Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments and add my own. Last November, the Office of Management and Budget proposed the most sweeping changes to the rules on outsourcing of Government work since the last 1950s. Now, the administration wants to use the proposal to privatize at least 225,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs over the next several years. The proposed changes have received strong criticism from the General Accounting Office, GAO, executive branch agencies, and Federal employee organizations. The CIA wrote that they will be unable to meet their own statutory requirements to protect their intelligence sources and methods if they fully implemented the revision. The Department of Transportation raised concern about the adverse impact of the changes on women and minorities employed by the Federal Government. The proposed revisions could undermine public-private competition. Under the plan, if an agency is unable to complete public-private competitions in 1 year, it could automatically privatize the work. After an outcry from agencies and the public, OMB indicated that it would consider changes, but it is far from clear what the changes will be. In addition, the proposal allows so-called ``streamlined'' competitions for activities involving 65 or fewer employees and lasting no more than 90 days. Under current rules, the Federal employee or the contractor must be at least 10 percent or $10 million more efficient to win a bid. Under this ``streamlined'' method, there would be no such requirement. Clearly, the potential savings and efficiency created by competition would be threatened and would be contrary to the recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel, the panel charged with reviewing outsourcing policies, for which all of the contractor and administration representatives voted. The proposal would also include an automatic bias in favor of contractors. It imposes a 12 percent overhead cost on all Federal employee bids, and then imposes a superfluous charge for indirect labor costs, but it does not impose the same charges on contractor bids, even though both Federal employees and contractors would have similar overhead costs. The DoD inspector general has said that the 12 percent overhead factor is ``unsupportable.'' In addition, the proposal is likely to reduce the standard of living for tens of thousands of Americans. By artificially inflating the costs of in-house personnel, contractors have incentives to reduce costs by providing unfair compensation packages for those who perform Government work. Good jobs with fair wages and opportunities for advancement would be turned into lower wage jobs with no benefits and no security. According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than one in 10 Federal contract workers already earns less than a living wage. The proposed revisions also apply different competition requirements to Federal employees and contractors in other ways that raise serious fairness concerns. Contractors have an incentive to low-ball their proposal, since there is relatively little likelihood of real private sector competition. The inspector general of the Department of Defense has reported that over three-fifths of the contracts he and his staff surveyed suffered from ``inadequate completion.'' Clearly, the proposed revisions will have significant implications for undermining competition and reducing opportunities for Federal employees to compete fairly for their own jobs. Today, there is far too little real competition for contacts to provide goods and services of Federal agencies. We should be getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar. But, less than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts are subject to full public- private competition. Government procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers and our national defense. We face great challenges to the Nation's security in these difficult times. More than ever, we rely on the Department of Defense and its dedicated employees. As the military budget grows rapidly, we must see that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform obtain the benefits too. True competition is more critical today than ever.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think this is a pretty clear indication about where our Republican friends are on this issue. They are denying us--or denying the Senate--in the final hours prior to the expiration of coverage for workers--denying us an opportunity to get a vote in the Senate. Basically, they say: Either take ours or leave it--take ours or leave it--and that is being unfair to workers, particularly at a time when the Republican Party is about to recommend tax breaks of billions of dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country, and they refuse to give fairness to workers in this country. That is what is going on here. Workers in this country understand what is happening here in the Senate. It is a clear indication of the priorities: Just open up the Federal Treasury. Give the wealthiest the highest amount of tax breaks and give short shrift to hard-working Americans. The Republican leader refuses to permit the Senate of the United States, in a time set by our leaders, to make a judgment on which they would prefer. The workers in the United States are clearly getting short-shrifted.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not yield. We talk about fairness. Our proposal is basically a similar proposal to what was passed five times, and which the Senator from Oklahoma supported in the 1990s. Why don't we give the Senate a chance to vote on either one of them? That would be fairest to the workers in this country. If you are able, then, to persuade Members to vote for yours, so be it; we will accept it. And if they vote for ours, we would hope you would accept it. That is what I think is fair. I ask whether the Senator from New York would think that is fair?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, further holding the right to object, does it include any ability to give flexibility to the States so that they can take care of part-time workers as included in the Democratic proposal? Does it include those provisions as well?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Republican leader: Why don't we then just have the two different alternatives placed before the Senate and let the Senate express itself on whether it favors our proposal or favors the Republican proposal? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these proposals be laid before the Senate and, at a time suitable to the majority and minority leaders, we have a 10-minute, evenly divided, discussion, and we let the Senate vote on whether it prefers the proposal of the Senator from Alaska or the proposal of the Senators from New York and Massachusetts. I think that is a fair way to proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, if we can't get an answer to that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Feinstein in the introduction of the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, and I commend her long-standing commitment to this issue. In recent years, increasing numbers of foreign-born children have come to the United States, unaccompanied by their parents or their guardians. Last year, more than 5,000 arrived, and the numbers have continued to rise this year. Some are fleeing from armed conflict or other dangerous conditions in their home countries. Others are fleeing from human rights abuses, including forced recruitment as soldiers, slavery, child labor, prostitution, or forced marriage. Still others escape to the United States because they have been abused or abandoned by their parents or care givers. Additional numbers are brought to the United States by a family friend or relative, by paid smugglers, or by traffickers involved in organized crime. Regardless of how they arrive, these children often enter our country after traumatic experiences, speaking little to no English, and unaware of their rights under U.S. law. They may well be good candidates for asylum, but they have no way to apply for it, and they are left to represent themselves in an immigration court against experienced trial lawyers for INS. Their plight is exacerbated by the fact that when they arrive, they are frequently detained. Many of them languish for long periods in shelters designed for short-term use, without access to translators, telephones, or medical care and other vital services. But these are the ``fortunate'' ones, compared to many others detained, with dangerous criminals, put in handcuffs, shackles, strip-searched, and required to wear prison uniforms. Shamefully, this is happening every day in the United States of America. It's no wonder other countries criticize us for hypocrisy on human rights. Last year, in the Homeland Security Act, we took the important first step of transferring responsibility for the care and custody of these children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services. This office has decades of experience working with foreign-born children and can easily include the care of these unaccompanied children in its existing functions. That Act, however, left out critical safeguards for these children. The legislation we are introducing corrects these omissions. It addresses many of the problems facing unaccompanied children and will help bring our treatment of them in line with international standards. Essential to these efforts is providing an appointed counsel and a special guardian to assist them. Statistics demonstrate that applications for asylum are four times more likely to be granted when represented by counsel. Yet, less than half of the children in INS custody are represented by an attorney. Children are given appointed counsel in important non-immigration cases, and they should be afforded the same right in immigration cases. In addition, a special guardian can be indispensable in identifying the needs of a child when language and cultural barriers prevent an attorney from communicating effectively with the child. Our bill will require that these vulnerable children receive the representation they need to see that their rights are protected, and the care they deserve to see their needs are properly considered as they go through complicated immigration proceedings. The vast majority of these children are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. We must prevent the use of detention in these cases. Children who are not a danger to others or a flight risk should be released to their families or appropriate