[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[Issue]
[Pages 22120-22256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 22120]]
SENATE--Thursday, November 16, 2006
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
John E. Sununu, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, give us Your wisdom when our vision fails, our
understanding is darkened, and the ways of life seem difficult. Deepen
our faith when our sight is dim. Guide our thoughts when we lack
understanding.
Bless our Senators. Infuse them with quiet confidence and patient
trust in You. Reinforce their courage with the knowledge of Your loving
providence. When they are frustrated, remind them that You are still
holding things together.
We pray in Your holy Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable John E. Sununu led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2006.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
John E. Sununu, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. SUNUNU thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I again want to congratulate the new
leadership in the Senate for the 110th Congress. Democrats 2 days ago
elected their leadership and the Republicans yesterday elected our
leadership. A lot of planning is underway for the 110th Congress. As
everyone knows, we have before us the objective of finishing the
business of the 109th Congress, both over the course of today and
possibly tomorrow, and then in a period that will begin the week of
December 4, and possibly continue into the week following that. Both
the Democratic leader and I have outlined what we have to accomplish.
It is still a very long list in terms of appropriations bills, in terms
of the United States-India nuclear agreement, in terms of potentially
other trade agreements. We have tax extenders and a whole range of
issues.
The Democratic leader and I will go into a quorum call very shortly
and we will finalize the plan for today. But as we stated yesterday,
before we leave this week--either tomorrow or we could finish later
tonight--we do need to finish the United States-India nuclear
agreement. We talked yesterday in our own conference about the
importance of that particular piece of legislation, legislation that
all our colleagues are familiar with, and we have a unanimous consent
agreement to proceed to that with a fixed number of amendments. If you
look at the amendments, it is clear that we won't have to do all of
those amendments on that legislation. So I am confident that we can and
we will finish that bill before we leave.
We do have an understanding that we will go to the agriculture
appropriations bill as well. At some point I want to be able to do that
and hopefully we can work out the details on how we can accomplish at
least starting that particular bill, with the objective of finishing
the United States-India nuclear agreement before we leave. So in the
next few minutes we will be coming back with an announcement of that
schedule as agreed to, but we will finish that bill before we leave.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
____________________
UNITED STATES-INDIA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it is so important that we do
whatever we can to pass this nuclear agreement that has been negotiated
with India. India is the largest democracy in the world and we have had
such tremendous relations with them over the last number of years. I
think it would send a great sign to the rest of the world that we are
able to work on issues of this importance and actually get it done. I
surely hope we can do this. I feel confident we can. There are
amendments and people can debate them. When the managers of the bill
have heard enough, if necessary they can move to table, or whatever it
takes to move these along. Senator Biden on Tuesday said there are a
lot of these amendments he is aware of that they could work out or
accept.
So I am hopeful we can finish today, tonight, or tomorrow, and there
is no reason we shouldn't be able to. We have a number of amendments
that have been locked in and there is no way this matter should not be
completed. I think it is very important that we go into the
Thanksgiving period with knowing that we have been able to work out
something between two great democracies.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be back with the plans here shortly
after I talk to the Democratic leader, and in the meantime we will be
in a period of morning business. Again, the United States-India nuclear
agreement is something we will complete before we leave and is the
order of the day. We should be able to go to that very early this
morning, maybe as soon as 20 minutes from now. That will be the plan,
to proceed through those amendments. There is one amendment we may have
to go into a closed session to debate, and the details will be
announced for that as well.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be a period for the transaction of
[[Page 22121]]
morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman,
and I would ask unanimous consent for each of us to sort of pool our 10
minutes apiece and take maybe the next 20 minutes to share--and some of
our colleagues who are going to come by and talk as well--about the
role our faith plays in the work we do here. If that might be
acceptable, I would ask unanimous consent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL BIBLE WEEK
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the elections are behind us now and we are
looking forward to the next Congress which will be seated on January
4--the 110th Congress. We have in town a number of newly elected
Senators and their spouses. A number of us--Senator Alexander, Senator
Voinovich, Senator Pryor, and myself--have been involved, along with
the Secretary of the Senate, in holding orientation for new Senators
and their spouses. On Tuesday night we were over at the National
Archives and we had the opportunity to have a reception there and a
dinner. The reception turned out to be a tour of the National Archives
and the opportunity to see firsthand original copies of the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, handwritten letters from George
Washington to all kinds of people, and from Abraham Lincoln to all
kinds of people. We actually looked at the original Bill of Rights
where we found that there were actually 12 amendments proposed to the
Constitution, not 10. Two were not actually adopted. It was interesting
to see and to go back over 200 years to the history and formation of
our country, to focus on it and to think about it and reflect on it.
When the Constitutional Convention was held, just up the Delaware
River from where I live in Wilmington, DE, and up in Philadelphia,
whenever the Founding Fathers were getting into a tough time trying to
come to consensus or agreement on one issue or the other that they were
grappling with, a lot of times they would take a break and pray about
it. When the inauguration of President Washington occurred in New York
City, when they finished the inauguration, they didn't go off and hold
big parties and balls, but they actually went to a church and prayed
together and had a worship service. In fact, I am told over in the
House of Representatives, when our country was young, President
Jefferson was participating in worship services held there. Even now,
207 years later, we still begin each day's session here in the Senate,
as they do in the House, with a prayer. We have Bible study groups that
meet on Thursday with the Senate Chaplain, Barry Black. We have done
that for a number of years. Senator Coleman, who has been one of our
leaders in a Wednesday morning prayer breakfast, and Mark Pryor from
Arkansas have led that for a number of years.
So faith, from the beginning of our foundation as a country, has been
important to us, to guide us as a nation, and to guide us today in our
own personal lives.
When the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights was written,
the idea was not to establish an organized religion; the idea was to
make sure people were free to practice whatever faith they wanted, and
to be respectful of people of different faiths and the fact that people
can worship as they see fit or choose not to worship at all. One of the
strengths of our Nation is our faith, but another of the strengths of
our Nation is the respect we have for people of different faiths. We
have people in this body who are Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. We
worship the same God, just a bit differently.
One of the things we try to do during the course of the week is to
use our faith. Whether we happen to be Presbyterian, Mormon, or Jewish,
how do we use that faith to help guide us in the policies we adopt for
our country and for the people we represent? I feel fortunate to live
in a country where we are free to worship God as we see fit. I think
there is a real opportunity here for us in the Senate as we try to put
our country back together and begin to work together after a rough-and-
tumble election to find ways that we can use our faith to figure out
our path, and to better ensure the people in this country have health
care, that folks have decent jobs, that folks get a good education, and
that we can bind the wounds we have opened over the last several months
and to move forward as a nation.
I say how pleased I am to have a chance to work with Senator Coleman
from Minnesota and how much I appreciate the great leadership he has
shown in bringing a bunch of us together on Wednesday mornings. I
usually can't get here on Wednesday morning. I go back and forth on the
train to Delaware almost every night, so I can't be there for many
Wednesday mornings for that type of fellowship. But I oftentimes join
my colleagues, including Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and others, on
Thursday right down the hall here for a Bible study group that is a
little bit like an adult Sunday school class with the Senate Chaplain,
affording us the opportunity to read scripture together, reflect
together, to pray for one another, and to be nourished spiritually.
I am delighted to be here with Senator Coleman today, and I thank him
for his leadership.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper for his
leadership. Next week is actually National Bible Week. I think it has
been celebrated since 1941. The Senator from Delaware is one of the
cochairs of that. Part of what I think is the purpose of it and the
importance of it is to reflect a little bit on the value, the
importance of the Bible and of faith in our lives. And we do bring
different faith perspectives and different historical perspectives. I
have a great sense of almost envy a little bit about being from a State
that goes back to the very beginning, to the time of the Founders. The
Minnesota journey has been a little briefer journey, a challenging
journey when the early settlers were coming out and landing. It was
pretty cold in the winter and it could be blistering hot in the summer.
You kind of reflect on your own mortality. To this day, we stand now in
the 21st century, and one of the things faith does--and we heard it
from the Chaplain, if you listened to the Chaplain's intonation when
the prayer began, calling upon God for wisdom, in a sense humility,
that even in this august Chamber it is important for us and our
colleagues to have. I think faith gives you that, requires that of you.
Alvin Toffler, in ``Future Shock,'' talked about the geometric rate of
change--everything is moving so quickly, and reflected in that is the
importance of some island of stability. One of the things that faith
does for those of us in this body is, in a sea of change, it provides
us with stability. It is an island. Everything else is moving very
quickly around us, but if you look into the Bible, look into the Hebrew
Torah, you find those kinds of rooted values--the social compact, the
necessity to help the poor, the necessity to raise your voices on
behalf of those who are oppressed, in bondage. All those values are
rooted in these books that we still, then, reflect on and study today.
I think it is important for us to do that.
One of the things, by the way, we have been doing is we have a
National Prayer Breakfast. Senator Pryor and I got to chair that this
year. I recntly put into the Congressional Record the entire program,
the transcript. I urge my colleagues to read it, take a look at it.
There are fascinating reflections from King Abdallah from Jordan. The
rock star Bono was the chief speaker. He said he is not a man of the
cloth, unless your cloth is leather, but then he went on to talk about
his own faith journey. He went on to say he used to wake up all the
time and pray that God blessed a certain thing that he did. Now what he
talks about is looking at and kind of putting his efforts into the
things that God wants
[[Page 22122]]
done, that He has already blessed, trying to figure out what is the
right thing to do.
At a time when the partisan divide is so great--we see it on C-SPAN--
what I think our faith has done, what it does for my colleagues and for
me in fellowship with my colleagues is, for those brief--those moments,
I would not say brief moments; actually, they are extended moments--it
allows us to get past that and recognize what is in the heart of a
colleague.
In the end, I hope it is a mitigating factor, something that then
lessens the divide that we see so often played out on the screen and
played out on TV. The things that bind us are so much more powerful
than the things that separate us. We do it, I believe, with a sense of
humility.
I was the mayor of Saint Paul, MN, the capital city. We say Saint
Paul is the city of two cathedral domes. There is the dome of the State
capitol and then the dome of the magnificent Cathedral of Saint Paul.
The dome of the cathedral is on the highest plane of the city, and I
say it is a reflection of who is in charge, and it is not the Governor
or State legislature, if we reflect on that in a positive way.
There are mad men who use religion and holy books to do terrible
things, but those are mad men. That is not what faith is all about. At
a time of great change and the world moving so quickly, I know for me,
personally, and my colleagues, we find refuge, we find solace, we find
a sense of peace in reflecting upon the traditions that brought us to
this floor, to this moment, and hopefully that allows us to operate in
a way in which we do those good things--those good things that we see
ourselves.
One of my favorite quotes is from Maimonides, who says each of us
must act as if the world were held in balance and any single act of
goodness on our part could tip the scale. I believe that every day of
my life. That is what faith brings to me and brings to us.
I see my colleague from Arkansas is here. Yesterday, we were visiting
the new Senators, our new colleagues, and kind of moving them to this
family. I will, again, say to my new colleagues that I urge them, on
the floor of the Senate, to participate in the National Prayer
Breakfast. The President is there, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
members of the Supreme Court and leaders from 170-something countries.
This is not just a Senate thing or a U.S. thing, this is a global thing
of great importance, as we saw in our last prayer breakfast, where you
have King Abdallah, a direct descendant of Mohammed, Norm Coleman, a
Jewish boy from Minnesota, and Mark Pryor, a Christian from Arkansas,
coming together on the platform. I hope that has meaning beyond that
single day.
With that, I see my colleague from Arkansas and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am so proud to join my colleagues this
morning, and I especially thank my colleague from Delaware for his
service as the Senate chairperson of the National Bible Week this year
and for preserving time this morning for our observance of this annual
celebration. I also want to say a very special thanks to my colleague,
Norm Coleman, the Senator from Minnesota, who does a tremendous job. We
work together on so many different things, but yesterday it was great
to be able to sit down and visit with the new Members, the new Senators
coming into this body and talk to them about how to keep their life
rich; not just to do their jobs as Senators but to take care of
themselves and to make sure that their journey in life stays strong. We
all know, in this journey that we all share on this Earth, this
incredible blessing we have been given to live this journey here on
Earth, if we keep that journey strong, then we will always be better
Senators.
I could not have found a better partner in communicating that than my
good colleague from Minnesota, and I appreciate him so much for that.
I am very grateful to be here to speak about the Bible, in
recognition of this annual National Bible Week and certainly its
importance in my life, what it has meant to me. In my family, growing
up in east Arkansas, my dad was a farmer. We are a seventh-generation
Arkansas farm family. We go back to our roots there along the
Mississippi River. Actually, the first Lambert, which is my maiden
name, who came to Arkansas was a Presbyterian minister who was sent as
a missionary to the Native Americans who lived in that area. It was
long before Arkansas was a State, and again it is a huge part of my
heritage where, as a Presbyterian minister and a Christian, Rev. Jordan
B. Lambert came across the border as a missionary to carry his faith
into the West.
In my family, we were all introduced to the Bible at a very early
age, and we were taught how to turn to its teachings early and often
for guidance in our daily lives and what we needed to make this
journey, our journey, each of us, our individual journey on this Earth,
a full one, one that not only was fulfilling for us but, more
importantly, fulfilling to our fellow man.
I can remember, as a young teenager, coming to Sunday school on
Sunday mornings. I remember one of my Sunday school teachers who would
take us every Sunday into our Sunday school room, and we made this huge
Bible village out of clay and papier-mache. It was wonderful because it
taught us so much of the times, of the Old Testament and the New
Testament. It was incredible how we built this.
I realize now, later in life, that that was a time to reflect,
reflect on the writings and the times that the Bible brings to us
because, as we sat there, very curiously and very diligently creating
out of clay and papier-mache this Bible village, we talked. We talked
to each other. We talked to the Sunday school teacher, the adult who
was there to help guide us. As she read Scripture to us and we made
these things, we talked about our experiences as young teenagers. We
talked about what we were going through in school, the cruel words that
others may have presented to us or the new student who had come to
class and who was not being well received or someone whose family was
ill or had a tremendous tragedy. We talked about these things as we
created this village, and then we realized, through those Bible
teachings and through those stories that we, too, were living that
word--hopefully--and learning how better to live that word in our
teenage years and in our adult years.
Without question, for me, the Bible is the most profound book in
life, and there is no doubt that its lessons shape the type of person I
am; the type of person I strive to become each and every day, working
hard to do my best; the type of parent I want as an example for my
children as they grow up and they learn these stories; and the type of
Senator I want to be to help lead this country.
It is no secret to any of us that the Members of this incredible body
are very blessed and fortunate in so many different ways. But what does
that mean, exactly, and particularly to those who are scholars of
Bible? I am not a Bible scholar, I wish I were, but I do look to the
Bible for that guidance and as a part of my faith, as the Senator from
Delaware said, it is a light. It is a lamp unto my feet. But the Bible
teaches me: To whom much is given, much is required. If you look around
throughout this body and realize how blessed we truly are, our devotion
to public service, hopefully, comes from a desire to live by the types
of teachings that the Bible gives us and that is to help the least
among us. It doesn't just teach us to clothe those who are naked. It
doesn't just teach us to feed those who are hungry. Those are the
important parts. But I never shall forget a lesson I learned in person
working in a soup kitchen in downtown Washington, cleaning up tables
after we, our Bible study group, had served a breakfast, which we did
on a monthly basis. I was cleaning up those tables and moving to what
was the next thing in life, which was heading off to work, there was a
man sitting at the last table and, as I began to break it down, I asked
him:
Are you still hungry? Is there something more that you
would like?
No, just 10 minutes of your time. Could you just please sit
and visit with me for 10 minutes?
[[Page 22123]]
I realized it was not just the nourishment that he needed. He needed
his soul to be fed as well.
If I think about all of the most important teachings in the Bible, I
think about how important it is for us to nourish one another,
Democrats to nourish Republicans and Republicans to nourish Democrats;
how important it is in this body that we feed one another's souls with
the kind of loving care that we are taught about in the Bible.
As a Senator, I thoroughly believe that government can be a weapon of
good, if we adhere to and follow the basic message of the Bible's
teaching of love. I think that is, without a doubt, the most clear
message that comes there--love, care, and respect for our fellow man.
Perhaps my favorite Bible lesson proclaims: Let us not love in word
but in deed and in truth. In an environment that gets way too
political, and so often it does, it is so incredibly important for all
of us to look to that lesson.
I thank you, Mr. President, and especially thank my colleagues, for
coming here to recognize what an important role the Bible does play in
so many of our lives and what a wonderful opportunity it gives us to
nourish each other's soul on a daily basis.
I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our 20
minutes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 55 seconds.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. CARPER. Of course.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 5384
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the unanimous consent for consideration of the United
States-India legislation, that during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, September 16, the Senate proceed to consideration of the
Agriculture appropriations bill, at a time to be determined by the
majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader; provided
further that following the statements of the Chairman and ranking
member, Senator Conrad be recognized in order to offer a first-degree
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Senator
from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall not
object, Senator Conrad is not on the floor. I am certain this will be
acceptable to him. His amendment will modify the disaster aid amendment
that was put in the Senate appropriations bill in the Senate committee.
I wish to be recognized following Senator Conrad's statement on this
introduction, to be part of that discussion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. What this means is, to clarify, in a few minutes we will
be going to the United States-India legislation. At some point over the
course of the day, following getting on that bill, the amendments in
that bill, we will have the opportunity to proceed to the Ag bill.
Let me restate our intentions to complete the United States-India
legislation either today or tomorrow. We will complete that
legislation. We have a whole list of amendments that were by unanimous
consent listed. I think we can condense those amendments down on that
legislation. We will be able to do that, I believe. If we do that, we
should be able to address all those amendments and have that
legislation completed.
I urge all of our colleagues to keep their statements fairly brief on
that legislation. Let's get to the amendment process in order to
complete that bill tonight so that we will not have to be back
tomorrow.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. How much time do we have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware has a
minute remaining in morning business.
____________________
SHOWING FAITH BY DEEDS
Mr. CARPER. Let me close by saying a special thanks to my friend from
Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, and to our colleague, Norm Coleman from
Minnesota, for talking with us for a few minutes today about their
faith. One of my favorite verses of Scripture comes out of the little
Book of James, near the end of the New Testament, where we read: Show
me your faith by your words and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
The most important thing is not how high we jump up in church but
what we do when our feet hit the ground, and our feet hit the ground
here every day of the week at about 9:30.
As we go forward, none of us is perfect. All of us make mistakes--God
knows I do. But I would just remind us all it is important not just to
talk about our faith but that we try to show our faith by our deeds.
Having said that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, at some point today following the debate
with respect to the India security agreement, we will by unanimous
consent have an opportunity to have the agriculture appropriations bill
on the floor. My colleague Senator Conrad will offer an amendment to
that bill which will amend a provision that I added to the bill in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
My colleague Senator Burns and I added a farm disaster amendment. My
colleague Senator Conrad has been working on an amendment that will
expand that to include the 2007 disaster legislation. Because we are
going to have an agriculture appropriations bill on the floor today at
some point, I thought it was interesting to call attention to a story
that was in today's newspaper.
Our family farmers--many of whom got hurt badly with the devastating
droughts and some of whom have been hurt by floods and so on--as I said
yesterday are the economic all-stars of this country. They get up in
the morning and do chores. They take showers afterwards--not before.
They risk everything they have, hoping their crops will grow. They
produce foodstuff for a hungry world. They are the economic all-stars
in this country.
But let me point out that in this morning's newspaper the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has said they are going to eliminate
``hunger''--actually eliminate the word ``hungry.'' The U.S. Government
has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again, but they may
experience ``very low food security.'' The U.S. Department of
Agriculture has decided they are not going to use the term ``hungry''
as they define that number of people in this country who do not have
enough to eat and are hungry.
There is something called ``an ache in your belly.'' There are hunger
pangs for people who do not have enough to eat. Apparently that is not
going to be called ``hunger'' anymore. Those folks who can't find
anything to eat and are suffering the pangs of hunger and the ravage to
their body because of not having food are going to be called people
with ``very low food security.''
If you don't have anything to eat, that is a ``very low food
security,'' but it doesn't describe in English what is happening. In
English, these are people who are hungry.
I don't understand sometimes the bureaucracy. I was here years ago
when ketchup was described as a vegetable, a part of a daily meal. Of
course, that was never very right. It is not a vegetable. Now they are
going to eliminate ``hunger.''
Throughout the years I have been here, I have served on the hunger
committee when I was in the U.S. House, and I toured much of the
world--going
[[Page 22124]]
to refugee camps, been around parts of this country. I have seen
hunger. I have seen devastating hunger.
I would desire to eliminate hunger, if we can. Our farmers are part
of being able to do that at some point with the prodigious quantities
of good food which they produce. We are not going to eliminate hunger
by taking ``hunger'' out of the lexicon of the Department and replacing
it with ``very low food security.'' I think it is not about the
terminology; it is about the will. Do we have the will to decide in a
country such as ours to address the issue of hunger and make sure they
have enough to eat.
We have programs in this country such as food stamps and the WIC
Program and other programs to try to address some of these issues. Now
apparently we have some folks in the bureaucracy who will address it by
changing the words to ``very low food security.''
Remember that when we later today talk about family farmers and the
plight many of them have. They are the ones planting the seed and
growing the crops--or at least trying to do that, except during the
years where there is a disaster when they have serious problems.
We have a hungry world. The fact is in this world we circle the Sun.
Our little planet has 6.3 billion neighbors. Half of them have never
made a telephone call and live on less than $2 a day. There is plenty
of hunger in this country and the world. Eliminating the word
``hunger'' from the lexicon of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
not addressing the issue of hunger.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have had a flurry of phone calls and
consultations this morning about the dispute that has gone on over the
last several days about getting to the agriculture appropriations bill
so we might consider disaster relief for farmers and ranchers hard hit
by drought across the country, the third worst drought in our Nation's
history.
My understanding of the agreement is that we will go to the India
nuclear matter but that at some time today we will turn our attention
to the agriculture appropriations bill and I will have the chance to
offer the first amendment to that bill. Is that a correct understanding
of the agreement that has been entered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct in that under the
unanimous consent entered into earlier we will move to the United
States-India legislation, after which the agriculture appropriations
bill will be taken up. It provides under that agreement for Senator
Conrad to be recognized in order to offer a first-degree amendment
following the statement of the chairman.
Mr. CONRAD. Very good. That is my understanding. I appreciate the
Chair confirming that.
There are 26 cosponsors of the legislation. It is wholly bipartisan--
many Republicans and many Democrats. I want to alert my colleagues that
at some point we will go to this issue today. It is not specified when,
as I understand it. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. It is specified that sometime today we will go to it, and
after statements of the Chair and ranking member I will be given an
opportunity to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
____________________
FEDERAL AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT REAL PROPERTY ACT OF 2006
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3699, that it then be referred to the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and immediately discharged, and that the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3699) to provide for the sale, acquisition,
conveyance, and exchange of certain real property in the
District of Columbia to facilitate the utilization,
development, and redevelopment of such property, and for
other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I take the opportunity to thank the
Governmental Affairs Committee for bringing H.R. 3699 to the floor for
passage today. The Federal and District of Columbia Government Real
Property Act of 2005 is a unique proposal to reevaluate the significant
Federal property in DC and make some land available to redevelopment by
the city. This redevelopment will broaden the District's tax base and
will eventually add strength to the city economy. As the ranking
Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia I am tasked with my friends on the Government
Affairs Committee to provide appropriate oversight of the District and
ensure a strong financial condition.
The Federal property that will be transferred to the District through
this bill will provide for a variety of new projects and there is a
great deal of potential. Reservation 13 is envisioned as a mixed-use
new community that will include new housing and businesses, and improve
access to existing healthcare facilities. That property also includes
the Court Services and Offender Services Agency, CSOSA, a Federal
entity providing offender and defendant oversight in the District. I
commend my colleagues for including a provision in this bill to ensure
the CSOSA will remain on reservation 13 in a facility which the Federal
government has provided significant resources to renovate. They are
doing a tremendous job to ensure that offenders returning to the city
are prepared for the challenges that face them and should continue that
good work.
In addition, I emphasize my strong support for youth recreation and
education opportunities in this bill. Properties all along the
Anacostia River and elsewhere will now be under the District's control
to develop and I strongly encourage them to commit to reserving a
portion of each property for youth recreation. We all know the health
benefits to children being outdoors, whether in organized sports or the
chance to learn about the environment. There are many tremendous youth
sports organizations in DC that boost kids' self-esteem and oftentimes
provide educational support or mentoring at no cost to low income
children. Particularly in an urban area where space is limited it is
critical that the District commit to providing opportunities for youth
to be outdoors.
I recognize the important need for outreach to the poorest and most
vulnerable children in DC. I strongly urge the Anacostia Waterfront
Corporation to form a partnership with a DC-based organization whose
mission is to provide environmental education to children in natural
and historic settings, and particularly to underserved populations. In
my work with the District I have always encouraged partnerships with
community organizations who know the need and how best to meet it and
this is a perfect opportunity to create new vibrant partnerships to
benefit the community.
[[Page 22125]]
I thank Senators Collins, Voinovich, Lieberman, and Akaka for their
hard work on this legislation over the past year. The base of the bill
was proposed by the administration in 2005 and we have worked
collaboratively with the District government and the Federal agencies
holding property in the city to develop a sensible approach. I support
the goals of this bill to rationalize property in the District and I
encourage city leaders to ensure youth have a place to play in their
plans for the property. I urge passage of H.R. 3699 and thank the
authorizing committee for their work.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that
statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3699) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
UNITED STATES-INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION ACT
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask that the bill S. 3709, the United
States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, be called up and
be the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of S. 3709, which the clerk will report.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislation clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3709) to exempt from certain requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear
materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to
implement the United States Additional Protocol.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, today the Senate begins consideration of
legislation on the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. This
agreement is the most important strategic diplomatic initiative
undertaken by President Bush. By concluding this pact and the far-
reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, the President
has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core
strength of our foreign policy in a way that will give us new
diplomatic options and improve global stability.
The Committee on Foreign Relations undertook an extensive review of
this agreement. We held four public hearings with testimony from 17
witnesses, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. We received a
classified briefing from Undersecretaries of State Nick Burns and Bob
Joseph. Numerous briefings were held for staff with experts from the
Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and the National
Security Council. I submitted 174 written questions for the record to
the Department of State on details of the agreement and posted the
answers on the committee web site.
The agreement allows India to receive nuclear fuel, technology, and
reactors from the United States--benefits that were previously denied
to India because of its status outside the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty--NPT. This pact is a lasting incentive for India to abstain from
further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United
States in stopping proliferation.
The bill before us is an important step toward implementing the
nuclear agreement with India, but we should understand that it is not
the final step in the process. This legislation sets the rules for
subsequent congressional consideration of a so-called 123 Agreement
between the U.S. and India. A 123 Agreement is the term for a peaceful
nuclear cooperation pact with a foreign country under the conditions
outlined in section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Our legislation does not restrict nor does it predetermine
congressional action on the forthcoming 123 Agreement. Unlike the
adminisiration's original legislative proposal, this bill preserves
congressional prerogatives with regard to consideration of a future 123
Agreement. Under the administration's original proposal, the 123
Agreement would have entered into force 90 days after submission unless
both houses of congress voted against it, and with majorities that
could overcome a likely Presidential veto. I am pleased the
administration changed course on this matter and agreed to submit the
123 Agreement with India to Congress under normal procedures. This
means that both the House and the Senate must cast a positive vote of
support before the 123 Agreement can enter into force.
In our view, this better protects Congress's role in the process and
ensures congressional views will be taken into consideration.
I thank Senator Biden for his close cooperation on developing this
important bill. It reflects our shared views and concerns. He and his
staff were valuable partners in the drafting of this legislation, and
the final product is much improved because of their efforts. Together,
we have constructed a bill that allows the U.S. to seize an important
strategic opportunity, while ensuring a strong congressional oversight
role, reinforcing U.S. nonproliferation efforts, and maintaining our
responsibilities under the NPT. I also want to thank all members of the
Foreign Relations Committee for their support, and the work of their
staffs, in crafting a bill that received the overwhelming support of
the committee last June.
For the benefit of Senators, I offer the following section by section
analysis.
Section 101 identifies the bill as the U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic
Energy and U.S. Additional Protocol Implementation Act. Sections 102
and 103 of the Lugar-Biden bill include sense of the Congress
provisions on U.S.-India relations and policy declarations. These
provisions give voice to a set of important policy issues involving
bilateral relations, democratic values, nuclear non-proliferation
regimes, fissile material production in South Asia, and support for
IAEA safeguards and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. All of these concerns
are reinforced by the bill's comprehensive reporting requirements.
Section 104 provides waiver authority from provisions in the Atomic
Energy Act and removes the prohibition on cooperating with India due to
its 1998 weapons tests and its existing weapons program. At the same
time, section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, which is preserved under
the Lugar-Biden bill, terminates nuclear cooperation if India conducts
a nuclear test, proliferates nuclear weapons or materials, or breaks
its agreements with the IAEA or the United States.
Section 105 of our proposal adopts all of the administration's
requirements to ensure that India is meeting its nonproliferation
commitments. In addition, we require that decisions in the Nuclear
Suppliers Group enabling nuclear trade with India are made by consensus
and consistent with its rules. Our aim is to ensure that this
multilateral organization will continue to play a vital role in global
nonproliferation efforts.
Section 106 prohibits exports of equipment, materials or technology
related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear
fuel, or the production of heavy water. The provision allows narrow
exceptions for the export of these items from the United States to
India if they are for proliferation-resistant activities that involve
the United States or have the sponsorship of a recognized international
body such as the IAEA. This provision is consistent with the
administration's policy regarding such transfers. It would allow
cooperation in sensitive nuclear areas only if such cooperation could
be implemented with no risk of proliferation.
Section 107 requires the creation of a system to ensure that no items
exported to India are diverted to any uses that are not peaceful. This
section seeks to ensure U.S. compliance with our NPT obligations.
Section 108 requires annual Presidential certifications that India is
meeting its commitments under the July 2005 Joint Statement, its
Separation Plan, New Delhi's Safeguards
[[Page 22126]]
Agreement and additional protocol with the IAEA, the 123 Agreement, and
applicable U.S. laws regarding U.S. exports to India. The President
must also certify on an annual basis that U.S. trade with India in
these areas remains in the national security interests of the United
States.
Section 109 requires that no action be undertaken under this act that
could violate any U.S. obligation under the NPT. Section 110 explicitly
stipulates that if India conducts a nuclear test, U.S.-India civilian
nuclear cooperation is terminated. Finally, sections 111 and 112
clarify India's Missile Technology Control Regime status under U.S. law
and various terms used in the bill.
The U.S.-Indian agreement resulted from a delicately balanced
negotiation. Neither side got everything it wanted. Nevertheless, the
Bush administration and the Indian government came to the conclusion
that the agreement was in the national security interest of both
countries. I urge Senators to vote in favor of this legislation without
conditions that would kill the agreement.
I would also note that Senator Biden and I included an important
piece of nonproliferation legislation in the bill as title II. In 2004,
the Senate ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol, but Congress did not
pass implementing legislation that is required for the treaty to go
into effect. President Bush has called on the Senate to act on this
important matter, and the committee voted unanimously in favor of this
bill in March.
The Committee approved this legislation with a bipartisan vote of 16
to 2. Furthermore 15 members of the committee asked to be named as
original cosponsors. Since that time, additional Senators have
requested to be added as cosponsors.
Due to the fact that the legislation was an original bill, the
Parliamentarian ruled that cosponsors were not permitted. This is
unfortunate because the amount of support our legislation has received
is impressive. I appreciate the strong support of Senators Biden,
Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski,
Martinez, Dodd, Kerry, Nelson, Obama, Cornyn, Bayh, Hutchison, DeWine,
and Lott.
During our markup, the committee rejected an amendment offered by
Senator Feingold. Under the amendment, the President would have had to
determine with absolute certainty that no U.S. nuclear fuel exports to
India could increase its production of fissile materials for weapons.
New Delhi would rightly see this as moving the goalposts--an
unacceptable unilateral alteration of the pact. If the Feingold
amendment or others like it are included in the final legislation, they
would effectively kill the U.S.-India Agreement.
I would have preferred that the U.S.-India Agreement had included a
commitment by New Delhi to stop making nuclear bomb materials, but
negotiations did not yield that result. Instead, the Bush
administration won an important commitment to negotiate a Fissile
Material Cutoff Treaty. Such a multilateral approach is the best way to
reduce nuclear tensions and threats associated with an arms race in
South Asia.
The Lugar-Biden bill declares it the policy of the United States to
achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the production of fissile
materials for nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan. Our bill also
includes an annual reporting requirement detailing:
United States efforts to promote national or regional
progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing,
capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles,
pending creation of a world-wide fissile material cut-off
regime, including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-
off Treaty.
I will oppose amendments that delay or impose additional conditions
on the agreement before it can enter into force. The Senate will not
advance U.S. national security in this case by making the perfect the
enemy of the good. We should not hold up the significant
nonproliferation gains afforded by this initiative in order to seek a
fissile material cap that India has indicated it will not consider
absent similar commitments by Pakistan and China.
The United States and India have engaged in initial discussions on a
multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, FMCT, to be negotiated in
the conference on disarmament. We should press for rapid progress in
that context.
The Indian government has expressed concern about section 106 of our
bill. This section prohibits the export of any equipment, materials or
technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of
spent fuel, or the production of heavy water. These technologies are
not purely civilian in nature. They are considered critical elements to
a modern nuclear weapons program.
This provision in our bill is entirely consistent with President
Bush's policy announcement on this matter at the National Defense
University on February 11, 2004. In his speech, the President said:
The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse
to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and
technologies to any state that does not already possess full-
scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. This
step will prevent new states from developing the means to
produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Proliferators
must not be allowed to cynically manipulate the NPT to
acquire the material and infrastructure necessary for
manufacturing illegal weapons.
President Bush also said that ``enrichment and reprocessing are not
necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes.''
In response to questions for the record that I submitted, Under
Secretaries of State Bob Joseph and Nick Burns amplified this
administration policy as it applies to the nuclear agreement with
India. They said:
For the United States, ``full civil nuclear cooperation''
with India means trade in most civil nuclear technologies,
including fuel and reactors. But we do not intend to provide
enrichment or reprocessing technology to India. As the
President said in February 2004, ``enrichment and
reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'' We do not currently
provide enrichment or reprocessing equipment to any country.
We will also need to ensure that any cooperation is fully
consistent with U.S. obligations under the NPT not to in any
way assist India's nuclear weapons program, and with
provisions of U.S. law.
Under Secretaries Burns and Joseph also answered that:
We do not export enrichment or reprocessing technology to
any state. Therefore, full civil nuclear cooperation with
India will not include enrichment or reprocessing technology.
This answer is especially significant, since the phrase ``full civil
nuclear energy cooperation'' is the phrase taken directly from the July
2005 joint statement.
In response to a question for the record that I submitted to
Secretary Rice, she responded:
The U.S. does not foresee transferring heavy water
production equipment or technology to India, and the draft
bilateral peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement accordingly
makes no provisions for such transfers.
Our committee bill, S. 3709, does not break any new ground in this
area. This is not a new subject. The answers to these questions have
been on the committee's Web site for months. Nothing in this bill
deviates from the President's policy, and we even go one step further
by allowing the flexibility to export those items from the United
States for proliferation-resistant activities with the U.S. or under
international cooperation. I support section 106, and I think it is
important that we take the strong and definitive statements made by
President Bush, Secretary Rice, Under Secretary of State Nick Burns,
and Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph and put them into law.
The Indian government has also expressed concern about section 107,
which requires an end-use monitoring program to be carried out with
respect to U.S. exports and re-exports of nuclear materials, equipment,
and technology sold or leased to India. Some have argued that this
provision is not needed because IAEA safeguards would verify the use of
any U.S. exports to India. IAEA safeguards only apply, however, to
nuclear materials, not to nuclear technology. Sensitive technology of
the kind the United States might export to India that can be used
[[Page 22127]]
in India's civilian nuclear program could also advance India's nuclear
weapons program.
This type of end-use system is not without precedent, as Congress
required similar recordkeeping for nuclear cooperation with China.
An end-use monitoring program can provide increased confidence in
India's separation of its civilian and military nuclear programs. It
also would further ensure United States compliance with article I of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The provision is not intended to cast doubt on the sincerity of
India's July 18 Joint Statement commitments or its March and May 2006
separation documents. Rather, the committee believes that by building
and establishing a special program with India, the resulting
coordination between India and U.S. regulatory agencies can provide a
basis for even greater cooperation and commerce between the two
nations.
Section 107 would confirm that only authorized recipients are
receiving nuclear technology; that the nuclear technology identified
for transfer will be used only for peaceful safeguarded nuclear
activities; that the nuclear technology identified for transfer will
not be retransferred without the prior consent of the United States;
and that facilities, equipment, or materials derived through the use of
transferred technology will not be transferred without the prior
consent of the United States.
This section also requires that, in the absence of IAEA safeguards,
the U.S. and India must arrange a bilateral system to ensure that
safeguards in India remain on U.S. exports and re-exports in
perpetuity.
Section 107 requirements could be met by applying to India those
measures already governing atomic energy cooperation under the 123
Agreement with China. Under Secretary Joseph testified before the
committee that, while the 123 Agreement with India will not provide for
full-scope safeguards, it ``will allow for appropriate controls to help
ensure that material or goods provided for civilian purposes remain
within the civilian sector.'' So nothing in section 107 would be
inconsistent with what may be concluded in the 123 Agreement with India
itself.
Title II of the bill includes the committee's IAEA Additional
Protocol Implementing Legislation. This title permits the Additional
Protocol the U.S. has concluded with the IAEA to go into effect.
In President Bush's 2004 speech at the National Defense University,
he called on the Senate to ratify the U.S. Additional Protocol with the
IAEA. He said:
We must ensure that the IAEA has all the tools it needs to
fulfill its essential mandate. America and other nations
support what is called the Additional Protocol, which
requires states to declare a broad range of nuclear
activities and facilities, and allow the IAEA to inspect
those facilities . . . Nations that are serious about
fighting proliferation will approve and implement the
Additional Protocol. I've submitted the Additional Protocol
to the Senate. I urge the Senate to consent immediately to
its ratification.
The Committee on Foreign Relations voted unanimously to approve a
resolution of ratification on the U.S. Additional Protocol on March 4,
2004, and the full Senate approved it on March 31 by unanimous consent
in 2004.
Unfortunately the Additional Protocol is not self-executing. Congress
must adopt implementing legislation for the United States to submit its
instruments of ratification. In other words, implementing legislation
must be passed before the Additional Protocol can go into effect. The
Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approved the implementing
legislation on March 4, 2006, but efforts to pass the legislation in
the full Senate have been unsuccessful due to holds placed by several
Senators.
At a time when the administration and the Congress are demanding that
India conclude such an Additional Protocol as part of its overall
nuclear arrangements, Congress must muster the political will to act on
the implementing legislation. Our credibility as the leader of global
nonproliferation efforts is at stake. Along with many other nations, we
are asking the IAEA to perform critical functions aimed at preventing
nuclear proliferation. An effective IAEA is very much in the national
security interest of the United States.
Some Senators expressed concern that the Additional Protocol and the
implementing legislation will make it possible, even likely, that
international inspectors will learn secrets about our nuclear weapons
program. Let me state clearly, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Additional Protocol does not contain any new arms control or
disarmament obligations for the United States. Although there are
increased rights granted to the IAEA for the conduct of inspections in
the United States, although there are increased rights granted to the
IAEA for the conduct of inspections in the United States, the
administration has assured the Foreign Relations Committee that the
likelihood of an inspection occurring in our country is very low.
Moreover, even if an inspection under the Additional Protocol is
requested, the United States has the full right, through the National
Security Exclusion, to prevent the inspection if we determine that it
could be potentially harmful to U.S. national security interests.
On July 26, 2006, the National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley,
expressed the administration's support for the language in title II. He
wrote:
The Administration urges both Houses of Congress to act to
complete expeditious action on implementing legislation to
enable the United States to meet its obligations under the
Additional Protocol.
More recently, President Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for
International Security and Nonproliferation, John Rood, testified at
his confirmation hearing that the administration strongly supports the
Additional Protocol and that it is important that the United States
pass implementing legislation.
I am pleased to report that a compromise was reached between the
administration, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and those Senators
who expressed concerns about the IAEA Additional Protocol implementing
legislation. This is an important step for U.S. nonproliferation
policy, and I thank all of the parties involved in the discussions for
their support of those efforts.
In conclusion, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to approve the
U.S.-India agreement. This legislation will allow the United States to
engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation while safeguarding U.S. national
security and nonproliferation efforts, as well as congressional
prerogatives. It is an opportunity to build a vital strategic
partnership with a nation that shares our democratic values and will
exert increasing influence on the world stage. We should move forward
now.
I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
amendment no. 5168
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk
that has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment
numbered 5168.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I urge the amendment's adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to as original text.
The amendment (No. 5168) was agreed to.
amendment no. 5169
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk that has
been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
[[Page 22128]]
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Obama,
proposes an amendment numbered 5169.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify United States policy in order to deter nuclear
testing by foreign governments)
At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following
new section:
SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR FUEL RESERVE TO INDIA.
It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear
power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of
India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities
should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating
requirements.
Mr. LUGAR. I urge the amendment's adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5169) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today the Senate is engaged in a truly
historic process. When we pass this bill--and I expect we will do
that--America will take a giant step closer to approving a major shift
in United States-India relations. If we are right, this shift will
increase the prospects for stability and progress in South Asia and, I
would argue, the world at large. The Committee on Foreign Relations has
worked to move this project forward, while safeguarding the role of
Congress and minimizing any harm to nuclear nonproliferation policies
and institutions. There is no one who has been stronger in dealing with
the issue of nonproliferation than my colleague, the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee. I have supported him in those efforts for
years.
I urge my colleagues to take a real close look at the argument that
is being made by some that this is going to promote the proliferation
of nuclear weapons. The fact is, I believe it will not.
I am going to urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to support
this bill. It has been a cliche to speak of the United States-India
relationship as a bond between the world's two oldest democracies and
the world's two largest democracies, but this cliche is also a fact.
Shared political values are the foundation of our relationship and, I
would argue, the raison d'etre for taking a chance for those who are
doubtful on this treaty. Both the United States and India believe in
the dignity of man and the consent of the governed. Both countries are
multiethnic and multireligious. Both countries seek economic and social
betterment for their people and believe that it is best achieved
through peaceful change, both domestically and externally. If that were
the whole story, however, it would not have taken us six decades to get
to the moment we are now.
For much of the last 60 years, the political structures were trumped
by geopolitical ones. Democracy in democratic India was often closer to
the Soviet Union, while the United States often favored India's rival
Pakistan, particularly during the most undemocratic phase of Pakistan's
national history. That alignment was an anomaly of the cold war. Today
the United States and Pakistan are important allies in the war on
terror and, at the same time, today the national interests of the
United States and India are in concert, perhaps more than any time in
the past. India and the United States are both status quo powers, at
least regarding territory. Neither of us has any claim on any
neighboring piece of real estate. We face similar challenges from
extremists and terrorists; in some cases, from the same terrorist
groups and same individuals. We share a common desire for stability and
the spread of liberal democracy throughout Asia and, indeed, throughout
the world. And we share a concern about the world's need for energy,
especially energy that does not increase the speed and risk of global
warming.
The need for new energy supplies is an important underpinning of the
issues before us today, legislation opening the way for civil nuclear
cooperation between the United States and India. In time, I hope
India's burgeoning energy needs will prove a spur to a wide variety of
alternatives to fossil fuels, including solar, wind, and biofuel. On
many of these, India has already begun to move, but at present, nuclear
power is a vital part of India's energy equation. It is likely to grow
in significance in the years to come. Experts note correctly that
nuclear power will still provide only a small portion of India's energy
consumption even when this passes. But at the margin, the contribution
of nuclear power will be greater, and India's leaders across the
political spectrum see nuclear power as an important and necessary
contributor to their country's economic progress.
The Agreement on Nuclear Cooperation negotiated by President Bush and
Prime Minister Singh in July of 2005 cannot be implemented unless
Congress approves changes in U.S. law. So we in the Senate must now
address both the opportunities and the nonproliferation issues raised
by that agreement. The administration proposed that we treat the United
States-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement as if it met all the
requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. In fact, it does
not. There is no way, of course, that India, with a nuclear weapons
program that is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, could
meet these requirements. I compliment my chairman for making it clear
to the administration that was a nonstarter.
Were Congress to accept the administration's proposal, it would lose
any real ability to influence a nuclear agreement with India. The
agreement would be sent to Congress, but we would have to enact a
motion to disapprove over a likely Presidential veto within 90 days in
order to stop any agreement from entering into effect. That would be a
gigantic usurpation of our responsibility. The Foreign Relations
Committee, under the leadership of the chairman, rejected this
approach, as did the House of Representatives.
The bill before us today would require, instead, an affirmative vote
of Congress before a United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
can enter into effect. Section 3709 provides expedited procedures for
the resolution to approve such a United States-India agreement. That
resolution would not contain any conditions, and it could not be
amended. But if Congress found the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
wanting in some respect, it could either reject the expedited
resolution or approval or pass a different resolution that did contain
conditions. That is what Congress did with the United States-China
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in 1985. So this bill protects
congressional powers not for the sake of protecting congressional
powers, as if we were interested in turf; it protects the balance of
power, the separation of power, which is essential in the formulation
of a policy, including foreign policy. At the same time, it offers
procedures that will expedite approval of a good agreement.
Section 3907 also allows the President to waive section 128 of the
Atomic Energy Act, which provides for annual submission of one export
license to Congress. That provision has never been used and would be of
little benefit to Congress, as a sale could be blocked only if a
resolution of disapproval were enacted, again, over the likelihood of a
Presidential veto.
The administration argued that section 128, while giving Congress
little real power, would harm U.S. industry by creating an annual event
that would frighten both the customer and the investor from proceeding.
We agreed, and
[[Page 22129]]
this bill includes a section 128 waiver provision that the
administration requested. Chairman Lugar and I yield to nobody in our
commitment to nonproliferation, and no one has a stronger record on
this than Senator Lugar. We believe we have presented to this body a
bill that allows civil nuclear cooperation with India to proceed and
ends India's nuclear isolation, but it does so without seriously
jeopardizing the hard-won nonproliferation gains of nearly the last
four decades.
Specifically, our aims have been as follows:
To preserve the right of Congress to conduct a meaningful review of
the peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement that India and the United
States are negotiating; secondly, to ensure that such nuclear
cooperation is used exclusively in India's civil nuclear program and
that India continues to be a ``good citizen'' when it comes to
nonproliferation, as it has been; to preserve the role and procedures
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and of the International Atomic Energy
Agency; and to do all this without requiring any renegotiation of the
United States-India treaty deal.
Look, every time we have a treaty presented to us in the Senate,
there are those of us, including my friend from North Dakota who is on
the Senate floor, who believe we can probably do it better. We believe
we could have gotten a better deal. We believe we could have gotten a
treaty that was even better than the one that exists. But the old
expression is that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It wasn't really very easy to do what we set out to do, but I truly
believe we have succeeded in the points I have just made. There is a
reason this bill was reported out of committee with a 16-to-2 margin;
we did really try to address the major nonproliferation concerns
legitimately raised by colleagues in the committee.
The Foreign Relations Committee did not endorse, for example, the
administration's request for broad waiver authority regarding section
129 of the Atomic Energy Act. That section terminates nuclear exports
to a country under certain circumstances. The administration did not
want that in place.
The committee agreed that the President needs the right to waive
those portions of section 129 which would end exports because India has
a nuclear weapons program or because it has tested nuclear devices in
the past. But section 3709 doesn't grant a waiver authority regarding
those portions of section 129 which would end nuclear exports if India
were to, 1, test a nuclear device in the future; 2, terminate or
materially violate the IAEA safeguard; 3, materially violate its
agreement with the United States, or engage in nuclear proliferation.
Look, if India does any of those things, then the premise upon which
we have dealt with a good friend and neighbor was falsely relied upon.
I believe India understands the consequence of this bilateral
relationship as profoundly as we do. If I am wrong about that and India
were to do any or all of the four things I just named, it would clearly
violate the spirit of this agreement, part of which, as all agreements
ultimately are, is based on some sense of comity and trust.
This bill requires that India sign a safeguards agreement with the
IAEA and negotiate an additional protocol as well. It requires the
President to certify, moreover, that the safeguards agreement is ``in
accordance with IAEA standards, principles, and practices.'' The
President must certify to that effect.
