Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senators Durbin, Levin and Reid, with Congressman DeFazio in the House, to bring fairness to the oil markets and do something to reverse the recent spikes in gas prices. Our legislation will force the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to initiate World Trade Organization (WTO) proceedings against OPEC nations. Under WTO rules, countries are not permitted to maintain export quotas. But OPEC nations actually collude to set such quotas. OPEC is an illegal cartel, plain and simple. We've allowed this cartel to operate for too long--it's time to put an end to it. The American people are feeling the effects of the OPEC cartel every day at the gas pumps. Many families are already struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages and the rising costs of health care. High gas prices have only made matters worse. When President Bush took office, a gallon of gas cost $1.47. Today, a gallon of gas averages $1.90. For someone who buys one tank of gas a week, that increase costs $350 per year. All this adds up. Oil imports now account for $125 billion annually, or one-quarter of America's trade deficit. That money could be invested here at home to create American jobs, but instead we are being gouged by oil exporters. While Americans suffer, President Bush has done nothing to bring down gas prices. He says he will talk to his Saudi friends in the oil business. But talk is cheap. The American people want action. This bill today is an opportunity for action. I have also released a report today, explaining the basis for a WTO complaint against OPEC. In some ways, the allegations are simple and straightforward: OPEC manipulates world oil markets by imposing export quotas on oil. These quotas keep the price of oil artificially high. Without OPEC, market analysts have estimated that the free market price of a barrel of oil would be around 10 to 15 dollars lower than today's price. That would make a difference in gas prices of 20 to 45 cents per gallon, saving American families hundreds of dollars per year. There is no reason to continue to tolerate OPEC's anti- competitive behavior. Collusion to put quotas on oil exports--or any exports--is illegal under WTO rules. For example, the WTO has found that a treaty between the United States and Japan limiting semiconductor exports violated WTO rules. The Bush administration has been lax in dealing with OPEC. In my view, President Bush's ties to the Saudis and to big oil companies prevent him from sticking up for the American consumer. Indeed, while the squeeze was being put on American consumers, oil companies and refineries reported record profits in the first quarter of this year for operations in the United States. Earnings for U.S. domestic refining and marketing operations increased by 294 percent for Chevron-Texaco, 165 percent for BP, 125 percent for ExxonMobil, and 44 percent for Conoco-Phillips over last year's levels. So while OPEC and their oil company allies have seen a boom, American families have seen a bust. In fact, for those middle-income Americans who will see any benefit at all from the recent tax cuts, rising gas prices alone will eat up half of those cuts. Since the Bush administration has failed to live up to its responsibilities, it's time for the Congress to stand up for the American people and force it to take action against OPEC. I urge support of this common-sense legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senators Durbin, Levin and Reid, with Congressman DeFazio in the House, to bring fairness to the oil markets and do something to reverse the recent spikes in gas prices. Our legislation will force the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to initiate World Trade Organization (WTO) proceedings against OPEC nations. Under WTO rules, countries are not permitted to maintain export quotas. But OPEC nations actually collude to set such quotas. OPEC is an illegal cartel, plain and simple. We've allowed this cartel to operate for too long--it's time to put an end to it. The American people are feeling the effects of the OPEC cartel every day at the gas pumps. Many families are already struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages and the rising costs of health care. High gas prices have only made matters worse. When President Bush took office, a gallon of gas cost $1.47. Today, a gallon of gas averages $1.90. For someone who buys one tank of gas a week, that increase costs $350 per year. All this adds up. Oil imports now account for $125 billion annually, or one-quarter of America's trade deficit. That money could be invested here at home to create American jobs, but instead we are being gouged by oil exporters. While Americans suffer, President Bush has done nothing to bring down gas prices. He says he will talk to his Saudi friends in the oil business. But talk is cheap. The American people want action. This bill today is an opportunity for action. I have also released a report today, explaining the basis for a WTO complaint against OPEC. In some ways, the allegations are simple and straightforward: OPEC manipulates world oil markets by imposing export quotas on oil. These quotas keep the price of oil artificially high. Without OPEC, market analysts have estimated that the free market price of a barrel of oil would be around 10 to 15 dollars lower than today's price. That would make a difference in gas prices of 20 to 45 cents per gallon, saving American families hundreds of dollars per year. There is no reason to continue to tolerate OPEC's anti- competitive behavior. Collusion to put quotas on oil exports--or any exports--is illegal under WTO rules. For example, the WTO has found that a treaty between the United States and Japan limiting semiconductor exports violated WTO rules. The Bush administration has been lax in dealing with OPEC. In my view, President