care- givers. Our bill requires the release of children whenever possible, and supports the expanded use of shelters and foster care for children who do not have such care givers. Other needed protections in the bill will establish standards for detention, better training for immigration personnel on these issues, and more effective opportunities for permanent protection. We look forward to working with our colleagues to enact these long overdue safeguards. It is time to end the gross abuses in our current immigration system and to ensure that the best interests of these children are fully protected and respected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to support this amendment to strike funding for nuclear bunker busters. What sense does it make for the Nation to do all it can to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and then start proliferating them ourselves? ``More has changed on proliferation than on any other issue.'' CIA Director George Tenet made this statement not too long ago to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He wasn't talking about the United States but he should have been. As we have seen already in this debate, the Bush administration's policy would make the United States the biggest nuclear weapons proliferator of all. They want to ``nuclearize'' as many of our conventional weapons as possible. But nuclear weapons are different. The unique destructive power of these weapons gives them the capacity to threaten the very survival of humanity. That is why nuclear weapons have always been kept separate from other weapons as part of our strong commitment to do all we can to see that they are never used again. Only in the most dire circumstances should the use of nuclear weapons be considered--only if the very survival of our Nation is threatened. It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons. This policy has worked for over half a century in preventing nuclear war. Other nations have complied with the basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not just another item in our Nation's arsenal. We don't need to start building mini-nukes when our state-of-the-art, high-tech conventional weapons can do the same job. And we don't need to go nuclear with our conventional bunker buster weapons, either. I was 13 years old on that fateful day in August 1945, when a B-29 bomber flying high over Hiroshima dropped the first nuclear weapon, ``Little Boy.'' More than 4 square miles of the city were instantly and completely devastated. Over 90,000 people died instantly. Another 50,000 died by the end of that year. Three days later, another B-29 dropped ``Fat Man'' over Nagasaki, killing 39,000 people instantly and injuring 25,000 more. Since then, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any war. There have been close calls in the past half century but this weapon was never used. In 1948, the Soviet Union began the Berlin Blockade, and we considered the use of tactical nuclear weapons if the conflict escalated. We also considered the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean war. In 1957, the Soviets launched Sputink, and it became clear that two oceans could not protect us from a nuclear attack at home. In 1958, President Eisenhower declared a moratorium on all nuclear testing--with the understanding that the Soviet Union would also honor the moratorium. But testing resumed in 1961, and after negotiations with the Soviet Union, we issued a Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations--the so-called McCloy-Zorin accords--which outlines a program for general and complete disarmament. In the work of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy pushed forcefully for a treaty to limit the development of nuclear weapons. The result was in the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in August 1963, prohibiting tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. In February 1967, a treaty prohibited nuclear weapons in Latin America. In July 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed in Moscow, London, and Washington, and entered into full force in March 1970. That same year brought the beginning of the first round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Vienna. The SALT agreement was signed 2 years later in 1972 and placed restrictions on the number and size of nuclear warheads in the Soviet and American arsenals. In the 1970s, we made further progress in limiting the threat of nuclear war. The Senate approved treaties to prohibit the placement of nuclear weapons in the ocean and to limit underground testing. We almost reached an agreement on the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT II, but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1970 took that agreement off the table. In 1987, the Soviet Union and the United States signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In 1991, using pens made from melted down missiles, President Bush and President Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty START I. Six months later both nations committed to further nuclear program reductions and eliminations. Soviet leader Gorbachev initiated a moratorium on nuclear testing in October 1991, and President Bush canceled the Midgetman Missile Program and stopped production of advanced cruise missiles in January 1992. That summer, the Senate voted for a 9-month moratorium on nuclear weapons testing beginning in October 1992, with a final cutoff of all testing by September 1996. In 1993, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin signed START II, reducing U.S. and Soviet arsenals of longer range nuclear weapons and eliminating all land-based missiles with multiple warheads over the next 10 years. After we finalized this testing moratorium, France and China stopped testing, and Russia continued its own moratorium. But now, after many difficult years of this progress toward preventing nuclear war, the Bush administration wants to change direction and go the other way. Last year, it requested $15.5 million to study the feasibility of adding a nuclear bunker buster to our arsenal. They say they need it to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, and they want $15 million more this year to continue the project. They say they need it to destroy hardened targets buried deeply underground, but the scientific community has raised serious questions about the effectiveness and need for these weapons. A nuclear explosion in a bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere. Obviously, trying to develop nuclear weapons for this mission distracts from developing conventional alternatives to do the job. According to Dr. Sidney Drell, of Stanford University: Currently, we don't have the capability of digging down more than 50 feet to reach deeply buried hardened targets. If we detonate just 1 kiloton between 20 and 50 feet down, a million cubic feet of dirt would have radioactive contamination, and a crater the size of the crater at the World Trade Center would be created. Imagine what would happen if one of these weapons was a nuclear weapon with a yield of 400 kilotons and was detonated. Is it even possible to imagine a crater 400 time the size? It makes no sense to start down this road. No country should be making weapons like that. It is wrong for this administration to start developing new types of nuclear weapons that have no plausible military purpose and that can only encourage even more nations to go nuclear.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about an amendment that I had hoped to offer to help our troops and that has strong bipartisan support. But the Parliamentarian says it doesn't quite meet the relevance test under the consent agreement, so I will offer it on another day. The amendment is intended to recognize the enormous contributions to our country by immigrants serving in the military. It gives immigrant men and women in our Armed Forces more rapid naturalization, and it establishes protections for their families if they are killed in action. In all our wars, immigrants have fought side by side and given their lives to defend America's freedom and ideals. One out of every five recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor our Nation bestows on our war heroes, has been an immigrant. Their bravery is unequivocal proof that immigrants are as dedicated as any other Americans to defending our country. Today, 37,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard are not yet citizens, but have the status of permanent residents. Another 12,000 permanent residents are in the Reserves and the National Guard. Sadly, 10 immigrant soldiers were killed in Iraq; 2 are missing; and 2 were POWs. The President did the right thing by granting posthumous citizenship to those who died, but it is clear that we can do more to ease the path to citizenship for all immigrants who serve in our forces. My amendment improves access to naturalization for permanent residents in the military and it protects spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in action by preserving their ability to file for permanent residence in the United States. Specifically, the amendment reduces from 3 to 2 the number of years required for these immigrants to become naturalized citizens. It exempts them from paying naturalization filing fees, and it enables them to be naturalized while stationed abroad. Affordable and timely naturalization is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line to defend our nation. During times of war, recruiting needs are immediate and readiness is essential. Even though the war in Iraq has ended, our commitment to ending global terrorism will continue, and more of these brave men and women will be called to active duty. Many of them are members of the Selected Reserve--Reserve and National Guard members who may be called up for active duty during a war or other national emergency. Many have already been activated, and many more could be called up at a moment's notice to defend our country and assist in military operations. Over the years, Reserve and Guard units have often become full partners with their active-duty counterparts. Their active-duty colleagues cannot go to war without them. Being a member of the Selected Reserves is nothing less than a continuing commitment to meet very demanding standards, and they deserve recognition for their bravery and sacrifice. The amendment allows permanent resident members of the Selected Reserves to expedite their naturalization applications during war or military hostilities. Finally, the amendment provides immigration protection to immediate