We understand that India, having nuclear weapons, will not accept
full-scope safeguards. But the language in this bill makes clear our
expectation that the safeguards agreement India works out with the IAEA
will guard effectively against diversion of foreign nuclear material
and technology to India's military program.
Section 3709 also requires the President to certify that the Nuclear
Suppliers Group has decided to permit civil nuclear commerce with India
and that the NSG, Nuclear Suppliers Group, decision was made by
consensus. We do not want to damage the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which
has been a vital institution in our fight against nuclear
proliferation. So this bill protects the Nuclear Suppliers Group's role
in governing peaceful nuclear commerce.
The administration has said repeatedly that this is an India nuclear
deal, not intended to permit nuclear commerce with Pakistan or Israel--
the only other states that never signed the NPT. The committee's bill
incorporates that distinction by requiring the President to certify
that the NSG--Nuclear Suppliers Group--decision does not permit nuclear
commerce with any other state that does not accept full-scope
safeguards.
The NSG is not likely to single out India as an exception to its
guidelines. Rather, it will create tests that a non-NPT state must meet
before nuclear commerce with the country may take place. The committee
believes that such a test should be substantial, so that the countries
outside the NPT are not all given the same benefits as the nonnuclear
weapon states inside the treaty. Thus, the bill before us today is
designed to maintain important nonproliferation policies that have
served our country well.
With regard to sections 106 and 107, two sections of this bill, they
have been cited by some Indian officials as causing concern. I will
address these sections, as I do not believe such concern is merited.
Section 106 in the agreement bars the executive branch from exporting
to India ``any equipment, materials, or technology related to the
enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the
production of heavy water.'' That is because these technologies are all
used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. In fact, the
administration already has a worldwide policy of not exporting these
technologies. Section 106 merely makes that a legal requirement in this
case.
Because section 106 makes this a legal requirement, we also added two
exemptions. One would be for a program such as the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, which is to develop a new generation of
proliferation-resistant nuclear facilities. In other words, the second
exemption would be for a facility in an IAEA-approved program to
provide alternatives to national fuel cycle capability. For example,
there might some day be a South Asian regional uranium enrichment
facility under IAEA auspices.
Some Indian officials are reportedly upset because section 106
singles out India. But they have long known that it is U.S. policy not
to sell them these technologies, so this is a matter more of pride than
of substance, which I hope they deal with. I would not object to making
section 106 apply worldwide, but we believed this was too large a step
to take in this bill. I would think it should apply worldwide.
Section 107 requires a program to maintain accountability with
respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology that we sell,
lease, export, or reexport to India. This program would include end-use
monitoring conditions, as appropriate. A similar program exists for
U.S. nuclear exports to China. Such a monitoring program would enhance
confidence in India's separation of its civilian and military nuclear
programs. It would also further ensure U.S. compliance with article I
of the nonproliferation treaty.
Indian officials are reportedly upset that American personnel might
need to visit India's nuclear sites. It should come as no surprise,
however, that we need to ensure that U.S. nuclear materials, equipment,
and technology are not diverted to military uses.
The purpose of section 107 is not to impose new conditions upon India
but, rather, to make sure the executive branch doesn't forget its
obligation to guard against diversion. That obligation is already U.S.
policy. It also flows from article I of the nonproliferation treaty,
which requires nuclear weapon states not to assist nonnuclear weapon
states ``in any way'' to manufacture nuclear weapons. And India remains
a nonnuclear weapons state under both the NPT and U.S. law, despite the
fact that now it does have nuclear weapons.
I hope that in conference we can adjust the wording of section 107 to
correct any potential misunderstanding of
[[Page 22130]]
its effect, which is not intended to be onerous. I also hope that
Indian officials will understand the U.S. need to embark upon nuclear
commerce with India in a manner that maintains our nonproliferation
policies and fulfills our international obligation. I believe the bill
reported out by the Foreign Relations Committee does that in a most
reasonable manner and that it will provide a strong foundation for a
new beginning in United States-Indian relations.
The United States-Indian agreement is much more than just a nuclear
deal, though, Mr. President. I believe historians will see this as a
historic step, part of the dramatic and positive departure in United
States-Indian relationship that was begun by President Clinton.
President Bush is to be commended for continuing and accelerating the
journey President Clinton started in our relations with India.
If I were asked to name the pillars for security in the 21st century,
India and the United States would be two of them. India and the United
States, working in cooperation toward the same goal, can provide the
beginning of a strong foundation for a stable world. And for the United
States, no relationship, in my view, is more important than the United
States-India relationship maturing along the lines that have begun.
The ultimate success of this agreement will rest on India's
willingness and ability to reduce tensions with its nuclear neighbors
and achieve nuclear stability. We all hope to see the day when India
and Pakistan voluntarily reduce or end their fissile material
production, as the recognized NPT nuclear weapons states already have
done.
I hope especially that India will not use its peaceful nuclear
commerce to free up domestic uranium for increased production of
nuclear weapons. The United States-India deal doesn't bar India from
doing that. But such a nuclear buildup--unless carried out in response
to a direct threat from its nuclear-armed neighbors--would be a gross
abuse of the world's trust, in my view. It would sour relations between
India and the United States, just at a time when both countries hope to
build upon a new foundation that has been laid in the past decade and
which I respectfully suggest is in the overwhelming self-interest of
both countries.
India and the world will also benefit if India embraces these
critical nonproliferation standards. These include the Proliferation
Security Initiative; the guidelines and policies of the Australia
Group, which, I add, controls exports that could help countries build
chemical or biological weapons; and the guidelines and policies of the
Wassenaar Arrangement, which combats the spread of advanced
conventional weapons.
India is a major world power. India needs to--and will, I believe--
step up to this awesome responsibility. As an important world power, it
is important that support for the complete nonproliferation regime
would make a gigantic difference in the world. Currently, however,
India doesn't stop its companies from exporting dual-use chemicals and
equipment to countries such as Iran because those exports are not
banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Other leading countries have concluded that unrestrained exports of
items that could be used to produce chemical or biological weapons and
advanced conventional weapons are a real danger to world stability. It
is my fervent hope and prayer that India reaches that conclusion as
well. It is time for them to adopt, in my opinion, the same approach to
the dangers posed by such proliferation.
India will not attain the respect and status it seeks and deserves in
the world unless it takes a willing and active role in preventing
proliferation of all kinds. The nuclear deal we are considering today
is a sign, however, of the world's desire to bring India into the fold.
I hope India will use this deal as a departure point from which it will
branch out to embrace all international nonproliferation activities. It
will surely be welcomed if it does.
In my view, the bill before us is a victory for United States-India
relationships. It is a victory for the quest to move beyond fossil
fuels. And it is a victory we have achieved while doing our best to
maintain the global effort to end proliferation.
I believe, not guaranteed by this agreement, it will be also a point
of departure for India to rethink its role in the world with regard to
proliferation of all kinds. I sincerely hope it does.
I end where I began. I think United States-India relations is two of
the pillars upon which we have a chance--we have a chance, a real
chance--to build a 21st century that is much more stable than the 20th
century and to avoid the carnage of the 20th century. It cannot be done
without India's cooperation, and it can be done with India's
leadership.
I thank my colleagues for listening. I understand my friend from
North Dakota may have an amendment or may wish to seek the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish I were on the Senate floor today
able to be supportive of the chairman and ranking member of the
committee. They have both given persuasive and eloquent statements
about the matter.
I come to the floor of the Senate with a different view. I come here
very disappointed because I think we are beginning down a very
troublesome road for this country. I want to talk a little about what
all this means.
I know the issue is not an issue that rates at the top of the
attention of the American people at the moment, this Government, or the
press corps. This is an issue about whether there will be more nuclear
weapons built in a world in which there are already too many nuclear
weapons. This is an issue in which we are going to discuss the issue of
nonproliferation, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons at a time when
we have terrorism in this world that we worry could result in a
terrorist organization acquiring a nuclear weapon and detonating a
nuclear weapon in a major American city.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show a couple of items on
the floor of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Lugar, is someone
who has been a real leader with Senator Nunn on the Nunn-Lugar program,
which I have been proud to support. It has been a program that has
actually reduced the number of nuclear weapons and reduced the delivery
systems for nuclear weapons. It is what we aspire to do. It is what our
country should lead the world in doing, and that is to step away from
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the building of new nuclear
weapons.
This is a piece of a wing strut from a Backfire bomber. This used to
be flying in the air, part of a wing strut from a Soviet Backfire
bomber that likely carried nuclear weapons that threatened our country.
We didn't shoot this plane down. This wing strut was sawed off. The
wing was destroyed. The plane was destroyed. It was dismantled.
How did that happen? We actually paid for it. My colleagues, Senator
Nunn and Senator Lugar, proposed legislation that allowed us to, with
the Russians, actually begin to destroy and reduce delivery systems and
nuclear weapons. So this bomber that carried a nuclear weapon,
presumably to threaten this country, doesn't exist anymore. A piece of
its wing is in my desk drawer in the United States Senate.
This is a vile of ground-up copper. This used to be part of a Soviet
submarine, that prowled under the water with missiles and warheads
presumably aimed at U.S. cities. Yes, this used to be a Soviet
submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction threatening our country.
This was a hinge on a missile silo in the Ukraine, and that missile
silo contained a missile. That missile contained nuclear warheads,
presumably aimed at a U.S. military target or a U.S. city. This hinge,
of course, is in my desk today, not in a field in the Ukraine. Where
that missile used to sit, there is no missile. There is no missile
silo. There are now sunflowers planted in that field in the Ukraine.
[[Page 22131]]
The Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus--all three countries--had several
thousand nuclear weapons and are now free of all nuclear weapons.
How did all that happen? Was it by accident? No, no, it wasn't. This
country embarked on a set of policies and proposals that resulted in
the reduction of delivery systems and nuclear weapons.
Have we been enormously successful? I have described some successes,
but we have, oh, probably 25,000 to 30,000 nuclear weapons remaining on
this Earth. Far too many--25,000 to 30,000 nuclear weapons. We have
much to do to step away from the abyss of having a terrorist
organization or rogue nation acquire nuclear weapons and threaten our
country or threaten the world.
We have all experienced 9/11/2001 where several thousand innocent
Americans were murdered. That was an unbelievable terrorist attack on
our country. It could happen again with a nuclear weapon. We are going
to spend $9 billion or $10 billion this year building an antiballistic
missile defense system to create some sort of an electronic catcher's
mitt to catch an intercontinental ballistic missile someone might aim
at our country armed with a nuclear warhead.
That is one of the least likely threats our country faces. We are
going to spend close to $10 billion for a threat that is one of the
least likely threats we face.
The most likely threat, perhaps, instead of an intercontinental
ballistic missile coming in at 18,000 miles an hour aimed at an
American city, is a container ship pulling up to a dock in a major
American city at 3 miles an hour with a container that contains a
weapon of mass destruction onboard, to be detonated in the middle of an
American city.
Let me read for the Record, as I start--and I want to then talk about
this specific agreement--I want to read an excerpt from Graham
Allison's book. He is at Harvard. He wrote a book called ``Nuclear
Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.''
I talk about 9/11/2001, several thousand Americans murdered by
terrorists. The detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city by a
terrorist group will not mean several thousand Americans being
murdered; it could likely mean several hundred thousand Americans being
murdered, or more.
Let me read to you from Graham Allison's book. I am quoting:
On October 11, 2001, a month to the day after the terrorist
assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President
George W. Bush faced an even more terrifying prospect. At
that morning's Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing,
George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, informed
the president that a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire had
reported that Al Qaeda terrorists possessed a ten-kiloton
nuclear bomb, evidently stolen from the Russian arsenal.
According to Dragonfire, this nuclear weapon was now on
American soil, in New York City.
The CIA had no independent confirmation of this report, but
neither did it have any basis on which to dismiss it. Did
Russia's arsenal include a large number of ten-kiloton
weapons? Yes. Could the Russian government account for all
the nuclear weapons the Soviet Union had built during the
Cold War? No. Could Al Qaeda have acquired one or more of
these weapons? Yes. Could it have smuggled a nuclear weapon
through American border controls in New York City without
anyone's knowledge? Yes. . . .
In the hours that followed, national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice analyzed what strategists call the ``problem
from hell.'' Unlike the Cold War, when the United States and
the Soviet Union knew that an attack against the other would
illicit a retaliatory strike of greater measure, Al Qaeda--
with no return address--had no such fear of reprisal. Even if
the president were prepared to negotiate, Al Qaeda had no
phone number to call.
Clearly, no decision could be taken without much more
information about the threat and those behind it. But how
could Rice engage a wider circle of experts and analysts
without the White House's suspicions leaking to the press? A
CNN flash that the White House had information about an Al
Qaeda nuclear weapon in Manhattan would create chaos. New
Yorkers would flee the city in terror, and residents of other
metropolitan areas would panic.
I continue to quote:
Concerned that Al Qaeda could have smuggled a nuclear
weapon into Washington as well, the president ordered Vice
President Dick Cheney to leave the capital for an
``undisclosed location,'' where he would remain for many
weeks to follow. That was standard procedure to ensure
``continuity of government''. . . . Several hundred federal
employees from more than a dozen government agencies joined
the vice president at this secret site. . . . The president
also immediately dispatched NEST specialists (Nuclear
Emergency Support Teams of scientists and engineers) to New
York City to search for the weapon. But no one in the city
was informed of the threat, not even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
As the CIA's analysts examined Dragonfire's report and
compared it with other bits of information, they noted that
the attack on the World Trade Center in September had set the
bar higher for future terrorist spectaculars.
I won't read to the end. I ask unanimous consent that this document
be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. At the end of this process, they finally determined after
about a month that this was not a credible threat. Dragonfire's report
turned out not to be credible.
But at the time they took the report very seriously. They analyzed it
this way: Was it possible that a Russian 10-kiloton nuclear weapon
could have been stolen? Yes, it was possible. Is it possible a
terrorist group could have acquired it? Yes. Is it possible it could
have been smuggled into New York City? The answer was yes. And, if so,
was it possible a terrorist group could detonate a nuclear weapon in a
major American city? The answer was yes.
This is not fiction. I am reading an excerpt of a book of something
that happened in October of 2001.
My greatest fear is that we do not yet understand the difference
between what was and what is. What was, was a standoff called the cold
war in which two major nuclear superpowers aimed massive numbers of
nuclear warheads at each other, but understanding, under the concept of
mutually assured destruction, called MAD, that if either attacked the
other, the other would be literally vaporized by an avalanche of
nuclear weapons. The result was that there was a standoff, a mutually
assured destruction standoff, and although both sides in that Cold
War--the United States and the Soviet Union--possessed the most
unbelievably powerful killing machines known to humankind, they were
not used. Neither side ever used them.
Fast-forward to today. The Cold War is over. President Bush, in fact,
visited with the President Putin yesterday, in Russia. Times have
changed, but this world still has somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000
nuclear weapons, the loss of one of which could be cataclysmic for this
world. The detonation of one nuclear weapon in a major city will change
everything--everything--and be a catastrophe unlike any we have
previously known.
If we have 25,000 or 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth, what is
the responsibility of this great country? What is our responsibility?
What burden falls on our shoulders? I submit it is the burden to
provide world leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to
reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and to reduce the stockpile of
nuclear weapons. That is our responsibility. That responsibility falls
on us.
How do we do that? Listen, our country has provided leadership in a
nonproliferation treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the test
ban treaty. Our country has been moving always, telling the rest of the
world we aspire to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Now we live in
this age of terrorism where we see people who are perfectly content to
kill themselves. They don't care. As long as they can take a weapon
with them and kill themselves and many others with them, it doesn't
matter to them. They are reaching for some higher glory, apparently.
In this age of terrorism, everything about nuclear weapons has
changed. The loss of one nuclear weapon, the loss of one anywhere on
this globe to a terrorist organization is going to be devastating.
So if that is the case, what does it have to do with what we are
talking about today? We are now talking today about a country called
India. India is
[[Page 22132]]
quite a remarkable place--a wonderful country with wonderful people. It
is a big country. It is trying to build an economy. You can read some
books about what is going on in India and the discussions about
progress--it is quite a remarkable place. Our country aspires to have a
better relationship with India. I support that. I believe we ought to
reach out to India and improve our relationship, cement our
relationship.
I know there are some who see all of the geopolitical relationships
on this Earth as aligning one way or the other. We align with this
country to be a counterweight against this set of interests, and it is
kind of akin to teams. So I confess to you, I come here today not
perhaps understanding all of the sophisticated elements of
counterweights and the nuances of why someone believes it is essential,
at this point, to allow India to produce additional nuclear weapons in
order to create some sort of counterweight to China, but I want to talk
about this issue. I was unbelievably surprised to read in the newspaper
of the travels of Ambassador Burns, someone for whom I have high
regard, and of the interest of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in
going to India and reaching a deal without consulting Congress that I
think begins to unravel, and undermine several decades of efforts in
our country to tell the world: It is our responsibility and our major
goal to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and try to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons and reduce the nuclear threat.
We would not be in this position today with this bill with India if
India had followed the example, for example, of South Africa. They
secretly had nuclear weapons by the 1980s. But South Africa dismantled
them prior to the transfer of power to the postapartheid government.
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus had more than 4,000 nuclear weapons in
those three countries when the Soviet Union was dissolved which they
gave up in the years following. And I must say that my colleague
Senator Lugar and others had significant successes in working with
those three countries to accomplish that. So Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Belarus are all now free of nuclear weapons.
Any nuclear deal--any relationship we have with another country that
deals with nuclear power and nuclear issues should be judged, in my
opinion, on whether it reduces the number of nuclear weapons. Does it
reduce the nuclear weapons that exist or increase them? It is quite
clear that what we are debating will result in an increase in nuclear
weapons in India. I don't think there is much doubt about that. This
bill fails that test, in my judgment.
Experts have warned that there is enough weapons-usable fissile
material in the world to make about 130,000 nuclear weapons. A working
nuclear bomb, we are told, can be made with as little as 35 pounds of
uranium-235 or 9 pounds of plutonium-239. And the acquisition of a
nuclear weapon by a terrorist is, in my judgment, the greatest threat
that exists in our country.
Retired GEN Eugene Habiger, who commanded America's nuclear forces,
said that nuclear terrorism ``is not a matter of if, it is a matter of
when.''
Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post recently:
The world is faced with the nightmarish prospect that
nuclear weapons will become a standard part of national
armament and wind up in terrorists' hands.
Former Senator Sam Nunn wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
We know that terrorists are seeking nuclear materials--
enriched uranium or plutonium--to build nuclear weapons. We
know that if they get that nuclear material, they can build a
nuclear weapon. We believe that if they build such a weapon,
they will use it. We know terrorists are not likely to be
deterred, and that the more this nuclear material is
available, the higher the risks.
Osama bin Laden has been seeking nuclear components since the 1990s.
In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement entitled ``The Nuclear Bomb
of Islam,'' declaring:
It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as
possible to terrorize the enemies of God.
And Osama bin Laden's spokesman announced that the group aspires ``to
kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children,'' in response
to casualties supposedly inflicted on Muslims by the United States and
Israel.
The more countries there are with nuclear weapons and weapons-grade
nuclear material and the more weapons each of them has, the greater the
threat that one will be used by a rogue nation or will fall into the
hands of terrorist groups.
Now, frankly, we have not been very aggressive as a country in recent
years in stopping proliferation. Instead of talking about how we would
reduce the number of nuclear weapons, we were on the floor of the
Senate, during previous debates, talking about the fact that we need
new nuclear weapons. Our country has said we need designer nuclear
weapons; we need bunker-buster nuclear weapons. We have people openly
speaking about the desire in this country to build additional nuclear
weapons.
We attacked Iraq because we believed it possessed and was seeking
nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. We are spending $10
billion a year, as I said, on missile defense for fear that North Korea
already has nuclear weapons. And we are talking about serious issues
with Iran in order to try to stop its nuclear program. And the No. 1
nightmare is that a terrorist group may acquire a nuclear weapon. No
one in my judgment can credibly say that a world that has more nuclear
weapons is a safer world. It is just not.
Nowhere in the world is the threat of nuclear terrorism more imminent
than in South Asia. It is the home to al-Qaida which seeks nuclear
weapons. It is an area where relations among regional nuclear powers
are always tense: China, India, and Pakistan. India and China fought a
border war in 1962. India and Pakistan fought three major wars, had
numerous smaller scale conflicts since the partition of British India
in 1947. Both India and Pakistan detonated nuclear weapons in 1998 and
declared themselves as nuclear powers. And after that, all of us in the
world held our breath as they began fighting a limited war in Kashmir.
Now, it has traditionally been the case that the United States has
led the international community in efforts to deny India, Pakistan, and
other nonnuclear States access to nuclear technology. That has been our
traditional role. We have always been the one who said: No, no, no. We
can't do that. We need to limit the capability of nations that will not
sign up to nonproliferation.
We pushed for the nonproliferation treaty, which prohibits nuclear
assistance to these so-called nonnuclear States, unless they agree to
put all of their nuclear facilities under international safeguards and
to give up the option of developing a nuclear weapon. That has been our
position. It has always been our position.
Article I of the nonproliferation treaty obligates the recognized
nuclear weapons States, including the United States, to:
Not in any way assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear
weapons State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
That is Article I of the nonproliferation treaty. We signed it. We
helped write it. We supported it. It is what we believe in.
The United States helped form the Nuclear Suppliers Group in 1975 to
help prevent the misuse of peaceful nuclear technology. In 1978, we
passed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, which restricts nuclear
commerce with States that don't agree to the full scope of the
safeguards. We pushed for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172 which
condemned India's and Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests and called upon
them to cease their nuclear weapons programs and join the
nonproliferation treaty as nonnuclear weapons states. We did that.
In 1998, President Clinton imposed sanctions on both India and
Pakistan, under section 102 of the Arms Control Act, which requires
sanctions on any non-nuclear weapons state that has detonated nuclear
devices.
Now, these policies did not stop India's and Pakistan's nuclear
weapons programs, but they did restrain them and they hindered them. In
fact, that is precisely why we are here with respect to India.
[[Page 22133]]
The Bush Administration has taken a different tact now. Their
proposal is to provide ``full'' assistance to India's civilian nuclear
program, while India keeps its nuclear weapons, which represents a
complete abandonment of our traditional approach to nonproliferation.
I don't think you can come to the floor and argue that this is part
of an approach we have always taken. This is a U-turn. This is a 180-
degree change from the approach we have always had. The Bush
Administration formed an agreement that allows New Delhi to
dramatically expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons and could ignite a
regional arms race. That is what we have here. They can have reactors
behind the curtain that will not be subject to inspection by anybody.
That is part of the deal. It will undermine 30 years of
nonproliferation efforts at the very time when we are engaged in these
issues with North Korea and Iran.
It is a major, it seems to me, exception to the prohibition of
nuclear assistance to any country that doesn't accept international
monitoring of all of its nuclear facilities. This is a major exception
to that. And it also is one that gives legitimacy to a nuclear arsenal
that India secretly developed, and it is not going to help us in any
way. It will hinder us in convincing others to give up their nuclear
weapons.
Now, India never signed the nonproliferation treaty. Because of that,
Pakistan never signed the treaty. In the 1960s, India used both
American technology and also Canadian technology and the nuclear fuel
provided under what was called the Atoms For Peace Program to secretly
build nuclear weapons. By doing so, New Delhi broke an explicit pledge
to both the United States and to Canada about the use of technology and
nuclear fuel only for peaceful purposes. In 1974, India conducted its
first nuclear weapons test. It denied that it had done so. It said it
was a peaceful nuclear test.
In May, 1998, they conducted a series of nuclear tests and declared
themselves as a nuclear weapons state. In response, Pakistan did
exactly the same thing and declared themselves as a nuclear state.
Because India has a shortage of domestic uranium, the application of
the U.S. and international laws that prevent the sale of nuclear fuel
and other nuclear assistance to them has seriously constrained its
nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons program. All of us
understand that India has energy issues. It has an expanding population
and it wishes to build additional powerplants, nuclear powerplants, but
it also wishes to build additional nuclear weapons. India's power
reactors, we are now told, are operating at less than capacity due to
fuel shortages and their utilization rates are expected to decrease
even further. Very little uranium is leftover from its domestic
supplies for India to turn to nuclear weapons. So in the past year--
couple of years--New Delhi has stepped up efforts to get our assistance
in obtaining nuclear fuel and reactor components so it can increase its
nuclear power. But the fact is, it will also increase its nuclear
weapons programs.
Here is what the deal that is now brought to the floor of the Senate
does: My understanding is that it obligates the United States to
persuade the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to change their
rules which bar sales to India. It allows India to buy sensitive
nuclear technologies, now forbidden under the nonproliferation treaty.
It includes nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, and advanced technology.
This agreement would open the door to India's cooperation with France,
Japan, and others who want to do business with India and who now have
not been doing business with India because of the NPT. In return, in
this agreement, India has agreed to allow the IAEA inspections and
safeguards at 14 of their 22 planned nuclear power reactors. But eight
of their nuclear power reactors will be placed behind a curtain. No one
will be able to inspect them. That is where they will be able to
continue increasing the production of nuclear weapons, and it is not--
you wonder, do they want to produce additional nuclear weapons? Let me
quote directly from a senior adviser to India's nuclear program,
December 2005, an article in The Times of India. Dr. Subrahmanyam says:
Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up
our minimum credible nuclear arsenal as fast as possible, it
is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors
as possible as civilian ones to be refueled by imported
uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-
grade plutonium production.
This is clear:
Given India's . . . crunch and the need to build up our
minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal. . . .
That is what this is about in India.
We have those who support this, who say it is not perfect, but it is
not bad. I don't know whether the contention on the Senate floor is
going to be that this will not result in additional warheads. But I am
clear, and I think everybody should be clear, it will. India will
produce additional nuclear weapons. We believe, if that makes the world
safer, I guess that is what one can argue. I do not believe that at
all. I think the addition of nuclear weapons to the stockpile that
exists in this world is a serious danger to the world.
Pakistan has already said: If you are going to give this deal to
India, how about giving this deal to us? We might want to look at what
we are doing. The administration just proposed, by the way, a big arms
package for Pakistan: 36 Lockheed F-16C/D fighter planes, 500 JDAM
satellite-guided bomb kits, 700 bunker buster bombs, 1,600 laser-guided
bombs, 800 conventional bombs, 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 200
Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 130 Harpoon antiship missiles, 115
self-propelled howitzers.
That is an arms package to Pakistan. But Pakistan would say: We have
nuclear weapons. We exploded them. We showed you we have nuclear
weapons. You are going to give this deal to build more nuclear weapons
to India. We want that deal for Pakistan. We want to build more nuclear
weapons.
What will China say? What will China say when they see this agreement
and decide that India is increasing its stockpile? China will say: We
want to increase the stockpile of nuclear weapons.
India is in the process of becoming a full-fledged nuclear power with
a triad, an emerging triad. Aircraft? They have a number of types of
aircraft used to deliver a nuclear weapon, or that could be so used,
and land-based missiles and naval weapons.
I do not allege that India is a country that is an aggressor. That is
not my point. I think our relationship with India is important. I
believe we ought to connect with India. We ought to reach out to India.
We ought to have an improved relationship with India. I don't know,
maybe it is advantageous to have India as a counterweight in the region
to China.
But, look, do any of us really believe that an agreement that pulls
the rug out from under decades of positions we have held in this
country on nonproliferation that results in the building of additional
nuclear weapons advances our interests? Advances the world's interests?
Of course not.
It falls on our shoulders as the nuclear power in the world. It is
our responsibility to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Will our
children or our grandchildren someday see a nuclear weapon detonated in
a major American city? Will we see that? We didn't see it during the
Cold War because we had mutually agreed destruction; that is, both
countries, us and the Soviet Union, understood if one launched a
missile or airplane containing a nuclear weapon to be detonated in our
country, we would launch sufficient nuclear weapons to completely
destroy their country and their society. Both sides understood that.
Both sides understood we have arsenals that would destroy each other
and neither side did. Neither side was an aggressor.
In an age of terrorism, all of that has changed. In an age of
terrorism, if we do not embrace policies that stop the production of
additional nuclear weapons, we have missed an enormous opportunity to
prevent the detonation of a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. This
agreement simply does not stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It
[[Page 22134]]
doesn't prevent the production of additional nuclear weapons. This
undermines that which we have described as our goal in the United
Nations. It undermines that which we have for decades described as
being our goal as a leader in nonproliferation. It provides the green
light for India to produce additional nuclear weapons.
With all the sophisticated arguments in favor of this agreement, I
fail to see how undermining decades of effort at nonproliferation and
now providing a green light to India to produce new nuclear weapons,
additional nuclear weapons, makes this a safer world. Quite the
contrary. I think it is dangerous. I think this agreement is a horrible
mistake. I think all of the sophisticated calculations mean very little
when we have decided to send signals to the world that we do not oppose
producing additional nuclear weapons; that we support that.
We are willing to decide to undermine the nonproliferation treaty. We
are willing to ignore United Nations resolutions all because Ambassador
Burns and Secretary Rice and the Bush Administration said: You know
what, we have all these calculations about weights and counterweights
and geopolitical strategies and here is our new one. It is a new
strategy that undermines decades of what ought to be the best virtue of
this country, and that is providing world leadership, real world
leadership, aggressive world leadership to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons and prevent the building of more nuclear weapons and begin
reducing the number of nuclear weapons that exist in this world.
As I said when I started, I regret very much I am on the other side
of this issue from Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar has great credibility
on these issues because he has done a very substantial amount of good
work. I am not quite sure how I should describe this. I was
extraordinarily surprised when I read the first account in the
newspaper that it was likely that this agreement was going to be
supported by my colleague and friend. I would say the same with respect
to Senator Biden. I have great respect for them. So I am someone who
comes to the floor of the Senate in disagreement. That doesn't mean I
in any way disparage their abilities or their intellectual honesty in
pursuing strategies they believe are best for this country.
I have very strong opposition to those who believe, however, that
this in any way represents our best interests. I wish I could come to
the Senate floor with a better message, but I do not. I believe one day
we will look back on this with great regret. We have seen that in this
decade already with some other decisions, information provided us with
respect to Iraq and other decisions we have made. We have already, in
my judgment, had opportunities to understand regret about policies
undertaken that turned out to be not in this country's best interests.
I believe if we open the floodgates with this agreement, we will
seriously undermine this country's best interests.
Exhibit 1
[From Blueprint Magazine, October 7, 2004]
Nuclear Terrorism--Book Excerpt
(By Graham Allison)
On October 11, 2001, a month to the day after the terrorist
assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President
George W. Bush faced an even more terrifying prospect. At
that morning's Presidential Daily Intelligence Briefing,
George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, informed
the president that a CIA agent code-named Dragonfire had
reported that Al Qaeda terrorists possessed a ten-kiloton
nuclear bomb, evidently stolen from the Russian arsenal.
According to Dragonfire, this nuclear weapon was now on
American soil, in New York City.
The CIA had no independent confirmation of this report, but
neither did it have any basis on which to dismiss it. Did
Russia's arsenal include a large number of ten-kiloton
weapons? Yes. Could the Russian government account for all
the nuclear weapon the Soviet Union had built during the Cold
War? No. Could Al Qaeda have acquired one or more of these
weapons? Yes. Could it have smuggled a nuclear weapon through
American border controls into New York City without anyone's
knowledge? Yes. In a moment of gallows humor, someone quipped
that the terrorists could have wrapped the bomb in one of the
bales of marijuana that are routinely smuggled into cities
like New York.
In the hours that followed, national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice analyzed what strategists call the ``problem
from hell'' Unlike the Cold War, when the United States and
the Soviet Union knew that an attack against the other would
elicit a retaliatory strike for greater measure, Al Qaeda--
with no return address--had no such fear of reprisal. Ever if
the president were prepared to negotiate, Al Qaeda had no
phone number to call.
Clearly no decision could be taken without much more
information about the threat and those behind it. But how
could Rice engage a wider circle of experts and analysts
without the White House's suspicions leaking to the press? A
CNN flash that the White House had information about an Al
Qaeda nuclear weapon in Manhattan would create chaos. New
Yorkers would flee the city in terror, and residents of other
metropolitan areas would panic. The stock market, which was
just then stabilizing from the shock of 9/11, could collapse.
American Hiroshima. Concerned that Al Qaeda could have
smuggled a nuclear weapon into Washington as well, the
president ordered Vice President Dick Cheney to leave the
capital for an ``undisclosed location,'' where he would
remain for many weeks to follow. This was standard procedure
to ensure ``continuity of government'' in case of a
decapitation strike against the U.S. political leadership.
Several hundred federal employees from more tan a dozen
government agencies joined the vice president at this secret
site, the core of an alternative government that would seek
to cope in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion that
destroyed Washington. The president also immediately
dispatched NEST specialists (Nuclear Emergency Support Teams
of scientists and engineers) to New York to search for the
weapon. But no one in the city was informed of the threat,
not even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Six months earlier the CIA's Counterterrorism Center had
picked up chatter in Al Qaeda channels about an ``American
Hiroshima,'' The CIA knew that Osama bin Laden's fascination
with nuclear weapons went back at least to 1992, when he
attempted to buy highly enriched uranium from South Africa.
Al Qaeda operatives were alleged to have negotiated with
Chechen separatists in Russia to buy a nuclear warhead, which
the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed to have acquired
from Russian arsenals. The CIA's special task force on Al
Qaeda had noted the terrorist group's emphasis on thorough
planning, intensive training, and repetition of successful
tactics. The task force also highlighted Al Qaeda's strong
preference for symbolic targets and spectacular attacks.
Staggering the imagination. As the CIA's analysts examined
Dragonfire's report and compared it with other bits of
information, they noted that the attack on the World Trade
Center in September had set the bar higher for future
terrorist spectaculars. Psychologically, a nuclear attack
would stagger the world's imagination as dramatically as
9/11 did. Considering where Al Qaeda might detonate such a
bomb, they noted that New York was, in the jargon of national
security experts, ``target rich.'' Among hundreds of
potential targets, what could be more compelling than Times
Square, the most famous address in the self-proclaimed
capital of the world?
Amid this sea of unknowns, analysts could definitively
answer at least one question. They knew what kind of
devastation a nuclear explosion would cause. If Al Qaeda was
to rent a van to carry the ten-kiloton Russian weapon into
the heart of Times Square and detonate it adjacent to the
Morgan Stanley headquarters at 1585 Broadway, Times Square
would vanish in the twinkling of an eye. The blast would
generate temperatures reaching into the tens of millions of
degrees Fahrenheit. The resulting fireball and blast wave
would destroy instantaneously the theater district, the New
York Times building, Grand Central Terminal, and every other
structure within a third of a mile of the point of
detonation. The ensuing firestorm would engulf Rockefeller
Center, Carnegie Hall, the Empire State Building, and Madison
Square Garden, leaving a landscape resembling the World Trade
Center site. From the United Nations headquarters on the East
River and the Lincoln Tunnel under the Hudson River, to the
Metropolitan Museum in the eighties and the Flatiron Building
in the twenties, structures would remind one of the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Office Building following the Oklahoma City
bombing.
On a normal workday, more than half a million people crowd
the area within a half-mile radius of Times Square. A noon
detonation in midtown Manhattan could kill them all. Hundreds
of thousands of others would die from collapsing buildings,
fire, and fallout in the ensuing hours. The electromagnetic
pulse generated by the blast would fry cell phones, radios,
and other electronic communications. Hospitals, doctors, and
emergency services would be overwhelmed by the wounded.
Firefighters would be battling an uncontrolled ring of fires
for many days thereafter.
The threat of nuclear terrorism, moreover, is not limited
to New York City. While New
[[Page 22135]]
York is widely seen as the most likely target, it is clear
that Al Qaeda is not only capable of, but also interested in,
mounting attacks on other American cities, where people may
be less prepared. Imagine the consequences of a ten-kiloton
weapon exploding in San Francisco, Houston, Washington,
Chicago, Los Angeles, or any other city Americans call home.
From the epicenter of the blast to a distance of
approximately a third of a mile, every structure and
individual would vanish in a vaporous haze. A second circle
of destruction, extending three-quarters of a mile from
ground zero, would leave buildings looking like the Murrah
building in Oklahoma City. A third circle, reaching out one
and one-half miles, would be ravaged by fires and radiation.
Uncontrollable blaze. In Washington, a bomb going off at
the Smithsonian Institution would destroy everything from the
White House to the lawn of the Capitol building; everything
from the Supreme Court to the FDR Memorial would be left in
rubble; uncontrollable fires would reach all the way out to
the Pentagon.
In a cover story in the New York Times Magazine in May
2002, Bill Keller interviewed Eugene Habiger, the retired
four-star general who had overseen strategic nuclear weapons
until 1998 and had run nuclear antiterror programs for the
Department of Energy until 2001. Summarizing his decade of
daily experience dealing with threats, Habiger offered a
categorical conclusion about nuclear terrorism: ``it is not a
matter of if; it's a matter of when.'' ``That,'' Keller noted
drily, may explain why he now lives in San Antonio.''
In the end, the Dragonfire report turned out to be a false
alarm.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I want to say just one additional thing. I have two
amendments that I intend to offer today. I do not intend to take a
great amount of time with either of them. Both of them are very
important. I wish to say to the chairman, I know he is working through
this bill today. I want to be cooperative but not so cooperative that I
do not have an opportunity to fully explain amendments that I think are
very important relative to what I just described.
The amendments I will offer, one has to do with requiring India to
comply with what the U.S. is already required to comply with, the
second relates to a United Nations resolution, that our country pushed,
that represents American policy that appears to be completely
contradictory to the underlying bill on the floor of the Senate.
I say to the chairman, I will have two amendments. I am prepared in a
reasonable period to offer the amendments. I do have, with Senator
McCain, an obligation at 12 o'clock for a few minutes off the Senate
floor. We are going to be speaking to a group. But following that, I
would be happy to come over and offer my two amendments if the Senator
is willing to have me do that.
Mr. LUGAR. I would like to respond to my distinguished colleague. I
appreciate the appointment that he has with our colleague from Arizona.
My hope would be that the Senator would proceed with his amendments. It
would be timely to do so at his earliest convenience. I encourage him
to do so.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I missed the last point.
Mr. LUGAR. I just indicated as soon as you could proceed with your
amendments, this would be timely, in terms of moving the progress of
our bill today.
Mr. DORGAN. I will be off of the Senate floor for the other
requirement that I have, but I will come back. My understanding is
there is a proposal to perhaps try to modify one of my amendments?
Mr. LUGAR. That is correct. Staffs have been working on one of the
amendments of the Senator with the hope it might be possible to accept
that amendment. The other amendment would have to be offered and
debated.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. I intend to offer the other amendment, debate it,
and ask for a recorded vote on it. I will take a look at the proposed
modification to see what that modification is, but I will try to be
back on the Senate floor as quickly as possible to accommodate the
Senator's interests in getting it done.
Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate that and thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3709,
the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. This
legislation has been thoughtfully crafted and will help cement an
important partnership with a vitally important Nation in a part of the
world that will become increasingly important for the future.
I first want to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Lugar, for his commitment to this agreement from the
very beginning. Thoughtful, as he always is, I thank him for his
knowledge, his expertise, his wisdom, trying to make sure this is
appropriate for our country, as well as India, and making sure there
are provisions in there that are beneficial to our country while also
not harming the ability of our friends in India to pass it in their
country as well.
There is no person in the Senate more knowledgeable on anti-
proliferation issues than Senator Lugar. His leadership was
instrumental in developing a bill with protocols that met the
commitments made by our President while also respecting the safeguard
agreements that have protected this country for decades. I thank our
chairman.
The hearings by Chairman Lugar back in the spring, along with
informative testimony of Secretary Nicholas Burns, were a necessary
lesson for our colleagues on the committee, and I think the entire
United States, that explained the benefits and also helped remove
outstanding concerns about this historic pact. Chairman Lugar, earlier
speaking on this measure, along with the ranking member on the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Biden, addressed the specific sections of
the bill, so I will not recite all of those provisions again for my
colleagues. I wish to provide the principles behind it, the strategic
goals that are achieved in this United States-India civil nuclear pact.
I want to focus on the big picture and the long-term impact of this
cooperation agreement.
First and foremost, the United States-India civil nuclear cooperation
agreement is a significant foreign policy achievement for the
advancement of our security. It is a significant achievement for the
advancement of jobs, and also a significant achievement in improving
the environment--the air quality particularly, in India. This strategic
partnership between the world's oldest democracy, the United States,
and the world's largest democracy, India, is desirable, and it is
possible because we share the same values. We both believe in
representative democracy. We believe in and are girded by the rule of
law. We respect human rights and religious tolerance. We share the same
goals for Asia and for the world, which are freedom and peace.
This pact, this partnership, this agreement, in my view, can be the
beginning of a blossoming marriage between the people of the United
States and the people of India. India is a vital ally and a key global
partner in the war on terrorism. They understand it. They have been
threatened in India. In fact, India has been hit by terrorism in the
name of religious fanaticism and religious extremism. This agreement is
a step forward also regarding concerns with nuclear proliferation. Some
critics will argue this agreement undermines the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, but when you look at the facts, India has no
record of proliferating nuclear material, nuclear equipment, or
technology to any other countries. In addition, India's nuclear weapons
are there for self-defense and India has been a consistent practitioner
of the ``no first use'' doctrine when it comes to nuclear weapons.
India has been an exception in this regard and, in my view, should be
viewed differently than other countries that do not have such a record.
The fact is as a result of this agreement India will place a majority
of its thermal power reactors under the International Atomic Energy
safeguards for the very first time, and there also will be permanent
inspections.
By contrast, Iran doesn't have the same sort of policy as India. Iran
has
[[Page 22136]]
kicked out the IAEA inspectors. This agreement helps bring India into
the global nuclear mainstream where it is not right now.
It is very clear, whether it was Chairman Lugar or Senator Biden and
others, if you examine this agreement it is going to significantly
increase transparency and oversight of its civilian nuclear program.
We also ought to look at the economic and energy benefits of this
cooperation. India has tremendous energy needs that will only increase
as their economy and country grows and increasingly prospers.
The United States-India nuclear agreement strengthens energy security
for the United States and India by promoting the development and stable
use of clean nuclear power, rather than relying on the Middle East for
oil and gas, particularly from Iran. Obviously, India benefits through
a reliable, affordable energy supply. United States companies will
benefit from increased jobs and economic opportunity in the India
energy market. Cooperation from this will also ensue, I believe, in
clean coal technology and also biofuels.
Having been in India last November-December, the air quality there is
awful. The coal they have in India is dirty coal. They have to import
coal.
There are millions of people in India prospering as a country, and
increasing. There are millions of people who do not have electricity.
For India to have its energy needs met, they are going to have to be
able to import more or they are going to have to come up with creative
approaches.
The U.S.A. is far more dependent on foreign sources of energy. We
need to have more exploration of oil and natural gas in our country. We
ought to be using more clean coal technology since we are the Saudi
Arabia of the world in coal for electricity and gasification and
liquification of coal. We also need advanced nuclear, biofuels, solar--
a diversity of fuels for our energy independence rather than being so
dependent on foreign sources of energy from the Middle East and hostile
dictators around the world.
India is in a similar situation. In fact, they are even more
dependent than the United States. There are concerns they will have to
have a pipeline from Iran for natural gas or for oil. We are trying to
get Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. One of the reasons
geopolitically why it is difficult to impose sanctions or any sort of
efforts to get them to comply is there are other parts of the world
that are so dependent on Iran for natural gas or for oil.
In a sense, the energy independence and energy security concerns that
we have in our country are also brought about for the people in India
which are even more dependent on foreign sources of energy than we are.
If India can have clean nuclear for electricity generation, that is
going to obviously help the people of India. It will improve their air
quality, clearly. As you all know, a barrel of oil, wherever it is
produced, has the same price.
With the increasing economies of China and India and elsewhere around
the world, for every bit of oil that is produced, the whole global
market is competing for that barrel of oil. To the extent that India's
demands can be somewhat ameliorated as well as ours in coal
liquification or biofuels or other renewable approaches, it is going to
help our energy independence in this insofar as India is concerned.
Beyond energy and jobs, we have grave threats facing the United
States and also our friends and allies insofar as security. We need to
build new alliances, and we need to strengthen existing alliances as
well.
With that in mind, I think we ought to be looking further into the
21st century to determine what U.S. policy will be in Asia. What should
it be? Where can we reasonably expect support to come from, whether in
Asia or the Western Pacific?
Presently, some of the key allies that share our values are South
Korea, Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, and Australia. They are key
leaders with us. Further positive concerted efforts need to be made
with Pakistan and Indonesia. India has a key role in all of this. I
think India is absolutely essential for our freedom and shared values
but also our freedom advancement in innovation and our security.
As I mentioned, I was in India last fall. This was a key issue on the
minds of Prime Minister Singh and other government leaders. India is a
country with tremendous potential, amazing values, but also a lot of
hardship, hard breaks, and poverty in that country. They need reliable
energy. They are working in education. In fact, we can learn a lot from
India insofar as education is concerned as young people in middle
school are focused on high school exams to get into the India
institutes of technology. We need to get more Americans from all
backgrounds interested in engineering and science as India has done.
India is also so important to security--a country which will soon
have well over 1.2 billion people, not only the world's largest
democracy but the world's largest country in the next few years.
The challenges that face India's future development are making
progress, but they are tremendous challenges. So while India is now a
global economic power, it is going to be increasingly an economic power
in the future. It is going to be a much more important voice in Asia as
well.
So it is in the interest of the United States to engage India, to
help it develop safe, clean, and reliable energy, and also further our
existing ties with its leaders in government, especially the people of
India who appreciate the United States. Of course, there is a great
deal of trade between the United States and India. Many of the H-1B
visa applicants are from India which are very important for Virginia's
economy and for the economy of the United States.
I also believe that we need to--I urge my colleagues to--examine this
in its totality. It is imperative that we pass this legislation and
begin finalizing this agreement that was reached by the elected leaders
of the United States and India. It is in our security interests. It is
in our economic interests. It strengthens the alliance which will be
vital for years ahead.
I believe very strongly that this United States-India pact will be a
marriage which will benefit all of us, not just now but for generations
to come.
I thank my colleagues. I urge most respectfully the passage of the
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act with no
killer amendments and let's allow this marriage between the United
States and India blossom for our security, for our jobs, and our best
interests through the years to come.
I thank Chairman Lugar again for his outstanding and remarkable
wisdom and insight shepherding this measure through. I hope by the end
of the day this will pass, and that this marriage will continue to bear
fruit for generations to come.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Virginia for his very generous comments about my leadership and the
work of the committee. But I want to say that I appreciated very much
the Senator's diligent and thoughtful work on the committee. He will be
missed. He has been a great leader in our efforts and has participated
materially in the formation of the legislation he talked about today. I
deeply appreciate the strength of his statement and his very thoughtful
comments.
I understand the distinguished Senator from Kansas wishes to make a
statement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Indiana,
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has done an outstanding
job. He has been a leader and a foreign policy voice on Capitol Hill.
His leadership is measured, and he is very knowledgeable and quite
good. I appreciate his wisdom, counsel, and leadership--and his
leadership on this bill as well.
I recognize my colleague from Virginia who has done an outstanding
job for many years in many capacities on foreign relations. I know that
he knows
[[Page 22137]]
the issues on the United States-India relationship. Many people I have
worked with on India have worked with the Senator from Virginia. I
deeply appreciated his work, knowledge, interest, and passion on
pushing these issues. It takes people such as that to build
relationships. You have to always be pushing people together. I
appreciate his willingness to do that.
I rise in support of this bill. I rise, as my colleague from Virginia
has done, in support of the bill but without debilitating killer
amendments associated with it.
I rise as someone who has chaired the South Asia subcommittee for a
period of time and worked in building relationships with India.
I rise as the Senator who carried the initial bill to allow the
administration to lift sanctions against India when it tested nuclear
weapons during the Clinton administration. It was a big brawl of
discussion we had at that point in time.
Let me take my colleagues back a little bit. That was the point in
time when India was starting to shift away from its former focus on the
Soviet Union, then Russia, and whether it was going to join the West
and work with us. There was a big debate going on within Indian society
as to whether they were going to pull along alongside the United
States. It was a very heated debate, a very important discussion. It
became the signature moment as to whether the United States would be a
partner with India.
You will recall that for many years the United States and India had
what was best described as a prickly relationship. There was not an
easy, favorable one even though the fundamentals underneath seemed like
they were something that would be very good. India is equal. It has the
largest democracy and we the oldest. We are the two largest democracies
in the world. It would seem to be that this would be a very easy and
logical relationship. Yet they had gone into the Soviet sphere. We had
built more of a relationship with China than with India even though the
fundamentals under India were much better for us than they were with
China. There has been this separation and division for some period of
time.
