that their States are exempted from this mandate. I believe each and every State should have this choice, so I am sending an amendment to the desk at this time that would do the same thing that Alaska and Hawaii have achieved. The Governor is able to opt into the mandate. If this is so wonderful, Governors will opt in. If it is not, Governors will not. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask the floor leader, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, what is his pleasure? I understand there are no votes today. Shall I ask the amendment be set aside?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Earlier this morning I sent to the desk my amendment numbered 542. There is no unanimous consent agreement. I withdraw that amendment at this time because it is scheduled for a vote at 7:30 tonight and Members are not yet returned from the codel. Therefore, they would have no advance warning of the amendment. I will do it at another time. Therefore, I withdraw amendment No. 542.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to take a few minutes today to discuss the state of the American economy and discuss why I believe new tax cuts are the wrong economic medicine right now. I was one of the 12 Democrats who voted for a major tax cut in March of 2001. And I want to just bring to everybody's attention what the situation was then. In March 2001 we were in our third year of surplus in the budget. We were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. So it seemed an appropriate time to return some of that surplus to taxpayers, just as a business would do when that business was doing well. That is when a business would consider dividends for its investors or bonuses for its employees. That was 7 months before 9/11. Today we face cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 years. And that is the conservative estimate. Goldman Sachs estimates it at double that. We also face huge long-term shortfalls in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Since late last year, the administration has been pushing for a second large tax cut, some $726 billion in tax breaks that would actually provide little upfront stimulus. The centerpiece of the President's proposal is a plan to eliminate taxes on corporate dividends. Half of the benefits of that plan would be realized by taxpayers earning over $200,000 a year, and the plan would do nothing for the millions of Americans who hold stocks only through retirement plans that are already tax advantaged. At the same time, my State, California, would lose over $20 billion over the next 10 years as a result of lower direct tax revenue and higher interest rates on municipal bonds. State budgets cannot afford to lose these costs, and neither can the Federal budget. The budget report which recently passed Congress locks us into deficits for the next 10 years, totaling some $2 trillion over that period. In his State of the Union Message, the President stated: We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. I cannot agree with that sentiment more, but that is not what has happened. Exactly the opposite has happened. Whether the tax cut ends up at $150 billion or $350 billion or $550 billion, it will all be financed by deficit spending. Every dollar in new tax cuts that passes this Chamber is a dollar we cannot afford to spend. We will not pay for it now, but our children are going to pay for it later. Our current deficit is projected to be $347 billion this year, although many estimate the number will more likely be closer to $400 billion by the end of the fiscal year. And it is estimated to be $385 billion next year. These estimates do not include additional costs of rebuilding Iraq or new legislation not included in the President's budget. The deficits now projected are neither small nor are they short term. Rather, they are the largest in history. The only way that the budget resolution which came out of conference committee achieves balance is by expecting unrealistic cuts to discretionary spending after 2008. To put some perspective on the size of the deficits expected this year, it is useful to compare it to nondefense discretionary spending. This year we are projected to spend $385 billion for everything outside of entitlement programs and defense. That includes funding for education, law enforcement, transportation, environmental protection, and hundreds of other uses. If the Federal Government were required to balance its budget each year, as do 49 of our 50 States, it could cut nondefense discretionary spending by 90 percent--by 90 percent--and only just manage to reach balance. Imagine the impact that would have on Government services that we rely on every day. Let me explain that further. If you look at a pie chart for the year 2003, 64 percent of all of the expenditures, the outlays this year, is for interest on the debt and entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and welfare. If you are entitled to them, you get them. They cannot be cut in the budget process. So 64 percent of all of the expenditures cannot be controlled. Defense is 17 percent, and nondiscretionary--every other department--is 19 percent. That is why you could cut 90 percent of that 19 percent, and you can't really bring the budget into balance because of these other items in the expenditure area. The only reason the Federal Government is not facing cuts in service is because it can take on new debt to cover the shortfall in tax revenue. When the occupant of the chair was mayor of a great city and I was mayor of a great city, we couldn't do this. We had to balance our budgets. The Federal Government can do this. Should the President's proposed tax cuts be adopted in their entirety, our public debt would nearly double over the next 10 years, from $6.7 trillion today to $12 trillion in 2013. Later this month, the Senate will take up a bill to increase the Federal debt ceiling by almost $1 trillion--$984 billion, to be precise. That is the largest increase in our Nation's history. That increase represents $3,400 in new debt for every American citizen, whether they pay taxes or not. That increase is shocking, but the unfortunate truth is that the $1 trillion in new debt Congress is set to authorize will cost Americans much more than $3,400 each because interest in our debt drives up