family members of soldiers killed in action. Grieving mothers, fathers, spouses, and children would be given the opportunity to legalize their immigration status and avoid deportation in the event of death of their loved one serving in our military. We know the tragic losses endured by these families, and it is unfair that they lose their immigration status as well. The provisions of the amendment are identical to those in S. 922, the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act, which has strong bipartisan support and is also endorsed by numerous veterans organizations including: the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the Blue Star Mothers of America. The amendment is a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already making now for their adopted country. They deserve this important recognition and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that these provisions are enacted into law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to close an unfortunate and unacceptable gap in health insurance coverage for families of Reserve and Guard members who are called up for active duty in the Armed Forces. The amendment is a needed step forward in taking care of our troops and their families, and it includes most of the provisions of S. 647 that I introduced earlier this year to close the gap. Today's military relies more heavily than ever on the Reserve and Guard. Over 215,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have been mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle. One challenge they should not have to face is maintaining their health insurance coverage. The problem is that few employers are willing to continue health insurance coverage for Guard and Reserve employees and family members when they are activated. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly 80 percent of reservists have health care coverage when they are working in the private sector. Almost all of them would like to maintain that coverage when they are activated, in order to provide continued health benefits for their family members. The military's TRICARE coverage works well for the reservists when they are activated, but it is not a realistic alternative for family members since more TRICARE providers are located close to military bases that are often far from the homes where the family members of the reservists continue to live. In fact, 95 percent of active-duty military families live near bases and health care facilities, so TRICARE is readily available to them. But only 25 percent of Guard and Reserve families live near bases, so TRICARE is inaccessible for them. Nevertheless, the other reservists feel they have no alternative, since their private insurance has lapsed. So they change to TRICARE while they are activated, and then change back to their former plan when the activation ends. This amendment will enable them to enroll their family members in TRICARE, too. It is the right thing to do but it solves only part of the problem. When TRICARE is not a realistic alternative for family members, they have the option to maintain their private health insurance plan during the activation. The frequency and length of activations for Guard and Reserves are disruptive and stressful enough. We should do everything we can to enable families to maintain their coverage and avoid unnecessary upheaval. We had hoped to achieve that goal in this amendment as well, but the consent agreement means we cannot include it. So I urge the Senate to adopt the pending amendment to make TRICARE available to Reserve and Guard personnel and families and let us work together to deal with this other aspect of the problem, too.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this issue is as clear as any issue ever gets. You are either for nuclear war or you are not. Either you want to make it easier to start using nuclear weapons or you don't. Our conventional weapons already have vast power and accuracy. We can make them even more powerful. No one at the Pentagon and no one in the administration has given us any examples--none at all--of cases where a smaller nuclear weapon is needed to do what a conventional weapon cannot do. For half a century, our policy has been to do everything we possibly can to prevent nuclear war, and so far we have succeeded. The hardliners say things are different today: A nuclear war won't be so bad if we just make the nukes a little smaller. We will call them mini- nukes. They are not real nukes. A little nuclear war is OK. That is nonsense. Nuclear war is nuclear war is nuclear war. We don't want it anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Make no mistake, a mini-nuke is still a nuke. Is half of Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter of Hiroshima OK? Is a little mushroom cloud OK? That is absurd. The issue is too important. If we build it, we will use it. No Congress should be the Congress that says let's start down this street when it is a one-way street that can lead only to nuclear war. Some may say that smaller weapons are less dangerous than the larger weapons already in our arsenal. But these nuclear weapons are actually more dangerous, because they are smaller, therefore easier to steal and smuggle. The Administration's goal is to make them more usable by lowering the thresholds for the first use of nuclear weapons. Some may say we can't build new weapons, and haven't built them in years. To that I ask why do we need to build new weapons when we have over six thousand warheads in our inventory? It's enough to destroy the world at least ten times over, and leave the world in nuclear winter. It would take only ten nuclear weapons to paralyze the United States. Some believe our non-proliferation efforts do not stop North Korea or Iran from developing nuclear weapons of their own. No one argues that these weapons have the capability to stop North Korea. But why not target them now with our existing nuclear weapons. This is not an argument for new nuclear weapons. Some argue that current law ties the hands of the Pentagon. But there is no military requirement for these weapons, just hypothetical situations proposed by the other side. No one can point to an actual situation where we would use these weapons. Some may argue that we need to do this research to go after Al Qaida and other asymmetric threats. How can we consider using thee weapons when we don't know where our adversaries are? Al Qaida is active in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Germany. Would we use these low- yield weapons against these countries? Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we have reduced our weapons while other countries have begun nuclear weapons programs. They say no one is following our lead and that since 1992, we have stopped testing while China, France, India, and Pakistan have continued to test. On the contrary, there have been no tests in the past five years. Four states who were nuclear states have come under the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear states: South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine. They think we need to have our smartest people thinking about low- yield nuclear weapons. Lifting the ban would give them their freedom to indulge in intellectual curiosity, and it is more likely to yield a way to stop proliferation. However the research banned by this amendment is an offensive, not defensive capability. This is research leading to the development and the production of weapons, not pure intellectual exploration of advanced concepts. The Spratt amendment prohibits the construction of prototypes. Some will argue that we cannot be confident that our weapons will work, without the development of these new weapons. According to the National Academy of Sciences (July 2002), ``The United States has the technical capabilities to maintain confidence in the safety and reliability of its existing nuclear weapons stockpile under the CTBT, provided that adequate resources are made available to the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex and are properly focused on this task.'' My colleagues believe that we still retain the right to authorize and appropriate funds for nuclear weapons systems. We should be allowed to think about these weapons to prevent others from developing this capability. But no one else is developing these weapons; if we start, others may follow. We may be igniting a new nuclear arms race. Nothing in law prohibits our scientists from doing research on our adversaries' capabilities. Finally, some say we should develop these weapons because we cannot use the existing weapons, because they are too large. They say killing millions of Iraqis is too many. If we use a lower-yield weapon, we can deter Saddam Hussein. But this is just arguing for hundreds of thousands dead, rather than millions. If we really want a surgical strike capability, then we should develop a conventional alternative. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think I will only need 3 \1/2\ or 4 minutes, if we are trying to accommodate somebody.