India decided they needed to have a nuclear basis. They tested.
Pakistan tested in response to that. We had a series of sanctions that
immediately kicked in with that testing. Then our entire relationship
with India was viewed through the nuclear nonproliferation issue. We
had all these other issues that we needed to discuss--economics, spread
of terrorism, a series of issues, human rights items. Everything went
through the nonproliferation portal. If you couldn't clear it through,
we wouldn't be able to develop the rest.
Finally, we were able to provide the relationship, the
administration, and the capacity to waive this series of sanctions. It
was a difficult discussion and decision within the Congress. We were
able to pass it through. Then let us get into a broader range--and the
relationship flourished. It expanded enormously.
Now I think we are at another step. This is another one of those key
junctures in the relationship as to whether this was going be a true
and budding and future-oriented relationship. That is whether we can
enter into this agreement that we are discussing here today. This is
being watched very carefully in India as being a key view as to what
the United States is going to do in its ongoing relationship with
India.
I urge passage and strong support in building the fundamentals and
strengthening a United States-India relationship. This agreement is not
about sacrificing the nonproliferation regime on the altar of strategic
cooperation. I want to emphasize that point. I think as people look at
it, the initial question they would come up with is, I am fine with the
strategic relationship; I will not sacrifice the nonproliferation
issue. It is not about sacrificing that. It is about recognizing the
reality of India's 30-year nuclear program. Engaged in peaceful
civilian--as the chairman has said many times--nuclear cooperation with
the world's largest democracy, securing commitments from India to
implement the IAEA standard and safeguard and affirming India's
longstanding commitment to democracy and its constructive role in
shaping the world in decades ahead.
There is an environmental angle on this as we look at India as being
a key economy in growth. That growth is consuming much more energy.
That energy is generally in the form of fossil fuels which release a
lot more CO2. If we are concerned about the release and the
impact and the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, one of
the key things we should do from an environmental perspective is to
engage in this agreement on civilian nuclear power. That is where we
will reduce the CO2 loading into the atmosphere.
From another nonstrategic, nonproliferation angle, from an
environmental angle, this is a very positive agreement, a key agreement
we can have with one of the fastest growing economies in the world that
will be releasing a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere unless
they use a great deal of nuclear capacity in building that energy
system.
Bringing India to the nonproliferation regime and forging a strategic
partnership with the world's largest democracy makes America safer, as
well. We have a common enemy in the war on terrorism around the world.
India has been a key and strategic partner in their assistance in
curbing the nuclear pursuits of Iran, a weaponized nuclear pursuit by
Iran. We are getting help from India on that. We continue to work with
Pakistan.
As a number have pointed out, either implicitly or explicitly, it is
a balancing issue, a balance-of-power issue with China. I know everyone
in this Senate thinks about that, even if it is not expressed often,
but it is key that we build this balance of power in our balance with
India in this region of the world as a democracy, as a country that is
with us in the fight on terrorism.
India shares strategic interests; it also shares values. They have a
commitment to democracy, with rules of law, transparency, a
multireligious country. America and India, as I mentioned, are the
world's two largest democracies, and India has had a functioning
democracy for some period of time. Civilian nuclear cooperation is an
important step in developing new and alternative energy sources.
Comparison with Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs are
misleading. There are strict measures taken to ensure our cooperation
will only be with India's civilian nuclear program. They have proven to
be trustworthy. There is still reason to believe North Korea and Iran
are clearly pursuing these for nuclear weapons and for purposes against
us, very threatening to us and our interests. We need to look at the
nature of the regimes. India is a peaceful, stable democracy versus
authoritarian in Iran and North Korea.
Finally, this is just one of the key relationships at one of the key
times. It is important we take the right steps during those points in
time. I hope we have a very positive, robust debate and pass this bill
by a very large margin, saying to the people of India and around the
world: We are interested in partnering with you, we want to partner
with you, we want to expand that partnership, and we see this as a key
partnership for our future, for your future, and for global stability.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator from Kansas for a very strong
endorsement of this legislation.
I note in the Senate the distinguished Senator from Georgia who would
like to participate. I look forward to hearing from him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the United
States-Indian nuclear agreement. I wish to share the two distinct
reasons for my support.
First and foremost is the distinguished chairman from Indiana,
Senator Lugar. There is not an individual in this Senate and I say
probably not an individual in this country who has
[[Page 22138]]
committed more of their life to preventing nuclear disaster and its
proliferation. There is perhaps no one who has worked harder to see to
it that the U.S. agreements, as they relate to the security of nuclear
power and the interest of our country, have always been nothing but in
the best interest of the United States of America.
As a Senator from Georgia, I am well aware that Senator Lugar
partnered for many years and still partners today with our Senator, Sam
Nunn, in seeking to ensure nuclear proliferation does not take place
anywhere in the world and that nuclear materials from existing nuclear
nations never fall in the hands of those who would use them in an act
of terrorism. I place my confidence first and foremost in the
distinguished chairman from Indiana.
There is a second, equally compelling reason; that is, my visit to
India in April of this year, just shortly after the President announced
the civilian nuclear deal with India. Quite frankly, my initial
reaction before I went to India was one of significant concern. I think
any time any of us look into nuclear agreements and the sharing of
nuclear technology, we should have significant concern. However, I went
to India and learned a number of things firsthand that I did not know.
I share them with this Senate today because I believe they are
important in whether we grant this agreement.
First, I learned quickly that in the 30-year history of involvement
in the development of nuclear energy, India has never had a single
deviation from its stated original purpose, which was civilian use, and
in terms of military, only for minimal deterrence. They have clearly
said from the beginning they would never be a first-strike nation, and
they have always said that our motivation from a defensive mechanism is
minimal deterrence. A 30-year consistent policy like that in any nation
is good enough evidence for me in terms of the heart and the intent of
that country.
Second, India is a democracy of 1.3 billion people in round numbers
in a part of the world of significant importance to the United States
of America. They have demonstrated in their cooperation with us in the
global war on terror their interest only in peaceful operations of all
nations and never in nuclear energy or technology falling into the
hands of those who would use it in a devious way.
As the distinguished Senator from Virginia has said, India is a
blossoming nation economically, but it suffers dramatically from the
coal it has to burn and from the lack of efficient energy sources it
now has. This civilian nuclear agreement allows them the opportunity to
expand nuclear energy for the generation of electricity and to reduce
the pollution in the atmosphere, which is not just India's atmosphere
but is the world's atmosphere.
The distinguished chairman from Indiana has worked long and hard on
this agreement. I am in full support of this agreement in its draft
form and its presented form today. I hope the Members of the Senate
will endorse and ratify without debilitating amendments. I have
confidence in the chairman and his work. I have confidence in my visit
to the people of India and Prime Minister Singh that they will continue
to be what they have been: a burgeoning democracy and a great partner
with the United States of America.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Georgia for visiting India, for his personal testimony on this issue,
for strong support of the treaty, and for his very thoughtful personal
comments.
I note the presence of the very distinguished leader in the Senate in
fostering and strengthening India-United States relationships, the
distinguished Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the United
States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. I particularly
express my gratitude to the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Chairman Lugar, for his outstanding work on this bipartisan
piece of legislation that advances our strategic relationship with
India while also bringing India into the mainstream of international
nonproliferation efforts.
I am delighted to be the cochair, along with Senator Hillary Clinton,
of the United States-India caucus in the Senate, actually something we
resurrected just a couple short years ago that had fallen by the
wayside.
After my own visit to India and in consultation with a number of
Indian-American constituents who live in Texas--about 200,000 live in
my State alone--I became absolutely convinced that a closer
relationship with the great nation of India and its people was
essential to our security interests and essential to our economic
interests.
As our colleagues know and as has been mentioned by a number of our
Members, Prime Minister Singh visited Washington last summer and
President Bush paid a visit to India this spring. These events mark a
critical milestone in our improving relationship. Passage of this
legislation will mark another significant step and I daresay cement
what is a very important relationship to both nations.
President Bush made a fundamental foreign policy objective to move
the United States-India relationship to a new level. As Secretary Rice
has said, our relationship with India is one of the most important
partnerships the United States can have in the 21st century.
As has been often noted, India is the world's largest democracy,
while we are the world's oldest democracy, and our two great nations
share so many common values and common beliefs. It is only appropriate
that the United States and India become true strategic partners as we
move into the 21st century. Fortunately, the days of the Cold War, when
India was more aligned with the Soviet Union than with the United
States, are in the long past. The United States and India share a
common vision for our future. It is a peaceful vision where we battle
terrorism together, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
HIV/AIDS, and a host of other challenges that face our world today.
While it is true that the agreement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation is a
significant departure from previous U.S. policy, I strongly believe
this legislation represents a positive step as we grow our strategic
relationship.
For more than 30 years, the United States and India have disagreed
over India's decision not to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As such, the United States has not cooperated with the Nation of India
on any civilian nuclear technology to speak of. In short, we have been
at a stalemate which has neither served our nonproliferation goals, nor
helped India's vast needs for energy resources. Fortunately, this
carefully crafted legislation will allow us to move forward in a
responsible manner. The agreement, in fact, enhances our
nonproliferation efforts.
It is correct to say that India is not a signatory to the
nonproliferation treaty. They have decided for their own national
security reasons that they will not become a party to the treaty, and
no amount of international pressure is likely to change that
conclusion. This is the reality we face, and the status quo for another
30 years is simply not acceptable. Recognizing this reality, we must
ask ourselves, What can we do to promote nonproliferation efforts with
India and bring them into the international nonproliferation regime?
This legislation provides that answer.
Despite not signing the nonproliferation treaty, India, for the
record, has an excellent nonproliferation record. They understand,
perhaps as well as anyone, the danger of the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. This is why India has agreed to adhere to key
international nonproliferation efforts on top of their own stringent
export control regime. This is a significant step forward which has
been welcomed by the International Atomic Energy Agency Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei, who understands India will not come into the
nonproliferation treaty by traditional means but can be accommodated
through this route.
I conclude by noting that the United States is fortunate, indeed, to
have
[[Page 22139]]
many Indian Americans who have helped bring our two nations closer
together. As I have noted, many of them live in my State, as they do
around this great country, contributing to our brainpower, to our
economy. Frankly, this community is one of the hardest working, most
accomplished communities in our Nation today. There are about 200,000
of them living in Texas, and nearly 80,000 Indian students are studying
at our Nation's colleges and universities. Their contributions to our
Nation and the United States-India relationship have been remarkably
positive.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, to advance our
strategic relationship with India while also bringing India into the
mainstream of international nonproliferation efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership. His
action with the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is
certainly timely for these important visits to occur and these
negotiations. I think they have restored significance in our
relationship. I thank the Senator for coming to the Senate and offering
strong support for the treaty.
Mr. President, I note the presence of another distinguished member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the distinguished Senator from
Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for S.
3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act,
of which I am a cosponsor. First, I congratulate Senators Lugar and
Biden for their excellent bipartisan effort to produce a quality piece
of legislation. We can all be very proud of this product.
I have long believed the United States and India should expand its
excellent friendship and embark upon a deeper, more strategic
relationship. We now have that opportunity, and I urge my fellow
Members of the Senate to pass S. 3709, a bill that will enable us to
transform our relationship with India and initiate a solid partnership
with great security, economic, and environmental returns for U.S.
national interests.
As President Bush said when he met with Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh in New Delhi last spring:
India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the
United States because we are brothers in the cause of human
liberty.
By expanding civil nuclear cooperation with India, the United States
has an opportunity to bring India into an arms control regime that will
guarantee greater oversight and inspection rights and which will allow
us to make India's preexisting nuclear program safer and more
transparent. At a time when we are facing many other nuclear power
challenges, we should welcome this as a positive step in the world of
nonproliferation.
It is not just the United States that supports civil nuclear
cooperation with India. I was in Vienna in May, where I met with the
International Atomic Energy Agency. During our meetings--we were
talking primarily about Iran and what they were doing in terms of
Iran's violation of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement. We also
talked about India and how they felt about the proposal that was being
entered into between the United States and India. And I was told, at
that time, that India has been a more active and responsible partner,
in terms of their cooperation with the IAEA, than many of the
signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation agreement.
As was just pointed out by the Senator from Texas, later on Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei called the idea that is contained in this
agreement ``a milestone'' and ``timely for ongoing efforts to
consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and
strengthen nuclear safety.''
Furthermore, this agreement will allow us to form a critical
strategic relationship with India. And from a point of view, it is long
overdue. The geostrategic facts are that China and India are two rising
powers in the industrialized world. As China expands its economic power
and military strength, U.S. nuclear cooperation with India can help to
even the international keel.
I am also referring to the fact that China, could pose a threat to
U.S. national security in the future. We are working very carefully to
make sure that does not happen, but it is something we should think
about. But I am also thinking about the fact that India and China also
have a good relationship. So the fact that we are entering into a new
relationship with India, I think, also would be well received by the
Chinese and other Asian countries and helpful to alleviating any
tensions that exist.
For the past 30 years, we let differences in our domestic policies
and our international intentions keep us from working together. But
India is a unique democracy, a new shining city upon a hill, and we
need this more than ever before. We need models such as this, where
people of different faiths and ethnicities live together and where the
government is open and accountable for its actions. It is the largest
democracy that we have in the world today.
Following the end of the Cold War, new economic opportunities have
created room for cooperation between the United States and India in
agriculture, health care, commerce, defense, technology, and education.
It is amazing to me the number of businesses I have in Ohio that have
joint ventures in India and Indian investment in the State of Ohio.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, India has been a leader
in fighting terrorism and rooting out extremists from its society. It
has a long record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters,
and it is time we embrace India as part of that nonproliferation
community.
I strongly encourage the Senate to pass S. 3907 and take the next
step in bolstering our relationship with India. A democratic,
economically sound, internationally integrated India will serve as a
ballast in a region experiencing rapid, sweeping change.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. May I have recognition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the floor manager and the matter we
have before us is of great importance and consequence. I know we have a
variety of different amendments that are being considered and are being
talked about, even as we are here now. I do not mean to interfere with
the flow of this debate and reaching a timely conclusion of it, but I
want to address the Senate for a few moments on what I consider to be
sort of the important agenda for our committee, our HELP Committee, in
this next session. I will cooperate, obviously, with the floor manager
and ask that my remarks be printed in an appropriate place in the
Record. And I will speak for just a few moments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. So others who want to continue the debate will have the
opportunity to do so. And as one who has been a floor manager, I
understand his desire to have focus and attention on the underlying
matters. But I appreciate the courtesy and the understanding of the
manager letting me talk briefly this afternoon.
(The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Amendment No. 5173
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk that has
been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 5173.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page 22140]]
(Purpose: To make the waiver authority of the President contingent upon
a determination that India is fully and actively participating in
United States and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and
contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with United Nations
Security Council resolutions)
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert the
following:
Group;
(8) India is fully and actively participating in United
States and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and
contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with United
Nations Security Council resolutions; and
(9) the Nuclear
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill,
Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, for accepting my amendment. I thank
my colleagues.
My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It requires the
President to determine that India was fully and actively participating
in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain
Iran's nuclear program consistent with United Nations Security Council
Resolutions.
As my colleagues know, Iran is one of, if not the most, urgent
nuclear nonproliferation challenges the world faces today.
For two decades Iran secretly built up its nuclear capabilities in
violation of the safeguards commitments it made with the International
Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. To date, Iran has completed most of the
construction of a massive uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, opened
a heavy-water production plant at Arak and began construction of a 40-
megawatt reactor there. It also began construction on a fuel
manufacturing plant at Isfahan; tested centrifuges with uranium,
hexafluoride, produced their first samples of low-enriched uranium; and
nearly completed construction of their first nuclear power reactor at
Bushehr, set to open in 2007.
Iran says these programs are for peaceful purposes, but experts agree
and the Bush Administration believes, that Iran is on its way to
acquiring the capability to produce large quantities of bomb grade
nuclear material. Additionally, Iran has not fully answered numerous
questions from the IAEA about activities that may be related to a
weapons program. These activities are very concerning.
Earlier this year, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran to be in
violation of its safeguards commitments and reported Iran's file to the
U.N. Security Council. The Security Council has demanded that Iran
suspend its uranium enrichment program and construction of a heavy-
water production reactor. These technologies can be used to make bomb-
grade nuclear material.
However, Iran continues to stiff-arm the IAEA's investigation of its
program. This week Iran again thumbed its nose at the international
community boasting that the world would have to ``live with a nuclear
Iran.'' A new report this week from the IAEA says the agency found new
traces of plutonium and enriched uranium at a nuclear research facility
in Tehran.
As we are here debating this bill, U.S. diplomats are engaged with
our partners in the U.N. Security Council on this very important issue.
They are working to build support for a new resolution that would
mandate targeted sanctions on Iran to help persuade its leadership to
change course and halt its uranium enrichment work.
This diplomatic course of action is appropriate at this stage, and I
fully support it. To succeed, any targeted sanctions policy must not
only have the active support of Security Council member states, but
also the cooperation of other member states of the international
community. Targeted sanctions against Iran will not work unless they
are fully and actively supported by states close to Iran and with ties
to Iran, such as India. They will not work, I would add, without
effective diplomatic engagement with Iran.
This is a time when we need to have the support of every country as
the United States works with our allies to contain and constrain Iran's
troubling nuclear program.
Now my colleagues may be wondering what this has to do with India.
India has a robust relationship with Iran. India actively engages in
military-to-military cooperation with Iran and the two countries have a
significant trade relationship. India plans to build a gas pipeline
from Iran through Pakistan. India's leaders see Iran as a diplomatic
partner on many issues. In fact, Iran's Foreign Minister will be
visiting New Delhi today.
Given India's proximity to Iran, none of this is surprising, but it
means that India has a particular responsibility to help contain Iran's
nuclear and missile capabilities and support possible U.N. Security
Council sanctions against Iran.
Obviously, India, like most other states, does not support a nuclear
weapons option for Iran.
However, Indian views of the threat posed by the Iran nuclear program
and its perspective on Iran's so-called ``right'' to peaceful nuclear
technology differ significantly from U.S. views. Unfortunately, some of
India's policies appear to embolden Iran's leaders to press forward
with their ambitious nuclear plans.
As we move forward in our effort with the international community to
deal, contain, and if necessary sanction Iran for its defiance of
international demands to halt its sensitive nuclear activities, we will
need greater support from all states, including India, in this effort.
Over a year ago, on September 24, 2005, India voted with the United
States and 20 other states on the IAEA resolution which found Iran in
compliance with its safeguards agreement. But the resolution did not
refer the matter immediately to the Security Council and according to a
recent report produced by the Congressional Research Service, India was
one of a handful of countries seeking to avoid such a referral.
Disturbingly, India's official explanation of its vote highlights
India's differences with the United States on how to deal with Iran's
nuclear transgressions. It stated that:
In our Explanation of Vote (this is the Indian government), we have
clearly expressed our opposition to Iran being declared as noncompliant
with its safeguards agreements. Nor do we agree that the current
situation could constitute a threat to international peace and
security. Nevertheless, the resolution does not refer the matter to the
Security Council and has agreed that outstanding issues be dealt with
under the aegis of the IAEA itself. This is in line with our position
and therefore, we have extended our support.
India again voted with the United States on February 4, 2006, when
the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's noncompliance to the
U.N. Security Council. This was welcomed at the time. Yet the Indian
Ministry of External Affairs responded to questions about its vote by
noting that:
``While there will be a report to the Security Council, the Iran
nuclear issue remains within the purview of the IAEA. It has been our
consistent position that confrontation should be avoided and any
outstanding issue ought to be resolved through dialogue. . . . Our vote
in favour of the Resolution should not be interpreted as in any way
detracting from the traditionally close and friendly relations we enjoy
with Iran.''
By keeping the issue under the purview of the IAEA Iran would not be
subject to sanctions. The IAEA does not have that capability, the
Security Council does.
In April 2006, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement calling
for an immediate suspension of all Iranian enrichment activities. Iran
responded by announcing that it had produced a small quantity of low-
enriched uranium using a test assembly of centrifuges and noted it
planned to expand the facility's production capacity.
What was India's response? On May 30, India signed onto a statement
by the Non-Aligned Movement, which said that concerns surrounding
Iran's nuclear program should be resolved at the International Atomic
Energy Agency Board of Governors and not the U.N. Security Council,
again seeking to avoid sanctions, contrary to what U.S. diplomats and
others were urging at that time.
[[Page 22141]]
In July, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1696, which gave
Tehran until August 31 to suspend its uranium enrichment program and
required Tehran to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy
Agency's, IAEA, investigation of its nuclear programs.
Again what was India's response? Apparently, in an attempt to patch
up relations with Tehran over its earlier votes at the IAEA Board of
Governors, India added its name to the September 2006 joint statement
on Iran's nuclear program released by the Non-Aligned Movement at its
meeting in Havana. In this statement, India called nuclear research and
development a ``basic inalienable right'' of Iran's, and said that
nuclear ``choices and decisions'' of different countries ``must be
respected.''
Newspaper headlines in Iran trumpeted the news. The Iran Times
headline on September 18 read: ``118 Countries Back Iran's Nuclear
Program.'' Iran's President met with India's Prime Minister in Havana
to discuss how to deepen Indo-Iranian ties.
Since then, talks between Iran and the EU to halt the Iranian nuclear
program have broken down, and in October, Iran took additional steps to
improve its enrichment capability and is now seeking IAEA nuclear
safety assistance on its Arak heavy-water reactor. U.S. diplomats are
working hard now to lobby fellow members of the IAEA Board of Governors
to reject this request. We need India's active support when that
happens.
In a recent report, the Congressional Research Service detailed some
concerns about India's proliferation record with respect to Iran.
The U.S. Government, as a result of the Iran-Syria Nonproliferation
Act, has sanctioned Indian companies for transferring WMD technologies
and materials to Iran and other countries.
On August 4, the Bush administration publicly announced in the
Federal Register sanctions on two Indian entities for transferring
chemicals that can be used to produce missile propellant to Iran. The
sanctions determination had been made July 25, a day before the House
passed its version of the India bill.
For its part, India contended the sanctions were unwarranted. A
Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson asserted on August 7th the
transfers were ``not in violation of our regulations or our
international obligations.''
This is deeply disturbing. What this means is that India's current
export control laws are inadequate and do not meet the same high
standards of U.S. export laws.
As we move forward in our effort with the international community to
deal, contain, and if necessary, sanction Iran for its defiance of
international demands to halt its sensitive nuclear activities, we will
need greater support from a regional partner. We will need India to be
more effective and diligent in preventing the proliferation of
technologies, goods, and material that might be used by Iran to produce
weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.
I think that my colleagues would agree that the ties between India
and Iran are troubling. That is why I believe we must--through my
amendment--require the President to provide a determination that India
is actively supporting efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before
he can waive existing restrictions on civil nuclear commerce with
India.
I want to be clear--my amendment is not ``anti-India.'' My amendment
is a positive and vital step in safeguarding our own national security
interests.
There are some in this body who have argued that this legislation,
and the possible agreement for nuclear cooperation, will enhance our
strategic relationship and improve India's nonproliferation record.
Others have warned that this will damage the vital effort to reduce
nuclear weapons dangers in South Asia and elsewhere if we don't make
adjustments to strengthen the nonproliferation requirements in the
package.
Whatever our differences may be regarding other aspects of this
proposal, one issue that I hope we can agree on is the need to ensure
we have India's full and active cooperation and support in the effort
to prevent Iran or other states from acquiring the capability to
produce bomb material.
As the Senate considers reversing 36 years of nuclear proliferation
restrictions, it is important that we ensure that India is a true
strategic partner in the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.
Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues in accepting my
amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 5173.
The amendment (No. 5173) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I note the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is
present.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 5174
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 5174.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To limit the waiver authority of the President)
On page 6, after line 21, add the following:
(c) Operation of Waivers.--Notwithstanding any waiver under
subsection (a)--
(1) no nuclear equipment or sensitive nuclear technology
may be exported to India unless the President has determined,
and has submitted to the appropriate congressional committees
a report stating, that both India and the United States are
taking specific steps to conclude a multilateral treaty on
the cessation of the production of fissile materials for use
in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and
(2) no nuclear materials may be exported to India unless
the President has determined, and has submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees a report stating, that
India has stopped producing fissile materials for weapons
pursuant to a unilateral moratorium or multilateral
agreement.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a link
between the export of nuclear fuel and equipment to India under the
United States-India nuclear agreement and India's halting of the
production of nuclear weapons material. More specifically, my amendment
provides two separate tests, one for nuclear equipment and technology,
and another for nuclear material.
As to the nuclear equipment and technology, my amendment would
require the President to certify that both India and the United States
are taking specific steps to conclude a verifiable fissile material
cutoff treaty before the United States exports any nuclear equipment or
technology to India. As to nuclear fuel, my amendment would require the
President to certify that India has stopped producing fissile material
for weapons, either unilaterally or as part of a multilateral
agreement, again, before the United States exports nuclear material to
India.
The purpose of the amendment is not to kill the bill or the agreement
with India but, as I see it, to strengthen that agreement. It would
allow nuclear trade with India to proceed but in a way that will be
consistent with our nuclear nonproliferation goals and our security
interests.
It imposes no unreasonable or unrealistic conditions on nuclear trade
with India. It simply requires the President to determine that India
has followed through on its stated agreement to work toward a fissile
material cutoff treaty. Let me explain why I believe this amendment is
necessary.
In 1974, India tested a nuclear weapon it built using technology that
we had provided to it for peaceful purposes. The title of the pending
bill is United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy
[[Page 22142]]
Cooperation Act. So in 1974, India tested a nuclear weapon built using
technology that we had given it for peaceful purposes. We responded
then by strengthening our nuclear export laws in 1978 to ensure that
that could not happen again. In 1980, we cut off nuclear cooperation
with India, after India failed to meet the terms of the new law.
The bill before us would make it possible to resume nuclear
cooperation with India by exempting India from certain requirements
that we added to our nuclear export laws in 1978.
Proponents of the bill offer some strong arguments for going ahead.
They say that we need to resume nuclear cooperation in order to
cultivate closer ties with India. They say it is in our best interest
to help India expand its civilian nuclear power program so that India
might meet its growing energy needs with clean, environmentally
friendly sources of power. They say it will help to bring India within
the ``nonproliferation mainstream.'' I don't quarrel with any of those
arguments or with the goal of the legislation. I agree that our past
policies to pressure India on nuclear nonproliferation have not worked.
Compared to several of its neighbors, India has a relatively good
nonproliferation record, and by improving cooperation with India, we
may be able to make India a useful ally in our efforts to halt the
spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and in Asia.
My quarrel is not with the goal of reopening nuclear cooperation with
India but in the details of the bill and in the terms on which we
propose to resume that cooperation.
Under current law, in order for the United States to resume nuclear
trade with India, our two nations must enter into an agreement for
cooperation under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. Section 123 of
the Atomic Energy Act requires the agreement to meet eight specific
conditions. One of those conditions is that India must sign an
agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to safeguard all
nuclear material under its jurisdiction. India has consistently and
steadfastly refused to agree to these so-called full-scope safeguards.
Even if we were able to enter into an agreement for cooperation with
India, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would then have to license the
export of specific nuclear material and facilities to India under the
provisions of section 126 of that same Atomic Energy Act. And in order
to license an export under those provisions, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission would first have to find that the statutory export licensing
criteria of section 127 and 128 of the Atomic Energy Act are met. Among
other things, section 128 requires the Commission to find that the
full-scope IAEA safeguards will be maintained on all of India's nuclear
activities.
Once again, though, of course, India has refused to agree to those
full-scope safeguards. Even if India were to accept full-scope
safeguards, there is the third problem.
Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act prohibits the export of nuclear
materials or equipment or sensitive nuclear technology to any
nonnuclear weapons state that has detonated a nuclear explosive device,
violated or abrogated IAEA safeguards, or engaged in activities
directed toward making a nuclear explosive device. Even section 129--
and since India tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974 and five
times since then in 1998, it has clearly run afoul of this provision.
The Atomic Energy Act provides a way around all of these obstacles.
It says that the President can waive the full-scope safeguard
requirement and can enter into an agreement for cooperation, as he is
here proposing to do, without full-scope safeguards if he determines
that insistence on full-scope safeguards:
Would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the
United States nonproliferation objectives or otherwise
jeopardize the common defense and security.
Similarly, the act allows the President to authorize exports without
full-scope safeguards, and in spite of India's detonation of a nuclear
explosive device, if the President:
Determines that cessation of such exports would be
seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States
nonproliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardize the
common defense and security.
President Carter used this authority in 1980 to export nuclear fuel
to India. But the current administration has apparently concluded that
President Bush cannot say that withholding nuclear exports from India
would seriously prejudice our nonproliferation objectives or jeopardize
our security.
So instead of relying on the existing waiver authority that is in the
law, the administration has requested and the bill provides--the bill
before us would provide a specific statutory waiver for India. This is
a waiver from the full-scope safeguard requirements of sections 126,
128, and the nuclear weapons prohibition contained in section 129. So
instead of applying full-scope safeguards to all peaceful nuclear
activities in India, the bill only asks that India give the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the United States a:
Credible plan to separate its civil nuclear facilities,
materials, and programs from its military facilities,
materials, and programs, and that it only apply the IAEA
safeguards to those civilian activities.
Let me just put up a chart up here to make the point as to what I
think the bill contains. This is an important distinction for all of us
to understand.
India has been called upon in this agreement to separate what they
are going to open to safeguards from the portion of their nuclear
program they are going to keep separate from any kind of a full-scope
safeguard. So there are 14 power reactors and one fuel reprocessing
plant they have identified as being subject to safeguards under this
agreement. That is the so-called civilian side of what they are doing.
Then there is the nonsafeguarded area, and that, according to the
Indians--and, of course, they are the ones who make this judgment and
have under this agreement we are now considering, they have determined
that there are eight power reactors for which they are not going to
provide safeguards: their Fast Breeder program, which they are not
going to provide safeguards for, and of course their entire military
program, which is made up of two plutonium reprocessing plants, two
uranium enrichment plants, and two heavy water plutonium production
reactors. So it is clear that there is a substantial amount of their
nuclear program that they have determined they will not open to
inspection by the IAEA and will not open to these requirements which
are contained in our own law.
There are major problems with this approach. First is that the
partial safeguards are not full-scope safeguards. India produced its
separation plan in March. It offers to place some of its civilian power
reactors, some of its fuel cycle facilities, some of its research
facilities under safeguards, but it leaves still others of its civilian
power reactors, its fuel cycle facilities, its research reactors, and
its military plants unsafeguarded. Many of the facilities that raise
the greatest proliferation concerns, including the Fast Breeder Reactor
program and its uranium enrichment plants and its spent fuel processing
facilities, are placed beyond the reach of any international
safeguards. India will be free to use these facilities to produce
fissile material for nuclear weapons without any international
inspection or control.
To make matters worse, by allowing India to buy civilian nuclear fuel
on the international market, India will no longer have to choose
between using its own limited uranium resources to supply its civilian
power program or its weapons program. It will be able to buy nuclear
fuel for its civilian power program and devote all its own uranium
resources to its weapons program.
The other major problem with this approach is that it abandons the
fundamental tenet of our nuclear nonproliferation policy; namely, that
nations are required to renounce nuclear weapons in order to get our
assistance. This simple bargain has been the cornerstone of our
nonproliferation policy since President Eisenhower announced the Atoms
For Peace program over a
[[Page 22143]]
half a century ago. The bill before us abandons that policy. It offers
U.S. assistance to India without any restraint or limitation on its
existing weapons program. Making such an exception for India will, in
my view, permanently weaken our nonproliferation policy and our
credibility on this issue. Already there are other nations, including
Pakistan, that have asked for similar treatment. We are signaling that
there are no general rules that apply when it comes to
nonproliferation; whether we will ship nuclear technology or nuclear
fuel or materials to a country depends upon the circumstances of each
case. That is what this agreement signals to the rest of the world. It
is difficult to see how we can insist that China and Russia strictly
enforce full-scope safeguards in their dealings with Iran and North
Korea if we are not going to enforce full-scope safeguards in our
dealings with other countries--India, in this case. That is not to say
we should bar the door to further nuclear cooperation with India or
vote down the bill. I think we should open up nuclear trade with India,
but we should do it in a way that is in keeping with our broad nuclear
nonproliferation policy.
I believe the bill before us, while seriously flawed as it now
stands, can be fixed, can be salvaged, and that is the purpose of my
amendment. The central issue, as I see it, is how to allow nuclear
trade with India to proceed without aiding and abetting India's nuclear
weapons program. India has dozens of nuclear weapons today. China has
hundreds of nuclear weapons today. We do not want to see a race begin
in Asia to see who can achieve the greatest capability in nuclear
weapons. I believe the answer is to establish a link between our
cooperation with India's civilian nuclear program and India stopping
its production of nuclear materials for its weapons program.
What I am recommending is nothing more than what our former
colleague, Senator Sam Nunn, suggested in the article which is on each
Member's desk entitled ``A Nuclear Pig In A Poke.'' It was an article
in the Wall Street Journal on May 24, and I commend it to all of my
colleagues for their consideration. Specifically, Senator Nunn in that
article recommended that:
Congress require a two-stage process. First, before any
export of nuclear reactors, components, or related technology
are provided to India, the President should have to certify
that both India and the United States are taking specific
steps to lead a serious and expedited international effort to
conclude a verifiable fissile material cutoff treatment.
Continuing with his statement:
Second, before any exports of nuclear reactor fuel or its
components are provided to India, thereby freeing India to
use its limited stocks to expand its nuclear weapons program,
the President would be required to certify that India has
stopped producing fissile materials for weapons, either as
part of a voluntary moratorium or multilateral agreement.
That is precisely what the amendment does.
I have attached a letter to the opinion piece Senator Nunn wrote, a
letter from Senator Nunn to me where he states that clearly the
amendment I am offering today is trying to implement the
recommendations he made in his earlier opinion piece. So this amendment
is based squarely on Senator Nunn's proposal. It simply requires first
that before nuclear equipment and technology can be exported, the
President first should determine that both India and the United States
are taking specific steps to conclude a fissile material cutoff treaty;
second, that before any nuclear materials may be exported to India, the
President must determine that India has stopped producing fissile
materials for weapons.
Both the United States and India have already agreed to work toward a
fissile materials cutoff treaty. The bill before us, in section 1055,
already requires the President to determine that India is working with
us toward such a treaty before he can use the waivers. All my amendment
does is to require the President to determine and to report to Congress
that specific steps are being taken before we export nuclear equipment
and technology, and that India has, in fact, stopped producing weapons
material before we export nuclear material to India. The amendment
would simply implement Senator Nunn's recommendations.
As I indicated, there is a letter pointing out that this amendment
would, in fact, accomplish that objective that is attached to the
opinion piece.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nunn's May 24 op-
ed in the Wall Street Journal and his letter to me dated September 28
of this year be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1).
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing here is not
a killer amendment. I know the traditional approach in the Senate is
that any time an amendment is offered, it is characterized by its
opponents as a killer amendment, so you could make the argument that
anything we might change in the pending legislation would absolutely
kill our prospects of getting anything done. But this amendment is not
a killer amendment. As Senator Nunn has stated in his op-ed piece, it
is not a killer amendment:
Unless you believe that India will continue its weapons-
usable nuclear material production, and that U.S. and Indian
pledges to work for a fissile material cutoff treaty are
insincere, meaningless gestures.
If those pledges are sincere and meaningful, as I trust they are,
then this amendment simply says they should be fulfilled before exports
begin.
Adoption of my amendment will significantly strengthen the agreement
with India. As Senator Nunn has said:
This two-stage approach would significantly strengthen the
deal in a way that improves the protection of our core
security interests, while ultimately allowing trade to
proceed. By establishing a linkage between exports of nuclear
material and the cessation of Indian production of nuclear
weapons material, this amendment will maintain the integrity
of an important U.S. security objective; that is, preventing
the growth and spread of nuclear weapons-usable material
around the globe.
Without this amendment I am offering, I fear the enactment of the
bill pending before us would result in making the world a more
dangerous place rather than a less dangerous place. This amendment will
give us the advantages of the agreement but without the increased
danger which all of us would like to see avoided.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the Senator from New Mexico. This is a killer condition
because it requires the President to make two determinations prior to
the U.S.-India agreement being implemented that are at odds with the
purpose of the pact.
First, under the Bingaman amendment a determination must be made that
both India and the United States have taken specific steps to conclude
a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, or FMCT, before the U.S. can export
nuclear equipment and technology.
The amendment requires that a second determination be made that India
has stopped the production of fissile material for weapons before the
U.S. can export nuclear materials.
While I agree that an Indian commitment to abandon its nuclear
weapons program would have been optimal, even in its absence this
agreement serves U.S. national security interests. Members must
consider whether this amendment and others like it advance U.S.
national security. I believe that U.S. interests are served by greater
IAEA oversight of India's nuclear program and I reject amendments that
make the perfect the enemy of the good. I support this agreement and
oppose amendments, like this one, that would derail its implementation.
By linking American exports of nuclear equipment and technology to
U.S. and Indian progress on a multilateral FMCT holds New Delhi to a
different and higher standard than any other country we have nuclear
trade with, higher standards for example than we require of Beijing. A
successful FMCT will only be concluded and implemented when every
nation with fissile material production capabilities agrees and abides
by its commitment. I worry that this amendment may provide countries
who oppose this bilateral agreement with a backdoor veto. In
[[Page 22144]]
other words, if another nation stymies progress on a FMCT, will India
and the U.S. be penalized?
I share the strong support of the Senator from New Mexico for an
FMCT. But a successful FMCT negotiation will require the assent of all
nations, in particular China. Unlike the U.S., the United Kingdom,
France, and Russia, China is assumed to have ceased fissile material
production but has not made a public statement confirming this as the
others have.
The report that accompanies the Lugar-Biden legislation, S. 3709,
highlights the potential trouble with these kind of linkages. The
Conference on Disarmament, the host of talks on a FMCT, has been unable
to agree on a work program, in part because some countries--notably
China--have refused to approve the beginning of FMCT negotiations
unless the Conference on Disarmament also approves discussions of other
issues, such as nuclear disarmament and banning weapons in outer space.
For its part India has long supported conclusion of an effectively
verifiable FMCT. This position reflects India's concern regarding
fissile material production by its nuclear-armed neighbors, and it
would be unrealistic to expect a precipitous change in India's
position. It would be difficult to determine that the U.S. and India
have taken specific steps to conclude an FMCT if Chinese interference
didn't permit the negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament to
start.
In testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, former
Secretary of Defense William Perry addressed the danger of conditioning
passage of the U.S.-India agreement on FMCT-related issues. In fact,
Bill Perry stated that there were many things by which we could
condition nuclear trade with India on, including ``India tak[ing] a
leadership position in promoting an international cutoff in the
production of fissile material.'' But Dr. Perry concluded:
I do not recommend that the Senate try to modify the
agreement to include them. Instead, I recommend that the
Senate task the Administration to vigorously pursue
continuing diplomacy to facilitate these actions, and that
should be as a follow-on to the agreement.
Secretary Perry's advice was good counsel and we adopted it in the
Lugar-Biden bill. In our opinion, S. 3709 strikes the right balance in
conditioning nuclear trade with India in areas consistent with the July
18, 2005, Joint Statement. India reiterated its support for an FMCT in
that statement and our bill applies pressure and requires continue
monitoring of future Indian and U.S. administrations to ensure full
implementation of the decision by India to support such a treaty.
Section 105(5) of the Lugar-Biden bill requires an annual
determination that India continues its support for an FMCT and is not
preventing adoption of a negotiating mandate that leaves the issue of
verification to be decided in the negotiations. If India is working
with the United States to conclude an FMCT or a similar treaty, that
would justify a presidential determination under this provision.
We reinforce these requirements with report language that reads that:
the United States must now use the influence it has gained
through efforts in both India and Pakistan, and with India in
particular through its nuclear trade with that nation, to
help them transition from nuclear build-ups to stability and
arms reductions. This is nowhere more relevant than in the
area of fissile material production.
In addition, this amendment requires the President to determine that
India has ceased the production of fissile materials for nuclear
weapons before the agreement can be implemented. India has long
rejected calls for the cessation of fissile material production,
pointing to rival nuclear weapons programs as justification.
India maintains that it cannot agree to a unilateral cap on fissile
material production at this time. Pakistan continues to produce fissile
material for weapons-related purposes, and China has not yet committed
to a moratorium on such production. It is not in U.S. national security
interests to threaten the significant nonproliferation gains afforded
by this Initiative with India in order to seek a fissile material cap
that India indicates it cannot agree to, absent a similar commitment by
Pakistan and China.
As Secretary Rice testified on April 6, 2006, before the Committee on
Foreign Relations:
India would never accept a unilateral freeze or cap on its
nuclear arsenal. We raised this with the Indians, but the
Indians said that its plans and policies must take into
account regional realities. No one can credibly assert that
India would accept what would amount to an arms control
agreement that did not include other key countries, like
China and Pakistan.
In addition, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Policy, Bob Joseph, and Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, stated on March 29, 2006:
The curtailment of the production of fissile material for
weapons was discussed as part of the Civil Nuclear
Cooperation Initiative, but India maintained that it could
not agree to a unilateral cap at this time. The U.S. has
achieved an important objective by obtaining India's
commitment to work toward the conclusion of a multilateral
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). Moreover, we remain
willing to explore other intermediate options that might also
serve such an objective. We also continue to call on all
states that produce fissile material for weapons purposes to
observe a voluntary production moratorium, as the United
States has done for many years.
Senator Biden and I took a number of steps to address concerns about
continued Indian fissile material production but we sought to do so in
a manner that did not threaten the efficacy of the U.S.-India
Agreement. In section 103(1) of our bill we make it the policy of the
United States ``to achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the
production by India and Pakistan of fissile materials for nuclear
weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.''
Section 108(a)(1)(A) requires an annual reporting requirement on
Indian implementation and compliance with ``the nonproliferation
commitments undertaken in the Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, between
the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India.''
Other subsections within section 108 of our legislation require: (1)
annual reports on ``significant changes in the production by India of
nuclear weapons or in the types of amounts of fissile materials
produced''; (2) whether India ``is in full compliance with the
commitments and obligations contained in the [U.S.-India] agreements
and other documents''; and (3) a requirement to identify and assess all
compliance issues arising on India's commitments and obligations. These
reporting requirements will ensure that Congress remains fully informed
on developments related to the implementation of this agreement. As we
all know, it is the prerogative of Congress to review these treaties
and take action should we ever determine that Indian activities put the
benefits of the agreement on U.S. national security interests in doubt.
In addition, the committee adopted an amendment offered by Senator
Chafee during markup of S. 3709 making it the policy of the United
States that peaceful atomic cooperation and ``exports of nuclear fuel
to India should not contribute to, or in any way encourage, increases
in the production by India of fissile material for non-civilian
purposes.''
The administration is in the midst of negotiations with India on a
123 Agreement, and New Delhi is also negotiating a new safeguards
agreement with the IAEA. The Nuclear Suppliers Group has yet to make a
decision to embrace the U.S.-India Agreement and approve its 45 member
states to engage in nuclear trade with India. If we accede to
conditions such as the one contained in the Bingaman amendment,
conditions that India has already rejected, we will severely limit our
ability to influence India's nuclear program.
Moreover, the IAEA's ability to monitor India's activities will be
further circumscribed and we will return to a time when India was a
hindrance rather than a partner in international, multilateral
nonproliferation and arms control efforts.
Senator Biden and I believe we have addressed this matter in a manner
that does not threaten the viability of the
[[Page 22145]]
agreement. The determinations I described above were carefully drafted
to balance, and not upset, the ongoing negotiations in Vienna or those
in the U.S. and India. We must not forget that Congress will have a
chance to vote on the 123 Agreement. S. 3709 provides Congress with an
up or down vote on this important agreement and fully protects
Congress' role in the process and ensures congressional views will be
taken into consideration.
In conclusion, the Bingaman amendment imposes an unacceptable
precondition on civil nuclear cooperation with India. India will regard
this as ``moving the goalposts,'' an unacceptable renegotiation of the
deal, and a bad-faith effort on our part.
As a consequence, this is a deal-killer that wrecks the balance that
we sought between executive and legislative power, nonproliferation
responsibilities, and the U.S.-India relationship. Killer conditions
such as these forfeit the U.S. ability to influence Indian behavior.
While I understand that this was not the intent of the Senator from New
Mexico, in my view it is the practical effect.
In sum, the Lugar-Biden bill addresses the issues raised by this
amendment without undercutting the agreement. Unfortunately, the
Bingaman amendment is a killer amendment and I urge Senators to oppose
it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I have two amendments to offer. I will be happy to offer
and debate them in order and to work with the chairman on whatever
arrangements he might wish for a vote on these amendments.
Mr. LUGAR. Let me respond to the Senator. I appreciate his
willingness to offer the amendments in a timely fashion. We are in the
process of debating one amendment, but I will ask unanimous consent it
be temporarily laid aside so the Senator can offer his amendments to
expedite this consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
The Senator is recognized to present his first amendment.
Amendment No. 5178
Mr. DORGAN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 5178.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To declare that it is the policy of the United States to
continue to support implementation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1172 (1998))
On page 5, beginning on line 15, strike ``Treaty; and''
and all that follows through ``that exports'' on line 16 and
insert the following: ``Treaty;
(9) to continue to support implementation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 (1998); and
(10) that exports
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and very
short. Its brevity is contained in line 4 to line 6.
It is an amendment that says we will:
On page 5, beginning on line 15, strike ``Treaty; and'' and
all that follows through ``that exports'' . . . and insert
the following:
(9) to continue to support implementation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1172.
Let me describe what this means and why I am offering it. In May of
1998, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Security
Council Resolution No. 1172 after India and then Pakistan, detonated
nuclear weapons. The Security Council unanimously passed a resolution.
The resolution I have in my hand, in part, says that the Security
Council is gravely concerned at the challenge that the nuclear tests
conducted by India and then Pakistan constitute to international
efforts aimed at strengthening the global regime of nonproliferation of
nuclear weapons and also gravely concerned at the danger to peace and
stability in the region.
Continuing, it says that the resolution condemns the nuclear tests
conducted by India on 11 and 13 May, 1998, and by Pakistan on 28 and 30
May, 1998, demands that India and Pakistan refrain from further nuclear
tests, calls upon India and Pakistan immediately to stop their nuclear
weapon development programs, to refrain from weaponization or from the
deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic
missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further
production of fissile material for nuclear weapons; it says the
Security Council recognizes that the tests conducted by India and
Pakistan constitute a serious threat to global efforts toward nuclear
nonproliferation and disarmament, urges India and Pakistan and all
other states that have not yet done so to become parties to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty without delay and without conditions.
That was the reaction of our country and of the United Nations in May
of 1998, following the detonation of nuclear weapons by both India and
Pakistan, a point in time in which the world was very concerned about
those actions.
Our country then led a multinational effort to pass a resolution in
the United Nations, Resolution 1172. That resolution, which passed
unanimously and which has become a resolution that represents our
policy and our support for these basic tenets, is at odds with the
underlying legislation being considered by the Senate.
I offer a piece of legislation, an amendment, that says it is still
U.S. policy to support the implementations of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1172.
How does this square with what is before the Senate?
Resolution 1172 demonstrated that our country, the United States, and
the rest of the international community, agree there should be no
further nuclear weapons testing in South Asia and there should be an
end to dangerous nuclear arms competition and no additional nuclear
weapons produced. That resolution is as relevant today as it was in
1998.
Both India and Pakistan have violated Resolution 1172. They continue
to build nuclear weapons, they produce fissile material for weapons in
both of those countries, they continue to develop new nuclear-capable
missiles.
No one in this Chamber would like to see, in my judgment, India or
Pakistan resume nuclear testing.
Now, the Bush administration wants to lift international restrictions
on nuclear trade with India. It is as if the United Nations Security
Council resolution doesn't exist, never happened, doesn't apply to our
country, doesn't apply to India. What does that say to North Korea?
What does that tell the country of Iran?
This past July, the United States convinced the Security Council of
the United Nations to call upon Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA
and suspend its uranium enrichment program, stop work on a heavy water
production. Iran has not complied and the U.S. working with other
nation states on the Security Council to pass another resolution.
In October, the Security Council passed Resolution 1718, which
condemns North Korea's nuclear test and demands that North Korea not
conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile. It
also calls on North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons in existing
nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner;
also, to give up its ballistic missile program.
But these resolutions on Iran and North Korea will, in my judgment,
mean far less if the United States does not reaffirm its commitment to
Resolution 1172 with respect to India and Pakistan.