interest rates, because there is a limited appetite for debt at home and abroad, and investors must be given incentives to take on new debt in the form of higher interest rates. Those interest rates are not just paid by the Government; they are also paid by homeowners who take out a mortgage. Look at the low mortgage rates today and what they are worth to an individual. William Gale, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, predicts that interest rates could rise by as much as four-tenths of a percent due to the effects of the President's proposal. What does that do to the average citizen? I will tell you. An increase of that magnitude would add $800 to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage in the first year alone. It would increase costs by thousands of dollars more over the life of the mortgage. I have always believed for many Americans low interest rates are much more worthwhile than a tax cut that they may only see slightly. But when they refinance their house, they see it big time, or when they are able to draw out from the accrued equity of the house. So interest rates not only affect homeowners, but they also affect businesses seeking to make new capital investments in the cost of money they borrow. The effect is to crowd out private investment and stifle economic growth. Let's talk for a moment about the 2001 tax cut that I voted for, that 12 of us on my side of the aisle voted for, when times were good, before 9/11, with a $5.6 trillion surplus and a surplus in our budget 3 years in a row. At the same time that the administration pushes for new tax relief, it does little to acknowledge that tax relief already scheduled to occur is, in fact, taking place. I don't understand. If I were President of the United States, I would be out on the hustings saying: The Congress, in 2001, gave you tax relief, Mr. and Mrs. America, and this is what it looks like: In 2001, $41 billion was paid out to taxpayers. In 2002, $71 billion was paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. In 2003, $90 billion is going to be paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. That totals, Mr. and Mrs. America, $202 billion that you have already or are getting from the 2001 tax cut. And next year, 2004, you will get another $100 billion. That totals over $300 billion being paid out in tax cuts today from the 2001 tax cut. Why, in our current fiscal circumstances, should we add on such a large amount of tax relief when that relief is now beginning to take effect from the 2001 tax cut? Next year, which is the earliest a new tax cut could reasonably take effect, we are already scheduled to see a 1-percent drop in marginal income tax rates, an increase in the individual estate tax exemption from $1 million to $1.5 million, and relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. So these things are happening as a product of our 2001 tax cut. Why doesn't the President speak about them? That would reassure the American public, I believe. Today I have heard two primary arguments in favor of this tax cut. I have found neither argument to be logical or persuasive. The first argument is that the tax cut will be stimulative. In fact, we know it will have little or no stimulative impact as it is currently structured. Let me mention a few of the reasons why. Less than 20 percent of the tax cut can take effect within a year. Less than 20 percent of it can take effect within the next year. Economists agree that in order for tax cuts to be stimulative, they must be front loaded, and they must be large enough to make a meaningful impact. The President's package fulfills neither requirement because its benefits largely accrue in the outyears. They would amount to a stimulus of less than 1 percent of GDP over the next 12 months. A dynamic analysis of the effect of the package on the economy predicts it will generate little or no economic growth. The newly appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holz-Eakin, recently conducted CBO's first foray into dynamic scoring. Dynamic scoring is a method of economic analysis that looks at the ripple effects of tax and spending bills on economic growth beyond their direct cost or benefit. The results of the CBO study were eye opening. The President's tax cut proposal was projected to have little or no impact on economic growth and could actually reduce growth in the later years. The administration's own economic team released data indicating that over the long term, the plan creates few new jobs. The tax cuts included in the plan provide very little bang for the buck. The second argument in favor of the President's tax cut is that without the threat of large budget deficits, Congress will never act to rein in spending. Therefore, large budget deficits are actually a tool of responsible government. To me, this argument boggles the mind. Far from reining in spending, large deficits will actually increase spending by sending interest costs on our debt skyrocketing. Discretionary spending over the past several years has, in fact, been held tightly in check, and nearly all new discretionary spending is allocated to defense and homeland security. Mr. President, the only way I believe we can return to the path of long-term growth is by balancing our budget and by proving our ability to act as long-term stewards of our economy. Right now, the biggest drags on this economy are uncertainty and distrust. Corporate leaders remain uncertain about geopolitical developments, such as the war against Iraq, North Korea, India/Pakistan, and what might happen next, and the risk of domestic terrorism. They are holding off investments until those concerns abate. Consumers share similar concerns and fear the loss of jobs or further deterioration in their retirement savings. Remember, large companies have crashed--Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossings--and with them went retirement benefits. People have fear, and fear has entered the marketplace. At the same time, small investors show little inclination to get back into the stock market as corporate scandals continue. So I believe the appropriate medicine for this uncertainty and distrust is strong regulatory action by agents such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Accounting Oversight Board, to increase accounting transparency