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, over the past years, we have had the opportunity to consider the Defense authorization bill, and a number of extremely important weapons systems have been debated on the floor of the Senate. By and large, over that period, we have seen the results in our military. All of us recognize the extraordinary performance of our military in these past weeks where they performed with, first, extraordinary courage; second, with extraordinary leadership; and third, with the latest and the best of technology. I think all of us want to make sure those are the items which are going to be there for the security of our military. They are going to be the best trained, best led, and best equipped with the latest technology. We ought to consider the various proposals that are before us and ask what is the military significance of any of the matters we are asked to consider on the Defense authorization bill. It is against the background that the Senator from California has pointed out that we ought to examine what is the possible need for this kind of a weapons system and another opening of the debate on the testing of nuclear weapons. Make no mistake about it, we may hear that all we are interested in is the design of the nuclear weapon, but we will come back to that because it is the clear intention of the administration to move ahead with not only the design but also the testing of nuclear weaponry. We have to ask: How does that affect our national security? How does that affect our national defense? First of all, we ought to be asking ourselves, given the fact that our Armed Forces were in battle over the past weeks, resulting in an enormous success: What came out of that conflict that would make us take this step of lifting the ban on any kind of nuclear test? What happened in Iraq? What was the objective? What was the military objective in Iraq that would make us say what we want to do on the Defense authorization bill is move us back from the successful negotiations over the last 50 years of Republican and Democratic Presidents in moving us away from nuclear proliferation and moving us away from the possibility of nuclear confrontation? That is what the record has been over the last 50 years under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike. The Senator from California has reviewed that. We remember times when we came dangerously close--I certainly do--in the Cuban missile crisis to the real possibilities of nuclear conflict and nuclear exchange which effectively would have annihilated the United States and the Soviet Union as we knew it. It came dangerously close, and since that time Republican and Democrat leaders have said, OK, we do not want to see an escalation of the nuclear arms race. We have seen step after step to contain it. One of the most important ways of containing it is to have a moratorium on testing and also to have a battle against the proliferation of weapons. What we have with this administration is basically an effort to lift what they call the Spratt amendment, which is a prohibition for research and development into the nuclear weapons. One can call them mini nukes. One can call them small nukes. Basically, I call them low- death weapons because that is what they are. We are talking about the killing of thousands of individuals with these weapons systems, and the administration is attempting to open this whole process again. Over the period of the last 5 years we have not had any testing of nuclear weapons by India or by Pakistan, two nuclear powers. We have not seen any testing either by the United States, Russia, or China probably for the last 15 years. Progress was being made. We have seen five countries that have basically gone nonnuke, basically renounced their nuclear weapons in the world. We have been making real progress. What do we hear from the other side? We are living in a dangerous world. Well, I hope on the other side they are going to be able to tell us how nuclear weapons are going to solve the problem of dealing with al-Qaida, how nuclear weapons would have solved our problem in dealing with the threats in Morocco this week or Saudi Arabia, for example, the last week. What do they intend to do with these nuclear weapons? Well, we hear maybe they can be used in our new, dangerous world to deal with the problems of biological and chemical weapons. Have my colleagues read the reports on what would happen if we have nuclear weapons incinerating large storage spaces of gas or chemical weapons, and if those were to fractionate into the air in terms of critical masses, the amount of devastation and death that would mean to thousands or tens of thousands of troops if they were near or hundreds of thousands of civilians who were near? What is the singular purpose? What is the military necessity? What do the Joint Chiefs want to do with this weapons system? We will hear the other side say, let's not get all worked up about this because all we are trying to do is some research on this issue. Listen to what some of the principal spokespeople for the administration say about that. In February, the Pentagon's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Affairs, Fred Celec, was asked: What would happen if a nuclear bomb could be developed that would crash through rock and concrete and still explode? He said: It will ultimately get fielded. And you are talking about all we are trying to do is a little research in this area? Come back to us later on; we will come back and talk to you if we are really going to get into testing of nuclear weapons. This is what the head of the nuclear affairs weapons system at the Pentagon said: It will ultimately get fielded. Then we go to Linton Brooks, who is the administration's nuclear weapons chief at the Department of Energy, who said the same thing to the Armed Services Committee in April: I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I have a bias in favor of something that is the minimum destruction. I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable. There he is, Linton Brooks, the administration's nuclear weapons chief at the Department of Energy. Come on, now. You are talking about we are just going to do a little research and then we will come back and talk to you? Do you think our friends and adversaries around the world are going to believe that is what is going to happen in the United States? They will read those statements and they will start their programs of testing. That is what we are risking. For what? We still have not heard from the military as to what it is our conventional bombs cannot do. What is it that our conventional artillery cannot achieve and accomplish? Where were their failings? Where is the potential target out there somewhere in the world? It was never told to us in the Armed Services Committee. It was never revealed to us in the Armed Services Committee. Nonetheless, we want to find out if we want to go ahead--with all of the potential dangers that we know in terms of the dangers of proliferation of weaponry and the dangers from testing. We have the administration's own Nuclear Posture Review in January of last year outlining the plans for developing new nuclear weapons, including improved weapons and warheads that reduce collateral damage. Do you know what that means in layman's language, reduced collateral damage? That means these smaller nuclear weapons. That is what it means. Now, let us look at what these low-death weapons--I call them low- death weapons--could do. We have seen the administration talk about not exploding them even in their testimony before the Armed Services Committee. They refused to rule out the use of any nuclear weapons in the battle with Iraq; although Tony Blair did, our Secretary would not. Well, now we have the 5-kiloton, earth-penetrating nuclear explosion. This chart depicts the average wind patterns for a winter day in the Middle East. It depicts a hypothetical attack outside of Damascus, Syria, using the nuclear weapon with a yield of 5 kilotons. The threshold of this ban exploded at a depth of 30 feet. This is the level, approximately 50 feet. This is at 30 feet. This blast would cause 230,000 fatalities and another 280,000 casualties from radiation exposure within 2 years of the blast. This is a plume pattern developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency computer model. We are talking about tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of casualties. That is what we are talking about with this weapon system. What is the challenge? Are we finding that the Russians are building up to develop this kind of capability? No, we have not heard that. Have we heard the Chinese are now trying to build up their capability somehow to be a threat to us? No, we have not heard that. Have we heard the Pakistanis are going to do it? No. The Indians are going to do it? No, we have not heard they are going to do it. They have actually complied with the test ban treaties by not having any explosions, and they have been working with us in terms of the reduction. Certainly the Russians have in terms of reducing the total number of nuclear weapons. We stood on the floor and passed an agreement with Russia not many weeks ago. So what is out there? What is out there that is going to put us on the track toward the reassumption of nuclear testing? What is the threat to us today? It seems to me we do live in a dangerous world, with what is called al-Qaida. Everyone in the United States understands it, if they read the newspapers in the last few days and they see what has happened in the Middle East and what has happened in Morocco. We have to ask ourselves: How in the world will this particular weapon system help us deal with that particular threat? That reason has not been made. The reason for this weapon system other than, well, let's take a chance, we can move ahead, it will be nice to add this to our stockpile, add one more weapon system, seems to be the argument. We have the possibility of going ahead; why not go ahead and do it. I don't hear the other questions being raised about the range of activities that are going to take place in countries around the world. Make no mistake, this will release a chain of reactions across this world in nuclear testing. On the one hand, the United States says, look, we are trying to negotiate with the North Koreans in order to reduce the possibilities of nuclear exchange and miscalculation on the Korean peninsula. But do not pay attention to what we do. We are going over here to develop some new nuclear weapons. How does that work? What kind of message does that send in this world today? Who will buy that? Maybe those who support it are going to say how that kind of activity has worked in the recent past, how that kind of threat has resulted in other countries being cowed and intimidated into laying off on that. It will be the contrary. Now, should these systems ever need to be developed, other colleagues want to speak about what the dangers would be, as to the possibilities of terrorists being able to purloin, steal, a small weapon system and being able to use that more effectively. We all know it is enormously complicated and difficult for them to do it today--not an impossibility--and we are realistic in terms of trying to do more to make sure that is done, but there is a whole range of additional threats by smaller systems that can cause devastation to hundreds of thousands of people. Finally, we see what this administration will do; they will deploy the dangerous nuclear weapons. They could be developed to penetrate, according to their Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Affairs. Linton Brooks: ``I have a bias in things that might be usable.'' And there is the administration's nuclear policy review that indicates deployed warheads reduce collateral damage. That is what we are talking about. This is a matter of enormous risk. If this risk were balanced by the danger, sign me up. But that case has not been made. This would be a remarkable step backward from the firewall established going back to GEN Eisenhowser, all the way through, a firewall between conventional and nuclear. This administration, this policy, will break that down. It is wrong. It is not in our national security interests. That ought to be the test. This fails to meet that test. I hope our amendment is acceptable.