[[Page 22146]]
As the world watches our actions--and we have Ambassador Burns and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rushing to India to negotiate these
kinds of agreements that begin to untie and unravel decades of
leadership by our country against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As the world watches our actions, what will they learn from this
discussion, from these actions by the Senate? Will they learn today
that we remain committed to Resolution 1172 of the United Nations?
It would be, it seems to me, a huge step backward for the Senate to
say that Resolution 1172, which was our policy, which passed
unanimously in the United Nations, which called for the cessation of
the production of additional nuclear weapons by both India and
Pakistan, if we were to tell the world that somehow that is no longer
our policy, that is no longer operative--at least it is not operative
with respect to India and Pakistan.
As I said earlier, the burden falls to us to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons. It is our responsibility. We are the major nuclear
superpower in the world. We inherit the requirement to stop the spread
of nuclear weapons, keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of
terrorists, try to prevent a cataclysmic terror attack anywhere in the
world and especially against the cities of our country by a terrorist
group who has a nuclear weapon. It is our responsibility to do that.
What then embraces that responsibility? What kind of things should we
be doing in the Senate? Should we be deciding in the Senate that one
way to do that is to allow the production of additional nuclear weapons
on this Earth? Of course not, that is absurd. Will the underlying bill
that is before the Senate allow the production of additional nuclear
weapons? Of course, it will. Everyone agrees with that. We all
understand that. If that weren't the case, there would not be a
requirement to keep eight of the nuclear reactors behind a curtain that
will never be inspected. We understand what is going on.
I read this morning the statement from one of the top advisers in
India that said they have a responsibility to move quickly and
aggressively to continue to build their nuclear deterrent. That is
exactly what is at work here. Has our country now decided it is not our
responsibility to stop this? Have we decided to be the green light to
allow others to build additional nuclear weapons? Is that the junction
we have reached? Not with my vote.
I understand all the arguments about the geopolitics and about India
and China and counterweights and all of these issues. None of it, in my
judgment, justifies a decision by the United States of America to send
a signal to the world that we believe it is all right for anybody to
begin producing additional nuclear weapons.
Our role, our responsibility, is to find ways today, on Thursday,
November 16, 2006 to shut down the production of additional nuclear
weapons, put pressure on those who want to build more nuclear weapons,
to say to them it is not acceptable to us to have you building
additional nuclear weapons.
Yes, that goes for India. It goes for Pakistan. It goes for China. It
goes for all of those countries.
That ought to be our message. It ought to be unified. It ought not to
be convoluted. It ought to be clear. Yet the underlying message with
what is on the floor of the Senate--again, negotiated by Ambassador
Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, largely in secret; I
read about it, by the way, in the Washington Post--the underlying
message is we have decided to develop a relationship with India that is
a counterweight to China in that region. One way to do that is to allow
India to be able to purchase the things they need with which to produce
additional nuclear power.
They have been prevented from doing that because they refused to sign
the nonproliferation treaty. They refused to sign that treaty;
therefore, they have had sanctions against them and resolutions at the
United Nations enacted that have condemned the actions. And now, in one
fell swoop, they are told: Never mind. It does not matter. We are
friends, and that friendship transcends the sanctions that exist for
those of you who have not signed the nonproliferation treaty.
I think this is a horrible mistake. Again, I do not question the
motives of those who disagree with me. But we have made some very
serious mistakes recently because some big thinkers made some big
mistakes. This is a very big mistake. It is likely that the Senate will
pass the underlying legislation today. I will regret that. But if it
passes that legislation without reaffirming the basic support for
Resolution 1172, this message today will have been a very destructive
message to the rest of the world with respect to our country's
leadership away from nuclear proliferation.
So, Mr. President, I would hope that we could have a vote on this
resolution. I have a second resolution that I shall offer. But with
that discussion of my resolution, I will yield the floor so my
colleagues can respond to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 5179 and 5180
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk that have
been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes amendments numbered 5179 and 5180, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 5179
(Purpose: To require as part of the implementation and compliance
report an estimate of uranium use and an analysis of the production
rate of nuclear explosive devices)
On page 18, beginning on line 7, strike ``existing'' and
all that follows through ``description'' on line 9 and insert
the following:
existing agreements;
(6) an estimate of--
(A) the amount of uranium mined in India during the
previous year;
(B) the amount of such uranium that has likely been used or
allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(C) the rate of production in India of--
(i) fissile material for nuclear explosive devices; and
(ii) nuclear explosive devices;
(7) an analysis as to whether imported uranium has affected
the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(8) a detailed description
AMENDMENT NO. 5180
(Purpose: To establish a United States-India scientific cooperative
threat reduction program)
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-INDIA SCIENTIFIC COOPERATIVE THREAT
REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, shall establish a cooperative threat
reduction program to pursue jointly with scientists from the
United States and India a program to further common
nonproliferation goals, including scientific research and
development efforts related to nuclear nonproliferation, with
an emphasis on nuclear safeguards (in this section referred
to as the ``program'').
(b) Consultation.--The program shall be carried out in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense.
(c) National Academies Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academies to develop
recommendations for the implementation of the program.
(2) Recommendations.--The agreement entered into under
paragraph (1) shall provide for the preparation by qualified
individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge and the
communication to the Secretary of Energy each fiscal year
of--
(A) recommendations for research and related programs
designed to overcome existing technological barriers to
nuclear nonproliferation; and
(B) an assessment of whether activities and programs funded
under this section are achieving the goals of the activities
and programs.
(3) Public availability.--The recommendations and
assessments prepared under this subsection shall be made
publicly available.
(d) Consistency With Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.--All
United States activities related to the program shall be
consistent with United States obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Mr. LUGAR. I urge adoption of the amendments.
[[Page 22147]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are adopted
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5179 and 5180) were agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I would mention, Mr. President, the author of the
amendments is Senator Bingaman, and one of the amendments is also in
conjunction with Senator Domenici.
Amendment No. 5178
Mr. President, I want to respond to the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota briefly. I oppose his amendment. While the amendment would
merely state that it is U.S. policy to continue to support
implementation of the Security Council resolution that was passed in
June 1998 in response to the nuclear weapons tests in South Asia--a
resolution we voted for--I believe the amendment casts us back to a
very different time, well before the miraculous changes in India's
relations with the United States and with the world that occurred as a
result of the July 2005 Joint Statement and India's decision to turn
the corner on nonproliferation policy generally.
I do not believe this bill is the right place to address ourselves to
the past. This bill is about the future. We have taken adequate account
in the bill of the concerns the Senator's amendment would address.
Section 1033 of the Lugar-Biden bill makes it the policy of the United
States that:
India remains in full compliance with its non-
proliferation, arms control, and disarmament agreements,
obligations, and commitments.
Section 108(b) of our legislation requires annual reporting,
including a detailed description of ``United States efforts to promote
national or regional progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing,
securing, capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles,
pending creation of a world-wide fissile material cut-off regime,
including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty; the
reactions of India and Pakistan to such efforts; and assistance that
the United States is providing, or would be able to provide, to India
and Pakistan'' to promote such objectives.
In the context of this bill, I do not believe it is appropriate to
return to the past in a way the Senator's amendment would, and I urge
defeat of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Dorgan amendment. I
appreciate, respect, and share the sentiment and concern of the Senator
from North Dakota who has been doggedly supportive of pushing
nonproliferation and a nonproliferation regime. And if this were 1998
or 1999, I would support the Senator's amendment. But this is 2006, and
a great deal has changed since India and Pakistan both exploded nuclear
devices in 1998.
The Security Council resolution passed after those tests called for
several things: one including for India and Pakistan to immediately
stop their nuclear weapons programs and their ballistic missile
programs. We wish they would have ceased their nuclear programs. They
did not. We wish they had ceased their programs with regard to
missiles. Well, they did not.
So the fact is, it is not realistic. We wish they would join the
nuclear test ban treaty. But do we really think that is possible under
this administration that is not supportive of a comprehensive nuclear
test ban treaty?
In this legislation, and in the United States-India nuclear
agreement, we are making clear that continued cooperation under this
nuclear agreement and nuclear exports to India will cease if India,
one, tests a nuclear device, terminates or materially violates its IAEA
safeguards, materially violates its agreement with the United States,
or engages in nuclear proliferation.
Further, the bill requires that India sign a safeguards agreement
with the IAEA and negotiate an additional protocol. It also requires
the President to certify that the safeguards agreement is in accordance
with the IAEA standards, principles, and practices.
In sum, that is U.S. policy toward India and its nuclear program, and
I do not see the purpose of revisiting the old history of 1998. We need
to look forward, and that is what we are doing in this legislation. We
are using this legislation and the agreement to build a new
relationship with India on this issue, and also using it as a means to
strengthen the bilateral relationship across the board. And in doing
so, we have enshrined important nonproliferation principles into this
legislation because we cannot turn back the history of 1998.
So at the appropriate time--and I think we are working now on a
consent agreement--I would urge the defeat of the Dorgan amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, just a couple of----
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a
moment?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, how long do you think
it will take for you to discuss and dispose of your amendment?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to respond briefly to a
couple of comments that have been made in objection to my amendment,
and then to offer my second amendment, per agreement with the chairman.
That would probably take me about 10 minutes, and to speak in support
of my second amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened intently to my two colleagues
who apparently cannot find the ability to support this amendment. I do
want to make a couple of observations. One of my colleagues said that
India is in full compliance with its commitments. Well, yes, that is
true. And the reason they are in full compliance with their commitments
is they do not have the commitments we have. They have not signed the
nonproliferation treaty. They do not have the commitments that we would
expect of them. So are they in full compliance with the commitments
that do not exist? I do not know. I mean, I guess. It is not much of an
excuse for India, in my judgment. I don't understand that objection.
The discussion of ``this agreement would cease if the following''
omitted one key issue: ``This agreement will cease if India continues
to produce additional nuclear weapons.'' No, that was not included in
this bill. Why? Because this agreement allows India to continue to
produce additional nuclear weapons. That is at the root of this
agreement; otherwise why would you have nuclear facilities put off
limits behind a curtain, behind which India can produce additional
nuclear bombs?
So this issue of that we have safeguards, and this agreement will
cease if the following exists, does not include that this agreement
will cease if India continues to produce additional nuclear weapons.
Why doesn't it include that provision? Because all of us here know what
is going to happen. What is going to happen is this agreement is going
to pass, and our ally, a wonderful country, India, is going to be told
by this country: It is all right if behind a curtain uninspected
facilities continue to produce additional nuclear bombs. That is all
right with us. It works fine with us. It is not all right with me. It
does not work fine with me.
The past versus the future? I am glad we are not debating the
Constitution. That is the past. Man, that is a couple hundred years
past. What are the virtues of the Constitution? How about the virtues
of the past, the efforts in the past at nonproliferation, the efforts
in the past when we were serious about these issues? Really serious.
And this country took it upon themselves to say: We are going to lead
the way. We, by God, are going to lead the way because it is our
burden. It is our responsibility.
We inherit that requirement. Yes, that is the past, and I am proud of
that past. In fact, this morning I described part of that past,
credited, I might say, to my colleague from Indiana and my
[[Page 22148]]
former colleague from Georgia, and my colleague from Delaware. I hold
in my hand a wing strut from a Soviet bomber that likely carried a
nuclear weapon, which could have been dropped on an American city.
That wing strut came from an airplane that was not shot down. That
airplane was sawed up by an agreement. That sawing of that Backfire
bomber, whose wing strut I now hold, was paid for by American
taxpayers. We destroyed nuclear weapons, no, not by battle, not through
firing our nuclear weapons. We destroyed them by saws and other methods
of destruction, paid for by the American taxpayer.
We destroyed nuclear weapons. Four countries that possessed them are
now free of nuclear weapons. We destroyed delivery systems, Backfire
bombers, missiles. Yes, that is the past, a past I am enormously proud
of, a past we need more of, a past we need to learn from.
The future? The future is a process here by which we say: Do you know
what. India, you are a good country--and let me join in that
description of the county of India. But we also say: We don't care so
much anymore you didn't sign the nonproliferation treaty. We don't care
that you violated Resolution 1172 of the United Nations. That is all
OK. And, in fact, we are going to tell the suppliers of the world that
can supply you with things you need to produce nuclear power go ahead
and do that. The sanctions are off. We have decided that our position
has changed. It used to be that we and the rest of the world would not
allow you to purchase that because you would not sign the
nonproliferation treaty. We have changed our minds. In fact, we are
going to tell the suppliers to furnish that to you, and you can use it
behind the curtain with some of your facilities to produce additional
nuclear weapons. You can do it because there will be no inspections.
That, frankly, is the circumstance of this legislation. So we have
disagreement. I regret that. But I feel very strongly. I know my
colleagues feel strongly about their position on this issue. I would
just say, I hope we will not decide today as a Senate to say that
Security Council Resolution 1172 does not matter because it is old. It
is timeless. It is not old. It is timeless in its position of what we
should stand for as a country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
As I said, I really admire, respect, and observe the passion of my
friend from North Dakota on this issue. But I think the comparisons are
not particularly apt. The wing strut the Senator has was able to be
held in his hand because two countries--the United States and the
Soviet Union--concluded that it was in their mutual interest to cease
and desist and/or significantly reduce the threat each posed to the
other. And they were the only threats that existed. The only threat to
the United States from a nuclear capability of an ICBM or a Backfire
bomber resided in the Soviet Union.
Now, we tried. I was the author of--and, as a matter of fact, there
was a South Dakota Senator named Pressler, along with John Glenn, who
early on put in legislation relating to sanctions for India.
India obviously violated those sanctions and did not comply with the
U.N. resolution. But there is a reason for that--not a justification, a
reason. They looked across their borders north and west and saw two
nuclear powers--one emerging nuclear power, one existing nuclear
power--and they concluded, rightly or wrongly, from their perspective
that they had to be a nuclear power.
It is clear nonproliferation does not work in a vacuum.
Nonproliferation entreatments, requests, proddings to a nation that
finds itself in a situation where it believes it is threatened by a
nuclear neighbor have not worked particularly well, offering those two
examples, for example.
It seems to me what we are attempting to do is the only route to get
to the point where both India and Pakistan are part of a
nonproliferation treaty; that is, we are trying to change the regional
situation on the ground. It is not going to happen through a
nonproliferation treaty. It is going to happen through a rapprochement
between India and Pakistan. The idea that we would be able to, through
any legislation, prevent India from moving forward to add additional
nuclear weapons, if they so choose to do that--there is no legislation
we can pass to do that.
What this legislation does is recognize the reality of the
geopolitical situation in the region, set up safeguards to deal with
the ability for India to use anything we are doing with them to be able
to further advance their nuclear capability, give them a new buy-in to
an international regime that will have the effect of putting pressure
on them to move in the direction we and the Soviets moved on back when
that Backfire bomber strut was sawed off a wing, and that is the route
we choose. It is not pretty. It is not clear. It is no guarantee. It is
not certain to succeed. But I do know one thing: Absent this agreement,
there is a likelihood things get worse instead of better, beyond what
may already occur.
I appreciate the Senator's comparisons, but I think they are not as
apt as they might appear to be because, again, India's motivation, in
terms of its viewing its need for a nuclear arsenal, is not unlike the
motivation that existed with regard to the United States and the Soviet
Union. It is going to take a geopolitical settlement of that, not a
nuclear arms control agreement imposing a settlement on India and
Pakistan at this moment, now that the genie is out of the bottle.
I appreciate my friend's point and respect his point of view, but I
disagree that it is the best way to move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me respond briefly. There is a very big difference
between this and the agreement we had with the Soviet Union. In the
Soviet Union agreement, both sides, the United States and the Soviet
Union, decided they wished to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and
the delivery systems of those weapons. As a result of that decision,
both sides wishing to reduce both weapons and delivery systems, we
embarked on a process that was very helpful to both countries and to
the world and to world peace. This is very different. This is mutual
interest.
But now, we are told it is in our mutual interest, us and India, to
have India be allowed to produce additional nuclear weapons, not reduce
nuclear weapons. Under this agreement, everyone will agree, India will
be allowed to increase nuclear weapons. If India is allowed to increase
nuclear weapons under this agreement, that is very different from the
agreement we had with the Soviets by which we decided to reduce.
The point is, this agreement says it is in our mutual interest to
allow India to increase its production of nuclear weapons. That is
clearly not in our mutual interest, but that is what the resolution
says.
Second, my colleague is right, none of this operates in a vacuum.
This will not be in a vacuum, either. Pakistan will insist on producing
more nuclear weapons. So will China. Pakistan has already told our
country: If you are going to do this with India, we want you to do it
with us. So this decision will not be made in a vacuum vis-a-vis India;
this decision will have an impact regionally and around the world.
My colleague is very skillful in presenting his position. I admire
both of my colleagues and their skill and determination as well. We
just have a difference of opinion. I think this is a very significant
mistake.
I have a second amendment which I will send to the desk and offer for
its consideration and try to truncate the description of that very
briefly, if that is appropriate to the chairman.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I respond briefly to my colleague?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. It would be my hope--and let me discuss this quickly--that
the debate on the first amendment of Senator Dorgan is completed.
Secondly, I want a short time for Senator
[[Page 22149]]
Domenici of New Mexico to make a statement. And then thirdly, we will
proceed to the introduction of Senator Dorgan's second amendment. My
hope would be that a unanimous consent will be formulated--I know staff
from both sides are working on that--that will provide for rollcall
votes on both Dorgan amendments and then, at the conclusion of the
debate of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, on the Bingaman
amendment, perhaps a stack of three votes for the convenience of
Senators. I am broaching that, not asking for everybody to agree, but I
am hopeful that would be a general agreement of those who are around at
this point.
It is my hope that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico might be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman,
Senator Lugar, for arranging for my few remarks before he proceeds.
After committing to a framework 16 months ago, President Bush and
India's Prime Minister announced an agreement earlier this year on
civil nuclear cooperation between our two countries. I believe they
recognize this historic moment in our history, one that requires vision
and foresight to anticipate the world as it will be rather than stuck
in the past wishing things somehow would be different. Some will argue
that we must pursue a better deal approaching perfection, but the deal
that has been negotiated is a good one that we must pursue now and
begin taking steps to strengthen the nonproliferation regime with India
by our side.
Senators Lugar and Biden and the Foreign Relations Committee have
done an admirable job of striking a balance that anticipates this
future. This strong, bipartisan bill represents a critical step toward
strengthening an eroding nonproliferation framework. We only need look
at North Korea and Iran for evidence that this erosion is taking place
and as a wake-up call that fundamental change is needed. The global
community must work together to assure the peaceful pursuit of civilian
nuclear waste.
This historic agreement is a critical step that moves the United
States and India toward a strategic relationship between our great
democracies. Through this relationship, built on strength, we can
jointly work toward a vision of a proliferation-free world. I
understand that is a vision. It is not real even now. And while things
might even look a little worse, the truth is, the relationship we are
building with what we are agreeing to here on the floor, when that
completes its course and becomes a reality, then that means we are
building toward a proliferation-free world.
India is a worthy partner. That was one of the basic questions:
Should you enter into this agreement with a partner that has not been
part of the ordinary, agreed-upon, acceptable accords and agreements
between countries heretofore? I would remind everyone that India is the
largest democracy--a population currently over 1 billion and expected
to surpass China in the next 50 years. It has a rapidly expanding
economy with a growth rate of over 7 percent a year in 2005, a rapidly
expanding economy that is the envy of almost all countries that have
free and open democracies. This agreement with India brings global
transparency to India's entire civilian nuclear program. We forget that
India's civilian and military program still remains closed to global
scrutiny. Under this agreement, the entire civilian program, 65 percent
of all nuclear activity and eventually 90 percent of all nuclear
activity, will open to monitoring by the IAEA. Obviously, we ought to
start, if that is where we are going to end up, because that is as good
as we are going to do. And certainly we ought to be grateful that
through the leadership of the President and now the leadership of the
Congress, we can get there.
The people are similar to the American people. They desire a better
life for themselves and their children. Rapid economic growth that has
led to improving their standard of living is projected to result in a
doubling of the energy needs of their country in the next 25 years.
India must make choices today that drive their energy mix in the
future.
Like many countries, they have chosen nuclear power to improve their
energy security while reducing reliance on imports. India currently has
nine reactors under construction and plans to grow the nuclear share to
25 percent by 2050. That is 100 times the 2002 capacity. Cooperation
with India will lead to significant opportunities for U.S. industry to
help assure India's energy mix, including nuclear power, is clean,
diversified, and proliferation-resistant.
I strongly support an evolving strategic U.S. relationship with India
that this agreement promotes. We ought to be proud of it and move with
dispatch. It is the world's largest democracy and a worthy partner that
we can work with in our pursuit of global security. I have worked with
Senator Lugar in the past on nonproliferation measures that required
vision and foresight. With India also, we must look to our future. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge dispatch in
consideration of the balance of the subject matter.
I thank Senator Lugar for obtaining time for me on the floor, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Domenici, for his very strong statement, and I simply want
to mention again how much I appreciate working with him over the years.
The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation was extremely important throughout
a good part of the last decade, and on the nonproliferation efforts he
has been a champion in the Senate. We appreciate his contribution to
this debate today.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota. We indicated that he would continue by offering his
second amendment, and I would advise him to do so, if he is prepared.
Amendment No. 5182
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5182 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 5182.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 5182
(Purpose: To require as a precondition to United States-India peaceful
atomic energy cooperation a determination by the President that India
has committed to certain basic provisions consistent with United States
nonproliferation goals and the obligations and political commitments
undertaken by State Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``the Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert
the following:
Group;
(8) India has committed to--
(A) the development of a credible separation plan between
civilian and military facilities by ensuring all reactors
that supply electricity to the civilian sector are declared
and are subject to permanent IAEA standards and practices;
(B) a binding obligation to the same extent as nuclear-
weapon State Parties under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty--
(i) not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear
weapons or nuclear explosive devices or control over such
devices directly or indirectly; and
(ii) not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any
non-nuclear-weapon State Party to manufacture or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or
acquire control over such weapons or explosive devices; and
(C) consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--
(i) pursuing negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament, including ending
fissile material production for nuclear weapons;
(ii) joining a legally-binding nuclear test moratorium;
[[Page 22150]]
(iii) verifiably reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile;
and
(iv) eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons; and
(9) the Nuclear
Amendment No. 5178, as Modified
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to offer a
modification to the first amendment I offered today. The amendment had
two line numbers in it that were made to the original copy of the
legislation. That legislation was subsequently changed. So let me ask
unanimous consent that on the initial amendment I offered today, on
line 1, the reference to line 15 be struck, and it is line 8; on line
2, the reference to line 15 be struck, and it is line 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5178), as modified, is as follows:
On page 5, beginning on line 8, strike ``Treaty; and'' and
all that follows through ``that exports'' on line 9 and
insert the following:
Treaty;
(9) to continue to support implementation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1172 (1998); and
(10) that exports
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the second amendment I have sent to the
desk says that before this United States-India agreement can go into
effect, the President must submit to the Congress a written
determination that India has committed to certain basic provisions
consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals and with the NPT, the
nonproliferation treaty. It requires the President to determine that
India has committed to, for example, putting all of its reactors that
supply electricity to the civilian sector under the IAEA inspection
regime. This would close a loophole that exists in the proposed
agreement, and that loophole allows India to keep electricity-producing
reactors out of the IAEA inspection regime. Eight of them will be out
of the regime, and those eight are going to be behind a curtain, unable
to be inspected, and able to produce the materials to produce
additional nuclear weapons. Fourteen of the existing and planned
nuclear reactors would be inspected, and eight of them would not.
If those other eight reactors produce civilian electricity, my
amendment would require that India allow inspection of them.
The bill as now written would allow India to produce energy with
nuclear reactors that are closed to IAEA safeguards. My amendment says
that is a loophole which should not be allowed. If India can keep
energy-producing reactors outside of these safeguards, why shouldn't
other countries be allowed to do so? How will our country say to
others: Well, we have special deals. We have loopholes here for one,
but we are not consistent. There is no consistency with respect to our
position on these issues.
The amendment also requires India to undertake a binding obligation
not to assist, encourage, or induce nonnuclear weapons states to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. That is what our
country has obligated itself to do under the nonproliferation treaty.
It is what other nuclear weapons states have done as well, including
Russia, China, Britain, and France. They have all agreed to and signed
the nonproliferation treaty and agreed to that basic provision, a
binding obligation not to assist, encourage, or induce nonnuclear
weapons states to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.
Lastly, my amendment requires the President to determine that India
has committed itself to pursuing negotiations on measures directed at
reducing nuclear stockpiles and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons.
These are the same commitments, the very same commitments our country
has made, the same commitments other nation states which have signed
the nonproliferation treaty have made. So I believe it is appropriate
that if we have this agreement with India dealing with the issue of
nuclear weapons, they should be under the same obligations we are
under. Even though they have not signed the nonproliferation treaty, we
have. We have obligations under that treaty. They should accept the
obligations under that treaty, in my judgment, even though they have
not yet signed it.
This debate today has been interesting and, in many ways, very
frustrating as well. I intend to support very aggressively the
amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. I
believe that amendment is very important and at the root of much of
what I have talked about today as well.
It seems to me this is a case for our children and our grandchildren
about what kind of a world they are going to live in. It is
interesting. If you just fast forward from 1960 to 1980 to 2000 and
fast forward from 2001 to today, we went through a Cold War with the
Soviet Union where we had heavy nuclear weapons, huge nuclear weapons
with big bombers and powerful missiles aimed at each other, so we had a
Cold War. Massive numbers of nuclear weapons were built. We had a
standoff between our country and the Soviet Union. There was great
concern and worry that somehow, something would happen in which someone
would launch a missile or a submarine or an airplane would launch a
missile with a nuclear weapon and we would start a nuclear war and our
two countries would be obliterated. It didn't happen. Instead, we chose
a much more constructive direction.
We and the Soviet Union began what is called arms control talks, and
we reached arms control agreements. Those agreements began the
destruction of weapons systems, delivery systems, nuclear weapons. I
admit that a very small amount of those delivery systems and nuclear
weapons were actually destroyed, but some of them were. It was actually
moving in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. We
developed a test ban treaty. We led the way. We said: We are going to
no longer test nuclear weapons. We said that to the world. A
nonproliferation treaty. We said this is important to do, and we were
the leaders in saying this is the right course for the world. Now we
are told: You know what, that is old-fashioned; that is the past; this
is the future. I say that what we did then is timeless. These values
don't change, the value of deciding that our future ought to be a
future with fewer nuclear weapons rather than more nuclear weapons.
If anyone has listened closely, they will know there has been no
refutation of the assertion that some of my colleagues and I have made
that this agreement will mean we have more nuclear weapons produced. No
one has disputed that. This agreement means we are signing up to have
more nuclear weapons produced on this Earth. One--just one--nuclear
weapon in the hands of a terrorist group pulling up to a dock in a
major American city on a container ship at 2\1/2\ or 3 miles an hour
can potentially kill hundreds of thousands of American citizens--just
one--and there are 30,000 out there. Can anyone here tell me that every
one of those 30,000 is safeguarded and that no terrorist organization
will acquire one? Can anybody tell me that is going to be the case?
I started this morning talking about a CIA agent called Dragon Fire
who reported 1 month after 9/11 that a Russian 10-kiloton nuclear
weapon had been stolen by a terrorist group and taken into New York
City and was about to be detonated. That episode has been written about
in a book. Most of us have heard of it. It was a time when for a month
we didn't know if it was true or not. It wasn't disclosed publicly
because there would have been mass hysteria if it was thought that a
10-kiloton nuclear weapon had been stolen from Russia and was now in
New York City about to be detonated. It eventually was discovered that
had not happened. But when they did the postmortem on that situation,
it was understood that it was clearly possible. Russia had those
weapons. They were not safeguarded well. They are not, and they were
not. They could have been stolen. It could have been smuggled into a
major American city by a terrorist group and it could have been
detonated, killing hundreds of thousands of people. That is the
consequence of one nuclear weapon. Just one. We have 30,000 or so on
this Earth. What are we doing today? We are saying it is all right if
they build more--in this case, India. It is OK if they build more.
[[Page 22151]]
This is not going to be done in a vacuum. What we do here today will
have consequences for Pakistan, it will have consequences for China.
You think they won't decide if India is going to be allowed to build
more nuclear weapons that they won't build more nuclear weapons? Of
course they will. That is what this is about.
I understand it is argued that this is geopolitics; you don't
understand it; you can't see over the horizon. Maybe not. What I do
understand is that this world will be a safer place with fewer nuclear
weapons, this world will be a safer place if we care about
nonproliferation, if we reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and this
world will not be safer if at the end of today we have decided that we
have given a green light to a world with more nuclear weapons.
I hope my colleagues will agree with me and support my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I intend to offer a short statement
opposing the amendment. I would ask Members to be alert to the
possibility that following my statement, Senator Biden has indicated he
would put his statement in the Record if this plan can then be
accepted, and we would then proceed to three rollcall votes: an
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Bingaman, and two amendments offered by the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. For the convenience of our colleagues, those
three votes would come without pause, thus minimizing the dislocation
of Members' schedules and accelerating our consideration of this
debate.
I am certain the Chair has heard that Senator Biden and I, for many
of our colleagues who were hopeful that we could proceed in a
responsible way but conclude the debate today, on Thursday, are
attempting to do that, and we appreciate the cooperation of our
colleagues.
Having said that, Mr. President, let me state my opposition to the
second amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota. His amendment would, in fact, undo the entire effort we have
achieved with India over the past year. Not only would he revise
India's civilian military separation plan with his amendment, but he
would require India to assume the obligations of a nuclear weapons
state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT. This is, in
effect, a perfect killer amendment. It should be strongly opposed by
every Member of this body who supports an improved relationship with
India.
The Senator's amendment adds two new determination requirements to
our bill: first, that India's separation plan result in a situation
wherein all reactors that supply civilian power are declared to the
IAEA and under safeguards; and second, that India assume certain NPT
obligations. This is unnecessary and would do us great harm. It adds a
new element in the separation plan that the President did not negotiate
and would undo the deal we have reached.
India's separation plan is credible and sound, according to criteria
developed by the administration in its negotiations with India. As
Secretary Rice stated last April:
For the plan to be transparent, it had to be articulated
publicly.
It has been.
For it to be credible and defensible from a
nonproliferation standpoint, it had to capture more than just
a token number of Indian nuclear facilities--
Which it did----
by encompassing nearly two-thirds of India's current and
planned thermal power reactors, as well as all future civil,
thermal, and breeder reactors. Importantly, for the
safeguards to be meaningful, India had to commit to apply
IAEA safeguards in perpetuity.
It did so.
Once a reactor is under IAEA safeguards, those safeguards
will remain there permanently and on an unconditional basis.
Further, in our view, the plan also needed to include
upstream and downstream facilities associated with the
safeguarded reactors to provide a true separation of civil
and military programs. India committed to these steps, and we
have concluded that its separation plan meets the criteria
established: it is credible, transparent, and defensible from
a nonproliferation standpoint.
The amendment changes the metrics for a credible and defensible
separation plan by including that such a plan must mean that any
reactor supplying power must be declared. As Secretary Rice stated
before the committee:
Regardless of whether they might be used to generate
electric power or not, reactors that are not declared civil,
and thus are not under IAEA safeguards, cannot legitimately
receive nuclear fuel or other nuclear cooperation from any
State party to the NPT.
The second element in the Senator's amendment would require India to
assume the obligations of a nuclear weapon state party to the NPT.
The administration was careful not to term India a ``nuclear weapon
state'' with similar rights and obligations as those five nations in
the NPT with status as lawful weapon states--France, Russia, China, the
U.K., and the U.S.--and instead termed India in the July 2005 joint
statement a ``responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.''
This was necessary to do no harm to U.S. and other weapons states'
status under the treaty.
The Senator's amendment would create obligations similar to those of
weapon states for India through creating a determination requirement
that the President must make wherein India has assumed the obligations
of a nuclear weapon state under the NPT. I would argue that this is not
necessary, since it could well provoke India to walk away from the
obligations they would assume under our 123 Agreement with them and
leave the restraint we might get through that deal on their weapons
program on the negotiating table.
India has stated they have no intention to sign or become a party to
the NPT, as a weapon state or otherwise. India's July 2005 joint
statement commitments are significant, but they do not include NPT
membership.
I urge defeat of the amendment; it is a killer.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks
made by the Senator from Indiana.
The amendment requires India to declare as civil reactors all
reactors that supply electricity to the civil sector.
There is no way that India will accept this.
I might wish they would, but they will not.
That's because for decades, they have built reactors that can be
either civil or military.
So India has reserved as military enough reactors to produce more
plutonium for nuclear weapons--in case they decide they need to do
that.
But India will also use those reactors for electric power.
If this amendment is enacted, India will have to choose to either
make all its power reactors civil, and build new ones to produce
plutonium; or waste the electric power capability of its current
military reactors.
India will not do that.
So this is a killer amendment.
It's also a killer amendment because it requires India to commit to
verifiably reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile.
I wish India would do that--but it will not.
India fears both Pakistan and China, which also have nuclear weapons.
The Dorgan amendment does not require Pakistan and China to reduce
their stockpiles, only India.
This is a non-starter for India.
Finally, the amendment requires India to commit to ``joining a
legally-binding, nuclear test moratorium.'' I wish India would do that.
I hope the administration will push for that.
But for now, there is only one ``legally-binding, nuclear test
moratorium.'' It is called the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.
And I do not think this administration will press India to join that
treaty.
So, I sympathize with all of the concerns raised by this amendment.
But I know that it would kill the nuclear deal.
That is the bottom line: if we support the deal, we have to reject
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
[[Page 22152]]
proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the following
amendments: the Bingaman amendment No. 5174, the Dorgan amendment No.
5178, as modified and the Dorgan amendment No. 5182; further, that
there be no second degrees in order to any of the amendments prior to
the votes, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided before the
second and third votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think
there is a need for a mild correction.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my second
amendment be considered, notwithstanding the Harkin amendment that was
previously offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the primary request?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the floor manager? I would
prefer if we had 2 minutes equally divided prior to the first vote as
well since there has been some time since we debated it. I want the
chance to explain it for 1 minute before we have a vote.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I amend the request to include 2 minutes of
debate on the Bingaman amendment No. 5174 prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request, as amended?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask the chairman. I wish to respond
for 2 minutes to the comments which the chairman just made in
opposition to my amendment prior to proceeding to the vote.
Mr. LUGAR. I have no objection to that. I amend the request to
include 2 minutes of debate by Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection, as amended? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5182
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will try not to take the 2 minutes, but
it is important to point out the chairman, in responding--and I suspect
the ranking member in his response--is saying this is a killer
amendment. It is not offered as a killer amendment, but it is the case
that my amendment would impose upon India exactly the same burdens that
exist upon our country. My colleague, the chairman, said the President
``did not negotiate''--he started the sentence. That is what brings me
to the floor--that the President ``did not negotiate.'' What he did not
negotiate was a requirement and a burden on India which clearly is a
nuclear weapons state. He did not negotiate a requirement and a burden
on them that we ourselves assume under the nonproliferation treaty. My
amendment would simply provide that requirement and that burden to the
country of India.
I come from a town of 300 people. I have to relearn always the
lessons of the Senate--and not just the Senate but the way the
Government works. In my hometown you always call things just the way
they are. You saw it, you spoke it, and described it. In this body,
however, now we know that India has a nuclear weapon--has many of them.
We know they have detonated them, and we know they are a nuclear
weapons state. So we have decided as a country officially to describe
India as a responsible state with nuclear technology as opposed to a
nuclear weapons state. I don't know; maybe it works here. It doesn't
work in my hometown. We have to call things as we see them.
We have responsibilities--all of us do. Our responsibility is, I
think, toward nonproliferation, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons,
to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I regret that the underlying
piece of legislation is going to result in more nuclear weapons being
built.
The second amendment I have offered is an amendment that simply says
let us impose on those with whom we negotiate the same burdens we
inherit ourselves. In fact, the United States negotiated with India in
the way that exempts them from those burdens. I think that is
fundamentally wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the
Bingaman amendment.
Amendment No. 5174
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will briefly describe the Bingaman
amendment. It is an amendment that puts into effect the recommendations
Senator Nunn made in his op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in May
of this year. It says that as to nuclear equipment and technology,
before we can export or reexport to India nuclear equipment or
technology, the President must first determine that both India and the
United States are taking specific steps to conclude a fissile material
cutoff treaty.
Second, the amendment says that before any nuclear materials fuel can
be exported to India, the President must determine that India has
stopped producing fissile materials for weapons.
This is a reasonable amendment. This does not kill the deal, as I
would see it. This is something which India has stated a willingness to
generally abide by. I think this is the least we can insist upon. I
hope very much my colleagues will support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will oppose this amendment as it goes
significantly beyond the commitments India made in the joint statement.
India will regard this particular requirement that India stop producing
fissile materials for weapons as moving the goalposts and an
unacceptable renegotiation of the deal--a bad-faith effort on our part.
India maintains that they cannot agree to a unilateral cap at this
time. We should not hold up the significant nonproliferation gains
afforded by the initiative in order to seek a fissile material cap that
India indicates it cannot agree to absent a similar commitment by
Pakistan and China. Pakistan continues to produce fissile material for
weapons-related purposes and China has not committed to a moratorium on
such production. Unfortunately, in my judgment, this is truly a killer
amendment. I strongly encourage that amendment be defeated.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the next two
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the next amendment?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my impression was that the call was for the
vote and then a 2-minute debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is correct.
The question is on agreeing to the Bingaman amendment. The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]
YEAS--26
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Salazar
NAYS--73
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
[[Page 22153]]
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Thomas
The amendment (No. 5174) was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
rollcall votes be 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5178, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on the Dorgan amendment No. 5178, as modified.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my amendment, in light of the underlying
bill brought to the floor of the Senate, would express that we would
continue to support the implementation of the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1172.
The reason that is important is it had been the policy of this
country to not only author but to support that resolution after India
and Pakistan exploded their nuclear weapons.
It calls on them to immediately stop their nuclear weapons
development programs, refrain from weaponization or deployment of
nuclear weapons, cease the development of ballistic missiles, and so
on.
That has been a very important tenet of this country in supporting
that United Nations Resolution 1172. Despite what we are doing in the
underlying bill, I would hope this country and this Senate would
express our support for that which we drafted and that which we
encouraged the rest of the world to support some while ago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that Members oppose the Dorgan
amendment on the basis that the resolution he talks about is an
important one, but it talks about a time in which our relationship with
India was very different. It talks about the past. We have been very
fortunate in this country to move into a better relationship with
India, to a point where we are now going to be in India. The IAEA is
going to be in India. We are going to be able to observe a bulk of the
nuclear reactors and programs there and to work with India in peaceful
development.
There was a time when we did not have that relationship. By ``we,'' I
mean the United States and the international community. The situation
in India is constructive. This is a time to celebrate and to move on
that momentum.
I ask that the Dorgan amendment be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified. The yeas and nays were previously ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reid
Salazar
Schumer
Stabenow
NAYS--71
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
McCain
Thomas
The amendment (No. 5178), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Amendment No. 5182
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the second amendment I had offered says
that before the United States-India agreement can go into effect, the
President must submit to the Congress a written determination that
India has committed to certain basic provisions that are consistent
with the U.S. nonproliferation goals and with the nonproliferation
treaty. In other words, I would suggest that we should impose the same
burdens on India as we have on ourselves. There is great reluctance to
do that by this Chamber, but that was my amendment. I must say there is
very little education in a third vote if I believe it weakens our
efforts in nonproliferation nuclear weapons. So rather than have a
third recorded vote, I will ask that we vitiate the recorded vote and
vote on this amendment by voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the yeas and nays are vitiated.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment, as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was not agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to indicate that the
distinguished Senator from Nevada will offer an amendment. We will then
proceed to the Old Senate Chamber for a debate on that amendment. I
think we have an agreement that the extent of the debate will be no
more than 60 minutes. We would return to this Chamber for the actual
vote on the Ensign amendment, following the debate in the Old Senate
Chamber. Therefore, the Senator from Nevada should be recognized so
that he can start that process.
Amendment No. 5181
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5181 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment
numbered 5181.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 5181
(Purpose: To ensure that IAEA inspection equipment is not used for
espionage purposes)
Strike section 262 and insert the following:
SEC. 262. IAEA INSPECTIONS AND VISITS.
(a) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Obtaining Access.--
No national of a country designated by the Secretary of State
under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371) as a government supporting acts of international
terrorism shall be permitted access to the United States to
carry out an inspection activity under the Additional
Protocol or a related safeguards agreement.
(b) Presence of United States Government Personnel.--IAEA
inspectors shall be accompanied at all times by United States
[[Page 22154]]
Government personnel when inspecting sites, locations,
facilities, or activities in the United States under the
Additional Protocol.
(c) Use of United States Equipment, Materials, and
Resources.--Any inspections conducted by personnel of the
IAEA in the United States pursuant to the Additional Protocol
shall by carried out using equipment, materials, and
resources that are purchased, owned, inspected, and
controlled by the United States.
(d) Vulnerability and Related Assessments.--The President
shall conduct vulnerability, counterintelligence, and related
assessments not less than every 5 years to ensure that
information of direct national security significance remains
protected at all sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that are subject to IAEA inspection
under the Additional Protocol.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from
Delaware, as the ranking member, will offer the official motion sending
us over to the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if I understand the parliamentary situation
properly, and I am not sure I do, I ask unanimous consent that
following the offering of the Ensign amendment, the Senate stand in
recess subject to the call of the Chair so that it may reconvene
pursuant to the previous order.
I further ask that the following Senate staff be permitted to attend
the closed session, and I send the list to the desk.
The list is as follows:
Mike Disilvestro; Joel Breitner; Mary Jane McCarthy; Paul
Nelson; Richard Verma; Stephen Rademaker; Marcel Lettre;
Nancy Erickson; Lynne Halbrooks; Scott O'Malia; Pam Thiessen;
Thomas Moore; Lynn Rusten; Ed Corrigan; Rexon Ryu; Ken Myers
III; Ken Myers, Jr; Brian McKeon; Ed Levine; Madelyn Creedon;
Nancy Stetson; Diane Ohlbaum; Anthony Blinken; Janice
O'Connell.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before the Chair rules, I will remind
Senators that those who attend the closed session are not permitted to
bring any electronic devices into the Old Senate Chamber. Mr.
President, I send to the desk the list of the names of the staff
members that could be present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ensign amendment now being the pending
question, the Senate stands in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Whereupon, the Senate, at 3:43 p.m, recessed subject to the call of
the Chair and reassembled at 4:59 p.m. when called to order by the
Presiding Officer (Ms. Murkowski.)
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, we are now prepared to vote in relation
to the Ensign amendment. I ask unanimous consent that following that
vote, Senator Feingold be recognized to offer his amendment and that
there be 90 minutes equally divided on that amendment. I further ask
unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time on
that amendment, it be set aside, and Senator Boxer be recognized in
order to offer her amendment; provided further that there be 45 minutes
equally divided in relation to that amendment. Further, that following
that time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Feingold
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment,
with no second-degrees in order, and following these votes, the bill be
read for a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of
the House bill as provided in the previous order. I would also ask that
there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. We are now prepared to vote in relation
to the Ensign amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield time on the amendment?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
Vote on Amendment No. 5181
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]
YEAS--27
Allard
Bunning
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Menendez
Santorum
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Sununu
NAYS--71
Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Jeffords
Thomas
The amendment (No. 5181) was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. Will the Senator suspend?
Did the distinguished chairman wish to be recognized?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, just for clarification, I ask unanimous
consent that the Feingold and Boxer amendments be in order,
notwithstanding adoption of the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how long did we spend in that last 15-
minute rollcall?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We spent approximately 39 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Thirty-nine?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-six. I apologize.
Mr. LEAHY. Thirty-six for a 15-minute rollcall. I am just curious,
for those of us who might actually have a life after dark around this
place, how much longer the rest will be.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would recognize that the
distinguished majority leader's retirement recognition with the Vice
President was being held, and that was probably the delay, for the
meeting.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 5183
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an
amendment numbered 5183.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page 22155]]
(Purpose: To require as a precondition to United States-India peaceful
atomic energy cooperation determinations by the President that United
States nuclear cooperation with India does nothing to assist,
encourage, or induce India to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices)
On page 8, beginning on line 17, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``(8) the Nuclear'' on line 18 and
insert the following:
Group;
(8) the scope and content of United States nuclear
cooperation with India in the proposed nuclear cooperation
agreement pursuant to section 123 a. of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153(a)) does nothing to directly or
indirectly assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture
or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive
devices, specifically that--
(A) India cannot use United States-origin equipment,
technology, or nuclear material in an unsafeguarded facility
or nuclear weapons-related complex; and
(B) India cannot replicate and subsequently use United
States-origin technology in an unsafeguarded nuclear facility
or unsafeguarded nuclear-related complex, or for any activity
related to the research, development, testing, or manufacture
of nuclear explosive devices;
(9) India has provided sufficient assurances that the
provision by the United States of nuclear fuel will not
facilitate the increased production by India of fissile
material in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities; and
(10) the Nuclear
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the relationship between the United
States and India is very important. As we look ahead to the coming
decades, it is clear that United States-India relations will be
integral to establishing a secure, sustainable, and prosperous
international system--not only in the Asian region but around the world
as India increasingly grows into its role as a global power.
And, of course, India, in many ways, is a natural ally of the United
States. We share a great deal in common as ethnically diverse,
religiously tolerant democratic societies. Our peoples are innovative,
driven, and eager to participate in the global economy. We both face
the threat of terrorism. India occupies an important position in an
important part of the world, and by itself represents over l7 percent
of the world's total population. We absolutely should be working to
strengthen our relationship with this important partner, and seeking
ways to deepen our strategic ties.
While I want to strengthen the relationship between the United States
and India, this bill would do more than simply bring our two nations
closer together. It would pave the way for civilian nuclear cooperation
between the United States and India for the first time since India
exploded a nuclear device in the 1970s. If this bill is passed, it will
dramatically shift 30 years of nonproliferation policy. Specifically,
this bill would have serious consequences for the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the international nonproliferation regime, and
U.S. national security. Such a fundamental change in policy should not
be undertaken lightly, which is why it is crucial that this body fully
discuss and understand the implications of this bill.
In my work on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had a chance to
study this issue and this legislation closely. I have talked to a
number of people, on all sides of this issue: senior officials from the
administration, business groups, nonproliferation and arms control
experts, Indian officials, and concerned citizens in my home State of
Wisconsin. The committee held a number of hearings to examine the
issue, and the panelists we heard from represented a wide range of
opinions on the prospect of nuclear cooperation with India. And after
all of this careful consideration, I have to report that I am left with
some deep concerns regarding what this legislation means for United
States national security.
The primary consideration for us in the U.S. Senate as we debate this
bill should be this: will this legislation make the citizens of the
United States more secure or less? As we consider this fundamental
shift in the international nonproliferation regime, we must make sure
that we have adequate protections in place to guard against the further
spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.
The threat of nuclear weapons to the United States and the spread of
nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the gravest dangers that
our country faces. It is crucial to our national security that the
nuclear non-proliferation framework remains strong. I want to make sure
that the United States, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes
that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. A
world with more nuclear weapons is, simply put, a more dangerous world.
So that is why I am offering an amendment to this bill that spells
out in greater detail that nuclear cooperation between the United
States and India will be only civilian in nature, and that none of the
assistance the United States provides will be used for strengthening or
further developing India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This is completely
in line with President Bush's and Secretary Rice's statements about the
deal, and is something the United States is already committed to under
article I of the NPT. My amendment simply makes it a binding
requirement: Before the nuclear cooperation agreement can go into
effect, the President of the United States must certify that the scope
and content of the agreement does nothing to contribute directly or
indirectly to the development of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This
amendment will strengthen this bill. It will enhance transparency. And
it will send a clear message to the world that the United States will,
in fact, abide by its commitments and is working within the letter and
spirit of the agreements and treaties to which it is party.
Allow me to quote from article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, because I think it will help to set forth the obligations of
the agreement the United States is a party to. Article I states that:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes
not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such
weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not
in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear
weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over
such weapons or explosive devices.
Let me repeat that second clause, because it is what my amendment
intends to address: ``not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce
any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over
such weapons or explosive devices.''
India is considered to be a nonnuclear weapon state for the purposes
of the NPT, and we are therefore prohibited from assisting their
nuclear weapons program. My amendment will require the President to
make determinations to ensure that we are in line with that treaty
obligation. First, the President would have to certify to Congress that
the scope and content of the nuclear cooperation agreement that he
negotiates will not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program--
specifically that it does not: Allow for the use of U.S.-origin
equipment, technology, or material in an unsafeguarded Indian nuclear
facility; or allow for the replication and subsequent use of U.S.-
origin technology for any activity related to nuclear explosive
devices.