Bush's ties to the Saudis and to big oil companies prevent him from sticking up for the American consumer. Indeed, while the squeeze was being put on American consumers, oil companies and refineries reported record profits in the first quarter of this year for operations in the United States. Earnings for U.S. domestic refining and marketing operations increased by 294 percent for Chevron-Texaco, 165 percent for BP, 125 percent for ExxonMobil, and 44 percent for Conoco-Phillips over last year's levels. So while OPEC and their oil company allies have seen a boom, American families have seen a bust. In fact, for those middle-income Americans who will see any benefit at all from the recent tax cuts, rising gas prices alone will eat up half of those cuts. Since the Bush administration has failed to live up to its responsibilities, it's time for the Congress to stand up for the American people and force it to take action against OPEC. I urge support of this common-sense legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that addresses a critical element of defense funding. My bill will very simply compensate men and women from all services who will be deployed even after their service agreement has ended. The so called ``Stop Loss'' policy that will keep over 10,000 troops forcefully conscripted is a direct result of perhaps the most dangerous error the administration made in its planning for the war in Iraq. The administration gravely miscalculated the military personnel required in the post-invasion stage of the Iraq campaign. It drastically underestimated the challenges of the so called ``Reconstruction Phase'' and instead naively pretended we would be greeted as liberators, with sweets and tea. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon failed to plan for adequate personnel to ensure the security of Iraq. But this wasn't just failure by omission. This was a deliberate neglect of expert opinion, which warned the administration that hundreds of troops would be needed to secure a country the size of California. In January 2003, three star General Eric Shinseki told the White House, the Pentagon and the public that 300,000 troops were necessary to execute the war and post-war objectives. Not only was his expert advice ignored, but he was also fired for offering a dissenting view. In May 2003, the administration was given a second chance to bolster its troops in Iraq; it could have solicited the support of our major allies--such as Turkey, France, India and others--and NATO and urge a truly international coalition to maintain peace in Iraq. Unfortunately, the opportunity to bolster our troops through a real multinational coalition was squandered and now it is too late. In fact, our troop shortage is so dire in Iraq that we are paying non-military private contractors to perform typically military functions in Iraq--everything from serving meals to securing command centers. We now have over 20,000 private security contractors in Iraq, which is approximately the same number of individuals as the international troops from the United Kingdom, Poland, Thailand, Italy and elsewhere who are in our coalition. And now, the military is forced to rely on the policy of forcing individuals at the end of their service term to remain with their unit if it is deployed or will be deployed to the combat theaters. The Pentagon has cleverly borrowed the corporate term ``Stop Loss'' to describe this new policy, which will affect over 10,000 new active duty and national guard and reservists. I call the policy: ``Going Back on Your Word.'' With the Stop Loss orders, thousands of men and women are being forcibly maintained in the services, just as they were packing their bags and preparing to return home to civilian life. Stop Loss has an extremely large impact on all troops, but especially impacts the National Guard and Reservists, many of whom have already been deployed much longer than they expected. These men and women have put jobs and families on hold and now the Pentagon is delaying their return further. My bill addresses the serious strain that is currently being placed on our young men and women in uniform and their families back home. It requires the Pentagon to reimburse service members $2,000 a month for each month that they are forcibly maintained in the Armed Services, after their term of enlistment has extended. Critics might claim that this bonus will unfairly reward some troops and not others. But the Army and other services already have instituted many different types of bonus awards that compensate service members above and beyond the base military pay. For example, we routinely give hazardous danger pay and separation pay and recently we've initiated new bonuses for those who enlist as a recruiting tool. It's only fair that we compensate the troops who have already been fighting on the front lines of our two combat theaters. These American heroes being sent back to war deserve a $2,000 a month bonus each and every month they are serving. While the richest among us have been rewarded with tax cuts, the soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men and women and their families are living paycheck to paycheck. This is just one example of how this war is requiring sacrifices from only a small, overburdened segment of American society. It is not fair and my Military Fairness Act of 2004 will begin to redress the inequity in sacrifice: I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that addresses a critical element of defense funding. My bill will very simply compensate men and women from all services who will be deployed even after their service agreement has ended. The so called ``Stop Loss'' policy that will keep over 10,000 troops forcefully conscripted is a direct result of perhaps the most dangerous error the administration made in its planning for the war in Iraq. The administration gravely miscalculated the military personnel required in the post-invasion stage of the Iraq campaign. It drastically underestimated the challenges of the so called ``Reconstruction Phase'' and instead naively pretended we would be greeted as liberators, with sweets and tea. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon failed to plan for adequate personnel to ensure the security of Iraq. But this wasn't just failure by omission. This was a deliberate neglect of expert opinion, which warned the administration that hundreds of troops would be needed to secure a country the size of California. In January 2003, three star General Eric Shinseki told the White House, the Pentagon and the public that 300,000 troops were necessary to execute the war and post-war objectives. Not only was his expert advice ignored, but he was also fired for offering a dissenting view. In May 2003, the administration was given a second chance to bolster its troops in Iraq; it could have solicited the support of our major allies--such as Turkey, France, India and others--and NATO and urge a truly international coalition to maintain peace in Iraq. Unfortunately, the opportunity to bolster our troops through a real multinational coalition was squandered and now it is too late. In fact, our troop shortage is so dire in Iraq that we are paying non-military private contractors to perform typically military functions in Iraq--everything from serving meals to securing command centers. We now have over 20,000 private security contractors in Iraq, which is approximately the same number of individuals as the international troops from the United Kingdom, Poland, Thailand, Italy and elsewhere who are in our coalition. And now, the military is forced to rely on the policy of forcing individuals at the end of their service term to remain with their unit if it is deployed or will be deployed to the combat theaters. The Pentagon has cleverly borrowed the corporate term ``Stop Loss'' to describe this new policy, which will affect over 10,000 new active duty and national guard and reservists. I call the policy: ``Going Back on Your Word.'' With the Stop Loss orders, thousands of men and women are being forcibly maintained in the services, just as they were packing their bags and preparing to return home to civilian life. Stop Loss has an extremely large impact on all troops, but especially impacts the National Guard and Reservists, many of whom have already been deployed much longer than they expected. These men and women have put jobs and families on hold and now the Pentagon is delaying their return further. My bill addresses the serious strain that is currently being placed on our young men and women in uniform and their families back home. It requires the Pentagon to reimburse service members $2,000 a month for each month that they are forcibly maintained in the Armed Services, after their term of enlistment has extended. Critics might claim that this bonus will unfairly reward some troops and not others. But the Army and other services already have instituted many different types of bonus awards that compensate service members above and beyond the base military pay. For example, we routinely give hazardous danger pay and separation pay and recently we've initiated new bonuses for those who enlist as a recruiting tool. It's only fair that we compensate the troops who have already been fighting on the front lines of our two combat theaters. These American heroes being sent back to war deserve a $2,000 a month bonus each and every month they are serving. While the richest among us have been rewarded with tax cuts, the soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men and women and their families are living paycheck to paycheck. This is just one example of how this war is requiring sacrifices from only a small, overburdened segment of American society. It is not fair and my Military Fairness Act of 2004 will begin to redress the inequity in sacrifice: I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I want to recognize students from East Brunswick High School in East Brunswick, NJ who placed first at the national finals for the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. The national finals of the program simulates a congressional hearing whereby students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. The students from East Brunswick defeated classes from every other State. The program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and features an intensive curriculum which provides students with a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the principles and values they embody. More than 26.5 million students have participated in program during the last sixteen years. I congratulate East Brunswick High School teacher Alan Brodman, State Coordinator Arlene Gardner, and District Coordinator Cole Kleitsch. I also congratulate the students on the East Brunswick team: Kian Barry, Patrick Bell, Kathleen Cammidge, Jessica Castles, Jennifer Chen, Ryan Citron, Jenna Elson, Daniel Gartenberg, Scott Goldschmidt, David Goldstein, Kristen Hamaoui, Marc Mondry, Jason Noah, Eric Nowicki, Nicholas Parals, Greg Parnas, Jessica Rebarber, Joa Roux, Blake Segal, Jody Shaw, Andrew Silver, Jeffrey Smith, Daniel Temkin, Abraham Tran, Arln Tuerk, and Haiwei Wang.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I congratulate The New Jersey Alliance for Action on its 30th Anniversary. For three decades the Alliance for Action has been New Jersey's foremost advocate of investment in infrastructure to benefit my home state's economy, environment, and overall quality of life. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation and we need to continually update infrastructure to help support our growing population. Most importantly, however, is that everyone at Alliance for Action understands how important their mission is. The organization is dedicated to working with legislators of both parties to accomplish their goals. With the population of the United States and the world increasing rapidly, it is important to have organizations such as New Jersey Alliance for Action which works to support New Jersey's residents. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the New Jersey Alliance for Action on their 30th anniversary.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hear my colleague and respect his ability to make a decision.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we have just seen is a vote on the constitutionality question which ought not be the primary point. The question is whether the American people can see pictures of those flag-draped coffins in tribute to those who gave their lives in service to their country. President Reagan, in 1993, understood it clearly. He publicly received the bodies of 241 marines who were killed, and there were photographs galore. And during the Afghanistan war, during this administration, flag-draped coffins were filmed. And during the Kosovo conflict, President Clinton was on the tarmac to receive those dead. But this requirement, this directive requiring strict censorship issued just as the Iraq war began prevents the American people from seeing the truth about what is happening. I urge my colleagues to face their constituents back home and tell them it was not appropriate for the media to photograph coffins, flags on top, in tribute in Dover, DE. It is an outrage to permit that to continue.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a question, Mr. President, for my colleague. The question is, Was it going to be a second-degree amendment or were these going to be independent, first-degree amendments?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are going to have a couple of amendments voted on very shortly. Our good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have had a private colloquy. He has been very fair in his review of the amendment I originally proposed. He has a different amendment, and he will speak to his amendment. I would like to amend my amendment. I am going to ask unanimous consent if it is possible to make a modest amendment to the amendment I already have at the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer a fairly straightforward amendment to this bill. The amendment will change the flawed policy that currently prevents media access to the arrival of deceased military personnel from overseas. I include access by the families as well. On the eve of the Iraq invasion, the Department of Defense issued the following bizarre directive: There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein (Germany) Airbase or Dover (Delaware) base. With this order, the administration effectively blocked images of flag-draped coffins from appearing in the media coverage of this war. It is very hard to understand that decision. I and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, went to Arlington Cemetery this week to honor the funeral and burial of one of four New Jersey guardsmen who were killed last week. I was struck by the ceremony. I have seen such ceremonies before, but in Arlington it has a special significance. Thousands of our comrades in arms from different wars are at rest there. But in the formal ceremony, it was particularly noteworthy that the flag was handled by the honor guard in such a way that every fold, every edge was perfectly handled by this obviously well-trained honor guard. When the final recipient among the guard was handed the flag, folded in triangular form, he took it, almost reverently, and carried it over to the mother of this young man who was killed. What a touching moment. Even though there were no direct photographs, it is permanently etched in the minds of those who viewed this ceremony. The symbolism of the American flag covering the coffins of those killed doing their duty has been televised as never before, and journalists are embedded in tanks with combat units. But by the order of the Pentagon, the solemn homecoming of the dead--a time-honored tradition--was forbidden to be photographed or to appear on a television screen. Perhaps--just perhaps--the American people might believe that the reports on the deaths of our soldiers are somehow exaggerated, and this time-honored respect for giving one's life in battle for his country--an honor by having a flag draped over that coffin--was going to be ended. In seeing these coffins, the American public would make it impossible not to share the sorrow of the families who received them. You didn't have to know who was in that coffin, or the family, to know there was another American hero being returned to his country. Seeing the returning coffins prompted a national sense of shared pain and sacrifice and despair. But during this war, the administration has chosen to fence itself in and ban cameras not only from the central military morgue at Dover Air Force Base but also make it difficult for the press to access the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in Washington. I visited Walter Reed this week with Senator Corzine after we left Arlington Cemetery. We felt it was appropriate to visit with those who were wounded and being treated at Walter Reed from the same contingent, from the Guard company that was attacked so ferociously. We talked to the soldiers who were there with their families. When you see the pain and suffering of those people, you realize how brave and courageous they had been. I talked to one man, who is now sightless, looking blankly into space. His wife was sitting there with him. He thanked us for visiting. He said he would never again see his 20-month-old daughter. But that would not prevent him from holding her in his arms. He was anxious to get back home to do that. He wanted to return to his fatherly status. He talked of his faith