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephan Tela, a Navy fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation on fairness in our Federal sentencing system. The Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act, or the JUDGES Act, will repeal a number of controversial sentencing provisions that were added at the last moment to the recently enacted ``AMBER Alert law'' on missing, abducted, and exploited children. These provisions--called the ``Feeney Amendment''--have nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges and eliminating fairness in our Federal sentencing system. As Chief Justice Rehnquist said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guidelines system and . . . seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' The Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and many prosecutors, defense attorneys, law professors, civil rights organizations, and business groups vigorously opposed them. Now that the child-abduction legislation has passed, it is the responsibility of Congress to repeal these extraneous and ill-considered provisions and begin a serious and thorough review of the current sentencing guidelines system. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was the result of extraordinary bipartisan cooperation. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a ten- year period, Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and I worked with the Carter and Reagan administrations to strike the best balance between the goal of consistent sentencing in Federal law and the need to give Federal judges discretion to make the sentence fit the crime in individual cases. There was also strong bipartisan cooperation in the House Judiciary Committee, and we worked together over several years to enact a strong, balanced, and bipartisan bill. Many judges think the 1984 Act went too far in limiting their discretion. Over the years, I have heard many Senators suggest that we should give judges more authority to consider the circumstances of each offender and the facts of each offense. Enacted without hearings or meaningful debate, the Feeney Amendment was a giant step in the wrong direction. The Feeney Amendment effectively strips Federal judges of discretion to impose individualized sentences, and transforms the longstanding sentencing guidelines system into a mandatory minimum sentencing system. It limits in several ways the ability of judges to depart downwards from the guidelines. It overturns a unanimous 1996 Supreme Court decision, Koon v. United States, which established a deferential standard of review for departures from the guidelines based on the facts of the case--thereby undermining what the Court described as the ``traditional sentencing discretion'' of trial courts and the ``institutional advantage'' of Federal district courts over appellate courts to make fact-based sentencing determinations. The Feeney Amendment also limits the number of judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission, and directs the Commission to amend the guidelines and policy statements under them ``to ensure that the incidence of downward departures are [sic] substantially reduced.'' It also requires the Attorney General to establish a ``judicial blacklist'' by informing Congress whenever a district judge departs downward from the guidelines. It imposes new, burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements on Federal judges, and requires the Sentencing Commission to disclose confidential court records to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon request. Earlier this month, Chief Justice Rehnquist specifically criticized these record-keeping and reporting requirements as potentially amounting ``to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties.'' It was an extreme step for Congress to insist that Federal judges-- appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--should not have discretion to impose lower sentences in unusual cases, subject to appeal. It was even more extreme to pass such a sweeping proposal without the benefit of hearings and full debate in either House of Congress. Because the Feeney Amendment was introduced at the last possible moment, Congress was deprived of full and balanced information on whether departure decisions are made in inappropriate instances. The Justice Department compounded that problem by submitting a highly misleading letter on April 4th expressing its ``strong support'' for the Amendment. The Department argued that the Amendment was justified because an epidemic of lenient sentences was undermining the Sentencing Reform Act. It failed, however, to mention that the committee report accompanying the 1984 Act anticipated a departure rate of about 20 percent. Today, the rate at which judges depart from the guidelines over the objection of the government is slightly more than 10 percent-- well within acceptable rates. The Department claimed that there are too many downward departures from the sentencing guidelines, but it failed to mention that, according to the American Bar Association, almost 80 percent of these departures are requested by the Justice Department itself. In arguing for the abrogation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Boon v. United States, the Department also failed to mention that it wins 78 percent of all sentencing appeals, or that 85 percent of all defendants who receive downward departures based on grounds other than cooperation with the government nevertheless receive prison time. Last week, I asked Michael Chertoff, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, about his involvement in drafting the Justice Department's letter of support for the Feeney Amendment. He said that he had ``no part in drafting'' the letter, and that he did not review the letter before it was sent. In his current position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in the Department, Mr. Chertoff is chiefly responsible for formulating criminal law enforcement policy and advising the Attorney General and the White House on matters of criminal law. The fact that the Department's leading authority on criminal law did not participate in writing its influential letter demonstrates the travesty of the process that led to the Feeney Amendment's enactment. It is important for Congress to undo the damage done to the Federal criminal justice system. The JUDGES Act, which we are introducing today and which Congressman Conyers is introducing in the House, repeals the provisions of the Feeney Amendment that do not specifically involve sex crimes or crimes against children--the purpose of the underlying child- abduction legislation to which it was attached. In the place of these ill-advised changes to Federal sentencing law, the JUDGES Act directs the Sentencing Commission to report to Congress within 180 days on the incidence of downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. The Commission's report will provide Congress with useful information to evaluate the need for reform, including information on rates of departures by district, circuit, offense, and departure ground. It will also provide a review of departure appeals, an assessment of the extent to which departures affect the guideline system, and an assessment of variations in the magnitude of departures and the frequency with which the final sentences result in imprisonment, other conditions of confinement, or release. When completed, the Commission's report will provide a solid basis for further action by Congress. We need to hold hearings; collect the relevant data; consult with the judges, the Sentencing Commission, the Justice Department, the defense bar, and other authorities; and decide whether legislation is needed to improve the sentencing guidelines. If judges are abusing their discretion, we should limit it. If more discretion is appropriate, we should provide it. In the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist, ``Before such legislation is enacted there should, at least, be a thorough and dispassionate inquiry into the consequences of such action.'' It was a serious mistake for Congress to enact the Feeney Amendment over the strong objections of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, the Sentencing Commission, and the overwhelming majority of prosecutors and defense attorneys who deal with the guidelines on a daily basis. The JUDGES Act will correct this mistake and set us on the right path to achieving any necessary reforms. I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the National Association of Federal Defenders, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who knew him and admired him and worked with him were deeply saddened earlier this month by the sudden and untimely death of Mike Jendrzejczyk, and we extend our deepest condolences to his wife Janet and their family during this difficult time. Mike was one of a kind, and his ability and dedication, his tireless energy, his wonderful personality, and his many achievements for human rights will always be remenbered. I met Mike soon after he came to Washington more than a decade ago to work on human rights issues in Asia for the Washington, D.C. office of Human Rights Watch. Mike's work benefitted all of us who care about promoting respect for human rights. We quickly learned that his last Name was easy to pronounce even if we could never spell it. During the debates on most-favored nation trade status for China, he was a constant adviser to Senators and staff alike on the human rights aspects of the issue. He also helped draft legislation on a code of conduct for U.S. companies operating in China, and his proposals set the standard for many human rights codes developed by those firms. I last saw Mike earlier this year as he escorted Xu Wenli, one of the many Chinese dissidents he assisted, on a round of visits to meet with members of Congress. He greeted me with his trademark good welcome and the unforgettable spirit and drive he brought to all his work. He was loved by everyone and his death is a great loss for all of us, and for the cause of human rights he served so brilliantly, I ask unanimously consent that a series of articles on Mike be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation on fairness in our Federal sentencing system. The Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act, or the JUDGES Act, will repeal a number of controversial sentencing provisions that were added at the last moment to the recently enacted ``AMBER Alert law'' on missing, abducted, and exploited children. These provisions--called the ``Feeney Amendment''--have nothing to do with protecting children, and everything to do with handcuffing judges and eliminating fairness in our Federal sentencing system. As Chief Justice Rehnquist said, they ``do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guidelines system and . . . seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' The Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and many prosecutors, defense attorneys, law professors, civil rights organizations, and business groups vigorously opposed them. Now that the child-abduction legislation has passed, it is the responsibility of Congress to repeal these extraneous and ill-considered provisions and begin a serious and thorough review of the current sentencing guidelines system. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was the result of extraordinary bipartisan cooperation. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, over a ten- year period, Senator Thurmond, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and I worked with the Carter and Reagan administrations to strike the best balance between the goal of consistent sentencing in Federal law and the need to give Federal judges discretion to make the sentence fit the crime in individual cases. There was also strong bipartisan cooperation in the House Judiciary Committee, and we worked together over several years to enact a strong, balanced, and bipartisan bill. Many judges think the 1984 Act went too far in limiting their discretion. Over the years, I have heard many Senators suggest that we should give judges more authority to consider the circumstances of each offender and the facts of each offense. Enacted without hearings or meaningful debate, the Feeney Amendment was a giant step in the wrong direction. The Feeney Amendment effectively strips Federal judges of discretion to impose individualized sentences, and transforms the longstanding sentencing guidelines system into a mandatory minimum sentencing system. It limits in several ways the ability of judges to depart downwards from the guidelines. It overturns a unanimous 1996 Supreme Court decision, Koon v. United States, which established a deferential standard of review for departures from the guidelines based on the facts of the case--thereby undermining what the Court described as the ``traditional sentencing discretion'' of trial courts and the ``institutional advantage'' of Federal district courts over appellate courts to make fact-based sentencing determinations. The Feeney Amendment also limits the number of judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission, and directs the Commission to amend the guidelines and policy statements under them ``to ensure that the incidence of downward departures are [sic] substantially reduced.'' It also requires the Attorney General to establish a ``judicial blacklist'' by informing Congress whenever a district judge departs downward from the guidelines. It imposes new, burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements on Federal judges, and requires the Sentencing Commission to disclose confidential court records to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees upon request. Earlier this month, Chief Justice Rehnquist specifically criticized these record-keeping and reporting requirements as potentially amounting ``to an unwarranted and ill-considered effort to intimidate individual judges in the performance of their judicial duties.'' It was an extreme step for Congress to insist that Federal judges-- appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--should not have discretion to impose lower sentences in unusual cases, subject to appeal. It was even more extreme to pass such a sweeping proposal without the benefit of hearings and full debate in either House of Congress. Because the Feeney Amendment was introduced at the last possible moment, Congress was deprived of full and balanced information on whether departure decisions are made in inappropriate instances. The Justice Department compounded that problem by submitting a highly misleading letter on April 4th expressing its ``strong support'' for the Amendment. The Department argued that the Amendment was justified because an epidemic of lenient sentences was undermining the Sentencing Reform Act. It failed, however, to mention that the committee report accompanying the 1984 Act anticipated a departure rate of about 20 percent. Today, the rate at which judges depart from the guidelines over the objection of the government is slightly more than 10 percent-- well within acceptable rates. The Department claimed that there are too many downward departures from the sentencing guidelines, but it failed to mention that, according to the American Bar Association, almost 80 percent of these departures are requested by the Justice Department itself. In arguing for the abrogation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Boon v. United States, the Department also failed to mention that it wins 78 percent of all sentencing appeals, or that 85 percent of all defendants who receive downward departures based on grounds other than cooperation with the government nevertheless receive prison time. Last week, I asked Michael Chertoff, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, about his involvement in drafting the Justice Department's letter of support for the Feeney Amendment. He said that he had ``no part in drafting'' the letter, and that he did not review the letter before it was sent. In his current position as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in the Department, Mr. Chertoff is chiefly responsible for formulating criminal law enforcement policy and advising the Attorney General and the White House on matters of criminal law. The fact that the Department's leading authority on criminal law did not participate in writing its influential letter demonstrates the travesty of the process that led to the Feeney Amendment's enactment. It is important for Congress to undo the damage done to the Federal criminal justice system. The JUDGES Act, which we are introducing today and which Congressman Conyers is introducing in the House, repeals the provisions of the Feeney Amendment that do not specifically involve sex crimes or crimes against children--the purpose of the underlying child- abduction legislation to which it was attached. In the place of these ill-advised changes to Federal sentencing law, the JUDGES Act directs the Sentencing Commission to report to Congress within 180 days on the incidence of downward departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. The Commission's report will provide Congress with useful information to evaluate the need for reform, including information on rates of departures by district, circuit, offense, and departure ground. It will also provide a review of departure appeals, an assessment of the extent to which departures affect the guideline system, and an assessment of variations in the magnitude of departures and the frequency with which the final sentences result in imprisonment, other conditions of confinement, or release. When completed, the Commission's report will provide a solid basis for further action by Congress. We need to hold hearings; collect the relevant data; consult with the judges, the Sentencing Commission, the Justice Department, the defense bar, and other authorities; and decide whether legislation is needed to improve the sentencing guidelines. If judges are abusing their discretion, we should limit it. If more discretion is appropriate, we should provide it. In the words of Chief Justice Rehnquist, ``Before such legislation is enacted there should, at least, be a thorough and dispassionate inquiry into the consequences of such action.'' It was a serious mistake for Congress to enact the Feeney Amendment over the strong objections of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, the Sentencing Commission, and the overwhelming majority of prosecutors and defense attorneys who deal with the guidelines on a daily basis. The JUDGES Act will correct this mistake and set us on the right path to achieving any necessary reforms. I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the National Association of Federal Defenders, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments in the exchange between the Senator from Maine and our chairman and ranking member. I have heard through the outreaches of the Senator from Maine there has been a good-faith effort to try to deal with this issue. I am not carefully briefed on the various proposals, but at least there has been an outreach by the Senator from Maine to try to develop some common ground in this area. So I think this is important. I think the seriousness with which she is addressing this issue, as well as the chairman and the ranking member, is, of course, of enormous importance because basically we are talking about the 650,000 to 700,000 civilians who work in the Defense Department. The basic concept was the development of the civil service so that we were going to have highly skilled, highly motivated, highly trained individuals who were going to work for all Americans and not be working for political parties, so to speak, not finding out, every time there is a change in administration, there could be a change in the way they are compensated for their work. This is enormously important work. We are finding individuals who are going to be involved in the selection of various weapons systems in the whole areas of the development of command and control, communication, and intelligence. The jobs of many of these civilians are enormously important in terms of the security interests of this country. So the caution which has been expressed by our chairman and ranking member, as well as by the Senator from Maine, is entirely appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to always try to find ways of strengthening and improving the system. But we do come back to the question that this was developed initially with all the kinds of challenges it is facing now, with the concept that we would have highly motivated, highly trained individuals, who would serve whatever administration was going to be successful at the polls. I think that basic and fundamental view is still a commendable one. But I just want to indicate to the Senator, my friend from Maine, that she has approached this as she does all issues, with an openness and commitment and determination to