Second, the President would have to certify that he had received
sufficient assurances from the Government of India that nuclear fuel
provided by the United States will not facilitate the increased
production by India of fissile material for weapons use.
Both India and the United States should feel comfortable with this
amendment; it only requires that the United States certify that this
deal is in line with our current commitments. It will go a long way to
enhance transparency and reassure all sides that this civil nuclear
cooperation agreement does not have any military aspects.
This is particularly important now, as we face nuclear crises in
North Korea and Iran. While we are pressuring those countries to submit
to
[[Page 22156]]
international inspections and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, it is crucial that we not simultaneously be seen to undermine
the NPT's foundations by our actions. My amendment sends a clear
message that the United States stands by the spirit and the letter of
the NPT. Rejecting my amendment would send a dangerous signal to Iran,
North Korea and other states that we are not taking seriously our
international commitments, and that the NPT is no longer relevant.
As you can see, my amendment is quite detailed in spelling out
exactly how assistance to India's weapons program is defined, and what
activities should be prohibited under the terms of the agreement. The
second determination, which relates to the provision of nuclear fuel by
the United States, is particularly important, because it gets to the
heart of concerns about a possible buildup of nuclear weapons.
Currently, India's production of weapons grade plutonium is constrained
by its limited domestic supply of natural uranium. Experts, from former
Senator Sam Nunn former Assistant Secretary of State for
Nonproliferation Bob Einhorn, have expressed concern that by providing
nuclear fuel to India through this agreement, India's domestic supply
of uranium might be freed up in order to accelerate the production of
nuclear weapons materials.
And in fact, the Indians themselves have expressed this possibility.
Listen to the words of a former head of the Indian National Security
Advisory Board, less than a year ago:
Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up
our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as
possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many
power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled bv
imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for
weapons grade plutonium production.
This is from an article entitled ``India and the Nuclear Deal,'' in
the Times of India on December 12, 2005.
This is a former high-level Indian Government official, arguing less
than a year ago that India should increase its production of weapons
material through the provision of imported uranium. I am, frankly,
concerned by that prospect. India has said that its strategic nuclear
weapons program, and the production of fissile material, is unrelated
to this deal. Secretary Rice and other members of the administration
have assured us of the same thing. In fact, in its official response to
one of Senator Lugar's questions last year, the State Department noted
that ``nothing to be provided to India under the Initiative will be
used to enhance India's military capability or add to its military
stockpile.''
If that is truly the case--and I believe both sides when they say
that expanding India's nuclear weapons arsenal is not a goal of this
agreement--then my amendment should be absolutely uncontroversial. It
simply makes those claims binding, by requiring the President to make
such a determination.
Some of my colleagues might ask, if we are already committed to non-
assistance under the NPT, and if members of the administration have
assured us that this is the case, why is this amendment necessary?
After all, requiring a presidential determination is a big deal. My
response is that this issue is a big deal. Nonassistance to India's
nuclear weapons program is such a critical aspect of this agreement
that it must be spelled out within the legislation in clear, concrete
terms, leaving no question or ambiguity. It is an issue that demands
the high bar of a presidential determination to Congress.
And there is a significant precedent for such determination The 1985
Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation Between the United States and China
required a presidential determination on nonassistance to China's
nuclear weapons program--one of only two binding presidential
determinations included in that legislation. Specifically, the law
stated that the U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement could not go
into force until the President provided a certification to Congress
that the agreement was designed ``to be effective in ensuring that any
nuclear material, facilities, or components provided under the
Agreement shall be utilized solely for intended peaceful purposes as
set forth in the Agreement.''
In 1985, the Members of this body deemed that one of the two things
the President of the United States should have to make a certification
about prior to nuclear cooperation with another country was that our
civilian cooperation would in no way assist that country's weapons
program. My amendment is identical in scope and purpose, and should be
passed. If anything, there are even more reasons to push for such a
determination with regard to India, given that India is a nonsignatory
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Some may argue that the President cannot make such a determination--
that the President cannot know in advance what India will do with
material we provide to them. But this amendment is about the scope and
content of the agreement, and about assurances received from the Indian
government. It is about our current actions, and the strength of the
agreement that the President negotiates. And in fact, the President
made exactly such a determination, in 1998, when he submitted
Presidential Determination 98-10 to the U.S. Congress to enable nuclear
cooperation with China to move forward under that agreement.
If this body is afraid that the President would be unable to make
such a determination with respect to India, I ask one question: why
then are we pursuing this deal? If we cannot be reasonably certain that
this agreement will not help India to expand its nuclear arsenal, how
good a deal is this? This should be a simple calculation based on the
best interests of the United States.
My colleagues are aware that I voted against this legislation in
committee. I stated at the time of my vote that I was not opposed to
the deal in principle, but was committed to working constructively to
strengthen this bill when it came to the floor, because I still had
concerns that had not been addressed. I stand by that statement. I
would like to see an agreement that brings our countries closer
together strategically, while preserving our national security
interests.
However, since the time of the committee hearing, more information
has come to light that further justifies the concerns I expressed
earlier, and which I would like to share with my colleagues.
First of all, since that time, the State Department released a report
sanctioning two Indian firms for illicit missile-related transactions
with Iran. This report was 10 months overdue and was not released until
1 day after the House voted on its version of this legislation. There
are a number of things that I find troubling about this report and the
way it was released, but the biggest is that it seems to contravene the
Bush administration's assertions that India has a stellar
nonproliferation record. At a minimum, this report demonstrates that
there continue to be legitimate concerns about the spread of dangerous
weapons technology, know-how, and equipment--in India and elsewhere.
Secondly, there have been troubling signals coming from the Indian
Government itself about its commitment to nonproliferation controls. In
an August 17 speech to the Indian Parliament, Prime Minister Singh
declared that India would not agree to any changes to the nuclear deal
imposed by the U.S. Congress: ``We will stick to the parameters of the
agreement signed in Washington last year and this alone will be the
basis of nuclear cooperation,'' he said. He specifically noted that
India would not allow ``external supervision'' of its strategic nuclear
programs, and argued that President Bush had committed to providing an
``uninterrupted supply of fuel''--presumably, even if India were to
detonate another nuclear device. Prime Minister Singh also stated that
``there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a
foreign legislature.'' This raises significant concerns in my mind as
to whether India would accept the important elements of this
legislation that the U.S. Congress will put in place if it passes.
Finally, there have been signs of an increasingly warm official
relationship between India and Iran. I note the
[[Page 22157]]
irony of the timing: at the same time we are debating passage of a bill
that will lend considerable assistance to India's nuclear program, we
are doing everything in our power to prevent Iran from furthering its
own nuclear program. I would like to read a couple of quotes from
Indian Prime Minister Singh, who had a meeting with Iranian President
Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Cuba
in September. Following the meeting, Prime Minister Singh stated that
``India is determined to consolidate cultural, economic, and political
ties with Iran,'' and he expressed regret over the ``misunderstanding
caused about India's stance on Iran's peaceful nuclear program,''
stressing that India would ``never join any efforts against Iran.'' I
don't think it takes very much reading between the lines to doubt that
India will support us in our efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear
program--one of the most important national security challenges facing
our country at this time.
As further evidence of the support for my amendment, I would like to
submit for the Record a letter that was recently signed by a wide range
of non-proliferation experts, former senior government officials, and
respected scientists. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fix the Nuclear Trade Deal With India
November 13, 2006.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC,
Attn: Foreign Affairs Staff.
Dear Senator: We are writing again to urge you and your
colleagues to support amendments that would address serious
flaws that still plague the proposed U.S.-Indian nuclear
trade legislation (S. 3709), which may be considered this
month. Despite some important adjustments made to the
administration's original proposal by the Foreign Relations
Committee, the arrangement would have far-reaching and
adverse effects on U.S. nonproliferation and security
objectives. We believe the legislation must include further
improvements in several key areas, among them:
A determination, prior to resumption of full nuclear
cooperation, that India has stopped the production of fissile
material (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) for weapons
or else joined a multilateral fissile production cutoff
agreement;
A determination and annual certification that U.S. civil
nuclear trade does not in any way assist or encourage India's
nuclear weapons program;
Measures to ensure that the United States does not continue
to provide nuclear assistance directly or through other
suppliers in the event that India breaks the nonproliferation
commitments outlined on July 18, 2005; and
A determination that the Government of India (GOI) or GOI-
affiliated entities are not engaged in illicit procurement of
WMD-related items.
We believe these measures are necessary because India has
neither joined the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), nor
accepted safeguards on all of its nuclear facilities, and
India's nonproliferation policy is not fully consistent with
the nonproliferation practices and responsibilities expected
of the original nuclear-weapon states.
Under the proposed nuclear cooperation deal, India has
pledged to accept safeguards at only eight additional
``civilian'' nuclear facilities by 2014. India has not yet
agreed that safeguards on these facilities would be
permanent. Current and future military-related nuclear
reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and weapons
fabrication facilities would remain unsafeguarded. Partial
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards would do
nothing to prevent the continued production of fissile
material for weapons in unsafeguarded facilities.
Consequently, foreign supplies of nuclear fuel to India could
assist India's bomb program by freeing-up its existing
limited capacity to support the production of highly enriched
uranium and plutonium for weapons.
Fissile Material Production
To help ensure that U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation is
not in any way advancing India's weapons program and is not
contributing to nuclear arms competition with Pakistan and
China, Congress should require that the President determines
that India has stopped fissile material production for
weapons or has joined a multilateral production ban before
the United States resumes full civil nuclear assistance to
India. Four of the five original nuclear-weapon states--
France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States--
have publicly declared that they have stopped fissile
material production for weapons. China is also believed to
have stopped such production.
India's commitment to support U.S. efforts to negotiate a
global fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) is a laudable
but somewhat hollow promise. Differences between the United
States and most other states (including India) on whether
such a treaty should be verified and competing priorities at
the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament make the prospects
for the conclusion of an FMCT difficult.
If India is truly committed to a ``minimal credible
deterrent,'' India should be able to declare as a matter of
national policy that it has stopped fissile material
production for weapons, or else join the United States,
China, France, Pakistan, Russia, and the United Kingdom in a
multilateral fissile cutoff agreement, pending the completion
of a global, verifiable FMCT. The Congress should direct the
President to actively pursue the early conclusion of such an
interim cutoff agreement with India and other relevant
parties, pending the entry into force of a global FMCT.
Nonassistance to India's Nuclear Weapons Program
The Senate bill should also require that prior to
implementation of a U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation
agreement, the President make a determination that the
proposed U.S. civil nuclear assistance will not, in any way,
assist India's nuclear weapons program. Such a determination
should take into account the possible replication and
subsequent use of any U.S.-origin technology in an
unsafeguarded nuclear facility and the provision of nuclear
fuel in such a manner as to facilitate the increased
production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium in
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities for weapons purposes. Such a
determination would help maintain confidence that the United
States is complying with its NPT Article I commitment not to
assist other states' nuclear weapons programs. The Senate
should also agree to provisions in the House bill (H.R. 5682)
requiring annual executive branch reports on whether any such
assistance has occurred, and on India's uranium mining and
fissile material production rates, and other related matters.
Termination of Trade and Fuel Supply Assurances
S. 3709 now makes clear that if India conducts another
nuclear test explosion or otherwise violates the terms of an
agreement for nuclear cooperation, U.S. nuclear assistance
would be jeopardized. The bill also states that it is the
policy of the United States not to facilitate nuclear trade
by other nations with India if U.S. exports are interrupted.
However, India is insisting that the United States help
provide an assured nuclear fuel supply, even in the event
that the New Delhi government conducts a nuclear test
explosion or otherwise violates the terms of a future
agreement for nuclear cooperation with the United States.
Such a guarantee would be unprecedented and unwise. Congress
should further clarify that the United States shall not
provide or facilitate the supply of nuclear fuel to India if
the Government of India resumes nuclear testing or fails to
meet other provisions in U.S. law.
guarding against illicit procurement
The Senate should also address the fact that some Indian
government-affiliated enterprises have a history of
attempting to bypass export laws designed to keep U.S. and
other foreign technology from contributing to its weapons
effort. Congress should require that before the
implementation of any U.S.-Indian agreement for civil nuclear
cooperation, the President must make a determination that the
Indian government or entities under its jurisdiction are not
engaged in the illicit procurement of commodities controlled
under the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or
the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
retain useful nonproliferation provisions
We also urge Congress to retain several important elements
already included in S. 3709 that would help reduce the
adverse impacts of the initiative. Among these are the
provisions requiring that a new safeguards agreement between
the IAEA and India has entered into force and that such
safeguards are consistent with IAEA standards, principles,
and practices, and that such safeguards are permanent before
any expanded nuclear cooperation can take place. To date,
India has not begun formal talks with the IAEA on such
safeguards and is reportedly seeking ``India-specific''
safeguards that would be contingent on continued fuel
supplies. This is not consistent with the IAEA safeguards
applicable in the Indian case, which are known as INFCIRC/
66.Rev.2 safeguards.
With respect to the Section 106 provision restricting the
transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, for 30
years U.S. nonproliferation policy has sought to discourage
the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. As President Bush
said in February 2004, ``enrichment and reprocessing are not
necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes.'' Current U.S. nuclear cooperation
agreements, including those with EURATOM, Japan, and China,
expressly prohibit transfers of such technologies, which can
be used to make nuclear bomb material. India should not in
any way be an exception to that important policy.
[[Page 22158]]
To ensure that India is meeting other key obligations
outlined in the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement, the Senate
should retain language in the House bill requiring that a
U.S. Indian agreement for nuclear cooperation shall be
terminated if India makes a materially significant transfer
that does not conform with the guidelines of the NSG or MTCR.
Congress should recall that in the past 20 months, seven
Indian entities have been sanctioned by the U.S. Government
for transfers of weapons-related items to Iran, including
sanctions announced in July for transfers of chemicals useful
for missile propellant manufacture.
Finally, the legislation wisely codifies commitments made
by senior Bush administration officials that before the
United States may engage in wider nuclear trade with India,
it must also secure the consensus approval of the 45-nation
NSG. The group operates under guidelines established in 1992
that restrict trade with states (such as India) that do not
accept full-scope safeguards on all of their nuclear
facilities. If the United States or other states seek to
sidestep the NSG's consensus decision-making process, the NSG
may cease to function as an important barrier against the
transfer of nuclear material, equipment, and technologies for
weapons purposes.
Without the inclusion of the provisions we have described,
the legislation for renewed nuclear cooperation with India
will have far-reaching and adverse implications for U.S.
nuclear nonproliferation and international objectives.
While we agree that building upon the already strong U.S.-
Indian partnership is an important goal, we remain convinced
that it can and should be pursued without undermining the
U.S. leadership efforts to prevent the proliferation of the
world's most dangerous weapons.
Sincerely,
Harold Bengelsdorf, Consultant, and former Director of
the Office for Nonproliferation Policy at the Energy
Department and former Office Director for Nuclear
Affairs at the State Department; Joseph Cirincione,
Senior Vice President for National Security and
International Policy, Center for American Progress;
Ralph Earle II, Former Director, U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency; Robert J. Einhorn, Former Assistant
Secretary of State for Nonproliferation; Lt. General
Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.); Ambassador Robert
Grey, Director, Bipartisan Security Working Group, and
Former U.S. Representative to the Conference on
Disarmament; Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and
International Affairs, Program on Science and Global
Security Princeton University; John D. Holum, Former
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Affairs and Former director of
the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; John D.
Isaacs, President, Council for a Livable World;
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Former Deputy Director U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency; Daryl G. Kimball,
Executive Director, Arms Control Association; Lawrence
Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics;
Fred McGoldrick, Consultant, and Former Director of
Nonproliferation and Export Policy at the State
Department; Kelly Motz, Associate Director, Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control; Christopher Paine,
Senior Nuclear Program Analyst, Natural Resources
Defense Council; William Potter, Institute Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies; Lawrence
Scheinman, Distinguished Professor at the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, and former Assistant Director
of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency;
Leonard Weiss, Former Staff Director of the Senate
Subcommittee on Energy and Nuclear Proliferation and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Briefly, the letter notes that there are still flaws
that remain in S. 3709, and urges the Senate to adopt at least four
measures to address them. The second of their four recommendations for
improvements is that there be ``a determination and annual
certification that U.S. civil nuclear policy does not in any way assist
or encourage India's nuclear weapons program.'' My amendment is
directly in line with the advice of these leading experts, and
addresses an important shortfall in the legislation as it stands now.
I acknowledge that the U.S. business community has come out strongly
in support of this legislation. I would only like to add a note of
caution to their optimism. There is nothing in this deal that would
secure U.S. contracts or guarantee an increase in U.S. business. The
U.S. is not the only one in the nuclear market. Australia and Russia
have already indicated they are working with India to sell fuel, and
companies from Great Britain, France, and Russia have viable civil
reactor technology that they will certainly pitch to India. It is far
from a foregone conclusion that U.S. companies will directly benefit
from the deal. In the 8 years that nuclear trade has been permitted
with China, the United States has sold exactly zero nuclear reactors to
China--zero. I bring this up to point out that some of the benefits of
this deal may be exaggerated, and we should remember the overriding
priority as we consider this legislation: whether it will make the
citizens of the United States more safe, or less.
Mr. President, in closing, I would like to put in a brief word of
appreciation for the substantial amount of work done on this bill by
Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and their staffs. This bill is a real
improvement over the original proposal put forward by the
administration, but there are still a few shortcomings that remain. My
amendment would address what I, and many others, see as one of the main
outstanding concerns with the bill. It will ensure that this agreement
is in line with our non-proliferation obligations and protects U.S.
national security, without putting any undue burdens on the U.S. or our
Indian partners. It is a nonpartisan, commonsense amendment, in line
with previous legislation, and I hope that all of my colleagues will
consider voting in favor of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin for his very important contributions to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the specific contributions he has made to the
discussion of this legislation. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to
his amendment.
In my judgment--and I don't use the term unadvisedly--this is truly a
killer amendment. If accepted, it would require the United States and
India to renegotiate the civilian nuclear agreement on which we are
having our debate this evening. I state categorically: India has
nuclear weapons. Let me repeat that: India has nuclear weapons and has
stated its intent to keep them. The critical issue we must consider in
examining each of the amendments that have come before us is whether
the U.S. national security is advanced by engaging India and by
increasing the IAEA oversight of the India nuclear program. I believe
the answer is yes, and as a result I support this agreement and I
oppose amendments such as the one now before us that would require
renegotiation or make implementation of the agreement impossible.
While the Feingold amendment appears harmless, it requires the
President to certify that no form of the U.S. civilian nuclear
cooperation with India will in any way assist, encourage, or induce
India to manufacture or otherwise acquire more nuclear weapons in the
future. This certification demanded by the amendment is impossible to
make, and even if it could be made, it would be ineffective. How do we
expect the President of the United States to predict the future?
Clearly we do not expect, plan, or intend for this agreement to aid
India's nuclear program. We have taken numerous steps to prevent this
from happening. We are confident that we have already put the necessary
provisions in place in this agreement.
A Presidential certification as required by the amendment is a legal
pledge to Congress. Senate bill 3709 requires a number of
certifications, but it does so based upon information in the
President's possession. We do not ask the President to predict the
future or make a judgment when the necessary information is
unavailable.
This is not the first time the Senator from Wisconsin has offered
this amendment. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 13 to 5 to
defeat the same amendment during our markup of S. 3709. During the
markup, the administration strongly opposed the amendment and expressed
its view that it was a killer amendment.
Senator Biden and I do not believe this amendment is necessary. We
share
[[Page 22159]]
the concerns Senator Feingold has expressed, but we believe we have
addressed them in the committee-passed bill in a manner consistent with
our agreement with India and in a way that avoids renegotiation.
First, the United States is obligated by article I of the
nonproliferation treaty not to engage in any nuclear cooperation that
would assist India's nuclear weapons program. Nothing in the United
States-India agreement violates this obligation. In reality, this
agreement encourages India to produce fewer nuclear weapons by
requiring more Indian facilities to be placed under IAEA safeguards. We
must remember that the United States will not cooperate with any Indian
facility, site, or location that is not under IAEA safeguards. In other
words, the IAEA will have inspection rights at those places where U.S.
exports are utilized.
Second, S. 3709 requires that the IAEA safeguards be supplemented by
bilateral end-use monitoring requirements under section 107. In other
words, if the IAEA were forced to suspend their oversight of India's
commitments, the administration is required to have a backup plan in
place to ensure that American technologies and materials are not
misused or misdirected to India's nuclear program.
Third, the bill requires the President of the United States to inform
Congress of any Indian violation of their commitments under the
agreement. This preserves Congress's oversight role and permits us to
act should Indian behavior require a reexamination of the cooperative
agreement.
Fourth, section 109 states that no authority under S. 3709 can be
used to violate U.S. commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. U.S. contributions to the Indian nuclear program would be a
blatant violation of this treaty commitment. Senator Biden and I
thought it was critically important to reinforce the Senate's strong
support for the NPT by insisting that our country continue to comply
with its requirements.
Lastly, sensitive transfers most likely to aid India's nuclear
programs are prohibited by this bill. Section 106 forbids trade in
enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water technologies unless those
transfers are under international supervision and then only to create
proliferation-resistant versions. By prohibiting the transfer of these
technologies, we ensure that U.S. assistance does not inadvertently
assist India's weapons program.
India is not required to declare to the IAEA any information on the
production of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Its nuclear
enrichment and processing plants will also be outside IAEA safeguards.
Without access to this information, it will be impossible for the
United States to evaluate Indian production of fissile material.
Consequently, it is impossible to determine whether an increase in
Indian military fissile material production occurred because of foreign
nuclear reactor fuel supply. In fact, India's own uranium mining and
milling will probably play a much larger role in any analysis on this
subject.
In sum, it is simply not possible to verify the relationship between
the delivery of foreign fuel exports to India and the possibility of
increases in Indian production of highly enriched uranium or separated
plutonium, nor is it possible to analyze the relationship between
future exports and domestic production. India is not required to share
this information. The IAEA does not have access to these facilities.
Requiring the President of the United States to certify something he
has insufficient information to determine is unwise and potentially
harmful, and the amendment clearly demands that the President make that
certification. Congress will be kept completely informed on
developments in this area through the existing reporting requirements
of S. 3709.
Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I
ask Senators to vote no when the roll is called.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. It is
late, and I think that people already have a sense of where they will
go with this amendment, but I do want to make a couple of points for
the record, given how important this amendment is and how important
this agreement is.
The chairman suggests that what we would do here with this amendment
would somehow force the renegotiation of the agreement. I don't accept
that notion. But I would say, given the importance of making sure this
isn't used for nuclear weapons, it is well worth renegotiating if it
actually required that. But I don't think it does.
More importantly, it just doesn't make any sense to me that such an
amendment would require the full renegotiation of the agreement when
you look at the fact that the bill before us today already, in section
105, requires eight different Presidential determinations. I am just
adding two additional ones. There are already Presidential
determinations that have to be made, so how can it be that the
additional requirement that there be determinations by the President of
the United States, not by Indian officials--how can that force the
renegotiation of this agreement? It doesn't direct the Indians to do
anything. So I reject the notion that somehow this would require the
renegotiation of the agreement, and if it did, I think it would be
better than not changing it.
Now, the biggest problem with the chairman's argument is that he is
relying on an earlier version of our amendment which we offered in
committee, which I thought was worth passing. But the chairman
correctly notes that we were defeated in the committee 13 to 5. One of
the criticisms was that somehow this amendment would force the
President to certify some facts, that he couldn't necessarily know for
sure what the Indians were exactly doing or what they might do in the
future. I recognize that point. That is why I drafted this amendment to
only relate to the scope and content of the agreement. There is nothing
in my amendment that requires the President to certify what might
happen in the future. And this is the critical distinction. This
amendment does not have the flaw that was argued in committee. It only
talks about the President certifying with regard to the scope and
content of this agreement and also getting assurances from the Indian
Government that the purpose of this agreement is not about nuclear
weapons but is about civil purposes. So it is, in fact, different from
the amendment in committee, and that is an important distinction as
Members think about whether they want to vote for this version on the
floor of the Senate. It is more modest, but it still accomplishes an
important goal.
This is not unheard of. This is exactly what was done in the China
agreement in the 1980s. I described it in my original statement. The
agreement called for a Presidential certification of this kind. It
worked, and the President, in fact, made such a certification. So this
is both necessary and practical from that point of view.
I believe I have responded to each of the arguments made by the
Senator from Indiana. Obviously, I have enormous respect for him and
his leadership of the committee, but I would urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this amendment which would allow me to feel
comfortable supporting this agreement, because I do want us to have a
good agreement with India. I just think we need to have this sort of an
assurance that my amendment provides.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 4 minutes from
his time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator from New York such time as he
needs.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to support the India nuclear trade
agreement because it strengthens America's relationship with a critical
ally, but it also creates strong incentives for other countries to
support our nonproliferation efforts by rewarding them with our
valuable nuclear technology.
Proliferation of nuclear technology is a very serious issue. Make no
mistake about that. India has a good nonproliferation record and will
be a true
[[Page 22160]]
partner in our efforts to prevent nuclear weapons technology from
falling into the wrong hands. India's history of nonproliferation of
dual-use nuclear technology and its willingness to implement IAEA
guidelines and standards at nuclear facilities make India a welcome
member of the global nuclear community.
Of course, the devil is in the details. That is why it is so
important that this bill preserves congressional oversight of any
agreement the administration reaches with the Indian Government. It is
carefully crafted so that the U.S. agreement will not undermine the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or our obligations to the Nuclear
Suppliers Group.
Under this bill, cooperation would end if India tests a nuclear
weapon, proliferates nuclear weapons or materials, or breaks an
agreement with the United States or the IAEA. India's access to nuclear
cooperation will depend on its continued participation as a good
citizen of the global nuclear community.
A close relationship with India in general will help us to align our
mutual goal of combating terrorism. Both our nations have been victims
of serious attacks of terrorism, and we know that the greatest danger
we face is a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands. Neither of us
wants al-Qaida to gain a nuclear weapon. Neither of us wants Iran to go
nuclear. The best way to ensure India's proper handling of its nuclear
technology is not by distancing it but by working with it to address
issues of mutual concern.
Economic ties continue to bind our two countries through an
increasing flow of goods, services, and cultural exchange. It is vital
that we recognize this improving relationship and work toward common
goals for international policy standards. The buildup of nuclear
weapons throughout the world is one of the most serious dangers
humanity faces. Especially in today's world, we must ensure that
nuclear technology is developed and used according to global standards
as set forth by the International Atomic Energy Association for
peaceful purposes. An agreement with the United States will also
provide an incentive for India to refrain from conducting future
nuclear weapon testing and to work with our Government to curtail
proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most important, this legislation
creates incentives for other countries that cooperate with our
nonproliferation efforts. It will encourage other countries around the
world to cooperate with the efforts of the United States to reduce the
threat of nuclear weapons by rewarding those countries that behave
responsibly with advanced American technology.
I yield the remainder of the time I have to my friend from Wisconsin.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we have had a good debate. I note the
presence of the distinguished Senator from California on the floor,
which prompts me to inquire of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin
whether he requires additional time? If the Senator is prepared to
yield back his time, I will yield back time on our side, and then we
could proceed to debate on the amendment of the Senator from California
and maybe to a closer time for final passage, for Members who are
requesting this of all of us.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I yield back my time.
Mr. LUGAR. I will yield the time on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). All time is yielded back. The
Senator from California is recognized.
Amendment No. 5187
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) proposes an
amendment numbered 5187.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with. I wanted the beginning read because this
is a very simple amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make the waiver authority of the President contingent upon
a certification that India has agreed to suspend military-to-military
cooperation with Iran, including training exercises, until such time as
Iran is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism)
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert the
following: ``Group;
(8) India has agreed to suspend military-to-military
cooperation with Iran, including training exercises, until
such time as the Government of Iran no longer supports acts
of international terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of
State under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) and section 6(j) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)); and
(9) the Nuclear
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. What we
are saying is this deal should not go forward until India has agreed to
cut off military-to-military ties with Iran and that the President so
certifies.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the keystone of our efforts
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world. Back in the
1960s, there was widespread concern that dozens of nations would have
nuclear weapons within a decade. Just months before his death,
President Kennedy warned of this dire threat, saying:
I ask you to stop and think for a moment, what it would
mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands . . . that
there would be no rest for anyone then, no stability, no real
security, no chance of effective disarmament. There would
only be the increased chance of accidental war, and an
increased necessity for the great powers to involve
themselves in what otherwise would be local conflicts.
But thanks to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there are less
than 10 nuclear weapons states in the world today. In fact, since the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was first signed in 1968, more nations
have ended nuclear weapons programs than have begun them. Countries
such as Brazil, South Africa, and Japan decided to abandon their
nuclear weapons program and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, instead
choosing to develop nuclear weapons outside of the NPT regime. India
developed a nuclear weapon in 1974 using a research reactor and
materials provided by Canada and the United States of America in the
1950s. India had pledged to use the reactor only for peaceful purposes,
but it failed to keep that promise. So by giving India a special deal
to both possess nuclear weapons and receive civil nuclear assistance,
it will be harder to convince nonnuclear weapons states to keep their
commitment to forgo nuclear weapons.
The timing could not be worse. Right now, the international community
is trying to convince one nonnuclear member of the NPT, Iran, to cease
uranium enrichment because the IAEA cannot verify that its program is
for peaceful purposes. We are also trying to roll back North Korea's
nuclear program and convince them to rejoin the NPT.
India is becoming a recognized de facto nuclear power, but it is not
required to take on any of the commitments made by the five recognized
nuclear powers.
As The Economist reported earlier this year:
. . . the recognized nuclear powers--America, Russia,
Britain, France and China--are committed under the NPT to
curb their arsenals . . . on the way to eventual disarmament;
the deal with America lets India build as many bombs as it
chooses.
I think it is important to note what we are doing here. There is no
limit on the number of bombs that India could build in this deal.
The Economist goes on to say that the five nuclear powers have:
at least all signed the treaty banning further nuclear
tests and have stopped producing more highly enriched uranium
and plutonium; India flatly refuses to do either.
Experts believe that this deal could allow India to vastly increase
its production of nuclear weapons from about 6 a year to about 50 a
year. What a contribution this Senate is making to world peace. I am
absolutely stunned. We are going to have 50 nuclear weapons, perhaps,
made in India, touching off an arms race in the region. That would not
be in any country's interests, including our own.
[[Page 22161]]
Secretary Rice has argued that we are not helping India's nuclear
weapons program because only a small amount of India's indigenous
uranium would be needed for India's military weapons program. But
listen to what the Congressional Research Service says:
The question for the United States is not whether India
intends to ramp up its weapons program with freed-up uranium,
but whether the U.S. and other states' actions create a new
capability for India to do so.
We call this fungible--fungible uranium. This should concern every
single Senator, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to. It should
concern every Senator who believes that the proliferation of nuclear
materials is the most dangerous issue facing the country today and that
is why I have supported all the amendments. Unfortunately, these
amendments were defeated. They would have required the President to
certify that this deal does not assist or encourage India to produce
additional fissile material for weapons.
The amendment I am offering addresses a second area where the
administration has failed to receive commitments from India and that
has to do with India's military-to-military relationships with Iran.
Last spring, at the very same time that the President, our President,
was in India to sign the United States-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation
Agreement, two Iranian warships were visiting the headquarters of the
Indian Navy's Southern Command. At the very same time that President
Bush was in India to sign the United States-India Civil Nuclear
Cooperation Agreement, two Iranian warships were soliciting the
headquarters of the Indian Navy's Southern Command. These warships were
participating in a training program under the military cooperation
agreement with Tehran that was signed in 2003.
The fact that India would conduct training exercises with the world's
leading state sponsor of terrorism while the President of the United
States is visiting New Delhi is simply unbelievable. My amendment says
that the President may not provide civil nuclear assistance to India
until he certifies that India has agreed to suspend military-to-
military cooperation with Iran so long as the Government of Iran
continues to support international terrorism.
My amendment does not say they can never have this deal. But it says
they must not cooperate, military to military, with Iran until the day
Iran is taken off the list of terrorists.
According to a March 2006 Defense News article:
In 2003 India and Iran signed a strategic agreement to
cooperate in defense and other matters. The deal was cemented
by the visit of then Iran President Mohammed Khatami to the
Republic Day parade in New Delhi, an honor usually reserved
for key allies. India still considers Iran to be a key ally
and this agreement on military cooperation is still in place,
even though Iranian actions are leading to the deaths of
American soldiers in Iraq as we speak.
General Casey has said that Iran is using surrogates to conduct
terrorist operations, both against us and against the Iraqi people. He
went on to say:
We are quite confident that the Iranians, through the
special operations forces, are providing weapons, IED
technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq.
Of particular concern is the fact that Iran is providing a type of
IED, or roadside bomb, that has a shaped charge and is particularly
deadly.
So don't you think that if we are giving India this deal of a
lifetime to receive nuclear technology from us, the least they could do
is sign an agreement not to have military-to-military exercises and
relationships with a country that is, in essence, bringing death and
destruction to our sons and daughters in the United States military?
For more than 20 years, Iran has been the world's leading state
sponsor of terrorism. It supports Hezbollah, several Palestinian terror
groups such as Hamas and, according to the State Department, Iran is
also:
. . . unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members
it detained in 2003 and has resisted numerous calls to
transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries
of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or
trial.
It seems to me we should convince our friend--India--to suspend its
military-to-military cooperation with Iran. The Boxer amendment will
have that result, because they want this deal and I believe they would
act to cut off these military-to-military relationships.
It is also very important to point out that the United States has
already sanctioned Indian entities and individuals for missiles and
WMD-related transfers to Iran. In 2004, the United States imposed
sanctions on two Indian scientists for nuclear-related transfers to
Iran. Both scientists were high-ranking officials in the Nuclear Power
Corporation of India, Limited. In December 2005, sanctions were imposed
on two Indian chemical companies for transfer of chemical-related items
to Iran, and as recently as last July, sanctions were imposed on two
more chemical manufacturers in India for transfers to Iran. In May
2005, India passed a law on weapons of mass destruction and their
delivery systems. But according to CRS, the administration has not yet
assessed India's export control law and regulation, and
. . . some observers have stated that India does not have
the necessary regulations in place to implement the law, and
that India's resources for implementation are remarkably
limited.
In other words, they have a Weapons Control Act, but experts believe
they are not enforcing it. History tells us that they, in fact, have
acted wrongly, to pass on technologies that are harmful, to Iran. So it
seems to me, with this history, my colleagues should be supporting this
amendment. I believe they should be and I regret that I need to offer
it. I thought it would be accepted. I thought it would not be a
problem. That it would be treated in many ways is obvious. The
President, it seems to me, should have made severing military ties with
Iran a precondition to civil nuclear cooperation. But, unfortunately,
the United States is giving away more than it received in this deal.
My friends who want to desperately see this passed tonight are voting
down amendment after amendment. And we are taking a deal in which, as
former Senator Nunn said, ``India was a lot better negotiator than we
were.''
That is Sam Nunn. We know how hard he worked with the current
chairman of this committee to stop nuclear proliferation. What did he
say of this agreement? ``India was a lot better negotiator than we
were.''
So those of us on the Senate floor who are trying to get a better
deal, who are trying to change this deal, are being voted down--boom,
boom, boom. We are taking a deal that Sam Nunn said essentially they
``bested'' us on.
I come from a State with a huge Indian population. Our Indo-Americans
are prominent in our State. I support strong relations with India.
India is the world's largest democracy. It is so important for us to
work together to promote our mutual interests.
I am proud to be a member of the Senate India Caucus and have nothing
but the utmost respect for the Indian people. But this deal is not a
good deal for America. This deal is not a good deal for the world.
Proponents of this legislation say our bilateral relationship with
India is important. I agree with them. I have great hopes for the
future of our two nations. It is so important that we work together.
But somebody tell me how we are better off when we have an India that
can build up to maybe 50 bombs.
Somebody explain to me how we are better off when we don't even have
a clause in here that says that India has to receive military-to-
military relationships with Iran before this goes ahead. Somebody
explain it to me. I don't think it has been explained.
I am happy the Harkin amendment was adopted. It says that India has
to work with us to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear capability, as
they are trying to do now. If we adopted that amendment, why can't you
adopt this amendment which simply says shut off those military-to-
military agreements between India and Iran before this goes forward?
I wish the administration would have worked harder to craft a better
deal, a
[[Page 22162]]
more balanced deal that would have been a net win for nonproliferation,
while securing India's commitment to suspend its military relationship
with Iran.
As Robert Einhorn, a nonproliferation expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on which I am so proud to serve, ``the deal was concluded in
great haste, driven by the calendar of the Bush-Singh meetings rather
than by the seriousness and complexity of the task at hand.'' Everybody
knows it. We knew it at the time. And I had hoped we could then make
this a better deal.
I have worked hard. I have tried. We have lost amendment after
amendment after amendment. It is so regrettable. It is regrettable that
we rushed into this agreement. But we have a chance to improve this
agreement in behalf of the Boxer amendment. I urge its adoption.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have listened carefully, as all Members
do, to the distinguished Senator from California, who is such a
valuable member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And she has
expressed some of the views which are contained in her statement this
evening during the very important hearings the committee conducted.
I will just say very clearly that Members on both sides of the aisle
in committee felt that there were improvements that could occur with
regard to the agreement, even if the agreement was negotiated in a
fairly short period of time. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
taken ample time to work through this with the administration as well
as with each other. I regret that we did not have unanimity in the
committee on final passage. A vote of 16 to 2, however, indicated a
very strong coming together, which clearly has been expressed on the
floor of the Senate today in the votes on various amendments.
But I must say that the amendment offered by the Senator from
California is, in my judgment, a killer amendment. It goes far beyond
the scope of the July 18 Joint Statement issued by President Bush and
Prime Minister Singh.
The amendment as written would not permit the U.S.-India agreement to
go into effect until India abandoned its military-to-military contacts
with Iran. This is a killer condition that, if adopted by Congress,
would require renegotiation of the agreement.
Few, if any, Members of Congress disagree with the sentiment
expressed in this amendment; namely, that Iran is a destabilizing force
in the Middle East. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
recently wrote in the Washington Post:
Everything returns to the challenge of Iran. It trains,
finances and equips Hezbollah, the state within a state in
Lebanon. It finances and supports Moqtada al-Sadr's militia,
the state within a state in Iraq. It works on a nuclear
weapons program which would drive nuclear proliferation out
of control and provides a safety net for the systemic
destruction of at least the regional order.
Iran is a critical challenge to U.S. diplomacy and global security.
In this difficult environment the U.S. must cultivate a strong
multilateral response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and support
for terrorism. An effective solution to the Iranian threat must include
India. Holding New Delhi to a different standard than our closest
allies or other nations we engage in nuclear commerce does not appear
to be the best way to secure their support.
On April 5, 2006, Secretary Rice testified before the Committee on
Foreign Relations that India has ``low level military-to-military
contacts.'' She noted ``that there are a number of countries that have
relations with Iran, and it's, of course, the sovereign right of a
country to have relations with whomever they would like to have
relations.'' She argues that the U.S. ``is not going to do better in
pulling India toward us by insisting that they cut off relations with
other states.'' She concluded that she didn't ``think that's going to
work very effectively.''
The Secretary of State argues that the international community is
changing its approach to Iran. She cites the exodus of banking and
financial institutions. Perhaps most importantly she points out that
India was the only member of the non-a1igned movement to vote for
referral of the Iran to the U.N. Security Council for its illegal
nuclear program. This was an important development because India was a
founder and a longtime leader of the movement.
Let me be clear, this amendment will reverse the important trend of
countries distancing themselves from Tehran and future Indian
multilateral nonproliferation cooperation. Some experts have indicated
that this amendment could very well have the opposite effect, forcing
New Delhi away from the U.S.-Indian Agreement.
The administration has frequently made U.S. policy on Iran clear to
the Indian Government. The U.S. has consistently expressed our desire
for India's support of our efforts and policies. One of the unheralded
diplomatic accomplishments of the 2005 Joint Statement is India's
commitment to support international efforts to limit the spread of
enrichment and reprocessing technologies, including to states such as
Iran.
I emphasize that point. If, in fact, we are deeply concerned--and I
am, and the Senator from California certainly is--about the
developments in Iran of a nuclear program and the commitment of India
to work with us, to limit that spread of enrichment and reprocessing is
very important. To deliberately take action which scuttles this
agreement and indicates to the Indians that they can look elsewhere for
partnership is to court disaster.
l am pleased that India is committed to being a responsible member of
the international community and it has made the decision that it is in
its own national security interest to oppose Iran's weapons of mass
destruction program.
On a number of occasions the Indian-Iranian military relationship has
been greatly exaggerated. This year an article alleged that India was
providing military training for Iranian sailors. Secretary Rice
responded that while Iranian ships have made port calls at India ports,
she reported that New Dehli had denied that Iranian sailors had been
trained in India.
It is unfortunate that the Senator from California constructed the
amendment in this manner. It would be more appropriate to address this
issue in the sense of Congress section or as a statement of U.S.
policy. If the amendment was modified in this manner, I am prepared to
recommend that it be adopted by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, in
its current form it makes it impossible for the President to meet the
requirement and thus implementation is impossible.
If this amendment is adopted, in my judgment, the United States-India
agreement will be scuttled. That, I believe, would be a tragedy.
I urge Senators to vote against the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. I wonder if the Chair would give me 3 minutes.
Mr. LUGAR. I will yield whatever time the Senator will consume.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
The Senator stated it well. And I don't like to argue with my friend
from California; I seldom ever win, and I am very uncomfortable because
I consider her one of my best friends in this body. So it is an
uncomfortable position to be in.
I want to make three points. The first is that right now, if India
were to engage in transferring any lethal weaponry to Iran, it would be
in violation of our law. It would damage the relationship and
fundamentally alter our relationship. It is existing U.S. law.
No country can transfer lethal weaponry to Iran and maintain our
support. That is No. 1.
The second point I would like to make is with the underlying
concern--I know it is much broader than this--of my friend from
California. I think if I read her correctly--and I may not be--
[[Page 22163]]
somehow this agreement is going to yield the prospect that India will
be in a better position to transfer some kind of technology in this
military-to-military relationship to Iran that will help Iran get the
nuclear capability.
The truth is, as the chairman has pointed out, they have entered into
an agreement with us not to do that. But, secondly, they have voted in
the IAEA with the Board of Governors to sanction Iran, to take issue
with Iran, to report it to the U.N., and they voted with us in the U.N.
So they are openly taking on Iran in terms of the thing of greatest
concern to us all.
I know my friend spoke eloquently about the support of terrorism by
Iran. The implication is that any military-to-military assistance goes
directly to helping the capability of the Iranians to help support
Hezbollah and other organizations that are terrorist organizations
around the world.
I will make the following observation: She also stated accurately
that Indian entities have been sanctioned for transferring materials to
Iran. I must point out, so has Germany, so has the Spanish, so have
European allies of ours. They also had entities sanctioned. It is not
unique to India that an organization would, in fact, provide assistance
to Iran in a way that would generate United States sanctions. Spain is
the most recent offender.
I conclude by saying this is the hardest piece to swallow--not what
the Senator said, but what I am about to say is the hardest piece to
swallow. Palmerston had the famous expression that countries don't have
permanent friends, they have permanent interests.
Look where India resides and look where Iran resides. One of the
countries they are most concerned about is Pakistan. Now, it is not
reasonable to assume that India and Iran would not want to have a
military relationship where they shared information and/or concerns
relative to Pakistan. So for them to forswear any kind of relationship
at all with India that has a military or quasi-military relationship is
to essentially suggest to them that they should not deal with a common
enemy.
Look what we are doing. We are dealing with a country that we
sanctioned before, that we have clearly decided is not a democratic
country, that clearly has probably the largest percentage of jihadists
residing in it, with, arguably, the least significant effort to deal
with these jihadists--the country of Pakistan. What are we doing?
Because we have permanent interests, and our interests are that we have
support in the war against jihadists and al-Qaida and terrorist
organizations, we are cooperating with a country we otherwise probably
would not cooperate with.
How would we feel if a European country or any other country around
the world said--or India said--we will not trade with you, the United
States of America, as long as you continue to have a military-to-
military relationship with Pakistan, a country that is, in fact,
exporting--or if they are not exporting, at least cooperating with or
turning a blind eye to the terrorist organizations that reside within
their country? We would say, Wait a minute. You want to trade with us,
trade with us. You want to tell us whether out of our self-interest we
can cooperate with Pakistan--which is not what you call a model
democracy--then we would say no.
The only generic point I want to make, I know of no evidence--it may
exist, but I am unaware of it--where India is materially cooperating
with Iran in order for Iran to be able to better supply, support, and/
or encourage terrorism. I know of no such interest and no such
circumstance. Maybe my friend may know what I do not. She may have
gotten a recent briefing with the Intelligence Committee where somebody
said that, but I am unaware of any such cooperation that has the net
effect of promoting terror.
What I do know is we have built into the law now the ability to
sanction India if, in fact, India does supply lethal weapons or was in
any way cooperating with promoting Iran's nuclear program. Beyond that,
it would break the spirit of the entire agreement we have with India.
If it came to light that somehow there was evidence that India was in
any way cooperating with Iran's nuclear program, this deal is done.
This is over. It is finished. It is gone.
At the root of this overall agreement, which my colleague,
understandably, does not like, the underlying issue here is this
agreement between India and the United States. The underlying premise
is based upon a notion of a maturing relationship based on trust that
they will not only not violate the letter but will not violate the
spirit of this agreement.
Let me conclude by saying what the spirit of the agreement is. The
spirit of the agreement is we are not going to do anything, United
States of America, that we would not otherwise be able to do; we will
not do anything with what you provide for us that will increase our
capacity, our ability, our desire, or our intent to deal with our
nuclear program.
They have said straightforwardly at the same time, We are keeping our
nuclear program. We ain't giving it up.
It is a little bit like us saying now--and this will be my last
statement--you know, Pakistan violated the law, Pakistan violated our
law. It went out and it broke the deal and it did what India did. On
top of that, Pakistan was the largest proliferator in the history of
the world of nuclear capability through A.Q. Khan. And guess what. We
are going to bite our nose off to spite our face. Now that we need
Pakistan in dealing with this war on terror, we are going to sanction
Pakistan, we are not going to cooperate with Pakistan, we are going to
do nothing with Pakistan even though we acknowledge that might give
greater sustenance to al-Qaida, bin Laden, the Taliban, et cetera.
Countries make hard choices. They are not neat and clean. I suggest
if we are going to impose upon India a requirement to cease and desist
with any military-to-military relationships notwithstanding they have
common enemies and common concerns with Iran, as bad as Iran is,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence that they are
promoting and/or giving the ability to support terrorism's greater
thrust, notwithstanding the fact they have agreed to do everything they
can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, if we are going to
sanction them this way, I ask the rhetorical question: Why wouldn't the
rest of the world sanction us for our relationship with Pakistan. And
why are we cooperating with Pakistan? If anybody in the deal is not the
ideal partner right now, it is Pakistan.
But what do we do? To steal a phrase from a former President that I
often hear, comments we hear on CNN all the time, his comment always is
``you got to accept life in the world as you find it.'' I am
paraphrasing a former President. I think it is close to a quote. We
have to accept the world as we find it, make the best out of it, and
promote our interest to the greatest extent. Sometimes it means we make
less than perfect deals.
Had Chairman Lugar been President Lugar, had Senator Boxer been
Senator Boxer, had I been their Secretary of State, I believe I could
have gotten a better deal than we got. But the fact is, we are where we
are, as the old trade expression goes, and I believe the downside of
rejecting this treaty is so much further down than any downside that
flows from supporting this changed law allowing this to go forward. In
that sense, it is not a close call.
I suggest to my friend, I think everything she says has merit in the
abstract. But we are living in the world we live in now based on the
parameters we are looking at. I think this amendment, which would kill
the agreement, is not worth the candle because it would do that--not
because it doesn't have underlying merit.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Do we have any time remaining on the opposition side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. LUGAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. Let me
summarize by saying I visited Delhi in
[[Page 22164]]
March right after the President had signed the historic agreements. I
walked into a meeting of distinguished Indian officials asking if we
could possibly confirm this treaty, this agreement.
I knew nothing about it, so I did a tremendous amount of quick work
with our agency to check out what the dangers might be. They came back
and they told me India was the one most least likely to engage in
nuclear proliferation. They saw this as a tremendous opportunity for us
to improve on our relations with a country that had for too long been
in the Soviet/Russian sphere.