and loyalty to his country. That is a message that ought to go out across America. Why should the press be deprived from an orderly visit, prearranged, to talk to a young man like that, to see the incredible spirit that accompanied this man's faith. As a result of the current policy at the Pentagon, the over 830 service men and women who died in Iraq passed through a politically imposed void hiding the truth. Even during the Afghanistan war, flag- draped coffins were filmed, and during the Kosovo conflict, President Bill Clinton was on the tarmac to receive U.S. dead. In 1983, one of the most revered people in American history, President Reagan, personally and publicly received the bodies of 241 marines who were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon. I believe the current Pentagon directive is an attempt to manipulate public opinion or make this war pass something that is called the ``Dover test,'' as the Pentagon itself has coined it. The Dover test dictates that the Pentagon should suppress images of coffins returning from overseas in order to prevent the American people from seeing the real sacrifices that are being made. The current policy has nothing to do with the privacy of the deceased or their families, as the administration claims. Rather, this policy has everything to do with keeping the country from facing the realities of war, shielding Americans from the high price our young service people are paying. My amendment is straightforward. It simply instructs the Department of Defense to work out a protocol so that the media can respectfully cover the return to the United States of these heroes who died serving their country. The amendment specifically states that the new protocol must preserve the dignity of the occasion and protect the privacy of the families. I agree with that statement. The amendment requires the Pentagon to report to Congress on the new protocol within 60 days of enactment of this bill. The American people deserve to know and see the truth about the cost of the war in Iraq. My amendment will bring an end to this shroud of secrecy cloaking the hard, difficult truth about the war and the sacrifices of our soldiers. Our soldiers are fighting for democracy, fighting for a free press in Iraq. Yet our Government is censoring the press here. It is not right and is out of line with American values. My amendment is supported by leading media associations, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and in my view, we should embrace a free press in this country and not fear it. There are heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war for our country. Let's not censor the honor they earn when they return to our shores. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3291.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I did say President Reagan made a point of welcoming the bodies back to this country, 241 of those marines who died in Beirut, and I pointed to the fact that this President, to whom we just said goodbye and who was revered by so many in this country, felt in his heart that it was something he should do. It is so contrary to what is happening now. It does not make sense to me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague and friend from Virginia. We have shared many experiences. One of them is reaching a particular age when memories go back a long, long time. The recall that the Senator from Virginia just delivered to us about President Reagan's sensitivity and the part that my friend was able to play, viewing all of that and trying to expedite things, it is a wonderful recall as to what happened with a very sensitive President. I traveled to Beirut--and that was my freshman year in 1983--and I was there between the killing of the 241 and the killing of 8 more that the Senator recalls a few weeks later. It was a disastrous scene and left an impression that one can never forget of these young people in their sleep taken from us. I never recall hearing one family saying too much exposure resulted from that. I did not hear anybody ever say to the public, my son, in an unidentified casket, should not be honored in a generic way with his comrades who also are fallen in pursuit of an American objective. As the Senator was recalling his views and offering this amendment, I looked at some information we have, a New York Times/CBS poll from September 2003 that found 62 percent of Americans said the public should be allowed to see pictures of the military Honor Guard receiving the coffins of these soldiers killed in Iraq as they return to the United States. There were 27 percent who said no. In response to our good friend's concerns about whether families might be inconvenienced if they are called to Dover, DE, or perhaps embarrassed somehow or another, they do not have to go. That is not what my amendment says. It says that media should not be prohibited from going there and taking a picture and saying here is a picture of unknown heroes. We walked in Normandy together just a week ago, and I saw lots of crosses and Stars of David. I looked at some of the stones and saw a lot of them had a New Jersey home when they left, but I looked at one stone and it just gave me such a shock because it said on this stone, here lies a valued comrade known but to God. The unknown soldier of a family who lost a brother, a son, a father will never know what happened to them, but they were respected in that piece of turf with their colleagues who had fallen. I get very emotional when I think about the days that I enlisted in the Army. I was 18. My father was on his deathbed, 42 years old. My mother was about to become a 36-year-old widow, and what it meant to me to join with all of my other comrades to try to do something. The promise I had from the Army was they would give me until my father's death so I would know that I would be home with my mother. I went, and