and to stop corporate criminal behavior before it begins. In the Senate, I have tried to push for corporate accountability in the energy sector. God knows it is necessary, and I hope to introduce an amendment on the energy bill. The return of investor confidence will have a positive impact on our markets and our economy. Coupled with strong congressional leadership committed to keeping our budget in balance, I believe we can quickly return to healthy rates of economic growth. What will not work, however, is further deficit spending for tax cuts we cannot afford. When I last voted for a tax cut in March of 2001, we were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. Our economic outlook at that point could not be more different than our current circumstances. Now we face cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 years, if interest costs are included. Those are unified deficits and do not reflect the one-time boost we are getting from surpluses in the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. If those surpluses were not included, our deficits over 10 years would add up to over $3 trillion. Unfortunatey, Congress cannot ensure an immediate return to economic growth. What we can do, however, is prove to those Americans who contribute to the economy that Congress can properly manage the government's finances. Yet our current course is taking us in the opposite direction. I urge my colleagues to oppose any new tax cuts, no matter what the size, and focus on laying the groundwork for a return to long-term economic growth. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hutchison for her work on the Air Cargo Security Act. Last year this bill passed the Senate and I look forward to passing this legislation again today. Hopefully the House will take up this legislation promptly and send it to the President's desk. Earlier this year Senator Hutchison and I released a report from the General Accounting Office that demonstrates why the Congress and the Transportation Security Administration must--together--move quickly to shore up our vulnerabilities to protect against another terrorist attack. I strongly believe that we must increase our defenses across the board to anticipate the next attack, not just correct the vulnerabilities that were already exploited by terrorists on September 11. After September 11, Congress moved quickly to federalize the airport security screening workforce to prevent more hijackings, but we have not done enough to increase our air cargo security. The General Accounting Office report shows that Congress must require the TSA to develop a strategic plan to screen and inspect air cargo to protect our Nation's air transportation system. According to this report, our air cargo system remains vulnerable to a terrorist attack because: First, there aren't enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the ``known shipper'' program has taken the proper steps to protect against use by terrorists; Second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where cargo transfers from company to company; Third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks, and they do not always have their identification verified; Fourth, and most importantly, most cargo shipped by air is never screened. To address these problems, the GAO recommends that the Transportation Security Administration develop a comprehensive plan for improving air cargo security. The air cargo legislation we are passing today, directs the TSA to: Develop a strategic plan to ensure the security of all air cargo; establish an industry-wide pilot program database of known shippers; set up a training program for handlers to learn how to safeguard cargo from tampering; and inspect air cargo shipping facilities on a regular basis. The Aviation Security Act Congress passed after September 11 required the Transportation Security Administration to screen and inspect air cargo ``as soon as practicable.'' The GAO report shows we cannot wait any longer. The time is now for the Senate to again take up this legislation, again pass this legislation, and for the TSA to prevent terrorists from tampering with the cargo loaded into the underbelly of our airplanes. The General Accounting Office recommends that the Under Secretary for Transportation develop a comprehensive plan for air cargo security that includes priority actions identified on the basis of risk, costs, deadlines for completing those actions, and performance targets. The TSA has a great deal of options at its disposal. The TSA could: Screen air cargo for explosives; secure cargo with high-tech seals; control access to holding areas containing cargo; use cargo tracking systems; install more cameras in cargo areas at airports; use blast resistant containers; have more bomb-sniffing dogs; put cargo in decompression chambers before loading it onto an aircraft; require the identity of people making air cargo deliveries to be checked; establish an industrywide computer profiling system; require criminal background checks for employees at freight forwarders and consolidators; and require third party inspections. We do not expect the TSA to X-ray and scan all cargo for explosives because shippers and carriers would be able to process only 4 percent of cargo received daily, which would severely disrupt the air cargo industry. However, the Federal Government can deploy a combination of the techniques I have listed to implement a comprehensive security plan for air cargo. Since one half of the hull of each passenger aircraft is typically filled with cargo and 22 percent of all cargo transported by plane is loaded on passenger flights, I believe air cargo security is just as important as passenger security. In fact, you cannot keep passengers safe without stronger air cargo security. Each time there is a major jet crash or bombing, we reexamine our aviation security. I hope it will not take another accident or attack for us to finally pass this legislation into law. I thank Senator Hutchison, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings for their leadership on this issue of transportation security, and I look forward to this bill being signed into law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 537.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield as much time as the Senator requires.