We have an opportunity to help them. They are a growing country. They
have many needs. Civil nuclear power is the one most important thing
they need because of their tremendous pollution problems. This enables
us to help them reduce pollution. Not only are we interested in nuclear
nonproliferation, we are interested in pollution nonproliferation. This
moves us forward.
Beyond that, securing a close relationship with India is one of our
most important steps toward developing a peaceful environment and
prosperity in south Asia. This opportunity cannot be wasted.
This particular amendment, as has been stated, which is well-
intentioned and reflects understandable concerns, is, nevertheless, a
poison pill. Many countries have relations with Iran. We do not like
them. But many of those countries with which we have good working
relationships don't like our relations with Israel. We are not going to
change our relations with Israel. We are not going to stop helping
them. But we are going to continue to work with those countries.
As the Senator from Delaware has pointed out, we have relations with
Pakistan and there are lots of questions about that. If we want to work
with the Indians and develop a good relationship so they will not deal
with Iran, the best thing we can do is to defeat these poison pill
amendments and confirm the treaty so we will bring India and the United
States together.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and to support the
treaty.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I will try not to take the full time, but I want to
respond to my colleagues.
The debate has been much ado about a very straightforward and simple
amendment. My amendment has nothing to do with the transfer of lethal
weapons. My colleague Senator Biden talked about that. Nothing to do
with that. My amendment, in the real world, I don't believe could be
seen as a killer amendment. It is a simple amendment.
My colleague Senator Bond is right. He says a lot of other countries
have relationships with Iran. No other country gets a deal like this
where we give nuclear technology and there is absolutely no control on
the number of bombs India could build. Experts tell us it could be as
many as 50 a year. I don't think that makes the world safer.
But to help me with this treaty, to give my constituents a feeling
that we are protecting them, at the least, say you are getting this
deal, you are going to be able to build a lot of weapons with it, then
cut off your military-to-military ties with the leading terrorist
nation in the world--Iran--a nation that is at this very moment hurting
our troops in the field in Iraq.
Now, my colleague Senator Biden, I agree with completely when he
says--and I do believe this--Senator Lugar, if President, would have
cut a better deal. I could say Senator Biden, if President, could have
cut a better deal, but we don't have a better deal. And I don't live in
a world where you sit back and say, oh, too bad. This isn't about
buying a piece of cake. We are not going to the store and buying a toy.
It is about giving nuclear technology to a country that has, in fact,
been called out by our own country because it has in the past
transferred information about WMDs, nuclear weapons, missiles, to Iran.
We have called them out on that. So why can't we ask them simply to
stop these military-to-military programs they have with Iran?
Again, when we stand up and say, gosh, this is a killer amendment,
they will walk away, it sounds weak to me. It does not sound as though
we are the strongest nation in the world. Who would walk away from this
deal? India is not a member of the NPT, not a signatory, and they are
getting all this information from the United States of America on
nuclear civilian technology, with no cap on the number of bombs they
can build, and they are going to walk away from this because we simply
ask them not to have military-to-military cooperation with the world's
leading sponsor of terrorism?
I don't get it. So I think my colleagues have made this complicated
when it is really very simple. We do this deal with India, the least
they can do is cut off their military-to-military cooperation with
Iran.
With that, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks. I yield back the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would inquire of the Chair if the
existing order now calls for a 2-minute debate on the Feingold
amendment prior to a rollcall vote on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Further, I would ask the Chair for clarification: Does the
2-minute debate then occur on the Boxer amendment, after the rollcall
vote on Feingold?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Then, finally, an additional 2-minute debate before final
passage of the bill, after the Boxer amendment is voted on?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair for that clarification.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that--the first rollcall vote,
we understand, is 15 minutes--the subsequent rollcall votes be 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
Senator Feingold is now recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 5183
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly recap what my
amendment does and why I believe it is important for the Senate to
adopt it.
The amendment is very simple. It will require the President to make
determinations that nothing in the nuclear cooperation agreement he
negotiates with India will contribute to India's nuclear weapons
program. Both the United States and India have stated that expanding
India's nuclear arsenal is not an objective of this agreement, and my
amendment simply makes those claims binding.
The United States is prohibited under our current obligations in the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to directly or indirectly assist the
nuclear weapons programs of other states. My amendment simply makes
clear that the United States is actually abiding by its international
commitments. It does not require the President to guarantee what India
will do; he simply must certify that he is satisfied the agreement will
not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me, in brief response, say I understand
the intent of the amendment. But the amendment uses the words, for
example, ``India cannot use United States-origin equipment . . . ,''
``India cannot replicate and subsequently use. . . .'' No one can
certify they cannot. It is possible they could. The question is whether
we are insisting that they not use it. We are insisting they are not
using it, and we have built into this agreement a requirement on the
part of the administration to look at whether they are, in fact, doing
it.
So the question is not whether they can or cannot. Anything can
happen. A President cannot certify it is not possible. That is what
``cannot'' says. But
[[Page 22165]]
he can certify to the best of his knowledge it is not occurring. That
is what we require. ``Cannot'' makes this a deal-breaker. No President
could certify it. ``Cannot'' translates into ``it is not possible to
replicate, it is not possible to . . . ,'' and no one can certify to
that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]
YEAS--25
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Salazar
NAYS--71
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Inhofe
Jeffords
McCain
Thomas
The amendment (No. 5183) was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5187
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided on the
Boxer amendment.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We are giving India
a one-of-a-kind deal that no one else gets: civilian nuclear technology
and no cap on the number of bombs they can build.
The least we can do is ask them to cut off their military ties with
the biggest state sponsor of terrorism--Iran. Iran is building the IEDs
that are killing our soldiers in Iraq. The least we can do is ask the
President to certify that they have cut off military-to-military
relationships with Iran.
Why is it important? Look at this Defense News: ``Indian Navy Trains
Iranian Sailors.''
We know they have these ties. If we really believe we are doing
something good, we should at least expect India to cut off military
ties with the leading state sponsor of terrorism--Iran. I urge an
``aye'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Iran is a critical challenge to the United
States, our diplomacy, our global security, but in this very difficult
environment the United States must cultivate a strong multilateral
response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons in support of terrorism.
I simply point out that India was the only member of the nonaligned
movement to vote for referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council for
its illegal nuclear program. Holding India to a different standard than
all of our other closest allies or nations with whom we engage in
nuclear commerce does not appear to be a good way to secure their
support.
Let me be very clear: If this amendment is adopted, the India nuclear
agreement is kaput. This is it. This is a killer amendment, and I ask
for Senators to vote no.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 5187. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]
YEAS--38
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reid
Salazar
Santorum
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--59
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Inhofe
Jeffords
Thomas
The amendment (No. 5187) was rejected.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
nonproliferation consequences
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, S. 3709. As
I have said before, I believe strengthening the relationship between
our two nations is an important strategic goal and this legislation
helps us take a dramatic step in this direction.
However, like many of my colleagues, I have concerns with potential
nonproliferation consequences of this agreement. Much to my
disappointment, the administration has done very little to address
these concerns, instead, sending draft legislation to the Congress that
was essentially a blank check.
The managers of the bill, Senators Lugar and Biden, have done a
tremendous job taking the administration's proposal and shaping it into
meaningful, bipartisan legislation. The bill now before the Senate
helps move us closer to India while addressing some key
nonproliferation issues.
However, I remain concerned about the issue of nuclear testing. A
decision by the Indian Government to conduct such a test could trigger
an arms race in South Asia that would be extremely dangerous and
destabilizing.
The good news is that the joint statement between President Bush and
[[Page 22166]]
Prime Minister Singh of July 18, 2005 declared that India's unilateral
moratorium on nuclear testing will continue. I take Prime Minister
Singh at his word, but also believe in following President Reagan's
mantra of ``trust but verify.''
To this end, I am wondering if the chairman will take a few moments
to clarify a couple matters concerning this legislation. Is it the
managers' belief that section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, AEA, will
apply prospectively to India--aside from the sections of the AEA that
are explicitly amended by S. 3709?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. Under our bill, the
full force of section 129 would apply to any Indian detonation of a
nuclear explosive device, any termination or abrogation of IAEA
safeguards by India, and material violation of IAEA safeguards by
India, all would result under section 129 in the termination of nuclear
exports to India.
Mr. OBAMA. On a related note, is it the chairman's interpretation of
the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the
Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales,
and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of
the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and
the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear
supplies?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, under our bill, the only requirement which is waived
is that in section 123.a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, for full-
scope safeguards. India's 123 agreement would still have to meet the
requirement of section 123.a(4), which requires that in the event of a
test by India of a nuclear explosive device the United States shall
have the right to request the return of supplies as you have
stipulated.
Mr. OBAMA. I offered an amendment that the managers have already
accepted pertaining to the supply of nuclear power reactor fuel in
safeguarded, civilian nuclear facilities. To further clarify this
issue, is it the managers' understanding that provision of a fuel to
the Government of India should be sized in a way to maintain a
deterrent to Indian nuclear testing, while also providing protections
against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel? In other
words, is it your understanding that providing a fuel reserve to India
is not intended to facilitate a resumption in nuclear testing?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, that is our understanding.
Mr. OBAMA. Does the chairman believe that, as this agreement moves
forward to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, the United States should
work to ensure that other nations provide nuclear power reactor fuel in
a similar fashion?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I hope that would be the case.
Mr. OBAMA. Finally, would the managers agree that section 105 of S.
3709 requires that the President determine, prior to exercising the
waivers in section 104, that ``an agreement between India and the IAEA
requiring the application of safeguards in perpetuity in accordance
with IAEA standards, principles, and practices to civil nuclear
facilities, programs, and materials . . . has entered into force,'' and
that the most logical approach, as U.S. officials have stated for the
record, would be to use the IAEA INFCIRC/66, Rev. 2 agreement as the
model for India's safeguards agreement?
Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is that the administration, the IAEA, and
participating governments in the NSG have all stated that they would
prefer that any new Indian safeguards agreement be modeled on INFCIRC/
66 Rev. 2.
Mr. OBAMA. I thank the managers.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to oppose this legislation.
One of the many lessons of the tragedy of September 11 is that
America's overarching national security interest is keeping nuclear
material and weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Nothing is more
important for our national security than achieving this goal.
The international nuclear nonproliferation regime flawed though it
may be is our best hope of achieving this goal. While I believe America
has a clear interest in strengthening our relationship with India, I do
not believe it can, or should, be achieved by sidestepping nearly half
a century of international nonproliferation agreements. In the long
run, doing so will make America and the world more vulnerable to the
perils of nuclear weapons.
One of the defining goals of my years in the Senate has been to
support the important advances made by our country and the
international community in limiting the perils of nuclear weapons
across the globe.
President Kennedy considered the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which
represented an early and historic advance in nuclear nonproliferation,
as one of his greatest accomplishments. On signing the documents of
ratification on October 7, 1963, President Kennedy said, ``This small
step toward safety can be followed by others longer and less limited,
if also harder in the taking. With our courage and understanding
enlarged by this achievement, let us press onward in quest of man's
essential desire for peace.''
Since that agreement, further progress was made with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, NPT, the SALT and START agreements, as well as
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These agreements although far from
perfect are essential to limiting the spread and use of nuclear
weapons. They are the bedrock of our effort to ensure that the world
will never, ever again know the horrors of the use of nuclear weapons.
They took years to negotiate and implement, and we must be exceedingly
careful about dismantling or carving out exceptions to them for any
country.
Supporters of this agreement argue that the international
nonproliferation regime has not proved successful in every case--just
look at Iran and North Korea. And I accept the premise of the
administration's argument that the international arms control regime
may need to be modified or adapted to fit current times, and that we
need to find a way to address India.
However, we need to recognize that commitments under the NPT made by
virtually every nonnuclear state play an essential role in assisting
the international community in keeping a check on their nuclear
programs. And, before we make significant changes to the
nonproliferation regime, we must be absolutely confident that we are
doing more good than harm and that we will be more likely not less
likely to limit the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe. I do
not believe that running roughshod over these agreements by carving out
an exception for India is the way to achieve these goals.
General Brent Scowcroft cautioned that, ``I am concerned about a
trend that we see reflected in the United States-India nuclear deal
where we try to address proliferation risks by assessing the character
of regimes and governments. Such an approach also opens up divisions
among the world's nuclear powers, with each making a list of
``friends'' who can be trusted with nuclear technology and `foes' who
are dangerous risks.''
Further, Robert Gallucci, the Dean of Georgetown University's School
of Foreign Service, pointed out that, if we do approve this arrangement
with India, ``we will put at risk a world of very few nuclear weapon
states, and open the door to the true proliferation of nuclear weapons
in the years ahead.''
Certainly, there are some advantages to the nonproliferation regime
under the proposed agreement. India would place a majority of its
current and future civilian reactors under international safeguards.
India has agreed to abide by the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, and to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime. India has
agreed not to test another nuclear device and has indicated that it
will work with the United States on concluding an international regime
to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. These
are definitely positive steps.
However, India will not sign the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and
subject its military facilities to international inspection, and this
remains a major concern. Until now, as part of an effort to limit the
spread of nuclear
[[Page 22167]]
weapons across the globe, international arms control agreements and
U.S. law have required full international safeguards on civilian and
military reactors before civilian nuclear energy could be provided.
These requirements exist to ensure that by assisting a country's
civilian program, we are not freeing up supplies for an unsafeguarded
nuclear weapons program. Under this agreement, however, none of India's
military reactors would be put under international safeguards, but it
would receive civilian nuclear energy anyway. In other words, India
will obtain the benefits of the NPT, without the obligations required
by it.
Additionally, despite India's stated commitment to conclude an
international agreement to cut off the production of fissile material--
the essential component for making nuclear weapons--there is no
timeframe for concluding such an agreement, nor is there any binding
commitment for India to do so. United States, Russia, Great Britain,
and France have agreed to a fissile material production cut-off for
nuclear weapons, and India should as well. So we will knowingly permit
a country to benefit from civilian nuclear energy cooperation and
maintain an active, unsafeguarded program to construct, develop, and
build nuclear weapons.
If we provide India with the benefits of nuclear nonproliferation
agreements without requiring them to sign the NPT nuclear agreement or,
at least, cease the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons,
there would be significant and harmful consequences for our global
nonproliferation efforts.
It will embolden Iran to flout the will of the international
community. There could not be a worse moment to give India the green
light to build weapons with the blessing of the United States and the
international community. The Iranians see a clear double standard. As
Iran's national security adviser said in March, ``The United States is
imposing a contradictory theory of dual standards: though our NPT
membership entitles us to access to nuclear science and technology, it
claims that we will never have that right, whereas it cooperates with
India, which does have the bomb but is not an NPT member.'' The
Iranians will undoubtedly use the double standard of India in Iran's
efforts to break the will of the international community to achieve its
nuclear aims.
Former Senator Sam Nunn stated that ``the U.S. India deal will likely
make it more difficult to get other nations to join us in stopping
threatening nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.'' Similarly,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, points out that this deal ``will complicate the
quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.''
Furthermore, this agreement will put the United States in the
position of indirectly supporting an arms race in South Asia. If the
Indians or the administration could assure us that India had agreed,
like the United States, Russia, Great Britain, and France, to a fissile
material production cut-off for nuclear weapons, the concern would
diminish. We know that India currently has very limited uranium
resources, which it now must dedicate to generating electric power. It
is so short of uranium that it can only run its reactors at about two-
thirds capacity. But that will change once India gains access to
foreign uranium supplies for its civilian uses. The agreement would
provide India with sufficient uranium to supply its civilian reactors,
freeing up domestic supplies for military purposes. Former Senator Sam
Nunn warns that ``India will no longer be forced to choose whether its
own limited uranium stocks should be used to support its civilian
nuclear program or its nuclear weapons program.''
Some experts estimate that India could increase production from a
handful of weapons a year to 50 or more, if it could use its domestic
production for its weapons program. How will China and Pakistan react
to India's increasing nuclear stockpile, as well as to the enhanced
potential to produce fissile material as a result of this new
cooperation? India states it only wants to build up its nuclear arsenal
to the ``minimum credible deterrence'' level before it stops building
nuclear weapons, but we don't really know what India is likely to do.
How many more weapons will it need to reach that minimum credible
deterrence? 50? 100? 500? Will Pakistan and China respond by building
more weapons, too? Will the mad race for nuclear arms take on a life of
its own, continuing to escalate with reckless abandon?
And what will happen with our other allies who are members of the
nonproliferation regime? There is no doubt that the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty has played an essential role in the decisions
of countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and South Korea
all allies of the United States--to stop pursuing their own nuclear
weapons programs. But if we allow India to build nuclear weapons and
enjoy civilian nuclear cooperation, will other U.S. friends and other
countries in the future follow India's lead and demand the same? If we
argue that the decision about India was based on trust, how on Earth
will we be able to argue otherwise with these allies? They will accuse
us rightly of having a double standard. I think we can all agree that
the fewer the countries with nuclear weapons the better for U.S.
national security, even if those aspiring countries are friendly toward
the United States.
President Jimmy Carter said in March that ``there is no doubt that
condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear
weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many
other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT
to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to
self-restraint if India rejects the same terms.''
And what will happen to the international supply of material to India
if it does test another weapon? While I am reasonably confident that
the United States would terminate supplying nuclear materials and
technology to India, there is a question whether the international
regime particularly the Nuclear Suppliers Group would cease
cooperation. Once the door to cooperation is opened to India, it may be
difficult to get other countries to agree to shut it again. The Indian
press has suggested that if India tests again it would likely lose the
United States as a supplier but would retain access to uranium from
other sources. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Singh told his Parliament
in August that if there were a disruption of uranium supplies to India,
such as in result of India testing another device, that ``the United
States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier
countries, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, aimed at restoring
fuel supplies to India.'' This certainly should raise alarm bells. I
know Senator Obama has tried to address that problem with his amendment
to the Senate bill, but all should be asking whether we should open the
international spigot if we are uncertain about whether we can shut it
off.
Much has been made of the foreign policy benefit to America of this
agreement, but I reject fully--the notion that America's relationship
with India or the Indian American community--can or should be defined
by this vote.
The United States and India have a multitude of ties, which are
growing ever closer, ever stronger. In the last decade we have seen a
dramatic improvement in bilateral relations.
India and America are the two largest democracies in the world. We
share deeply held, common values, including respect for human rights,
the rule of law, promoting peace, and prosperity in the world.
My family and I have long had an interest in India. My brothers--John
and Bobby visited in 1951, and I am a friend of India. I work closely
with the Indian-American community to address hate crimes, immigration,
and other issues that affect their daily lives.
President Kennedy was right when he characterized India as a ``great
and vital hope of democracy in Asia.'' He rightfully exclaimed that
``no thoughtful citizen'' could fail to recognize that India was a
great and vital hope of democracy in Asia.
Today, India is the world's largest democracy and soon will be the
world's
[[Page 22168]]
largest country. It has one of the fastest growing economies and plays
a leading role in global affairs.
The United States and India are seeking to improve trade and
investment ties. We are cooperating in key areas such as agriculture,
technology, energy, and the environment. India's green revolution came
from America and proved essential to ending massive starvation in
India. Today, our countries are cooperating on the next green
revolution, to increase agricultural productivity and to help the
environment.
Defense cooperation is increasing. Our militaries are conducting more
joint exercises, India is purchasing more U.S. counterterrorism and
defense equipment, and in June 2005, the United States and India signed
a 10-year defense pact.
India, in recent years, has been the leader in sending students to
study in the United States. Cultural links--whether food, movies, music
or literature--are growing, too.
After September 11, the United States cooperated with India in
dealing with international terrorism threats.
We are also working closely with India on public health threats,
including HIV/AIDS and avian influenza.
Our relationship is strong today and will continue to grow. These
ties can and should continue to grow regardless of this agreement
because it is in the interests of both of our countries.
But we need to be realistic about the foreign policy benefits of this
agreement.
Naturally, we want the Indian Government to work with the United
States to advance our foreign policy objectives. But we need to be
realistic enough to know that India will follow a foreign policy that
suits its interest. We should not and cannot expect India to pursue a
policy that diverges from its national interests or not to pursue a
policy that is in its national interests.
Fortunately, India's national interests converge with ours on the
vital national security issues. Neither country wants to see Iran
acquire nuclear weapons and both are profoundly concerned by the
terrorist threats. The tragic bombing in Mumbai in July where more than
200 people were killed by terrorists underscored to Indians that
terrorism is a real and present danger.
But we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that concluding a
nuclear cooperative agreement with India will make it adopt policies
regarding China, Iran, or others in the region or the world that are
contrary to its national interest.
Conversely, not concluding an agreement will not mean that India will
forsake its national interests to spite the United States. India will
not confront China or Iran or any other country merely because the
United States asks it to do so. India will do so only if it is in
India's national interests. This is independent of whether or not there
is nuclear cooperation in place.
Further, many have suggested that the U.S. nuclear industry will
benefit from this agreement with increased reactor sales to India.
However, this is not the case. Neither the United States nor India has
ratified an international agreement to limit the civil liability for
nuclear reactors.
Until both nations agree to limit the liability, the U.S. nuclear
industry will be hesitant to sell reactors to India. However, France
and Russia have no such hesitations. Both have state-owned nuclear
industries, so it is much less likely that victims of a nuclear reactor
failure would be able to successfully sue for damages.
As we have seen at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Bhopal, the
liability exposure for such accidents can be overwhelming, resulting in
thousands of deaths and radiation exposure for millions of people.
Understandably, the U.S. nuclear industry is reluctant to sell reactors
to another country until their liability for such an accident is
limited.
If we support this agreement without accompanying limitations on
liability, we open the door for the French and the Russians to sell
nuclear reactors to India but not for our own industry.
I also do not believe this is an issue the Congress should be voting
on now.
President Bush is asking us to trust him that the risks of this
agreement will not materialize and that additional benefits will
follow--especially that India will cease fissile material production as
a result of a new treaty.
But with so many details unresolved and much up in the air, I see a
vote for this legislation, which will permanently change U.S. law, as
giving the administration a blank check in concluding the negotiations
with India on a nuclear cooperation agreement and with the terms of
safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and
revisions to the Nuclear Suppliers Group's guidelines.
Nuclear nonproliferation is too important to our national security to
take unnecessary risks. We should wait until the whole package has been
negotiated and until we have better answers to the questions I have
raised about the implications of this agreement before we take this
step; for once we take the step of carving up the international
nonproliferation regime, it is no easy matter to return if we find out
we have erred. This genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
I am particularly concerned that unpleasant answers will come out
after we have voted on the legislation. In an action that was eerily
reminiscent of the White House's decision to withhold until after the
vote on the Iraq war North Korea's admission about its nuclear weapons
program, the State Department delayed a report on proliferation with
Iran until after the House had already approved this agreement. It
turned out that there were two Indian companies on that report.
Further, the administration kept quiet on Pakistan's constructing a
nuclear reactor that could be used in a regional arms race, making
India more likely to ramp up its production of fissile material, using
the domestic production freed up by this agreement. And, as we learned
this week, Ambassador Negroponte has not yet provided answers to the
Foreign Relations Committee's questions on India's nonproliferation
activities.
We have the time and we have the responsibility to get this right.
Let's be sure of what we are getting ourselves into.
If it can be shown with enough confidence that India will take steps
to become a full-fledged member of the nonproliferation community and
has agreed to cut off production of fissile material, then I would
certainly vote in favor of the cooperation agreement. Until then, I
will be reserving my vote, looking for answers, and waiting to see the
final agreement.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate is undertaking an important
debate on the India Agreement for Civil Nuclear Cooperation.
On July 18, 2005, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh signed an agreement to resume full civilian nuclear cooperation
for the first time since India conducted its initial nuclear test in
1974. Such an agreement will require changes to U.S. law and
accommodations with the international community.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 assures the proper management of
source, special nuclear, and byproduct material. Several sections of
the AEA are at issue in this agreement, so I would like to take a
moment to explain the pertinent provisions.
Section 123 of the AEA limits the ability of the United States to
enter into agreements with nonweapons states unless the agreement meets
a minimum of nine criteria, including a requirement that the recipient
country has in place an agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IAEA, to safeguard in perpetuity nuclear material, equipment,
and technology so that it will not be diverted for weapons use. This
type of agreement is known as a ``full-scope safeguards'' agreement. A
123 Agreement is the precursor to any export license for the nuclear
materials, equipment and technology.
Section 128 requires that any export license for nuclear materials,
technology or equipment contain a requirement that the recipient
nonnuclear weapons state maintain IAEA safeguards.
[[Page 22169]]
Section 129 of the AEA requires that any 123 Agreement or export
license be terminated if the nonnuclear weapons state recipient
detonates a nuclear explosive device, terminates, abrogates, or
violates IAEA safeguards, or engages in activities that support
development of a nuclear explosive device. Section 129 would also
prohibit entrance into a section 123 Agreement with any nonnuclear
weapons state that detonated a nuclear explosive device after 1978.
S. 3709, the bill we are considering today, establishes a mechanism
whereby the President may submit a 123 Agreement for civil nuclear
cooperation with India, a nonweapons state under the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, to Congress for approval. However, this bill
would allow the President to waive certain requirements of section 123,
section 128, and portions of section 129, as long as the President
makes certain determinations that are set out in the bill.
India is the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is growing
by 8 percent annually. Since the beginning of this century, United
States-India relations on issues from trade to defense have been
growing stronger each year. The United States also benefits from a
large Indian-American population. Rhode Island is home to a vibrant
Indian community who contribute greatly to the State. I believe that
the United States should do all that it can to assist India and further
strengthen the partnership between the two countries.
However, this agreement does raise significant concerns. I believe
that proliferation of nuclear material is the greatest threat facing
our country today. North Korea recently conducted its first nuclear
test. Iran seems intent on pursuing a nuclear program. Even efforts to
reduce the overall size of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons
stockpiles have stalled. While there has been some small progress in
reducing the number of deployed nuclear warheads there has been no
progress in reducing the overall size of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. There is great concern, therefore, that this agreement
strikes a blow to what remains of the international nuclear
nonproliferation regime.
I, too, would share that concern, if the Senate had adopted the bill
the administration proposed. However, I believe that the Foreign
Relations Committee, under the leadership of Senators Lugar and Biden,
who are certainly experts on these matters, have crafted a bill which,
I believe, has sufficient safeguards. I think that they are trying to
adapt the nonproliferation regime, not destroy it.
First, section 105 of this bill sets out a series of determinations
the President must make in writing when he submits the 123 Agreement. I
believe these determinations will both provide a reasonable equivalent
of full-scope safeguards and address several other concerns with
respect to the Indian nuclear program, including concerns that the
agreement not facilitate or assist the Indian nuclear weapons program.
For the most part, the determinations reflect what India has committed
to do in the July 2005 joint statement.
Probably the most important of the determinations in section 105 is
the fifth, which states, ``India is working with the United States to
conclude a multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of
fissile materials.'' This determination breathes new life into efforts
to achieve a Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty, even driving the United
States back to the negotiating table. Determination number 5 is the one
single element in this bill that could prevent further growth in
India's nuclear weapons stockpile and could lead to real reductions. In
addition, this certification may also work to eliminate the impasse
between India and Pakistan whereby neither wants to be the first to
adopt a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.
Section 106 of S. 3709 would prohibit the export of equipment,
materials and technologies related to uranium enrichment, spent nuclear
fuel reprocessing, and the production of heavy water, unless the user
is a multinational facility participating in IAEA approved reactor fuel
program or the President ``determines that the export or reexport will
not improve India's ability to produce nuclear weapons or fissile
material for military uses.'' On several occasions administration
witnesses clearly stated to the Foreign Relations Committee that the
U.S. would not provide such technologies to India. As a result, it is
not anticipated that the presidential exemption will be used.
Section 107 of the bill requires a program, which would include end-
use monitoring conditions as appropriate, to maintain accountability
with respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology sold,
leased and exported, or re-exported to India. This provision would
enhance confidence in India's efforts to ensure separation of its
civilian and military nuclear programs, facilities, materials and
personnel and also further ensure U.S. compliance with Article I of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
S. 3709 also requires the President to provide the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee
with updated information regarding India's compliance with
nonproliferation commitments. Specifically, it would require the
President to keep these committees informed of any material violation
of India's nuclear nonproliferation commitments, the construction of
any nuclear facilities in India, any significant changes in India's
production of nuclear weapons or fissile materials, or changes in the
purpose or status of India's non-declared facilities. The bill also
requires the President to submit an annual report on the implementation
of civil nuclear commerce, India's compliance with its nonproliferation
commitments, and U.S. efforts and progress toward achieving India's
full participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative and
adherence to the guidelines and policies of the Australia Group and the
Wassenaar Arrangement.
It is important that this bill would waive section 129 applicability
for any actions taken before July 18, 2005. If India detonated a
nuclear device after the date of enactment the waiver authority would
cease to be effective and the exports would be prohibited.
Another vitally important provision of S. 3709 is that it follows
current law and requires Congress to have a vote to approve any final
123 Agreement. The House bill also has an approval process, but it is
not clear if that process requires a vote. The administration had
proposed that a 123 Agreement with India would only require
congressional notification and a waiting period.
Because of the provisions I have just discussed, I believe I can
support this bill. I would also note that passage of this bill is
simply the first step on a long road. If this bill passes the Senate,
it must be conferenced with the House bill, which has different
provisions. If the conference report comes back with the Senate
provisions weakened, or absent, I may be obligated to vote against that
report.
Much more important is the substance of the 123 statement the
President ultimately submits. I understand that this is an attempt to
adapt the nonproliferation regime to a changing world. I will carefully
examine any 123 Agreement to ensure that it adequately addresses vital
proliferation concerns.
But at this first step, I have hope that this agreement will lead to
greater cooperation on nonproliferation rather than less. With that
hope, I will support S. 3709.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here to support the Lugar-Biden
legislation that would implement changes in law necessary to secure our
Nation's civil-nuclear agreement with India.
This is very important to our future for two reasons: No. 1, India is
one of the great powers of the 21st century, and this agreement
represents an important step toward a new strategic partnership between
our two countries; and No. 2, nuclear power is a source of clean energy
that is good for us, and it is good for India.
As we look at the beginning of this new century, we have witnessed
the emergence of three great powers or influences in the world--three
major
[[Page 22170]]
shifts that will help define the many years to come.
One is the rise of China. One is the emergence of a new political
Islam. And the third is the arrival of India as a great power.
I asked Secretary Rice about these three new forces shaping the
coming century at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the United
States-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, and she agreed with my
assessment.
And if you look at those three emerging forces, one presents the
greatest opportunity for us to be a partner, and that one is India:
India, the largest democracy in the world; India, where English is an
official language; India, where the legal system, like ours, is
descended from that of the British; and India, where a diverse ethnic
and religious population has joined together to form one nation with a
democratic government. India.
I was fortunate to travel to India earlier this year with a group of
Senators led by Senator Enzi. We went to look at what India is doing to
improve its economic standing by improving its brainpower through
better education and research and an emphasis on science and
technology. And we saw a country that is rapidly advancing.
Both our President and this Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, are
showing real vision by recognizing that in this new century there may
be no more important two-country relationship than the one between the
United States and India.
And we share an important strategic interest: we are facing the same
sort of energy and environmental issues. India's needs are even more
acute.
When I was there a few months ago, I was told that India hopes to
bring online 50,000 MW over the next 10 years in order to meet demand.
That is an incredible figure. If each power plant has a capacity of
500 MW, that is 100 new power plants. And they are going to build them
with us or without us.
The question for us is: What kind of power plants will they build?
From an environmental perspective, the only technology that is ready to
go, today, to provide large amounts of reliable power without emitting
noxious gases into the air is nuclear power.
As new studies are emerging that India's air pollution and China's
air pollution is also our air pollution because air pollution both
deposits locally and moves around the globe and that their greenhouse
gases cause just as much global warming as our greenhouse gases, then
it is in our interest for India to build nuclear power plants rather
than more dirty coal power plants that emit sulfur and nitrogen and
mercury and carbon.
Seventy-two percent of India's electricity needs are currently
provided by coal-burning plants. Gas provides 12 percent; oil, 2
percent; nuclear, 3 percent; hydro, 10 percent, and renewables, 1
percent.
This agreement won't radically shift those numbers overnight, but
each new nuclear powerplant is a powerplant that is not emitting
noxious gases into the air. It is one more powerplant that is not
putting out sulfur or nitrogen or mercury or even carbon.
So, Mr. President, before us is legislation to implement the United
States-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This is not an agreement about
nuclear weapons--it is about cooperation for nuclear power. This is an
agreement that puts us on the path to a new strategic partnership with
India--one of the three great rising forces in this new century. And
this is an agreement that meets energy needs while being good for the
environment.
I am glad that we have taken this matter up in a bipartisan manner
and look forward to its passage today.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, the Senate has begun debate on S.
3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act,
which will help pave the way for our Nation to assist India in
fulfilling its energy needs. I intend to vote in support of this
legislation.
The United States and India are bound together by deep mutual respect
and our common efforts to work towards a democratic, free, and secure
world. As cochair of the Senate India Caucus, I have sought to
strengthen the ties that bind our two nations.
The legislation that emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is a significant improvement over the implementing
legislation put forward by the administration in March. The
administration's initial proposal sought to undercut Congressional
authority by asking us to effectively approve an agreement before it
had even been negotiated with India and before India had reached its
nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IAEA.
I carefully followed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
consideration of this agreement. Senator Richard Lugar, the Foreign
Relations Committee chairman, and Senator Joseph Biden, the Foreign
Relations Committee ranking member, are to be commended for the
seriousness with which they exercised their jurisdiction over this
legislation. Because of the efforts of Chairman Lugar and Ranking
Member Biden, the bill before us today is much improved. This
legislation not only retains congressional prerogatives, but it also
ensures that Congress will not have to vote to approve a final
agreement until every single nation in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
NSG, the global regime given the charge for ensuring the responsible
trade of nuclear technology, has agreed to permit the transfer of
peaceful nuclear technology to India. By working through the NSG, we
will help strengthen both that group, as well as the greater
international nonproliferation regime that is center stage as we
address the threats posed by the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and
North Korea.
As India continues to grow stronger and to shoulder more of the
responsibilities that come with being a leading nation in the world, we
must continue to work towards greater cooperation with our Indian
friends to deal with our common challenges in security, energy,
economics, and health. I hope that this agreement is just one step on
that journey that our countries, and our people, are taking together.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of S. 3709. The
passage of this bill and the ultimate conclusion of the U.S.-India
nuclear agreement will be instrumental in bringing our countries closer
together after decades of estrangement. This outcome is not just
desirable but essential for U.S. national interests.
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of India's role in the
world today. Not only is India one of the most populous countries and
fastest growing economies in the world, it is also the world's largest
democracy that has long demonstrated a commitment to pluralism and rule
of law and a rich intellectual and civilization heritage.
I applaud the efforts of both the Clinton and Bush administration in
strengthening our ties with India. Their efforts reflect the bipartisan
spirit with which America extends its hand of friendship to India and
the importance that it places in getting this relationship right.
The U.S.-India nuclear deal significantly benefits both our
countries. It will help India meet its growing energy needs, fueling
its economic growth and reducing the global demand and cost of fossil
fuels. It will enhance U.S.-Indian technological and commercial
cooperation with significant dividends for U.S. companies. And it will
bolster our strategic partnership with India in Asia and beyond.
It also opens the window for greater oversight over India's civil
nuclear program, drawing an important non-signatory to the
Nonproliferation Treaty into the broader nonproliferation system. This
is a positive step for the U.S. in controlling the spread of nuclear
materials and weapons and gaining an important ally in that fight.
But the flip side of this coin is that we are doing business with a
non-nuclear weapon state as defined by the NPT that does not have full-
scope safeguards.
In doing so, the U.S. has overstepped domestic and international non-
proliferation laws and norms. It has sent a signal that countries can
pursue and
[[Page 22171]]
test nuclear weapons, as India did in 1998, and wear out U.S.
opposition. And it may trigger a low-level arms race between India and
Pakistan as India's uranium reserves are freed up for diversion to its
weapons program.
Moreover, at a time when we are trying to roll back North Korea and
Iran's nuclear program, cutting a deal with India suggests that if you
are on America's side, you can keep your nuclear weapons. Such double
standards are detrimental to America's interests and image.
What we ultimately need is not a country-specific approach to civil
nuclear cooperation but a criteria-specific one. India has agreed to
meet some of these criteria but not all. Its nonproliferation record is
infinitely better than that of its neighbors, but far from perfect.
For now, the bill that is before the Senate carves out an exception
for India. As I said earlier, I will vote for this bill because I think
our relationship with India is critical.
It is also important to highlight what should be one vital outgrowth
of this relationship: halting the global production of fissile material
that can be used in a nuclear device.
S. 3709 calls for U.S.-Indian cooperation in pursuit of a
multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty. However, the reality is
that negotiations on such a treaty at the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament have long been at a standstill due to many factors. These
include linkages that countries have imposed with issues such as the
militarization of space.
The proliferation dangers of increased fissile material stockpiles
are well understood. Yet the current approach has failed to stop
production.
That is why the United States needs to sit down with India and the
other key handful of countries that have produced and are producing
fissile material, and make a hard push for an interim non-
discriminatory moratorium on fissile material production that is
applicable to this grouping of states. This moratorium would remain in
effect pending the entry into force of a multilateral treaty.
The advantage of this new format is that it allows for a smaller,
more relevant grouping with a singular agenda where the U.S. can
immediately introduce proposals it has already drafted for discussion.
If we are to seriously address the nuclear challenges we face today,
we need to break the deadlock in Geneva, think outside the box and
focus on this issue like a laser beam. We simply cannot have countries
churning out fissile material because it increases the chances of it
falling into the hands of terrorists and the buildup of nuclear
arsenals.
In this bill, the Senate calls for the President to make several
determinations on whether India has taken certain steps before we can
proceed with an agreement. The Senate must also set certain benchmarks
for our own government and ensure that it is upholding its
responsibilities as a global leader and a nuclear weapon state.
I can think of no better way of doing this than calling for fresh and
meaningful negotiations on halting fissile material production. Moving
in this direction will strengthen the U.S.-India nuclear deal and make
it a catalyst for positive change in the nonproliferation system.
In the end, the goal should be a strong U.S. India relationship and a
nuclear deal that provides momentum toward strengthening the nuclear
nonproliferation system.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last year President Bush and Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh ushered in a new era of cooperation between the
United States and India on civilian nuclear energy. President Bush
promised to seek the necessary changes in U.S. laws and policies to
allow full cooperation and commerce in this area. In return, Prime
Minister Singh has committed India to specific steps strengthening its
adherence to various elements of the global nonproliferation regime.
This agreement marks a historic milestone for U.S. relations with
India, one of our most important friends, a natural ally, and a country
that can be a close partner on a number of key issues including nuclear
nonproliferation.
The legislation pending before us today is critically important
because it sets the framework for Congress to consider a formal
peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with India under section 123 of
the Atomic Energy Act. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill
with strong bipartisan support shortly before the July 4th recess, and
I hope the full Senate will follow suit. By passing this legislation,
we will not only move the United States and India one step closer to
energy cooperation but also send a clear message that a strong United
States-India relationship is vital to both of our nations.
More and more, this bond is built on the bedrock of natural
affinities--on shared interests and shared values. And it is no
wonder--our two countries are natural partners. We should be partners
in the war on terror, in the spread of democracy, in religious
tolerance, in advancing technology, and in bringing stability and
balance to Asia. In the post-9/11 world, we share interests and we
share threats. India after all sees more terror attacks every year than
any other country.
For a long time, South Asians and Americans have been extremely
close--thanks to so many families spilt between the two countries and
such a vibrant Indian-American community here at home. But now at last
our Governments are finally catching up to our people and bringing our
countries together.
I have long believed that it is in the interest of the United States
and India to expand our strategic relationship. In 1994 I took a trade
delegation from my home State of Massachusetts to India. It was clear
to me that Cold War tensions had created a gulf between our nations
that didn't serve either country. I believed then that India could and
should be a critical American partner in South Asia. My subsequent
trips in 1999 and again earlier this year have only reinforced that
view.
With its strategic location in South Asia and its experience in
maintaining a stable and religiously diverse democracy--India has
nearly 150 Muslim citizens--India can be an important partner on a
range of issues, from combating the threat of terrorism and
proliferation to promoting democracy and regional security. Cooperating
on the civilian nuclear front can help move this essential partnership
forward.
I know from my discussions in India this past January with Prime
Minister Singh and his National Security Adviser that they want our
help in meeting India's energy needs. This is crucial if India is to
continue to expand its economy and increase its stature as a major
regional and global power. And they see this nuclear initiative, as we
do, as an important foundation for our bilateral relationship.
And everywhere I went, I kept hearing from political leaders and
businessmen just how important they consider American investment in
India's economic future--and not just in technology. India wants our
help. They see this nuclear initiative as a cornerstone of economic
development and sensible energy policy, and I see it as a great chance
for our countries to work together.
Civil nuclear cooperation is in India's interest, but it is also in
ours. That is why during my trip to India in January I was one of the
first Senators to express my support for the civil nuclear initiative
in principle. Since then, I have been committed to working with my
colleagues to find a way to make this deal work for all our interests.
I am pleased that we have accomplished that with the legislation
approved by the committee.
Obviously, there are ramifications for our nonproliferation efforts
because for the first time we are agreeing to engage in nuclear
cooperation with a country that has a nuclear weapons program but is
not a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or bound by its
obligations. We cannot gloss over the fact that this is an
unprecedented step. But it is not one taken lightly. I am convinced
that this exception for India makes sense, despite its real costs,
given India's record as a trustworthy steward of nuclear materials and
technologies.
[[Page 22172]]
India can be an important ally in our global nonproliferation
efforts, as demonstrated by their voting with us in the International
Atomic Energy Agency to try to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. And, of
course, India is critical to any regional effort to cap fissile
material production. India has made a number of positive commitments
with respect to its nuclear program, such as separating its civil and
military facilities, putting more of its civilian facilities under IAEA
safeguards, and working with the United States to achieve a
multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty.
I believe this bill we are considering today will encourage India to
fulfill these commitments while still allowing for timely consideration
by Congress of the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement--the so-
called section 123 agreement--when it is concluded by Indian and
American negotiators. As I said when Secretary Rice testified before
the committee on this deal in early April, it is critical for us to see
the safeguards agreement that India reaches with the IAEA before taking
action on the section 123 agreement between us and India. This bill
ensures that we will. I am pleased that it includes my language
clarifying that India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA must provide
for safeguards ``in perpetuity,'' as India has said it would.
Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican Senator from Michigan, used to say
that partisan politics ought to stop at the water's edge. Crafting this
legislation was not easy, but I am pleased to say that we have thus far
met Vandenberg's challenge. And we must continue to do so.
To reach agreement, we had to balance a number of critically
important interests: building a strong and comprehensive relationship
with India, furthering our global nonproliferation efforts, and
protecting congressional prerogatives to act on nuclear cooperation
agreements between the United States and other countries. I recognize
that there are aspects of this legislation that some on both sides of
the debate wish had come out differently, but on the whole, I believe
the legislation the committee has sent to the Senate is a good-faith--
and ultimately successful--effort to meet those needs.
One of the most important aspects of the balance in the bill before
us is the requirement that Congress review the formal peaceful nuclear
cooperation agreement with India, which must be submitted under section
123 of the Atomic Energy Act. The bill passed by the House includes
procedures which would deny Congress a full right of review. Such an
approach would undermine the balance we have struck in this bill. I
believe it is essential that the Senate conferees insist upon the
procedures in the Senate bill for the consideration of the 123
agreement. The Senate bill is a good bill, and our goal should be to
enact as much of it as possible.
We have taken an important step forward for one of our most promising
and important relationships in the years to come.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support
for this bill.
The proposed agreement will mark a momentous change in U.S. and
global nuclear policy, in my view for the better. It will give India
due recognition as a global power, and it will deepen the bilateral
commercial and strategic relationship that the United States enjoys
with the world's largest democracy.
Beyond these commercial and strategic benefits, this deal will bring
India into the mainstream of the global nonproliferation system for the
first time in its nuclear history. This bill includes a number of
nonproliferation-related provisions, including a requirement that the
U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India
and the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiate and conclude an
inspection agreement. It also includes a requirement that the U.S.-
India agreement will not enter into force unless and until India and
the IAEA negotiate and conclude a safeguards agreement. Further, it
requires that the U.S.-India agreement will not enter into force unless
and until the Nuclear Suppliers Group reaches consensus on nuclear
trade with India and bans U.S. export of uranium enrichment and
reprocessing technologies under any U.S.-India agreement.
This agreement will benefit the economic, strategic, and security
interests of the United States, and I offer my strong support for it
and congratulate my colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, for
completing this important legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 3709, the
United States-India, Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act,
legislation which will permit the United States to export nuclear
material to India for peaceful purposes.
I applaud President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice for taking this bold, new and welcome approach to America's
bilateral relations with India. For too long our relations with India
and Pakistan have resembled a zero-sum game--by helping one nation, we
have been perceived as hurting the other.
This agreement helps to liberate U.S. policy from this false choice;
the United States can and should enjoy positive relations with both
nations. This bill will broaden and deepen America's emerging strategic
partnership with India.
This legislation is also part of a broader framework for the United
States and India to work together on many issues, including energy,
defense cooperation, anti-terrorism efforts and the promotion of
democracy. S. 3709 will strengthen the world's security by expanding
the reach of international non-proliferation efforts, and will increase
transparency about India's civilian nuclear program.
In addition, this bill will boost America's energy security by
helping India meet its growing energy needs with nuclear power. With a
population over one billion, India has greatly increased the demand for
energy, helping to raise energy prices on the world market. The more
power India can get from other sources, the less Americans will have to
pay for energy here at home.
This bill will also foster economic growth in America by opening up
new opportunities for American companies to do business in India's
civilian nuclear sector. By passing this legislation, my colleagues
will help create new jobs for Americans and new markets for American
firms.
I want to commend my good friend from the neighboring State of
Indiana, Senator Lugar, for his sponsorship of this bill and his
successful shepherding of it through the Senate.
Mr. President, improving U.S.-Indian ties is long overdue. After all,
America and India are the worlds two largest democracies. As President
Bush continues to champion the spread of democracy abroad, it is
entirely fitting that our two countries should continue to strengthen
our strategic partnership, as a model for the world of what democracies
can accomplish when they work together in peace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the unanimous consent order provides for 1
minute on each side. I will forego my minute, but I would like to yield
to the distinguished leader, who is here. He wants to make a comment.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just for the information of my colleagues,
this will be the last rollcall vote tonight. The plans will be on
Monday, December 4, to be back in session, and in all likelihood we
will not be voting until the late afternoon of December 5. Everybody
stay posted. We will keep you apprised of the future plans.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we relinquish all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5682, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page 22173]]
A bill (H.R. 5682) to exempt from certain requirements of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement
for cooperation with India.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the
enacting clause is stricken, and the text of S. 3709, as amended, is
inserted in lieu thereof.
The question is on third reading of the bill.
The bill (H.R. 5682), as amended, was ordered to a third reading and
was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--12
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Conrad
Dayton
Dorgan
Feingold
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Leahy
NOT VOTING--3
Inhofe
Jeffords
Thomas
The bill (H.R. 5682), as amended, was passed, as follows:
H.R. 5682
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 5682) entitled ``An Act to exempt from certain
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed
nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
TITLE I--UNITED STATES-INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``United States-India
Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act''.
SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) strong bilateral relations with India are in the
national interest of the United States;
(2) the United States and India share common democratic
values and the potential for increasing and sustained
economic engagement;
(3) commerce in civil nuclear energy with India by the
United States and other countries has the potential to
benefit the people of all countries;
(4) such commerce also represents a significant change in
United States policy regarding commerce with countries not
parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
remains the foundation of the international non-proliferation
regime;
(5) any commerce in civil nuclear energy with India by the
United States and other countries must be achieved in a
manner that minimizes the risk of nuclear proliferation or
regional arms races and maximizes India's adherence to
international non-proliferation regimes, including, in
particular, the Guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG); and
(6) the United States should not seek to facilitate or
encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any
other party if such exports are terminated under United
States law.
SEC. 103. DECLARATION OF POLICY CONCERNING UNITED STATES-
INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION.