try to make a very constructive contribution, and she has certainly been reaching out to the Members. So I am thankful for those efforts. I am also concerned about contracting out, and that we are going to find those with the best lobbying opportunities are going to be able to get these contracts that are important and require high-quality work. Mr. President, as we begin considering the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, I, too, congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their skillful leadership in preparing this bill. It does reflect a thoughtful response to the ongoing and changing needs of our military in these difficult years for our country, and it clearly provides a strong national defense. I also thank and commend Senator Talent for his leadership on the seapower portions of the bill in his first year as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. It is a privilege to work with him on that subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing that work in the years ahead to make sure we are going to keep our Navy strong, and, of course, the Marines strong as well. In particular, this legislation contains numerous provisions to give additional support to the men and women who serve the Nation so well in the Armed Forces. Without their courage and their commitment, we could never achieve the brilliant military successes of the war in Iraq. First, and most important, this bill is intended to improve the quality-of-life programs our soldiers and sailors and marines and members of the Air Force deserve in the areas of pay and allowance. It recognizes the special sacrifice military service often requires from the service members and their families. For service members who are repeatedly deployed to assignments far from their home bases, including Reservists and Guard personnel, the bill authorizes a high deployment allowance, up to $1,000 a month in additional compensation for the hardships imposed on them and their families. The bill also continues support for the significant progress made in the past 4 years in reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses by improving the basic allowance for housing, and the bill also provides for strong national defense in the years ahead by investing in transformational technologies while ensuring that our military capabilities do not suffer any gap during the needed modernization that must take place in our forces. My principal concern with this legislation involves the provisions that authorize the fateful change of course in our longstanding policy on nuclear weapons. Of all challenges our country has faced over the past half century, the prevention of nuclear war is by far the most important. It is no accident that in all the years and the half century since World War II, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any of the conflicts that have taken place anywhere on Earth. Few in 1945 would have predicted that extraordinary success, and few today would disagree that the effective world leadership of the United States under Presidents of both political parties on nuclear arms control throughout those years has been primarily responsible for that success. The danger today is that with the passing of the World War II generation in our own country and nations throughout the world, a new generation of leaders has been rising to power who did not live through the dawn of the nuclear age themselves and for whom the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are images from history, not vivid recollections from their own lives. Greater vigilance is clearly needed to continue the success of our nuclear arms control policy since 1945 and ensure that nuclear weapons are not used by any nation in the future. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear materials to other nations and to terrorists is the most urgent aspect of that challenge today. We all pray the Bush administration will be successful in the current negotiations with North Korea and that the tenuous progress made in recent weeks will improve so a successful conclusion can be achieved. Many of us are increasingly concerned, however, that with Congress and the Nation preoccupied over the past year with the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq that the administration has been quietly laying the groundwork for a far-reaching and highly dangerous U turn in our longstanding policy against the first use of nuclear weapons. Because of their unique and massive destructive power, nuclear weapons have always been kept separate from other weapons as part of our strong commitment to do all we can to see they are never used again. The Bush administration's proposal to veer away from that commitment should have been a wake-up call for Congress and the Nation many months ago. In the decade after the first two nuclear bombs were used in World War II and the nuclear arms race began with the Soviet Union, nations and peoples throughout the world began to realize both the danger posed by the use of nuclear weapons and the danger from the testing of nuclear weapons. To deal with those dangers, a remarkable series of international treaties was proposed, negotiated, and approved that had broad support in the world community, restrained the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and dramatically reduced the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations. An excellent chronology of the many significant events in the history of nuclear weapons, beginning with the discovery of radioactivity in 1896, is available on the Web sites of the Global Security Institute which was founded by our former colleague Senator Alan Cranston to enhance our understanding of these issues. I urge Members of the Senate to consult with it. One of the landmark achievements in reducing the spread of nuclear weapons was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which came into effect in 1968 and under which nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike agreed to halt the development of these weapons. Currently 185 nations have signed the extension of the NPT. The reason the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been so successful is the presumption that nuclear weapons will not be used by the principal nuclear powers except in the most extreme circumstances. For 25 years Republican and Democratic administrations alike have emphasized our commitment not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations. This assurance to other nations that nuclear weapons will not be used against them has been a major factor in avoiding nuclear war, slowing the nuclear arms race, and preventing the proliferation of these weapons to other countries and to terrorists. Control of current nuclear stockpiles is especially critical. The danger is very real that terrorists may be able to acquire nuclear material or even nuclear warheads. Even before 9/11, Congress and the administration had recognized this significant threat and, under the leadership of our former colleague Senator Nunn and our colleague Senator Lugar, we enacted a threat reduction program in 1991 to safeguard and reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and other former Soviet states. The Nunn-Lugar program has been effective in deactivating or destroying literally thousands of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles and hundreds of tons of fissionable material. Nevertheless, we have done far from enough to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. Shortly before President Bush's inauguration, a task force reported that the most urgent national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen, sold to terrorists, or hostile nation states, and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. The 9/11 terrorists clearly demonstrated their willingness and ability to cause catastrophic damage to America. Yet the Bush administration continues to spend less on the Nunn-Lugar program than we did before 2001. In January of 2002, the administration released a nuclear posture review that could take us in a new and far more dangerous direction. The review blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons first, even against nonnuclear nations. It also relies much more heavily on a nuclear threat by America in dealing with the difficult challenges we face in the world. The administration has even indicated it might use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack. There is no justification for that kind of escalation. Our conventional weapons are more than adequate to deal with that threat. We gain no greater deterrence by threatening to go nuclear. It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons and that has succeeded so well for so long in preventing nuclear war. Other nations have complied with this basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not just another item in our arsenal, and it is wrong to treat it as if it were. In fact, the Nuclear Posture Review specifically discusses circumstances in which the United States might engage in the first use of nuclear weapons, such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan. The administration also appeared to be considering the use of nuclear weapons against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We reap what we sow. If we brandish our own nuclear weapons, we only encourage other nations to do all they can to develop their own. It is ominous as well that the administration is asking the Nation's weapons laboratories to consider the possibility of resuming nuclear testing in order to protect our current stockpile and meet new requirements in the future. They want funds in the budget to be used to prepare for testing new nuclear weapons and to cut in half the time needed to do so. They have asked the Department to consider global strike capabilities with new nuclear weapons, which would have to be tested as well. It makes no sense to abandon our moratorium on nuclear testing. That moratorium has stood for over a decade, and it has served us well. The pending bill continues this dangerous shift in other ways as well. Last year, the administration received $15 billion. The current bill proposes another $15 billion this year to study the feasibility of modifying existing warheads to create what they call a robust nuclear earth penetrator, a bunker buster, with 10 times the size of the Hiroshima blast, to be used to destroy hardened enemy targets buried deeply underground. It is difficult to believe that any administration in its right mind would propose such a weapon. A nuclear explosion in a bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, with a devastating plume that could poison huge areas in its path. Surely, if there is any need for such a weapon, we can develop a conventional weapon to achieve the purpose of the bunker buster. In yet another far-out nuclear proposal, the Bush administration has proposed to lift the current statutory ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, which now prevents the development of weapons with yields under 5 kilotons--about half the size of the Hiroshima blast. The precision-guided conventional munitions and standoff weapons we have today make these many nukes unnecessary. They would be no more effective than conventional munitions and would be far more dangerous to our troops and to our planet. In the debate in recent weeks on tax policy, President Bush has criticized the Senate and come out strongly against what he called ``iddy-biddy'' tax cuts. What we should be really against is iddy-biddy nukes. The hardliners in the Bush administration seem to believe that the longstanding firewall between nuclear and conventional weapons is obsolete and is making us more vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. They claim that lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons will make our own nuclear threat a stronger and more credible deterrent. That is the last thing we need. The clear and present danger of the administration's change in nuclear policy is that it will encourage other nations to develop nuclear deterrents of their own. The entire world will be at greater risk that these weapons will be used--and used against us. Unfortunately, the real debate on these all-important issues of nuclear policy is only just beginning. Certainly, these issues demand far more attention than Congress and the country have been giving them. They have been eclipsed for too long by the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq. We can ignore them no longer. We have an obligation to our Nation and our people, and to all nations and all peoples, to see that nuclear weapons are never used again. In the debate in the coming days, I intend to offer an amendment to maintain the firewall between conventional and nuclear weapons. It strikes the provision repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons that was put in place in the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. That act prohibits research, testing, and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to weaken it. Some suggest we should compromise and allow at least a little research. I say to the Senate, don't let the administration even start down that road. Don't feed the nuclear addiction. It is essential to continue to prohibit even the research on any such weapons. We do not want our descendents, surveying a devastated planet, to say that in this legislation the United States breached this firewall and took the decisive, shameful step that led to nuclear war. Unanimous Consent Request S. 923 Mr. President, our men and women in uniform are committed to protecting the security of our Nation. They work hard and make sacrifices every day. And they are willing to give their lives for the country. As many begin to return from Iraq and other places abroad, we owe it to them to protect their economic security and the economic security of our Nation. These heroes are coming home to a failing economy--and for too many a loss of jobs. Today, more than 18,000 veterans are out of work. These are our Nation's fighting men and women, returning from Iraq, or who fought in the last gulf war. We owe it to them to protect them and their families' livelihood. President Bush claims that tax cuts for the rich will create the jobs these former service men and women need. But we tried the Bush administration's approach in 2001, and we lost 2.5 million jobs. Surely, we can do better for our returning troops who are now trying to rejoin civilian life. We can do better for all Americans who are without jobs in this recession. Today, nearly 9 million Americans are unemployed--2.8 million more than when President Bush first took office. This widespread unemployment has touched so many American lives, and it often seems the biggest in the face of those who have served their Nation in the Armed Forces. There is good news for some. The law requires employers to take back reservists after their deployments. Many of the men and women currently in or returning from Iraq will continue their service in our Armed Forces. But too many recently discharged service members are facing the same fate as millions of other Americans--they just cannot find jobs. We have an opportunity to extend the benefits for these brave Americans. We have an opportunity to make sure those ex-service members who still cannot find work after 9 months--the long-suffering and long- term unemployed--are not left without a safety net. They put years of their lives into serving their country. Now unemployed after only 9 months, we are going to say: Sorry, you have been out of work too long. We are going to stop your unemployment checks. We must not, and we cannot, do that to these workers. We must ensure that those long-term unemployed continue to receive unemployment checks so they can meet their mortgages, put food on the table, and take care of their children. The American people understand fairness. They understand that with one hand we are providing billions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals in this country, and we ought to extend the other hand to our hard-working men and women who played by the rules, worked all their lives, and paid into the unemployment compensation fund. They need that assistance now. For 80,000 workers a week, unemployment checks will stop coming at the end of this month if we take no action whatsoever--80,000 who have paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which currently has in it over $20 billion. Unemployment benefits are a lifeline available for millions of hard- working Americans. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics and join to assist the unemployed--just as we have during recession for the past 50 years. We know the extension of unemployment compensation has been supported by President Reagan, President Nixon, President Eisenhower, as well as President Kennedy, President Clinton, President Bush, and President Ford--all of them. In the 5 years in the 1990s when we extended it, it had strong bipartisan support. Four of those votes were in excess of 90 votes. We want to take that same kind of action. We want to take it this evening before we go off for a Memorial Day recess. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed--exhaus- tees--and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the amendment that is at the desk to remove the temporary enhanced regular unemployment compensation provisions be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hear the objection on the other side. Action is needed in these several days. Some 80,000 of our fellow citizens starting next week will begin to lose all of their coverage, for which they have paid into the fund. This is a deplorable situation certainly for those Americans, and I think for all Americans. We are going to continue this battle throughout this week and beyond. I have heard an objection voiced. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, many of us are increasingly concerned about the unfair restrictions on non-profit legal services providers under current Federal law who receive both Federal funds and private funds. In 1996, Congress severely weakened the ability of many legal service providers to represent needy clients. Under the restrictions enacted that year, organizations that receive funds from the Legal Services Corporation are no longer permitted to use private funds to represent certain categories of low-income clients. The only way these providers now offer assistance to these clients is to set up a separate office that receives no Federal funds. To do so has turned out to be prohibitive for many for many grantees of the corporation. The restrictions impose high costs on legal services providers and unwarranted governmental interference with their other charitable initiatives, and they undermine the promise of equal justice for their clients. Often, the results of these restrictions have been devastating. Many faith-based organizations that represent the poor have decided not to accept funds from the corporation, so that they can continue to help low-income clients to meet their basic legal needs. In fact, the administration is now in court defending the law, even though it burdens the use of private philanthropy by grantees of the corporation. If the administration prevails in court, it will have created a legal precedent that jeopardizes the President's faith-based initiatives. The corporation's grantees should be treated in the same way that all other non-profit organizations, both secular and faith-based, are treated. They should be allowed to use their private funds to alleviate the critical need for legal services. The restrictions are an unjust barrier for the Nation's neediest individuals and families who need our help the most. I urge my colleagues to remove these restrictions and to reopen the doors of justice for those who are unable to afford the legal representation they deserve in protecting their basic rights. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Chronicle of Philanthropy earlier this year and an article from the Legal Times last fall on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment substitutes the funds that have been allocated for the dividend tax, the $120 million, plus the accelerated funds that come from accelerating the lowering of the upper tax rates, which is another $30 billion, which is $150 billion, and adds that into a prescription drug benefit program. That is effectively what this amendment does. Effectively we are making judgments. We are making decisions and priorities this evening. It does seem to me that there is a greater need to make sure we are going to have a solid prescription drug program that is going to be the third leg of the Medicare system. The Medicare system provides for hospitalization and physician services. It does not provide for a prescription drug program. This will ensure that we have adequate funds for a prescription drug program that hopefully we will enact by the end of this session.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. We were trying to reach 10 minutes for ourselves. We probably have 2 more minutes for the Senator to speak and then we are finished.