although I did not serve in active combat, lots of people I know died. We were attacked by German bombs constantly. Those days meant so much. Then there were the opportunities that were given to us: a college education, an opportunity to serve our country even more forthrightly. So when I look at veterans and visit the hospital, I see a fellow who has one limb remaining, a prosthetic on his arm, prosthetics on his legs, learning to walk that way, I say, by God, what a price we paid. How dare we not honor them in the most obvious ways. I hope I can have a talk with my friend and colleague from Virginia-- not to cover this issue with anything but a determination to say if someone has died for their country and we take that flag and put it on that casket, they have received the honor of their country, every one of the 280 million citizens we have here. When that flag is placed there it says your country loves you and they are terribly saddened by what happened to you. I believe that practice should be made obvious to the public. It is not the display of the coffin I am looking for; it is a display of our honoring this individual. It is the way to do that. I hope the good Senator's second-degree amendment can stand alone. Let this first amendment be considered. It is just to say we are not going to hide anything. The public is going to know that in that box lies a young man or a young woman who gave his or her life in pursuit of the country's interests.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Toward the end of my amendment I use the term ``died.'' That is an appropriate correction. I would certainly accept that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would confirm at this point that we will vote on this amendment whether it carries the second degree or it does not?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In those days the Germans would knock down the wires and I would put them up, they would knock them down, I would put them up, but somehow we survived.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical national security amendment that I have cosponsored. I commend the leadership of Senator Kennedy and Feinstein and I join them today in offering an amendment that will eliminate funds in this year's budget for research and development on nuclear bunker buster. This amendment also deletes funding for the advanced concepts programs--money authorized for research on small nuclear weapons. Mr. President, I am disappointed that this administration has requested these programs for this year's Department of Energy Budget. First and foremost, the development of these new weapons are not needed; the U.S. already has 6,000 deployed nuclear weapons. But most importantly, a U.S. decision to proceed with a new generation of nuclear weapons will undercut international non-proliferation efforts and undermine the United States' credibility on global security. We are currently facing a new type of national security challenge; our greatest goal is to prevent the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. As such, it is imperative that this country's defense and foreign policy reflect a firm commitment to every aspect of non- proliferation and arms control. Destroying and preventing the spread of current nuclear warheads remains a critical component of this commitment. So too is preventing the development of new types of nuclear weapons and materials, however small they might be and however limited their use. We invaded Iraq to change a regime that we were told posed an imminent threat to global security. The administration assured us that not only had Saddam amassed an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, but he was also actively pursuing nuclear weapons as well. We have so far lost 840 American men and women in this effort but have yet to uncover traces of WMD programs in Iraq. I find it truly bizarre and hypocritical that the administration would plan to build new types of nuclear weapons at the same time it pursues military operations abroad with the purported objective of destroying similar materials. In our global war on terror, the last thing we need is more nuclear weapons. What we need are more troops on the ground protecting Iraqis and providing stability. What we need is better intelligence and law enforcement and enhanced efforts to collaborate with our allies on both priorities. Instead, the administration has decided that researching and developing new types of nuclear weapons is a priority. How we can credibly ask North Korea and Iran to stop their own nuclear programs while at the same time we develop mini nukes and bunker busters? Let me respond to three points the administration makes in support of its dangerous nuclear requests: First, the administration says the Pentagon must study bunker busters for the war on terrorism; only the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), it claims, could be used against suspected underground bunkers containing weapons of mass destruction. They say our amendment will tie the Pentagon's hands in the war on terrorism. This is not true. The administration's scenario in which the new nuclear explosives are used against suspected underground bunkers containing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons is highly improbable. Our intelligence about the location of WMD materials is not precise enough to destroy it this way. Just imagine launching nuclear bunker busters based on weapons intelligence as unreliable as that circulating before the Iraq war. Even if underground sites were accurately identified, the resulting nuclear explosions could spread the blast, radiation, and toxins over populated areas. Moreover, current conventional weapons in our arsenal can destroy these materials. And if we really care about the threat of WMD, then the proposed research money ought to be going to fund better weapons