It shall be the policy of the United States with respect to
any peaceful atomic energy cooperation between the United
States and India--
(1) to achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the
production by India and Pakistan of fissile materials for
nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices;
(2) to achieve as quickly as possible the Government of
India's adherence to, and cooperation in, the full range of
international non-proliferation regimes and activities,
including India's--
(A) full participation in the Proliferation Security
Initiative;
(B) formal commitment to the Statement of Interdiction
Principles;
(C) public announcement of its decision to conform its
export control laws, regulations, and policies with the
Australia Group and with the Guidelines, Procedures,
Criteria, and Controls List of the Wassenaar Arrangement; and
(D) demonstration of satisfactory progress toward
implementing the decision described in subparagraph (C);
(3) to ensure that India remains in full compliance with
its non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament
agreements, obligations, and commitments;
(4) to ensure that any safeguards agreement or Additional
Protocol thereto to which India is a party with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can reliably
safeguard any export or reexport to India of any nuclear
materials and equipment;
(5) to meet the requirements set forth in subsections a.(1)
and a.(3)-a.(9) of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153);
(6) to act in a manner fully consistent with the Guidelines
for Nuclear Transfers and the Guidelines for Transfers of
Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software and
Related Technology developed by the multilateral Nuclear
Suppliers Group and the rules and practices regarding NSG
decision-making;
(7) given the special sensitivity of equipment and
technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of
heavy water, to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, individually and collectively, to further restrict the
transfers of such equipment and technologies, including to
India;
(8) to maintain the fullest possible international support
for, adherence to, and compliance with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty; and
(9) that exports of nuclear fuel to India should not
contribute to, or in any way encourage, increases in the
production by India of fissile material for non-civilian
purposes.
SEC. 104. WAIVERS FOR COOPERATION WITH INDIA.
(a) Waiver Authority.--If the President submits a
determination under section 105 to the appropriate
congressional committees and makes available to such
committees the text of the agreement described in paragraph
(3) of such section, the President may--
(1) subject to subsection (b), exempt a proposed agreement
for cooperation with India arranged pursuant to section 123
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) from the
requirement of subsection a.(2) of such section;
(2) waive the application of section 128 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2157) with respect to exports
to India; and
(3) waive the application of any sanction with respect to
India under--
(A) section 129 a.(1)(D) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2158(a)(1)(D)); and
(B) section 129 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2158) regarding any
actions that occurred before July 18, 2005.
(b) Joint Resolution of Approval Requirement.--An agreement
for cooperation exempted by the President pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to the second proviso in
subsection d. of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2153(d)) applicable to agreements exempted by the
President pursuant to subsection (a) of such section.
SEC. 105. DETERMINATION REGARDING UNITED STATES-INDIA
PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION.
The determination referred to in section 104 is a written
determination by the President, which shall be accompanied by
a report to the appropriate congressional committees, that--
(1) India has provided to the IAEA and the United States a
credible plan to separate its civil nuclear facilities,
materials, and programs from its military facilities,
materials, and programs;
(2) India has filed a complete declaration regarding its
civil nuclear facilities and materials with the IAEA;
(3) an agreement between India and the IAEA requiring the
application of safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with
IAEA standards, principles, and practices to civil nuclear
facilities, programs, and materials described in paragraph
(2) has entered into force;
(4) India and the IAEA are making substantial progress
toward implementing an Additional Protocol;
(5) India is working with the United States to conclude a
multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of
fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices;
(6) India is supporting international efforts to prevent
the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology to any
state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning
enrichment or reprocessing plants;
(7) India has secured nuclear and other sensitive materials
and technology through the application of comprehensive
export control legislation and regulations, including through
effective enforcement actions, and through harmonization of
its control lists with, and adherence
[[Page 22174]]
to, the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime
and the Nuclear Suppliers Group;
(8) India is fully and actively participating in United
States and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and
contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with United
Nations Security Council resolutions; and
(9) the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided to permit civil
nuclear commerce with India pursuant to a decision taken by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group that--
(A) was made by consensus; and
(B) does not permit nuclear commerce with any non-nuclear
weapon state other than India that does not have IAEA
safeguards on all nuclear materials and all peaceful nuclear
activities within the territory of such state, under its
jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
SEC. 106. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EXPORTS AND REEXPORTS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Nuclear regulatory commission.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not
authorize pursuant to part 110 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, licenses for the export or reexport to India of
any equipment, materials, or technology related to the
enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear
fuel, or the production of heavy water.
(2) Secretary of energy.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the Secretary of Energy may not authorize pursuant to
part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, licenses
for the export or reexport to India of any equipment,
materials, or technology to be used for the enrichment of
uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the
production of heavy water.
(b) Exceptions.--Exports or reexports otherwise prohibited
under subsection (a) may be approved if--
(1) the end user--
(A) is a multinational facility participating in an IAEA-
approved program to provide alternatives to national fuel
cycle capabilities; or
(B) is a facility participating in, and the export or
reexport is associated with, a bilateral or multinational
program to develop a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle; and
(2) the President determines that the export or reexport
will not improve India's ability to produce nuclear weapons
or fissile material for military uses.
SEC. 107. END-USE MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The President shall ensure that all
appropriate measures are taken to maintain accountability
with respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
sold, leased, exported, or reexported to India and to ensure
United States compliance with Article I of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
(b) Measures.--The measures taken pursuant to subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Obtaining and implementing assurances and conditions
pursuant to the export licensing authorities of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Department of Commerce and the
authorizing authorities of the Department of Energy,
including, as appropriate, conditions regarding end-use
monitoring.
(2) A detailed system of reporting and accounting for
technology transfers, including any retransfers in India,
authorized by the Department of Energy pursuant to section 57
b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)). Such
system shall be capable of providing assurances that--
(A) the identified recipients of the nuclear technology are
authorized to receive the nuclear technology;
(B) the nuclear technology identified for transfer will be
used only for peaceful safeguarded nuclear activities and
will not be used for any military or nuclear explosive
purpose; and
(C) the nuclear technology identified for transfer will not
be retransferred without the prior consent of the United
States, and facilities, equipment, or materials derived
through the use of transferred technology will not be
transferred without the prior consent of the United States.
(3) In the event the IAEA is unable to implement safeguards
as required by an agreement between the United States and
India arranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), arrangements that conform with
IAEA safeguards standards, principles, and practices that
provide assurances equivalent to that intended to be secured
by the system they replace, including--
(A) review in a timely fashion of the design of any
equipment transferred pursuant to the agreement for
cooperation, or of any facility that is to use, fabricate,
process, or store any material so transferred or any special
nuclear material used in or produced through the use of such
material and equipment;
(B) maintenance and disclosure of records and of relevant
reports for the purpose of assisting in ensuring
accountability for material transferred pursuant to the
agreement and any source or special nuclear material used in
or produced through the use of any material and equipment so
transferred; and
(C) access to places and data necessary to account for the
material referred to in subparagraph (B) and to inspect any
equipment or facility referred to in subparagraph (A).
(c) Implementation.--The measures described in subsection
(b) shall be implemented to provide reasonable assurances
that the recipient is complying with the relevant
requirements, terms, and conditions of any licenses issued by
the United States regarding such exports, including those
relating to the use, retransfer, safe handling, secure
transit, and storage of such exports.
SEC. 108. IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE.
(a) Information on Nuclear Activities of India.--The
President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees
fully and currently informed of the facts and implications of
any significant nuclear activities of India, including--
(1) any material non-compliance on the part of the
Government of India with--
(A) the non-proliferation commitments undertaken in the
Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, between the President of
the United States and the Prime Minister of India;
(B) the separation plan presented in the national
parliament of India on March 7, 2006, and in greater detail
on May 11, 2006;
(C) a safeguards agreement between the Government of India
and the IAEA;
(D) an Additional Protocol between the Government of India
and the IAEA;
(E) a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement between the
Government of India and the United States Government pursuant
to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2153) or any subsequent arrangement under section 131 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 2160);
(F) the terms and conditions of any approved licenses; and
(G) United States laws and regulations regarding the export
or reexport of nuclear material or dual-use material,
equipment, or technology;
(2) the construction of a nuclear facility in India after
the date of the enactment of this Act;
(3) significant changes in the production by India of
nuclear weapons or in the types or amounts of fissile
material produced; and
(4) changes in the purpose or operational status of any
unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle activities in India.
(b) Implementation and Compliance Report.--Not later than
180 days after the date on which an agreement between the
Government of India and the United States Government pursuant
to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2153) enters into force, and annually thereafter, the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report including--
(1) a description of any additional nuclear facilities and
nuclear materials that the Government of India has placed or
intends to place under IAEA safeguards;
(2) a comprehensive listing of--
(A) all licenses that have been approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Secretary of Energy for exports
and reexports to India under parts 110 and 810 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) any licenses approved by the Department of Commerce for
the export or reexport to India of commodities, related
technology, and software which are controlled for nuclear
non-proliferation reasons on the Nuclear Referral List of the
Commerce Control List maintained under part 774 of title 15,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(C) any other United States authorizations for the export
or reexport to India of nuclear materials and equipment; and
(D) with respect to each such license or other form of
authorization described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)--
(i) the number or other identifying information of each
license or authorization;
(ii) the name or names of the authorized end user or end
users;
(iii) the name of the site, facility, or location in India
to which the export or reexport was made;
(iv) the terms and conditions included on such licenses and
authorizations;
(v) any post-shipment verification procedures that will be
applied to such exports or reexports; and
(vi) the term of validity of each such license or
authorization;
(3) any significant nuclear commerce between India and
other countries, including any such trade that--
(A) does not comply with applicable guidelines or decisions
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group; or
(B) would not meet the standards applied to exports or
reexports of such material, equipment, or technology of
United States origin;
(4) either--
(A) a certification that India is in full compliance with
the commitments and obligations contained in the agreements
and other documents referenced in subparagraphs (A) through
(F) of subsection (a)(1); or
(B) if the President cannot make such certification, an
identification and assessment of all compliance issues
arising with regard to the adherence by India to its
commitments and obligations, including--
(i) the steps the United States Government has taken to
remedy or otherwise respond to such compliance issues;
(ii) the responses of the Government of India to such
steps; and
(iii) an assessment of the implications of any continued
noncompliance, including whether nuclear commerce with India,
if not already terminated under section 129 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2158), remains in the national
security interest of the United States;
(5) a detailed description of--
(A) United States efforts to promote national or regional
progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing,
capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles,
pending creation
[[Page 22175]]
of a world-wide fissile material cut-off regime, including
the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty;
(B) the reactions of India and Pakistan to such efforts;
and
(C) assistance that the United States is providing, or
would be able to provide, to India and Pakistan to promote
the objectives in subparagraph (A), consistent with its
obligations under international law and existing agreements;
(6) an estimate of--
(A) the amount of uranium mined in India during the
previous year;
(B) the amount of such uranium that has likely been used or
allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(C) the rate of production in India of--
(i) fissile material for nuclear explosive devices; and
(ii) nuclear explosive devices;
(7) an analysis as to whether imported uranium has affected
the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(8) a detailed description of efforts and progress made
toward the achievement of India's--
(A) full participation in the Proliferation Security
Initiative;
(B) formal commitment to the Statement of Interdiction
Principles;
(C) public announcement of its decision to conform its
export control laws, regulations, and policies with the
Australia Group and with the Guidelines, Procedures,
Criteria, and Controls List of the Wassenaar Arrangement; and
(D) demonstration of satisfactory progress toward
implementing the decision described in subparagraph (C).
(c) Submittal With Other Annual Reports.--
(1) Report on proliferation prevention.--Each annual report
submitted under subsection (b) after the initial report may
be submitted together with the annual report on proliferation
prevention required under section 601(a) of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. 3281(a)).
(2) Report on progress toward regional non-proliferation.--
The information required to be submitted under subsection
(b)(5) after the initial report may be submitted together
with the annual report on progress toward regional non-
proliferation required under section 620F(c) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2376(c)).
(d) Form.--Each report submitted under this section shall
be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a
classified annex.
SEC. 109. UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE WITH ITS NUCLEAR NON-
PROLIFERATION TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
This title shall not be deemed to constitute authority for
any action in violation of any obligation of the United
States under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
SEC. 110. INOPERABILITY OF DETERMINATION AND WAIVERS.
A determination under section 105 and any waiver under
section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President
determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive
device after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 111. MTCR ADHERENT STATUS.
Congress finds that India is not an MTCR adherent for the
purposes of Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2797b).
SEC. 112. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 1112(c)(4) of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Act of 1999 (title XI of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113
and contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-
486)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) so much of the reports required under section 108 of
the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation
Act as relates to verification or compliance matters; and''.
SEC. 113. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) The term ``Additional Protocol'' means a protocol
additional to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as
negotiated between a country and the IAEA based on a Model
Additional Protocol as set forth in IAEA information circular
(INFCIRC) 540.
(2) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(3) The term ``atomic energy'' has the meaning given the
term in section 11 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014(c)).
(4) The term ``dual-use material, equipment, or
technology'' means those items controlled by the Department
of Commerce pursuant to section 309(c) of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978.
(5) The term ``IAEA safeguards'' has the meaning given the
term in section 830(3) of the Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6305(3)).
(6) The term ``nuclear materials and equipment'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4(5) of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. 3203(3)).
(7) The term ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into
force March 5, 1970 (21 UST 483).
(8) The terms ``nuclear weapon'' and ``nuclear explosive
device'' have the meaning given the term ``nuclear explosive
device'' in section 830(4) of the Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6305(4)).
(9) The terms ``reprocessing'' and ``reprocess'' refer to
the separation of nuclear materials from fission products in
spent nuclear fuel.
(10) The term ``source material'' has the meaning given the
term in section 11 z. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014(z)).
(11) The term ``special nuclear material'' has the meaning
given the term in section 11 aa. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(aa)).
(12) The term ``unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity''
means research on, or development, design, manufacture,
construction, operation, or maintenance of--
(A) any existing or future reactor, critical facility,
conversion plant, fabrication plant, reprocessing plant,
plant for the separation of isotopes of source or special
fissionable material, or separate storage installation with
respect to which there is no obligation to accept IAEA
safeguards at the relevant reactor, facility, plant, or
installation that contains source or special fissionable
material; or
(B) any existing or future heavy water production plant
with respect to which there is no obligation to accept IAEA
safeguards on any nuclear material produced by or used in
connection with any heavy water produced therefrom.
SEC. 114. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR FUEL RESERVE TO INDIA.
It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear
power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of
India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities
should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating
requirements.
SEC. 115. UNITED STATES-INDIA SCIENTIFIC COOPERATIVE THREAT
REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, shall establish a cooperative threat
reduction program to pursue jointly with scientists from the
United States and India a program to further common
nonproliferation goals, including scientific research and
development efforts related to nuclear nonproliferation, with
an emphasis on nuclear safeguards (in this section referred
to as the ``program'').
(b) Consultation.--The program shall be carried out in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense.
(c) National Academies Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academies to develop
recommendations for the implementation of the program.
(2) Recommendations.--The agreement entered into under
paragraph (1) shall provide for the preparation by qualified
individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge and the
communication to the Secretary of Energy each fiscal year
of--
(A) recommendations for research and related programs
designed to overcome existing technological barriers to
nuclear nonproliferation; and
(B) an assessment of whether activities and programs funded
under this section are achieving the goals of the activities
and programs.
(3) Public availability.--The recommendations and
assessments prepared under this subsection shall be made
publicly available.
(d) Consistency With Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.--All
United States activities related to the program shall be
consistent with United States obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
TITLE II--UNITED STATES ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``United States Additional
Protocol Implementation Act''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings--
(1) The proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear
explosive devices poses a grave threat to the national
security of the United States and its vital national
interests.
(2) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has proven
critical to limiting such proliferation.
(3) For the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be
effective, each of the non-nuclear-weapon State Parties must
conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA,
and such agreements must be honored and enforced.
(4) Recent events emphasize the urgency of strengthening
the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the
safeguards system. This can best be accomplished by providing
IAEA inspectors with more information about, and broader
access to, nuclear activities within the territory of non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties.
(5) The proposed scope of such expanded information and
access has been negotiated by the member states of the IAEA
in the form of a Model Additional Protocol to its existing
safeguards agreements, and universal acceptance of Additional
Protocols by non-nuclear weapons states is essential to
enhancing the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
[[Page 22176]]
(6) On June 12, 1998, the United States, as a nuclear-
weapon State Party, signed an Additional Protocol that is
based on the Model Additional Protocol, but which also
contains measures, consistent with its existing safeguards
agreements with its members, that protect the right of the
United States to exclude the application of IAEA safeguards
to locations and activities with direct national security
significance or to locations or information associated with
such activities.
(7) Implementation of the Additional Protocol in the United
States in a manner consistent with United States obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty may encourage
other parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
especially non-nuclear-weapon State Parties, to conclude
Additional Protocols and thereby strengthen the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty safeguards system and help reduce the
threat of nuclear proliferation, which is of direct and
substantial benefit to the United States.
(8) Implementation of the Additional Protocol by the United
States is not required and is completely voluntary given its
status as a nuclear-weapon State Party, but the United States
has acceded to the Additional Protocol to demonstrate its
commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and to
make United States civil nuclear activities available to the
same IAEA inspections as are applied in the case of non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties.
(9) In accordance with the national security exclusion
contained in Article 1.b of its Additional Protocol, the
United States will not allow any inspection activities, nor
make any declaration of any information with respect to,
locations, information, and activities of direct national
security significance to the United States.
(10) Implementation of the Additional Protocol will conform
to the principles set forth in the letter of April 30, 2002,
from the United States Permanent Representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the Vienna Office of
the United Nations to the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Additional protocol.--The term ``Additional Protocol'',
when used in the singular form, means the Protocol Additional
to the Agreement between the United States of America and the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of
Safeguards in the United States of America, with Annexes,
signed at Vienna June 12, 1998 (T. Doc. 107-7).
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International
Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives.
(3) Complementary access.--The term ``complementary
access'' means the exercise of the IAEA's access rights as
set forth in Articles 4 to 6 of the Additional Protocol.
(4) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has
the meaning given such term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code.
(5) Facility.--The term ``facility'' has the meaning set
forth in Article 18i. of the Additional Protocol.
(6) IAEA.--The term ``IAEA'' means the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
(7) Judge of the united states.--The term ``judge of the
United States'' means a United States district judge, or a
United States magistrate judge appointed under the authority
of chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code.
(8) Location.--The term ``location'' means any geographic
point or area declared or identified by the United States or
specified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
(9) Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.--The term ``Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970
(21 UST 483).
(10) Nuclear-weapon state party and non-nuclear-weapon
state party.--The terms ``nuclear-weapon State Party'' and
``non-nuclear-weapon State Party'' have the meanings given
such terms in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(11) Person.--The term ``person'', except as otherwise
provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private
institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof,
or any political entity within a State, any foreign
government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or
political subdivision of any such government or nation, or
other entity located in the United States.
(12) Site.--The term ``site'' has the meaning set forth in
Article 18b. of the Additional Protocol.
(13) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
as a geographic reference, means the several States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and the
commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United
States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or
control of the United States, including--
(A) the territorial sea and the overlying airspace;
(B) any civil aircraft of the United States or public
aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and
(41), respectively, of section 40102(a) of title 49, United
States Code; and
(C) any vessel of the United States, as such term is
defined in section 3(b) of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903(b)).
(14) Wide-area environmental sampling.--The term ``wide-
area environmental sampling'' has the meaning set forth in
Article 18g. of the Additional Protocol.
SEC. 204. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of this title, or the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it
is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 211. AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The President is authorized to implement
and carry out the provisions of this title and the Additional
Protocol and shall designate through Executive order which
executive agency or agencies of the United States, which may
include but are not limited to the Department of State, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shall issue or amend and
enforce regulations in order to implement this title and the
provisions of the Additional Protocol.
(b) Included Authority.--For any executive agency
designated under subsection (a) that does not currently
possess the authority to conduct site vulnerability
assessments and related activities, the authority provided in
subsection (a) includes such authority.
(c) Exception.--The authority described in subsection (b)
does not supersede or otherwise modify any existing authority
of any Federal department or agency already having such
authority.
Subtitle B--Complementary Access
SEC. 221. REQUIREMENT FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT COMPLEMENTARY
ACCESS.
(a) Prohibition.--No complementary access to any location
in the United States shall take place pursuant to the
Additional Protocol without the authorization of the United
States Government in accordance with the requirements of this
title.
(b) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Complementary access to any location in
the United States subject to access under the Additional
Protocol is authorized in accordance with this title.
(2) United states representatives.--
(A) Restrictions.--In the event of complementary access to
a privately owned or operated location, no employee of the
Environmental Protection Agency or of the Mine Safety and
Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the Department of Labor may participate in
the access.
(B) Number.--The number of designated United States
representatives accompanying IAEA inspectors shall be kept to
the minimum necessary.
SEC. 222. PROCEDURES FOR COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
(a) In General.--Each instance of complementary access to a
location in the United States under the Additional Protocol
shall be conducted in accordance with this subtitle.
(b) Notice.--
(1) In general.--Complementary access referred to in
subsection (a) may occur only upon the issuance of an actual
written notice by the United States Government to the owner,
operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the location to be
subject to complementary access.
(2) Time of notification.--The notice under paragraph (1)
shall be submitted to such owner, operator, occupant, or
agent as soon as possible after the United States Government
has received notification that the IAEA seeks complementary
access. Notices may be posted prominently at the location if
the United States Government is unable to provide actual
written notice to such owner, operator, occupant, or agent.
(3) Content of notice.--
(A) In general.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall
specify--
(i) the purpose for the complementary access;
(ii) the basis for the selection of the facility, site, or
other location for the complementary access sought;
(iii) the activities that will be carried out during the
complementary access;
(iv) the time and date that the complementary access is
expected to begin, and the anticipated period covered by the
complementary access; and
(v) the names and titles of the inspectors.
(4) Separate notices required.--A separate notice shall be
provided each time that complementary access is sought by the
IAEA.
(c) Credentials.--The complementary access team of the IAEA
and representatives or designees of the United States
Government shall display appropriate identifying credentials
to the owner, operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the
location before gaining entry in connection with
complementary access.
(d) Scope.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in a warrant issued
under section 223, and subject to the United States
Government's rights under the Additional Protocol to limit
complementary access, complementary access to a location
pursuant to this title may extend to all activities
specifically permitted for such locations under Article 6 of
the Additional Protocol.
(2) Exception.--Unless required by the Additional Protocol,
no inspection under this title shall extend to--
[[Page 22177]]
(A) financial data (other than production data);
(B) sales and marketing data (other than shipment data);
(C) pricing data;
(D) personnel data;
(E) patent data;
(F) data maintained for compliance with environmental or
occupational health and safety regulations; or
(G) research data.
(e) Environment, Health, Safety, and Security.--In carrying
out their activities, members of the IAEA complementary
access team and representatives or designees of the United
States Government shall observe applicable environmental,
health, safety, and security regulations established at the
location subject to complementary access, including those for
protection of controlled environments within a facility and
for personal safety.
SEC. 223. CONSENTS, WARRANTS, AND COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Procedure.--
(A) Consent.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
appropriate official of the United States Government shall
seek or have the consent of the owner, operator, occupant, or
agent in charge of a location prior to entering that location
in connection with complementary access pursuant to sections
221 and 222. The owner, operator, occupant, or agent in
charge of the location may withhold consent for any reason or
no reason.
(B) Administrative search warrant.--In the absence of
consent, the United States Government may seek an
administrative search warrant from a judge of the United
States under subsection (b). Proceedings regarding the
issuance of an administrative search warrant shall be
conducted ex parte, unless otherwise requested by the United
States Government.
(2) Expedited access.--For purposes of obtaining access to
a location pursuant to Article 4b.(ii) of the Additional
Protocol in order to satisfy United States obligations under
the Additional Protocol when notice of two hours or less is
required, the United States Government may gain entry to such
location in connection with complementary access, to the
extent such access is consistent with the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, without obtaining either a
warrant or consent.
(b) Administrative Search Warrants for Complementary
Access.--
(1) Obtaining administrative search warrants.--For
complementary access conducted in the United States pursuant
to the Additional Protocol, and for which the acquisition of
a warrant is required, the United States Government shall
first obtain an administrative search warrant from a judge of
the United States. The United States Government shall provide
to such judge all appropriate information regarding the basis
for the selection of the facility, site, or other location to
which complementary access is sought.
(2) Content of affidavits for administrative search
warrants.--A judge of the United States shall promptly issue
an administrative search warrant authorizing the requested
complementary access upon an affidavit submitted by the
United States Government--
(A) stating that the Additional Protocol is in force;
(B) stating that the designated facility, site, or other
location is subject to complementary access under the
Additional Protocol;
(C) stating that the purpose of the complementary access is
consistent with Article 4 of the Additional Protocol;
(D) stating that the requested complementary access is in
accordance with Article 4 of the Additional Protocol;
(E) containing assurances that the scope of the IAEA's
complementary access, as well as what it may collect, shall
be limited to the access provided for in Article 6 of the
Additional Protocol;
(F) listing the items, documents, and areas to be searched
and seized;
(G) stating the earliest commencement and the anticipated
duration of the complementary access period, as well as the
expected times of day during which such complementary access
will take place; and
(H) stating that the location to which entry in connection
with complementary access is sought was selected either--
(i) because there is probable cause, on the basis of
specific evidence, to believe that information required to be
reported regarding a location pursuant to regulations
promulgated under this title is incorrect or incomplete, and
that the location to be accessed contains evidence regarding
that violation; or
(ii) pursuant to a reasonable general administrative plan
based upon specific neutral criteria.
(3) Content of warrants.--A warrant issued under paragraph
(2) shall specify the same matters required of an affidavit
under that paragraph. In addition, each warrant shall contain
the identities of the representatives of the IAEA on the
complementary access team and the identities of the
representatives or designees of the United States Government
required to display identifying credentials under section
222(c).
SEC. 224. PROHIBITED ACTS RELATING TO COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to fail or
refuse to permit, or to disrupt, delay, or otherwise impede,
a complementary access authorized by this subtitle or an
entry in connection with such access.
Subtitle C--Confidentiality of Information
SEC. 231. PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
Information reported to, or otherwise acquired by, the
United States Government under this title or under the
Additional Protocol shall be exempt from disclosure under
sections 552 of title 5, United States Code.
Subtitle D--Enforcement
SEC. 241. RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS.
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to fail or
refuse--
(1) to establish or maintain any record required by any
regulation prescribed under this title;
(2) to submit any report, notice, or other information to
the United States Government in accordance with any
regulation prescribed under this title; or
(3) to permit access to or copying of any record by the
United States Government in accordance with any regulation
prescribed under this title.
SEC. 242. PENALTIES.
(a) Civil.--
(1) Penalty amounts.--Any person that is determined, in
accordance with paragraph (2), to have violated section 224
or section 241 shall be required by order to pay a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each
violation. For the purposes of this paragraph, each day
during which a violation of section 224 continues shall
constitute a separate violation of that section.
(2) Notice and hearing.--
(A) In general.--Before imposing a penalty against a person
under paragraph (1), the head of an executive agency
designated under section 211(a) shall provide the person with
notice of the order. If, within 15 days after receiving the
notice, the person requests a hearing, the head of the
designated executive agency shall initiate a hearing on the
violation.
(B) Conduct of hearing.--Any hearing so requested shall be
conducted before an administrative judge. The hearing shall
be conducted in accordance with the requirements of section
554 of title 5, United States Code. If no hearing is so
requested, the order imposed by the head of the designated
agency shall constitute a final agency action.
(C) Issuance of orders.--If the administrative judge
determines, upon the preponderance of the evidence received,
that a person named in the complaint has violated section 224
or section 241, the administrative judge shall state his
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issue and serve
on such person an order described in paragraph (1).
(D) Factors for determination of penalty amounts.--In
determining the amount of any civil penalty, the
administrative judge or the head of the designated agency
shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent,
and gravity of the violation or violations and, with respect
to the violator, the ability to pay, effect on ability to
continue to do business, any history of such violations, the
degree of culpability, the existence of an internal
compliance program, and such other matters as justice may
require.
(E) Content of notice.--For the purposes of this paragraph,
notice shall be in writing and shall be verifiably served
upon the person or persons subject to an order described in
paragraph (1). In addition, the notice shall--
(i) set forth the time, date, and specific nature of the
alleged violation or violations; and
(ii) specify the administrative and judicial remedies
available to the person or persons subject to the order,
including the availability of a hearing and subsequent
appeal.
(3) Administrative appellate review.--The decision and
order of an administrative judge shall be the recommended
decision and order and shall be referred to the head of the
designated executive agency for final decision and order. If,
within 60 days, the head of the designated executive agency
does not modify or vacate the decision and order, it shall
become a final agency action under this subsection.
(4) Judicial review.--A person adversely affected by a
final order may, within 30 days after the date the final
order is issued, file a petition in the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit or in the Court of Appeals
for the district in which the violation occurred.
(5) Enforcement of final orders.--
(A) In general.--If a person fails to comply with a final
order issued against such person under this subsection and--
(i) the person has not filed a petition for judicial review
of the order in accordance with paragraph (4), or
(ii) a court in an action brought under paragraph (4) has
entered a final judgment in favor of the designated executive
agency,
the head of the designated executive agency shall commence a
civil action to seek compliance with the final order in any
appropriate district court of the United States.
(B) No review.--In any such civil action, the validity and
appropriateness of the final order shall not be subject to
review.
(C) Interest.--Payment of penalties assessed in a final
order under this section shall include interest at currently
prevailing rates calculated from the date of expiration of
the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (3) or the date of
such final order, as the case may be.
(b) Criminal.--Any person who violates section 224 or
section 241 may, in addition to or in lieu of any civil
penalty which may be imposed under subsection (a) for such
violation, be fined under title 18, United States Code,
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
SEC. 243. SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction over civil
[[Page 22178]]
actions brought by the head of an executive agency designated
under section 211(a)--
(1) to restrain any conduct in violation of section 224 or
section 241; or
(2) to compel the taking of any action required by or under
this title or the Additional Protocol.
(b) Civil Actions.--
(1) In general.--A civil action described in subsection (a)
may be brought--
(A) in the case of a civil action described in paragraph
(1) of such subsection, in the United States district court
for the judicial district in which any act, omission, or
transaction constituting a violation of section 224 or
section 241 occurred or in which the defendant is found or
transacts business; or
(B) in the case of a civil action described in paragraph
(2) of such subsection, in the United States district court
for the judicial district in which the defendant is found or
transacts business.
(2) Service of process.--In any such civil action, process
shall be served on a defendant wherever the defendant may
reside or may be found.
Subtitle E--Environmental Sampling
SEC. 251. NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS OF IAEA BOARD APPROVAL OF
WIDE-AREA ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Board of Governors of the IAEA approves wide-area
environmental sampling for use as a safeguards verification
tool, the President shall notify the appropriate
congressional committees.
(b) Content.--The notification under subsection (a) shall
contain--
(1) a description of the specific methods and sampling
techniques approved by the Board of Governors that are to be
employed for purposes of wide-area sampling;
(2) a statement as to whether or not such sampling may be
conducted in the United States under the Additional Protocol;
and
(3) an assessment of the ability of the approved methods
and sampling techniques to detect, identify, and determine
the conduct, type, and nature of nuclear activities.
SEC. 252. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY EXCLUSION TO WIDE-
AREA ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
In accordance with Article 1(b) of the Additional Protocol,
the United States shall not permit any wide-area
environmental sampling proposed by the IAEA to be conducted
at a specified location in the United States under Article 9
of the Additional Protocol unless the President has
determined and reported to the appropriate congressional
committees with respect to that proposed use of environmental
sampling that--
(1) the proposed use of wide-area environmental sampling is
necessary to increase the capability of the IAEA to detect
undeclared nuclear activities in the territory of a non-
nuclear-weapon State Party;
(2) the proposed use of wide-area environmental sampling
will not result in access by the IAEA to locations,
activities, or information of direct national security
significance; and
(3) the United States--
(A) has been provided sufficient opportunity for
consultation with the IAEA if the IAEA has requested
complementary access involving wide-area environmental
sampling; or
(B) has requested under Article 8 of the Additional
Protocol that the IAEA engage in complementary access in the
United States that involves the use of wide-area
environmental sampling.
SEC. 253. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY EXCLUSION TO
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
In accordance with Article 1(b) of the Additional Protocol,
the United States shall not permit any location-specific
environmental sampling in the United States under Article 5
of the Additional Protocol unless the President has
determined and reported to the appropriate congressional
committees with respect to that proposed use of environmental
sampling that--
(1) the proposed use of location-specific environmental
sampling is necessary to increase the capability of the IAEA
to detect undeclared nuclear activities in a non-nuclear
weapons state;
(2) the proposed use of location-specific environmental
sampling will not result in access by the IAEA to locations,
activities, or information of direct national security
significance; and
(3) with respect to the proposed use of environmental
sampling, the United States--
(A) has been provided sufficient opportunity for
consultation with the IAEA if the IAEA has requested
complementary access involving location-specific
environmental sampling; or
(B) has requested under Article 8 of the Additional
Protocol that the IAEA engage in complementary access in the
United States that involves the use of location-specific
environmental sampling.
SEC. 254. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
As used in this subtitle, the term ``necessary to increase
the capability of the IAEA to detect undeclared nuclear
activities in the territory of a non-nuclear-weapon State
Party'' shall not be construed to encompass proposed uses of
environmental sampling that might assist the IAEA in
detecting undeclared nuclear activities in the territory of a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party by--
(1) setting a good example of cooperation in the conduct of
such sampling; or
(2) facilitating the formation of a political consensus or
political support for such sampling in the territory of a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party.
Subtitle F--Protection of National Security Information and Activities
SEC. 261. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.
(a) Locations and Facilities of Direct National Security
Significance.--No current or former Department of Defense or
Department of Energy location, site, or facility of direct
national security significance shall be declared or be
subject to IAEA inspection under the Additional Protocol.
(b) Information of Direct National Security Significance.--
No information of direct national security significance
regarding any location, site, or facility associated with
activities of the Department of Defense or the Department of
Energy shall be provided under the Additional Protocol.
(c) Restricted Data.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to permit the communication or disclosure to the
IAEA or IAEA employees of restricted data controlled by the
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011
et seq.), including in particular ``Restricted Data'' as
defined under paragraph (1) of section 11 y. of such Act (42
U.S.C. 2014(y)).
(d) Classified Information.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to permit the communication or disclosure to the
IAEA or IAEA employees of national security information and
other classified information.
SEC. 262. IAEA INSPECTIONS AND VISITS.
(a) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Obtaining Access.--
No national of a country designated by the Secretary of State
under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371) as a government supporting acts of international
terrorism shall be permitted access to the United States to
carry out an inspection activity under the Additional
Protocol or a related safeguards agreement.
(b) Presence of United States Government Personnel.--IAEA
inspectors shall be accompanied at all times by United States
Government personnel when inspecting sites, locations,
facilities, or activities in the United States under the
Additional Protocol.
(c) Vulnerability and Related Assessments.--The President
shall conduct vulnerability, counterintelligence, and related
assessments not less than every 5 years to ensure that
information of direct national security significance remains
protected at all sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that are subject to IAEA inspection
under the Additional Protocol.
Subtitle G--Reports
SEC. 271. REPORT ON INITIAL UNITED STATES DECLARATION.
Not later than 60 days before submitting the initial United
States declaration to the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
the President shall submit to Congress a list of the sites,
locations, facilities, and activities in the United States
that the President intends to declare to the IAEA.
SEC. 272. REPORT ON REVISIONS TO INITIAL UNITED STATES
DECLARATION.
Not later than 60 days before submitting to the IAEA any
revisions to the United States declaration submitted under
the Additional Protocol, the President shall submit to
Congress a list of any sites, locations, facilities, or
activities in the United States that the President intends to
add to or remove from the declaration.
SEC. 273. CERTIFICATION REGARDING VULNERABILITY AND RELATED
ASSESSMENTS.
Concurrently with the submission to Congress of the initial
declaration list under section 271 and each list update under
section 272, the President shall submit to Congress a report
certifying that--
(1) each site, location, facility, and activity included in
the list has been examined by each agency with national
security equities with respect to such site, location,
facility, or activity; and
(2) appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that
information of direct national security significance will not
be compromised at any such site, location, facility, or
activity in connection with an IAEA inspection.
SEC. 274. REPORT ON EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS.
Not later than 180 days after the entry into force of the
Additional Protocol, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on--
(1) measures that have been or should be taken to achieve
the adoption of additional protocols to existing safeguards
agreements signed by non-nuclear-weapon State Parties; and
(2) assistance provided by the United States to the IAEA in
order to promote the effective implementation of additional
protocols to existing safeguards agreements signed by non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties and the verification of the
compliance of such parties with IAEA obligations.
SEC. 275. NOTICE OF IAEA NOTIFICATIONS.
The President shall notify Congress of any notifications
issued by the IAEA to the United States under Article 10 of
the Additional Protocol.
Subtitle H--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 281. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page 22179]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House, and the
Chair is authorized to appoint conferees. S. 3709 is returned to the
calendar.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senate has taken a historic step in
approving the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation
Act. This is critically important. Passage of the bill takes one more
important step toward a vibrant and exciting relationship between our
two great democracies. I thank all Senators for their cooperation in
completing the Senate's consideration in such a short period of time. I
thank especially Senator Biden for his strong support and cooperation.
This has been truly a bipartisan effort from the beginning until final
passage. We are committed to continuing this effort through the
conference process.
Before yielding the floor, let me publicly thank Tom Moore of the
majority staff and Ed Levine of the minority staff. They have become
experts on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy and
Cooperation Act. They have assisted the committee professionally and
skillfully in helping craft the bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make some
brief comments congratulating the chairman and ranking member.
I think this is a big deal. I think it will be seen as a big deal. I
think it is an enormously positive step forward on our relationships.
I commend the chairman and ranking member and the leader for bringing
up this topic. I believe this is going to help us cement the
relationship back and forth with us and India. It is important that we
do this. It will help environmentally and help energy-wise but, more
importantly, I believe it will be a very important strategic
relationship. This is a key movement forward. I hope we can move it
forward through the conference committee. I hope we can get it to the
President in short order and show India and the rest of the world this
budding, growing, strengthening relationship back and forth.
I commend Chairman Lugar for such insightful and supportive
leadership on such an important topic.
I suggest the absence of quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Sergeant First Class Robert Lee ``Bobby'' Hollar, Jr.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege today to
pay tribute to Sergeant First Class Robert Lee ``Bobby'' Hollar, Jr.
Sergeant Hollar served his country as a civilian and soldier and
ultimately gave his life to protect our Nation. Sergeant Hollar served
in E Troop, 108th Cavalry, 48th Brigade of the Georgia National Guard,
and was deployed to Iraq in May 2005 in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
On September 1, 2005, an improvised explosive device struck Sergeant
Hollar's vehicle while he was on patrol outside of Baghdad, and he died
of severe injuries later that day. Sergeant Hollar is survived by his
wife Amanda and two sons.
Throughout Sergeant Hollar's 10 years of courageous service in the
U.S. Air Force, and during his service in Operations Desert Storm and
Desert Shield, he was awarded numerous service and achievement medals.
Also, Sergeant Hollar was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the
Bronze Star.
Sergeant Hollar's duties in Iraq went beyond the daily routine of a
soldier. Sergeant Hollar was a pen pal with the fourth grade class at
Crescent Middle School in Griffin, GA. To these students, Sergeant
Hollar was a real-life ``G.I. Joe,'' and his letters and visits with
them have forever touched their lives.
When Sergeant Hollar wasn't on active duty, he lived with his family
in Thomaston, GA, and was employed by the United States Postal Service
as a postal carrier.
Sergeant Hollar made his community and Nation better through selfless
dedication to his career in public service with the Georgia National
Guard and the U.S. Post Office. I have been contacted by many members
of his community, and I am proud to join in as part of their campaign
to name the Thomaston Post Office in his honor, and to be an original
cosponsor of S. 4050, a bill to designate the facility of the Postal
Service located at 103 East Thompson Street in Thomaston, GA, as the
``Sergeant First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office
Building''.
I believe this is a simple yet lasting, way to recognize Sergeant
Hollar's service and sacrifice to our country.
(The remarks of Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
615 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
(The remarks of Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
617 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The majority leader.
____________________
MODIFICATION OF UNANIMOUS CONSENT ORDER
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask consent that the order with respect
to the agriculture appropriations bill be modified to allow for the
Senate to proceed at 2 o'clock on Tuesday, December 5, and for Senator
Conrad to be recognized following the statements of the two managers;
further, that following the remarks of Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan
be recognized to speak, and that following those comments, Senator
Landrieu be recognized to speak for 10 minutes. It will be our
intention to vote around 5 or 5:15 on that Tuesday and that will be the
next vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for putting
this together. It has been difficult. We understand that. I very much
appreciate his steadfast effort to make this happen.
On a bipartisan basis, many Senators in this Chamber appreciate very
much the opportunity to bring disaster assistance to the Senate and to
get a vote next Tuesday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Sergeant Mark T. Smykowski
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an
extraordinary young man who gave his life in service to our Nation--
Marine Sgt Mark T. Smykowski from Mentor, OH. On June 6, 2006, Sergeant
Smykowski died when a roadside bomb exploded near his military vehicle
in Fallujah, Iraq. He was 23-years-old.
Mark was an outstanding marine who had a true sense of compassion for
others. He cared deeply for his family and friends, and they remember
him as someone who struck a chord with everyone he met. Although Mark
was only 23-years-old when he died, he unquestionably lived life to the
fullest.
Mark grew up in Mentor, OH, graduating from Mentor High School in
2000. He was the oldest member of a group of young Marines known as the
``Mentor Seven.'' The seven of them were a close and tight-knit group,
and all but one had skated together on the Mentor High School hockey
team.
[[Page 22180]]
Mark inspired his fellow marines from Mentor, and they in turn inspired
him.
Friend, Brian Halan describes Mark as someone who was simply ``cut
from a different cloth.'' He said:
I'll always remember that no matter what we were doing,
Mark could make the best of anything.
According to Jack Smeltz, Mark's hockey coach at Mentor High School,
Mark was ``an example of what a young person should be, as far as
appreciation of freedom and all it stands for.''
Mark's father, Bert, recalls that when it came time to get things
done, no one was more diligent and focused than Mark. As a marine, he
took the toughest assignments--paratrooper school and sniper school.
And, after enlisting for a second time, he began training with a
reconnaissance unit. Reconnaissance is one of the most difficult jobs
in the military, involving scout swimming, helicopter and submarine
insertion and extraction techniques, and assault climbing. But for
Mark, it was just another challenge--and another opportunity to serve
his Nation.
Those who knew Mark all agree that he was the model of what a marine
should be. Fittingly, that is what he actually became--after boot camp
he was selected to be a poster model for the Marines Corps. Naturally,
his younger brothers teased him ruthlessly about it.
According to his mom, Mark was good looking--and knew it. During a
career fair in high school, Diana saw two Marines recruiters.
``Couldn't you just see Mark in that uniform?'' she asked her husband,
Ken. Apparently, Mark could because by the time Diana and Ken reached
the table, he had already signed up.
Mark was so much more, though, than an outstanding marine and a
handsome face. His compassion for others was unparalleled. He was
simply one of those people who cares deeply and passionately about the
needs of those around him. His comrades in Iraq recall the special bond
he formed with Iraqis--particularly the Iraqi children. He became
something of an ambassador and would distribute toys and clothes to the
Iraqi children. His unit often joked that when it came time for the
Iraqi elections, it would be Mark's name at the top of the ballot.
``Mark was one of those marines who cared about the impact he had on
the people of Iraq,'' said 1LT Craig Q. Reese, Mark's platoon
commander. ``I cannot count the number of times when I was with him
when an Iraqi would recognize him from his last deployment and smile. I
saw first hand the influence he had on this culture. He was truly
attempting to make a difference.''
Mark's mother Diana has pictures of Mark with his arms around Iraqis,
and one in which he is surrounded by almost 25 children. But, what she
recalls most is a moment that she calls ``life changing.'' Worried
about Mark's safety, she had demanded to know ``what the plan is over
there?''
Mark's reply had been quiet and confident. ``This mission is going to
take us years, Mom,'' he'd said. ``These people have been brutalized
for years. We have to work with the children. We have to get the kids
to trust us.''
Mark's friends gave him many nicknames--``Tango'' because he was tall
and gangly and ``Jacks'' because he always wore a jacket of the
Cleveland Lumberjacks, the city's International Hockey League team.
But, perhaps the most meaningful name is the one given to him by the
Iraqi children. To them, he was simply ``Mr. Ski.''
Throughout his time in Iraq, Mark was undoubtedly supported by his
strong sense of faith. The last time Diana spoke with her son, she
asked him if he were scared, and he said yes. She then asked, ``Mark,
are you OK with God?'' He replied, ``Mom, you don't have to worry. I'm
good to go with God.''
Mark will be missed by all who knew him. His friends and family
repeatedly describe him as an extraordinary individual, who was so
devoted to the Marines Corps. Pastor Tim Davis, speaking at Mark's
memorial service, described him as ``a gentleman who loved his country
and really believed in what he did.''
Mark's service to our Nation earned him many awards, such as the Navy
and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat Distinguishing Device,
Combat Action Ribbon, and the Meritorious Unit Commendation. But, the
highest honor he earned was the respect and admiration of those who
knew him. Mark's life has truly been an inspiration for others. His
younger brother, Darren, a Marine scout sniper, said, ``I always did
everything he did and went everywhere he went.'' And just this past
summer, Mark's younger brother Kenny followed in his footsteps and also
enlisted in the Marines.
Indeed the world is a better place because Mark Smykowski was in it,
and I am honored that I was able to attend his burial service at
Arlington National Cemetery. He will forever be known for his sincere
desire to help others, his willingness to act, and his dedication to
his friends, family, community, and country.
I conclude with the words of Mark's close friend, Matthew Neath:
I know if he had to do it all over again, regardless of the
outcome, he wouldn't change a thing.
My wife Fran and I will continue to keep Mark's family in our
thoughts and in our prayers.
Private First Class Timothy J. Hines, Jr.
Mr. President, this evening I rise to remember a brave young man, who
gave his life in service to our Nation--Army PFC Timothy J. Hines, Jr.,
from Fairfield, OH. Private First Class Hines was wounded on June 19,
2005. He was riding in a military vehicle when a roadside bomb exploded
near his convoy in Baghdad, Iraq. Severely injured, he was transferred
to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, for
treatment. Tragically, he passed away from his injuries a month later
on July 14, 2005. He was 21 years of age at the time.
Growing up in Fairfield, Tim, as he was known by friends and family,
came to love two things: basketball and Katy Wessel. He and Katy met
while they were both high school freshmen at Cincinnati Christian
School. Katy's father Jim remembers that when he first met Tim, he
could immediately tell that the boy was ``smitten'' with his daughter.
In Jim's words, that made Tim ``public enemy number one.''
But, that didn't stop Tim. Before long, he and Katy were high school
sweethearts. And Jim, himself, came to view Tim as a friend and as a
son.
Tim graduated from Cincinnati Christian School in 2002. Headmaster
Wayne Beaver remembers that he was always positive--someone whose
``classmates all liked him.'' Tim and Katy got married after
graduation, and Tim then enlisted in the Army in 2003. He was assigned
to the 720th Battalion, 89th Military Police Brigade, 64th Military
Police Unit, based in Fort Worth, TX.
Tim's unit shipped out to Iraq in February 2005. Although he found it
hard to leave his family and friends, he knew he was doing the right
thing. According to Katy, ``he knew the obligation he had to his
country.''
Indeed, Tim was a soldier devoted to his mission and to our Nation.
But, he also joined the Army out of a desire to protect those whom he
loved. In the words of a sergeant in Tim's unit:
I knew that I'd come upon a special soldier with great
potential, whose character and values were rooted in his love
of his family, god, and friends. I believe he wanted to go to
Iraq not out of duty, but out of love for others.
Tim's twin sister, Jenni, remembers that he was a great brother and
friend--someone who was always looking out for her. And that is also
what Tim was doing as a soldier--looking out for his friends, his
family, and his country. His service to our country earned him the
Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the Army Good Conduct Medal.
Those who knew Tim remember him as someone who always wanted to make
others laugh. His wife Katy says that he packed a lot of love into his
life and simply had a spark that drew people close to him. In photos,
you can see he was always smiling or trying to make someone else smile.
Tim enjoyed playing basketball. It was a passion he shared with his
best
[[Page 22181]]
friend, Tim Hester. While in Iraq, Tim would e-mail Hester about the
one-on-one games they would play when he returned. Hester describes Tim
as someone who was funny, kind, and loving. He said:
Tim was always making people laugh. He was always joking
around. That was one of my favorite parts about Tim. We could
always just joke around. But, we also had serious times
together. You know, when things were going wrong, we were
there for each other.