intelligence and improved conventional methods for putting these WMD sites out of commission, like blocking air intakes and external energy sources. Second, administration officials claim that the bunker buster funding and the mini nuke funding is just for feasibility studies and research and development, not for use. They claim that we are opposing the important scientific advances involved in researching these weapons. With nuclear weapons, any materials researched and developed must be tested. You cannot understand the physics of nuclear weapons without tests. Currently, the U.S. is a signatory of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits testing nuclear weapons. If we test our new weapons, even at an early non-useable stage of development, we are immediately breaking this treaty and inviting other countries that are signatories to break this treaty as well. Finally, the proponents of the nuclear funding say that the administration's request only deals with a small amount of money--$9 million for the mini nukes and around $30 million for the bunker busters. Relative to a Defense Budget for 2005 projected to surpass $440 billion dollars, they say that the sum in question--the sum our amendment will delete--is insignificant. This is also patently wrong. First, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget contains $9 million for mini nukes, which is a 50 percent increase from last year's request. What's more important is not the sum, but the intent. The administration has made it clear that it wants this money to create---and I quote the Pentagon ``a more useable'' nuclear weapon. This funding, however small, sends a dangerous message to other members of the nine country nuclear club that the U.S. is intending to use our nuclear arsenal. Second, with the bunker buster, in May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetarato program ``is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less.'' This study was planned to cost $15 million for fiscal years 2003-2005. Yet this year, the Administration requested $27.6 million for the study, and suddenly revealed that it planned to spend $485 million over the next five years. That is not insignificant at all. I just returned from attending a celebration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France. The most important military and political lesson learned from the D-Day battles was the necessity of international cooperation. I believe that this great example of multi- lateral cooperation should be remembered and applied to current events, in Iraq and elsewhere. The world watched in awe as young, dedicated soldiers from several countries fought side by side on those beaches and cliffs that launched the events that would rid the world of fascism. Today, the administration's unilateral foreign policy and marginalization of the United Nations has fractured this alliance of democracies. Our relations with Europe are tense and our public standing in the world an all-time low. I believe that funding nuclear weapons in this year's budget will only provoke further antagonism between the United States and our allies. I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I have worked with my colleague from Connecticut to draft an amendment that will reimburse U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Central Asia and their family members for flak jackets, weapons and other equipment they have bought out of their own pocket. At the beginning of this war, the President claimed, ``We must always make sure that America's soldiers are well-equipped and well trained to fight this war on terror.'' However, the administration has not provided the adequate equipment the troops need to do their work, such as enough body armor or the most up to date Global Positioning Systems, GPS. In March 2004, I traveled to Iraq with a group of Senators. I spoke to soldiers from all different types of units, both active duty and reservists. When I spoke to the brave members of our Armed Services, I was appalled to hear that many of them needed higher quality flak jackets, more modern, lighter rifles, and armor for their HUMVEE vehicles. I have since learned that worried mothers and fathers throughout the country have gone to great lengths to purchase expensive equipment for sons or daughters, because they are dissatisfied with the inferior, inadequate equipment the Pentagon is providing. In a few instances, parents in New Jersey and elsewhere have gone out and bought the equipment for their sons and daughters and shipped it through Federal Express to Iraq. I find this fact incredible. It is unconscionable that the parents of our service members and their loved ones fighting on behalf of our country have been abandoned by the civilian war planners at the Pentagon. The administration, because of its inept planning and military miscalculations has forced hardworking Americans to pay for equipment that should be provided by the Armed Services. Our amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to immediately reimburse our courageous troops and their families for protective, safety or health equipment they have purchased with their own funds. This includes both the cost of the equipment itself and the shipping costs. The civilian Pentagon war planners have been planning the Iraq war since 2002. That is two years to figure out how to get the correct body armor and lighter weapons to our troops. The Pentagon's inability to equip our young men and women who are sacrificing their lives on behalf of this country is just among many egregious, unforgivable mistakes they have made. I am deeply disappointed with the civilian war planners at the administration and I hope through this amendment, the Senate will speak on behalf of the over 170,000 U.S. personnel currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their safety and protection. I yield the floor.