Tim's father-in-law says it was a treat to watch Tim with the family
he loved so much. He said:
Timothy James Hines, Jr. was a true hero. He's my hero. His
faith in God, his dedication to his family, his love of life,
his courage and strength, and his service to his country have
profoundly and forever impacted me.
Even in Tim's darkest hour, he was thinking of his family first. His
mother-in-law Kathi tells the story of when Tim was wounded in Iraq:
A buddy who stayed with him while they waited for help said
all he talked about was [his wife] Katy, [his 2 year-old
daughter] Lily, and the coming baby. He's very devoted to his
family. He's the kind of young man any mother would want her
daughter to marry.
Tragically, Tim died before the birth of his son, Noah.
As Ohioans have done so often in the past, the community has rallied
around Tim's family, offering comfort and support. More than 400
mourners attended his funeral to pay their respects to this fallen
soldier. And an anonymous donor gave a full scholarship to Cincinnati
Christian School, Tim and Katy's alma mater, for the education of their
children.
I would like to share with my colleagues the words of Army BG Patrick
O'Reilly, who spoke at Tim's funeral. This is what he said:
It's soldiers like Timothy Hines who serve and guard our
way of life. But, it's not just the soldier who pays the
price for freedom. The families also give so much, and you
too have sacrificed.
I would also like to share what Tim's wife Katy has said about her
husband--truly the love of her life:
Tim was a fighter. He fought hard for his country, family,
and ultimately, his life. He was a loyal husband and father
and an incredible American. There is a price for freedom, and
Tim paid the ultimate price. Now he is in the loving arms of
God.
I am honored that I had the opportunity to attend Tim's funeral,
where his family and friends talked about his warmth, his humor, and
his desire to protect those he loved. He was a man we all aspire to
be--someone devoted to his family, his community, and his country. My
wife Fran and I will continue to keep his family in our thoughts and in
our prayers.
Lance Corporal William Brett Wightman
Mr. President, this evening I rise to honor a fallen hero who gave
his life during Operation Iraqi Freedom--LCpl William Brett Wightman,
from Sabina, OH. He died on August 3, 2005, when a roadside bomb
exploded under his military vehicle in Iraq. He was 22 years of age at
the time.
Brett--as he was called by family and friends--was a true example of
what it means to be a ``hometown hero.'' Sabina is a small village in
Clinton County, OH, not too far from my home. The high school Brett
attended--East Clinton High School--is carved out of surrounding
fields, fields of farmland. Brett will never be forgotten there. He was
prom king, a star on the basketball and track and field teams, and
captain of the school's football team, the Astros. He played fullback.
He wore No. 44.
Everyone who knew Brett agrees that he died doing what he wanted to
do--serving our Nation. Becoming a member of the military had been his
dream ever since he was a little boy. Brett's aunt Missy said that
Brett ``would play with those G.I. Joes and he'd say `I'm going to grow
up and be one of those guys.' All of his life, that's all he would talk
about.''
Brett joined the Marines while he was still a junior in high school--
young enough that he needed his parents to come with him to enlist and
give their permission. The Reserves unit Brett served with was Lima
Company--Marine Force Reserve's 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment,
4th Marine Division, based in Columbus, OH. Their story, of course, is
one that I have talked about on this Senate floor before and one that
has touched hearts in Ohio and all across our country. On the day Brett
died, 13 other men in his unit died alongside him. It was a tragedy
felt by the entire State, and by our Nation.
Family members said Brett was proud of being a marine and was
planning to reenlist. His goal was to rise to the very top of the
service. As his stepsister Stephanie Finley said:
When I talked to him a month ago, he said he loved what he
was doing. He said he would go back if he had to.
According to his mother, Pam, she received a letter from her son that
she will cherish forever. In it, he described finding a child while
searching Iraqi houses for material to make improvised explosive
devices. The child was chained to the wall, and it was Brett and his
fellow marines who rescued him. It was a day of the utmost importance
for Brett, and this is how he described it:
One of the kids was chained up to a wall by his ankle with
a dead lock. He looked like he had been there for months. If
anyone tells you we shouldn't be over here they should have
seen how happy this kid was when I cut him loose.
After signing his letter, Brett wrote ``P.S.--Hang in there.'' This
was typical of Brett, according to his family. Even while serving his
country overseas, he was more concerned about others than himself.
Brett's friends and former teammates describe him as a person who would
do anything for you. His stepsister Stephanie said:
It didn't take Iraq for him to be a hero to me. He'll
always be my hero.
Brett was committed to the Corps and the other marines in his unit.
While serving in Iraq, he received the news that his grandmother had
passed away. Although deeply saddened, Brett wrote that he would have
to wait to take the time to grieve. In his words, he had ``to watch out
for my Marines.'' According to his mother, this letter encapsulated
everything that Brett was about. ``He would do anything for anybody at
any time,'' she said.
Brett's father, Keith, agreed:
Things like that just make you feel that your child has
grown up to be responsible,'' he said. ``He did what he had
to do. Not many kids his age take on the responsibilities of
the world. Every man and woman in the service is taking that
on.
Brett's Aunt Missy said that Brett's life ``was just beginning, with
a lot of ambition and a lot of hope. Unfortunately, it's been cut short
. . . [but] we know that he [was] happy, doing what he wanted to do all
his life.''
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, Brett's death was truly a
loss for the entire Sabina community, the entire Clinton County
community. In a local bar named The Crow Bar, a lone can of beer stands
on a shelf. ``This beer is for Brett,'' reads an attached sign.
Before his Reserve unit was activated, Brett was working as a
carpenter for a local home construction company. He was close to his
coworkers, one of whom was a fan of Michigan-Ohio State's football
team. Before a Michigan/Ohio State game, Brett made a bet with him that
the Buckeyes would win. They did win, and Brett enjoyed his winnings--
the privilege of frying his friend's Michigan shirt on the grill.
Barb Howard is the mother of one of Brett's hometown friends. She
remembers Brett and other neighborhood youngsters lounging around her
house after their pee-wee sports games, eating food and watching
movies. This group of boys remained friends while playing high school
sports, and Brett became like a son to her. ``It's like a piece of you
is gone,'' Barb reflected.
Justin Stewart plays football for the Astros. He said he had admired
Brett ever since the third grade, when the older Brett would help him
with his pee-wee football drills. ``I am proud of him,'' Justin said.
``I am just happy he was over there fighting.''
As captain of the East Clinton football team, Brett was more than a
supportive teammate--he was a leader with responsibility. This focus on
teamwork and this commitment to helping others explain Brett's desire
to
[[Page 22182]]
become a marine, and also explains what kind of marine he became.
Brett's funeral was on the football field at East Clinton High
School, and over 1,000 mourners attended to salute the young marine.
Rev. Carey Hilterbran, who had known Brett since he was a boy, assured
the crowd that it was not a day for sorrow--Brett had died living his
dream. ``[Brett] wasn't afraid,'' he said. ``He had a good mindset, and
he knew what he wanted to do.'' While Reverend Hilterbran was speaking,
the members of the Astros football team--wearing their red and white
jerseys--stood silently at attention.
Schuyler Streber was one of Brett's football teammates. In his words,
the world is going to be a lesser place without Brett Wightman in it.
Standing on the East Clinton football field, Schuyler said that
``sometimes you want to laugh because of some of the things we did out
here together, and [sometimes] you want to cry because of the more
emotional times. And to think I'm here right now and he's not--that's
something that's hard to face. . . . We'll all miss him very much.''
Duane Richard is a young artist who did not personally know Brett
Wightman. But he was so moved by the young Marine's sacrifice that he
painted a 30-foot-wide mural of Brett on the side of Duane's parents'
barn. He lined the image with 13 American flags--one for each of the
Lima Marines killed during the roadside bombing. The barn is along Snow
Hill road in Sabina, and people stop everyday to gaze at the mural and
take pictures.
The artwork reflects Brett's honor and courage, as well as the great
respect that his fellow Americans have for his sacrifice. In Duane's
words, Brett was a ``true American hero.''
Brett Wightman put his life on the line to preserve the freedoms that
we Americans hold dear. He cherished hometown values and the importance
of helping those around him. His family and friends will never forget
him. ``Brett will never be in the past,'' as his mother Pam so
beautifully said.
Indeed, Brett will never be forgotten. My wife, Fran, and I continue
to keep Brett and his family in our thoughts and prayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, those were three of the most beautiful
tributes I have heard any of our colleagues give about the men and
women who have died in service to this country. It was truly a
testament to the strength of the Senator from Ohio, his caring and
compassion for the people of Ohio that he and his team would take the
time to compile such beautiful memories of these three young men and to
share them with us in the Congressional Record as he did. I thank him
for those beautiful tributes.
____________________
ROYALTY RELIEF
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 5189
that is pending to the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
According to the unanimous consent agreement entered into a few
moments ago, when we return in December we will take up an amendment by
Senator Conrad and I will have time after that amendment to speak again
about this issue. It is an issue that I believe we have an opportunity
to resolve before this Congress comes to an end. According to the
schedule we are operating under, we only have a few more weeks to get
our work done. There is a great deal of work that has to be done and a
few things that can in fact be done on a bipartisan basis. This is one
of them.
Both leaders have expressed their commitment to helping the Senate
resolve the issue of expanded offshore drilling so we can provide more
oil and gas for a country that is running short.
Four States--Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, America's
energy coast--have been proudly hosting this industry for over 60
years. We have contributed literally billions of barrels of oil,
trillions of cubic feet of gas, and much money from the royalties paid
has gone to the Treasury. But this is a problem we have to solve. It
goes back to the 1998-1999 lease arrangements entered into by Minerals
Management. This has been widely reported. It has also been the subject
of several hearings in the Senate and the House.
Very simply, the Department made a series of mistakes. Those mistakes
are being looked at to determine how and when and under what
circumstances. But the fact is, although all the facts are not out yet,
we do know that a serious mistake was made. When these contracts were
entered into, there was no price threshold in them. When my predecessor
Bennett Johnston wrote the Royalty Relief Act, which he did with some
of his colleagues, it was always intended to be an incentive if the
price of oil was low. At the time the bill was written, the price of
oil was $17 a barrel. We wish that were true today. But it was true
back in the early to mid-1980s, when this bill was written.
As the process went on and these leases were entered into, the price
threshold was left out. So now the price of oil is $70 a barrel, or it
has been recently, and what happened was, because the thresholds were
not in there, the companies didn't have to pay royalties. The bottom
line is, we have lost to date $1.3 billion. It is estimated that we
could lose as much as $10 to $12 billion; that is, the Federal
Treasury.
My amendment has already been filed. If the Senate agrees to the
amendment, it will fix that situation without violating contracts. We
have established a way for Minerals Management to basically renegotiate
the contracts. The taxpayers could then recover that money, and a
portion of the money would then be used for the coastal restoration
efforts so desperately needed in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama in the next few years. If this amendment is passed, coupled
with the bill we have already passed, we will have some immediate
funding to begin the project of saving our wetlands and securing the
energy infrastructure that is a tremendous asset to the Nation. This
isn't just about helping Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama.
This is about protecting a great coastal wetland that came under
tremendous challenge with Katrina and Rita and will come under
challenges again. We most certainly can recover this money, $11
billion, that does belong to the taxpayer. It was a mistake, a very bad
mistake that was made. We can recover some of that money and most of it
can go to deficit reduction. If anyone hasn't noticed lately, we have
quite a deficit to tackle. Some of this money could go to deficit
reduction, and some of it could go to the States under a program
already authorized, already supported in a bipartisan way, already in
the law, called the OCS Program where this money would be directed.
I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak tonight. I have filed
the amendment so Members could consider it on our break through the
holiday and come back and try to restore this money to the Treasury,
help take the deficit down, and let's get started saving these wetlands
and protecting the coast which is so vital to the economic future of
the Nation.
I thank my colleagues for their patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I hope the people of
her home State are watching carefully. Senator Landrieu, even before
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, worked very hard for her State. But since
then, it has been nonstop. She is not the only one. There are many
elected officials who are doing everything they can to help the
families and businesses and others who were devastated. But I commend
her to be here so late at night speaking up for her State again. I hope
she is successful with her amendment which would bring resources to her
State that are badly needed as post-Katrina construction continues.
____________________
SENATOR MIKE DeWINE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a few moments ago, our colleague from the
State of Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine,
[[Page 22183]]
gave tribute to three Ohioans who lost their lives in Iraq. I listened
to these carefully and I hope others did as well. They were beautiful
life stories, beautifully written, beautifully spoken by the Senator. I
went up to him afterwards and asked him how many Ohioans had lost their
lives in Iraq. He said the number was 140. He has given 90 tributes on
the floor and hopes before he leaves the Senate in a few weeks to
finish the last 50. He is determined to get it done as a tribute to
these families. He said: It is about all we can do, isn't it? He is
right. It says a lot about Mike DeWine, a lot that many of us already
knew.
I came to Congress with Mike in 1982. I recall we were both elected
to the House of Representatives. I was from the central part of
Illinois and he was from Ohio. We had a dinner at the White House. I
recall that his wife Fran, who had just had a baby a few days before,
came in her beautiful gown with her husband Mike in a tuxedo, carrying
a basket with their baby in it. They sat down next to Loretta and
myself for dinner with President Reagan that night. I have joked about
that because I met that little girl recently. She has grown up now, and
we remembered the first time we ever laid eyes on her.
Mike and I have worked on so many things--the global AIDS epidemic.
He has been my go-to guy on the Republican side of the aisle. When I
had absolutely given up any hope of passing legislation for hundreds of
millions of dollars to save hundreds of millions of lives, Mike managed
to help out in many different ways.
He invited me once to travel to Haiti with him. Haiti is a DeWine
family project. Mike and Fran have made over 15 trips to that poor
island and have met with so many people there in orphanages and on
streets trying to help them. There is a little school in Port-au-
Prince, the Becky DeWine school, named after Mike and Fran's late
daughter. They have poured more love and resources into that school for
some of the poorest kids on this planet than we could ever count. They
worked together with Father Tom of Hands Together and so many other
great charities that have done such work.
As I listened to Mike tonight give his tributes to these Ohio
soldiers, I was reminded what a quality individual he is. Elections
come and go. People win and people lose. But the quality of Mike
DeWine's service to the Senate on behalf of the people of Ohio is
written large in the history of this institution.
I thank him for his friendship and for his leadership. I wish him,
Fran, and the entire family the very best in whatever their future
endeavors might entail.
____________________
SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in a few moments there will be a number of
resolutions offered on the floor of the Senate on a variety of
different issues. Some of them have been spoken to. A resolution which
I have offered is related to the fact that we are in the fourth year of
an anniversary of the death of our colleague Senator Paul Wellstone of
Minnesota.
I look back on a career of service in the House and Senate and
remember a handful of very special people who passed on or left this
institution. One of those was Paul Wellstone. What an extraordinary
fellow. The most unlikely Senator you would ever see. He just didn't
look the part at all. Maybe that is why he did so well in Minnesota and
was so effective here. He was cut from a different mold. He used to sit
back here in the last row, and he would stand and speak. He would stand
in the middle of the aisle as he spoke and would kind of saunter
around. He had a back injury from wrestling. He loved wrestling; not
the kind you see on television but real collegiate wrestling. His
involvement in wrestling cost him some back injuries that haunted him
his entire life. So he would walk with a kind of a cantered gait as he
went back and forth on the aisle and all around the Senate.
But people didn't remember that part. They remembered what he had to
say and they remembered what was in his heart. Paul Wellstone used to
say that he thought there were two necessary ingredients for success in
public service. One was hard work; the other was passion. He had both
of them. Nobody worked harder for everything he believed in and for his
State of Minnesota, and nobody came to these issues with more passion.
I can recall the last time I saw him. He was a few feet away from me
here. It was the night we cast our vote on the Iraqi war. It was a vote
that was a hard one. Nobody cared for Saddam Hussein. Nobody wanted to
see him continue in power. We certainly wanted to protect our country.
But there were genuine concerns felt by many of us as to whether we
really understood what lie ahead in that war, the threat to the United
States, and whether we were being told everything we needed to know.
Twenty-three of us voted against the war that night. I was one, Paul
Wellstone was another. It was even later than now that night, and I
came to the well on the floor to say goodbye to Paul because we were
both off for the reelection campaigns of 4 years ago. I came over to
wish him well, and I said, ``Paul, I hope that vote doesn't cost you
the election.'' He said, ``You know, it is OK if it does because that
is what I believe and that is who I am. The people of Minnesota would
expect nothing less from me.'' It was the last time I ever saw him. He
went home, and within 2 weeks he was killed in a plane crash with his
wife and staff members.
I went up to the memorial service for Paul. There was an amazing
turnout at the University of Minnesota in tribute to this small-in-
stature but great-in-service Senator from Minnesota. The one thing that
he returned to over and over again was the issue of fairness and equal
treatment for those suffering from mental illness. Paul's family had
been stricken with mental illness, and hardly any family in America has
been spared. He knew firsthand what it meant to suffer from mental
illness and not be able to afford a doctor's care or the medicine
needed by people who are suffering from it. He worked with Senator
Domenici from New Mexico, a Republican, on passage of legislation for
equal treatment under health insurance for those suffering from mental
illness.
The Surgeon General determined in a 1999 report that mental illness
is largely biologically based and effective treatments exist. It is a
disease that can be treated. In 1996, Senators Domenici and Wellstone
championed a bill requiring insurers to offer mental health care and to
offer comparable benefit caps for mental health and physical health.
But there was a big loophole in the bill, and they knew it. The bill
didn't require group health plans to include mental health coverage as
a benefit. Even with the 1996 law in place and 22 States mandating full
parity, mental health services continued to be subject to higher
limitations than other health treatments.
The parity law in place that I referred to expires at the end of this
year. I hoped 4 years ago, when we were caught up in the emotions of
Paul's death, that we would come back and pass legislation that he
called for and worked for with Senator Domenici. Four years have passed
and it hasn't happened. Many people continue to suffer, continue to go
without the basic care they need.
Resolutions come and go, and very few people pay much attention to
them. I don't think this will be a lead line in any newspaper in
America, but the purpose of this resolution is to put the Senate on
notice that it has been the fourth anniversary of the death of a man we
loved in the Senate, Paul Wellstone, and also to urge us to remember
his mission in the Senate when it came to mental health. The purpose
clause of this resolution reads:
Congress should act to end discrimination against citizens
of the United States who live with a mental illness by
enacting legislation to provide for the coverage of mental
health benefits with respect to health insurance coverage.
I would like the language to be stronger, but I understand this was
the best we could do this evening. We can
[[Page 22184]]
prove that Paul Wellstone was right and that we care about his legacy
by enacting this legislation when we return. I will be working with
Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and all of my colleagues to do our best
to make sure that does occur.
____________________
DARFUR
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight because during
the break, I sat and watched ``60 Minutes'' with my wife one evening.
During the course of the program, there was a segment on the horrible
situation that is now occurring in Darfur in the nation of Sudan on the
continent of Africa. I have been blessed and lucky to visit Africa
several times. I am drawn back every time I leave. I think I have to
get back there; there is so much more I need to see. I don't know
whether it is that it is the cradle of civilization and that is where
the first remnants of early human life have been found, but Africa
draws you back to those roots and origins.
The last time, I took a trip with Senator Brownback of Kansas. We
went to Rwanda, which, of course, is a country that conjures
immediately an image of horrible death and suffering. Over 10 years
ago, genocide occurred in Rwanda. We look back now on the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of innocent people and realize that the United
States basically stood by idly and watched that occur. President Bill
Clinton was in office at the time and was urged by many Members of
Congress, including my predecessor, Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, to
send some type of military force to try to stop the killing.
When we visited Rwanda, Senator Brownback and I stayed in the now
famous Rwanda Hotel, known as Des Mille Collines, which means a
thousand hills. It is in the city of Kigali in Rwanda. As we stayed
there and I saw this hotel, having seen the movie, I was haunted by the
images of that movie, how that hotel had become a refuge during the
genocide and people streamed in from all over Rwanda because they knew
this hotel manager was doing his best to protect them. They were
drinking water, after the regular supplies were cut off, out of the
swimming pool because it was the only place to turn. As I looked down
at the pool, I could not imagine people scrambling along the edges of
the pool to find water for themselves and their children. As you walked
through the halls, you thought of the people huddling there and praying
they would not be beaten or macheted to death at any given moment.
Down the hill from the hotel is a Catholic church--a red brick
church, simple and plain. I went in there early in the morning and
looked inside as those who were waiting for mass gathered. I thought:
This is an interesting gathering place at 6 a.m. I went back to the
hotel and asked about it. It turns out that 1,200 people were killed in
that church. They were seeking asylum and refuge in the church, and the
people who were determined to kill them came in and hacked them to
death on the stones of the very church I visited. That was 10 years
ago. We did nothing. We could not even bring ourselves in America to
use the word ``genocide'' to describe what was going on.
I think President Clinton would be the first to admit that this is
one of the chapters of his Presidency that he is not proud to recount.
He has personally gone there to apologize that the United States didn't
do more.
Mr. President, let's fast-forward to today. Today is not Rwanda.
Today it is Darfur. I come to the floor today to talk about the ongoing
tragedy in Darfur, Sudan, and to report that amidst all of the sad
comments about what is happening there, a ray of hope broke through
today.
Darfur is in a distant corner of the world, but it is familiar to
millions of us in America. It has come home to many of us through news
stories and photos about women being brutalized, families murdered, and
villages being burned. The violence has gone on for over 3 years.
The U.N. news service reports from yesterday describe more attacks by
the jingaweit militia in south Darfur. More villages were burned and
more crops were destroyed. The U.N. news reports describe how
humanitarian personnel in west Darfur had to be evacuated because of
growing threats to their safety. And violence in Darfur has spread to
neighboring eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. At least
200,000 people have died. More than 2 million people have been
displaced from their homes. Today, 4.5 million people are at risk in
Darfur and eastern Chad. Hundreds of thousands are in desperate need
but beyond the reach of humanitarian organizations. As I said, this has
gone on for more than 3 years.
Last May, the Sudanese Government signed a peace agreement with one
of the major rebel groups that it had been battling, but violence since
then has only increased. In that agreement, the Khartoum Government
promised to disarm the jingaweit, which have terrorized Darfur. Instead
of disarming them, the Government in Khartoum is remobilizing and
rearming the militias. They have even given these militiamen, who were
killing and burning and raping and pillaging, uniforms to wear.
On November 5, a reporter for Reuters news organization described the
impact of this remobilization of the militia:
Arab militias on horses and camels wearing pristine
uniforms and carrying brand new guns attacked three villages,
killing dozens, mostly children. One witness told the
reporter, ``They took the babies and children from their
mother's arms, beat the women and shot the children. . . .''
And they said to the mothers, ``We are killing your sons and
when you have more, we will come and kill them, too.''
The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions condemning the
violence and authorizing a U.N. peacekeeping mission of more than
20,000 troops. But the Government of Sudan has refused to allow the
peacekeepers in the country. Presently, there are 7,000 African Union
monitors in Darfur, but they are outnumbered by Sudanese forces by 200
to 1. The African Union forces do not have the mandate or the means to
protect people, although some commanders have tried to make a
difference in their local areas.
Rwandan peacekeepers have been among the most effective in Darfur.
Maybe the memory of their own genocide brings them to this mission of
mercy. They are also among the most frustrated that they cannot do more
and the world refuses to engage.
Twelve years ago, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was a U.N.
commander stationed in Rwanda during the genocide I have described. He
begged for more troops from all over the world. He begged for more
ammunition. He begged for the authority to stop the killing in Rwanda.
He was ignored. He got nothing. Hundreds of thousands of people died
needlessly. He managed to save some, but for the most part he could
only stand helplessly watching as a witness to the slaughter.
Today, Rwandan peacekeepers lack the means and the authority to stop
another genocide. Like Dallaire, they need the world to act. What is
needed is a much larger, more robust peacekeeping force, and it is
needed urgently right now.
Eric Reeves, a professor of literature who has become the unofficial
chronicler and probably the foremost expert on the genocide in Darfur,
writes:
The people of Darfur have been abandoned. Given how clearly
and predictably genocidal events have unfolded over most of
the past three and a half years, this failure now exceeds in
all too many ways the shameful international acquiescence
before the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
Those are the words of Mr. Reeves.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan today convened a high-level meeting
in Ethiopia to find a way beyond this impasse and to finally break
through with help for these people. U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew
Natsios, is there. So are representatives from the other permanent
members of the Security Council, the Arab League, and the European
Union. The Sudanese Government is also officially attending. They are
there to find a way to get peacekeepers on the ground in Sudan in a
section of that country as large as the State of Texas.
Whether the peacekeepers come under the U.N. title or through some
[[Page 22185]]
other combination with the African Union, they are desperately needed.
The title doesn't mean much; it is the mission that counts. It must be
large enough, well equipped enough, and with the mandate and authority
to protect the people of Darfur.
The latest news reports indicate that they may have made progress in
their meeting, and we pray to God they did. Kofi Annan announced today
that Sudan has accepted in principle a United Nations-African Union
mission in Darfur, but there has been no agreement as to the number of
troops that will be accepted and deployed.
I hope this is truly a breakthrough and not more empty rhetoric from
the Government of Sudan.
Today's news reports are full of new killings in Darfur. The Darfur
peacekeeping force must have the capability, the numbers, and the
authority to preempt, prevent, deter, and respond to attacks on
civilians and to protect the camps of those who have been displaced.
There must be a clear timetable to make this happen, and it must start
now. The violence in Darfur has spilled beyond its borders. Villages in
Chad are burning.
For too long the world has done too little. I hope today's reports
represent a breakthrough that Sudan will, indeed, accept the
peacekeeping mission that is so badly needed in Darfur.
Mr. President, we never know if any word spoken on the floor of the
Senate or even heard or noticed will make a difference. I guess the
purpose of my speech this evening is for my own satisfaction. I sat
there with my wife, and we watched that ``60 Minutes'' program about
these helpless people who are the victims of this genocide in Darfur,
and she turned to me and said: Isn't there something you can do?
Well, I gave a speech. I wish I could do more. I wish I had the power
of the President. I wish I had the power of the United Nations. I wish
I had the power to send the troops to protect these poor people. But
when the record is written of this time, I hope it is written that at
least we spoke up, at least we spoke the word ``genocide,'' a word we
were even afraid to mouth during the Rwandan crisis.
We know what is happening. In just a few short days, many of us will
be sitting around with our families giving thanks for all the blessings
we have in this great country, and we have so many: our wealth, our
prosperity, our happiness, our families. I hope for a moment that the
people of this country will reflect on the less fortunate and remember
this tiny country, Sudan, and this great continent of Africa that is
now sadly the site of the first serious genocide of the 21st century.
We need to do so much more.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO EULA HALL
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise before you today to honor a
great humanitarian and fellow Kentuckian, Eula Hall.
Over 30 years ago Ms. Hall opened a medical clinic in Pike County,
KY, at a time when very few people had medical insurance. Such is her
dedication to the people of eastern Kentucky she soon gave up her home
to house the expanding clinic, moving herself and her young family into
much smaller housing.
At 78 years old Ms. Hall continues to work in the clinic every day,
usually starting at 8 in the morning and going late into the evening.
Recently the Kentucky General Assembly passed a resolution to rename
Kentucky highway 979 the Eula Hall Highway. On October 24, 2006 The
Pike County News Express profiled Eula Hall and her accomplishments and
sacrifices for the people of Kentucky.
I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the
Record and that the entire Senate join me in paying respect to this
beloved Kentuckian.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
[From the Pike County News Express, Oct. 24, 2006]
KY 979 Through Mud Creek To Be Renamed ``Eula Hall Highway''
Friday, October 27, at 1:30 in the afternoon, friends and
colleagues of Eula Hall are invited to gather at the Mud
Creek Clinic on KY 979 at Grethel to celebrate the life and
accomplishments of a brave mountain woman. As a result of a
resolution passed unanimously by the Kentucky General
Assembly the entire road KY 979 from Harold to Hi Hat--will
be re-named Eula Hall Highway. The resolution was introduced
by State Rep. Chuck Meade and State Senator Johnny Ray
Turner.
For the past 40 years, Eula Hall had probably traveled Mud
Creek--Kentucky Route 979--more than anyone else. She was a
woman with a mission to bring quality health care to people
who had no medical insurance and not enough money to pay for
things like visits to the doctor, shots, prescription
medicine, much less surgery, physical therapy, and other more
expensive treatments and procedures. She's made it her life's
work to make sure that no one within her reach goes without
the basic health care they need to live full productive
lives.
And now that road where it all started, the two-lane state
highway that runs through Mud Creek from Harold to Hi Hat,
will be renamed Eula Hall highway in honor of the woman who
brought hope and healing to thousands. ``She had little
education. She had no financial resources of her own. She had
five children to raise by herself. By all accounts her life
should have barely been noticed outside of the family and
close friends,'' said Sara George, Information Officer for
Highway District 12. ``But if you think like that, you don't
think like Eula Hall. She never met a problem she couldn't
face head on, never met a person she couldn't relate to, and
never took `no' for an answer when it came to the health and
well being of the people of her neck of the woods. She is
humble, yet tough; gracious yet tenacious; and she is
probably the most revered, respected, and loved person in Mud
Creek, and rightly so.''
Eula looks at her life from a practical viewpoint.
``Nothing won't happen if you sit back and watch the
suffering of other people.'' It's a simple motto and one that
she lives by.
More than 30 years ago, Hall opened the Mud Creek Clinic in
Floyd County to serve the needs of people without health
insurance or money to pay their doctors' bills. ``I seen so
much suffering, since I was a little girl. There was no
affordable health care at all for people without health
insurance, people without money. We just stayed home, sick or
whatever. People died for lack of a tetanus shot or
something,'' she told the Courier Journal last year.
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Executive Director
for Highway District 12, Danl Hall, will emcee a ceremony
that will feature speakers such as Senator Turner, Rep.
Meade, Social Security Administration Area District Manager
Jim Kelly and Big Sandy Health Care CEO Ancil Lewis. U.S.
Congressman Hal Rogers will be represented by Tonya Conn.
Born in Greasy Creek in Pike County, Eula didn't start
school until she was nine years old. She remembers crying on
her last day of the eighth grade because she knew she
couldn't continue her education. The closest high school was
about 20 miles away, and there was no school bus that came
that far out in the county. She had six brothers and sisters;
her parents didn't have a car; and as farm workers they
certainly didn't have the money for boarding school or
college.
Years later, as a young mother raising five children on her
own, she realized anew the terrible toll that lack of proper
health care took on people without money or insurance. She
organized screening using medical students from UK and
Vanderbilt as well as volunteer nurses and physicians. They
found undiagnosed tuberculosis, pneumoconiosis (black lung),
diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure. In 1973 she
managed to get a clinic licensed to operate on Mud Creek in
Floyd County. The Mud Creek Clinic opened in a rented house
on Tinker Fork, which it quickly outgrew. Hall moved the
facility to her own home on Mink Branch. Her house was bigger
and easier to get to. But it meant moving her family into a
mobile home.
Eula Hall picked up patients and took them home because
many of them had no transportation, or at least none that was
reliable. She delivered food and medicine. Now
[[Page 22186]]
she even works to get people their rightful Social Security
and other benefits, winning more cases than some attorneys,
according to many observers.
By 1977 the clinic merged with Big Sandy Health Care, which
remains its parent organization today.
Five years later, the clinic burned to the ground. ``We
didn't miss a day,'' Hall recalled. ``We set up shop on a
picnic table under the trees.''
The new Mud Creek Clinic opened in 1984, thanks to $320,000
from the Appalachian Regional Commission and dozens of quilt
raffles, chicken and dumpling dinners, a radio-thon, and
other local fundraising efforts.
Now there are 24 employees, including two full-time
physicians, a full-time certified physician assistant, and a
part-time doctor. The clinic is housed in a modern brick
building with another facility behind it that houses a dental
clinic and food pantry. Eula Hall is 78 years old, but still
goes to work at 8 o'clock every morning.
Last year Eula was presented an honorary doctorate from
Berea College at the same ceremony which honored Archbishop
Desmond Tutu, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. She also
holds an honorary doctorate from Trinity College, Harford,
Connecticut, and one from the Pikeville College School of
Osteopathic Medicine.
``I appreciate (the awards),'' she said. ``But I never done
anything to get awards. I do it because I need to. Somebody
needs to.''
Clinic patients, neighbors and friends, and many local
elected and appointed government officials will come together
on Friday to honor Eula Hall once again, this time by naming
in her honor the road she's traveled so many years. The
public is invited to attend and join Eula afterwards for a
reception hosted by Big Sandy Health Care.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SELDON SHORT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a good friend and
fellow Kentuckian, Seldon Short, who with his wife Janet has worked for
the Kentucky Mountain Holiness Association for the past 49 years and in
radio for the past 55.
Mr. Short began his career in broadcasting in 1951 at WMTC-AM, a
small radio station in Vancleve, KY. Throughout his time in radio Mr.
Short ran the gauntlet of progress, keeping up with the technological
changes of the last half century from 78-rpm vinyl records to cassette
tapes to satellite delivery, while also expanding his own radio
station. After Mr. Short became general manager in 1978, his small AM
station grew from 1000 watts to 5000 watts, and in 1991 switched over
to the FM dial.
Upon his retirement from WMTC-FM this October, Mr. Short was awarded
the J.T. Whitlock Life Member Award from the Kentucky Broadcasters
Association for his commitment and dedication to the field of
broadcasting.
On October 12, 2006, The Breathitt County Voice published an article
highlighting Mr. Short's contributions to his community. I ask
unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record and
that the entire Senate join me in paying respect to this beloved
Kentuckian.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Breathitt County Voice, Oct. 12, 2006]
``A Blessing to Breathitt County''--Seldon & Janet Short Retire
(By Jeff Noble)
All around the room Seldon Short could see friends. Dozens
of them came out on a Friday night to say ``thank you'' to
him and his wife Janet. Even after he suffered crippling
injuries in a horrible car crash a few years back, he smiles.
Even after Janet suffered debilitating illness from an
operation some time ago, she remains upbeat.
And they're not bitter. Because of their resiliency, Seldon
and Janet Short's faith and love of people keeps them above
the rollercoaster that is life. ``It does our hearts good to
see all these people we've served,'' Seldon said during a
retirement party for him and his wife inside the dining hall
of Mt. Carmel High School. ``You look around and it's amazing
how wonderful life really is. Janet and I will be married 50
years next June. We've been blessed with four children and
six grandchildren. And we have a lifetime of memories. God's
been good to us, and because of that, we keep going.''
Janet gently squeezed her husband's hand as she spoke of
the outpouring of love their friends provided at the party.
``It's so nice to see all these people. People I've worked
with, people who helped babysit for my children when I was on
the radio, people who we love and cherish. I'm just thankful
the Lord has seen us through during this time, and sometimes,
it was rough.'' Then she looked admiringly at Seldon and
spoke softly with a smile. ``Seldon, he's a great guy. I
don't know what I'd do without him. He's wonderful. I can't
brag on him enough.''
Neither could some in the room, like his old friend Robert
Cundiff. ``Seldon loves people. But he is also a shy
person,'' getting a laugh out of the crowd as he spoke. He
then told a story about his old buddy, who, like Cundiff,
graduated from Mt. Carmel and the former Kentucky Mountain
Bible Institute (now Kentucky Mountain Bible College). ``For
instance, in the cafeteria, Seldon was so shy, he wouldn't
even say `Pass the biscuits.' Can you imagine Seldon doing
that?'' It was a remark that brought the house down. Cundiff
then thanked Seldon for being the ``founding father of the
Mt. Carmel Former Students Association--our alumni
association. Thank you, my old friend.''
Not to be outdone, several of Janet's friends and co-
workers came to bring yellow roses to her, and to spin some
stories about Mrs. Short and her work she and her husband did
at WMTC Radio. ``While I played piano, I remember Janet
reading poems over the radio station,'' said Donna Woodring.
``Sometimes they would be quite inspiring, sometimes they
would be whimsical. She was always delightful.'' Carlene
Light recalled another moment. ``Janet loved to cook, and she
loved to watch you eat. That's why I'm overweight.'' After
getting laughs from the audience, Carlene went on to say,
``What's so great about this couple is that Seldon and Janet
are focused on people.'' It was a statement echoed by Faith
Amspaugh. ``In fact, my children, who are all grown, still
call them Uncle Seldon and Aunt Janet.''
For many years, Seldon and Janet wore many hats working for
the Kentucky Mountain Holiness Association. He was with KMHA
for 49 years, while Janet worked for 40 years. Of that time,
Seldon served as Vice-President of KMHA, as well as positions
on the Jackson Kiwanis Club, the Jackson Independent School
board, the pastor of two churches (Wolverine for 23 years and
Bach Memorial for 18 years), and as a board member of the
Kentucky Broadcasters Association (KBA). From his humble
beginnings as a part-time announcer in 1951, Seldon returned
to WMTC full-time in 1954-55. After going to Asbury College,
he came back for good to the radio station in 1958.
He and Janet had a heart for radio, and remained with the
station for many years. Seldon became General Manager of WMTC
in 1978, saw the station's signal on 730 AM go from 1,000
watts to 5,000 watts, and was at the creation of WMTC-FM, as
it went on the air at 99.9 in 1991. ``I did a lot of live
programs back then. There was no tape as we know it today.
Recorded shows were on big, heavy 78 RPM vinyl discs. Then we
got old-fashioned recorders that weren't plastic, but
paperback. Then we went to reel-to-reel tape recorders,
cassette recorders, CD's and satellite delivery. Today is all
computerized.'' Then Short pointed his finger up at the sky
and said, ``What hasn't changed is the commitment to serving
people. I still think trying to be of service to the area you
cover is still the most important thing you can do as a
broadcaster. You still need to respond to their wants, their
needs, their requests and their hunger for information.''
That same hunger for service came to his successor,
Jennifer Cox. ``The Shorts welcomed me to WMTC. I had never
worked at a family environment. And I learned from a reliable
source.'' Cox, who succeeded Seldon as General Manager in
June of this year, got misty-eyed when she spoke of him. ``He
did live radio and has gone through the computer age.
Everything I know he taught me. Because of Seldon and his
vision, we at WMTC are where we are today. I thank him for
his leadership and kindness.'' At that point, Cox presented
Seldon with the J. T. Whitlock Life Member Award from the
Kentucky Broadcasters Association. ``J. T. was a great friend
of mine,'' Seldon said of the late, long-time Executive
Secretary-Treasurer of the KBA. ``He was a great friend of
the small broadcaster, like us, and he had a great heart for
people, and serving those people who listened to him.''
As some 50 of their friends munched on cake and
refreshments in the dining hall, the Shorts listened as the
current President of KMHA reminded the crowd that despite
their adversities, Seldon and Janet were not bitter about
their experiences. ``Both of them are not quitters,'' said
Dr. Philip Speas. ``The Shorts are made out of good stuff.
They're made of good metal. They've been a real illustration
of patience. They are a blessing to Breathitt County.''
Toward the end of the reception, Seldon got up out of his
wheelchair and looked at the room again. His friends, like
Rev. and Mrs. Wilfred Fisher, and his children and
grandchildren, were all standing and applauding. The cheering
died down. His wife was in tears. He was too, as he softly
told them, all his friends for life, ``Thank you. God has
really blessed us through these long, wonderful years, and
all of you have graced us with your friendship. Despite our
difficulties, we'd do it all over again. God's grace has been
sufficient. It's been a good life.''
____________________
THANKSGIVING 2006
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, next week, Americans across our great land
will be celebrating one of our oldest and most beloved holidays,
Thanksgiving.
[[Page 22187]]
What a great and glorious holiday this is--a truly and uniquely
American holiday. It is a day for giving thanks. A day devoted to
family, to country, and to God. A day of eating turkey, sweet potatoes,
mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, dressing, and pumpkin pie. It is a
day of parades, football games, and the beginning of the Christmas
holiday season.
It is a day of family gatherings. Unfortunately, in too many homes
this year, and as in the past 5 years, there will be too many empty
seats at the dinner table. I hope everyone listening will join me in
praying for our sons and daughters who are in harm's way in Iraq and
Afghanistan, in praying for the eternal salvation of those who have
died in these costly conflicts, and in praying for the speedy recovery
of those who have been wounded. While we cannot hope to fill those
empty chairs, we can hope that our prayers and our love and support
will help to ease the sorrow at those tables.
Even with the turmoil of the past year and with so many of our sons
and daughters in faraway lands, we still have so much for which to be
thankful.
We are thankful for the Pilgrims--that courageous group of men and
women who, in 1621, left their homes, crossed a mighty ocean, and
settled in a strange, unknown wilderness so they could go to church so
they could worship God as they pleased.
After months of privation, suffering, hunger, sickness and death,
these men and women had a great feast to thank God for being good to
them. Think about it. With all the brutal hardships they had endured,
with all the death and suffering they endured, they took time to have a
great feast to thank Almighty God for being good to them. In the
process, they gave us our first Thanksgiving
We are thankful for the heritage of liberty bequeathed to us by our
ancestors. We are thankful for the wisdom and the foresight of our
Founding Fathers who bestowed to us a form of government unique in
history, with its three strong pillars of executive, legislative, and
judicial branches, each balanced and checked against one another.
In fact, Mr. President, that is the very point I want to emphasize.
The very first national observance of Thanksgiving, which came in 1789,
was to thank Almighty God for His role in creating our great country,
and His assistance in the forming of our Constitution.
This happened when, in the very first Congress in 1789,
Representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey moved that a day of
thanksgiving be held to thank God for giving the American people the
opportunity to create a Constitution to preserve their newly won
freedoms.
The resolution, as approved by both Houses of the Congress, requested
that a ``joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the
president of the United States, to request that he recommend to the
people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving.''
On September 26, 1789, the first Senate agreed to the House
resolution, and a few days later a joint congressional committee
delivered to President Washington a resolution ``desiring the president
of the United States to recommend a day of general thanksgiving.''
Within a few days, on October 3, President Washington issued the
first national thanksgiving proclamation. Our first and perhaps our
greatest President proclaimed Thursday, November 26, 1789, to be a day
of national thanksgiving.
That proclamation is a fascinating and informative document. It
begins by proclaiming that, ``it is the duty of all nations to
acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be
grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and
favor.''
The Father of our country left no doubt about his belief that our
Nation was not simply the creation of mere mortals but was, in fact,
guided by a Divine Hand. As if to emphasize this point, his
proclamation went on to praise ``that great and glorious Being who is
the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will
be.'' He exhorted the people of his young Republic to express their
gratitude to Almighty God for his protection of them through the
Revolutionary War. He wrote: ``We may then all unite in rendering unto
Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of
the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation.''
That was George Washington. That was the basis of our first national
Thanksgiving.
But he was not through. This was a Thanksgiving proclamation, so he
proceeded to give thanks. He asked the American people to be thankful
to Almighty God for ``the civil and religious liberty with which we are
blessed.''
And he asked the American people to be thankful ``for the peaceable
and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish
constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and
particularly the national one now lately instituted.''
I hope everyone caught that. President Washington was thanking the
Good Lord for the Constitution that created the American Government.
At the request of our first President, citizens throughout the land
assembled in churches on November 26, 1789, and thanked God for their
government and asked Him for His Guidance in the years ahead. As for
President Washington, he spent the day worshiping at an Episcopal
church in Manhattan.
As you celebrate this Thanksgiving, enjoy your families. Enjoy your
Thanksgiving feasts. Enjoy your football games and your parades.
But like President Washington, you might want to think about
attending church on this great and glorious day and give thanks for our
many blessings. Like President Washington, you may want to thank God
for watching over the United States and for His assistance in the
creation of our Constitution, our Nation's most basic and sacred
document, which has guided and protected our country for more than 200
years, through world wars, great depressions, and bitter, divisive
elections.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Private First Class Jeffrey Shaffer
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, it is my honor to rise today to pay
tribute to one of Arkansas' fallen heroes, PFC Jeffrey Shaffer, who
gave his life serving our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
By all accounts from family and friends, Private First Class Shaffer
lived his life to the fullest. For this young man, that meant caring
for others, having fun, and making people laugh, even when confronted
with life's challenges. The image of a tough soldier masked the side
most familiar to his loved ones, that of a more playful young man who
pulled pranks and brought laughter to lives of others. His stepfather,
Mark Adams, recalls a golf outing where neither he nor Jeff was playing
particularly well. Rather than suffer through the rest of the game, and
to the surprise of Mark, Private First Class Shaffer jumped in the
water and began collecting golf balls. Mark had never had more fun
playing golf. The day was a testament to the effect Private First Class
Shaffer often had on others.
But he also had a humble, more serious side and a deep sense of
commitment to his country. While working for his uncle's masonry
contracting business in Harrison, AR, he took time to earn his GED.
Shortly thereafter, and to the surprise of many in his family, he
joined the U.S. Army in February 2005. The tragic events of September
11 changed how he viewed the world and motivated him to serve in the
military. For Private First Class Shaffer, serving in the Army was a
way he could contribute to the safety of his family and security of all
Americans.
The 20-year-old was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry
Regiment, 1st Armored Division. After being stationed in Germany,
Private First Class Shaffer was deployed to Kuwait and later Iraq.
Witnessing close friends lose their lives in Iraq, he was never naive
about the dangerous realities of war. He believed whatever happened to
him was God's will and often told this to his mother to calm her fears.
Private First Class Shaffer's life ended on September 13, 2006, after a
roadside bomb
[[Page 22188]]
detonated near his Bradley assault vehicle.
On September 16, family, friends, and fellow soldiers gathered at
Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, TX, to pay tribute to the life and
legacy of Jeffrey Shaffer. I am proud to pay tribute to him today and
am thankful for his service to our country. He leaves behind a 2-year-
old daughter, Makayla Grace, who I hope will one day know that her
father took full advantage of what life had to offer and brought untold
happiness to those around him. My thoughts and prayers are with her,
Jeffrey's parents, his aunt and uncle, and all those who knew and loved
him.
Lance Corporal Kyle Wesley Powell
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention
the loss of a young man of great promise from my home State of
Colorado: Marine LCpl Kyle Wesley Powell. A member of Unit C Co, 1st
Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary
Force out of Camp Pendleton, Lance Corporal Powell was killed earlier
this month in Fallujah, Iraq.
Kyle Powell was a native of Colorado Springs. He was an Eagle Scout
who graduated from Cheyenne Mountain High School, and joined the Marine
Corps in September 2003. Lance Corporal Powell was on his third tour as
a marine in Iraq. During his second tour, he received the Navy
Achievement Medal after a bunker which he had designed and constructed
absorbed an attack of several enemy rocket-propelled grenades,
protecting the marines within it.
In fact, just a few days before his passing, Lance Corporal Powell
had saved the life of another fellow marine, applying a tourniquet and
firing his weapon at the enemy until they could be rescued.
What jumps out about Lance Corporal Powell is that when people speak
of him, one word keeps coming up: leader.
``He was always, always ready to go and lead from the front,'' said
LTC Wayne Sinclair, commander of the 1st CEB.
In fact, at the time of his untimely loss, Lance Corporal Powell was
leading a convoy moving to help extract a group of fellow marines from
hostile territory. He was conducting a mine sweep when he was killed,
likely saving the lives of five other marines who were behind him in a
humvee.
I noted before that Lance Corporal Powell was on his third tour in
Iraq. But it should be noted that he went on this third tour by choice:
in August, he chose to lead by example. He volunteered to go to Iraq
because his unit was short of others to send overseas.
At a time when so many of our young men and women are preoccupied
with the coming course schedules at colleges and universities, Kyle
Powell was focused on helping the people of Iraq.
Kyle's parents, Nancy and David are former Army officers, and they
know firsthand the dangers their son faced. They know the same pride he
felt in doing the work that by all accounts he truly loved.
Nancy and David, our Nation mourns the loss of your son with you. We
celebrate his service to our Nation, his willingness to always
selflessly step to the front and lead so that others, be they in his
unit or half a world away in his hometown, would be safer. Our Nation
is humbled by his heroism, and we hope your grief is soothed by knowing
that his sacrifice is forever appreciated by every American.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL ERIC J. KRUGER
Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to recall the life and service
of Army LTC Eric J. Kruger, who was killed near Baghdad earlier this
month. He was the highest-ranking officer from Fort Carson, CO, to be
killed in Iraq and had only been there a few days.
Colonel Kruger was deputy commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team
out of Fort Carson, which has recently been deployed to Iraq.
Previously, Colonel Kruger had served a year in Afghanistan and less
than 10 months after returning to the States and connecting with 2BCT
was redeployed as part of an advance team to prepare for 2BCT's
deployment to the area.
Colonel Kruger was a graduate of North Garland High in Texas and
earned a bachelor's degree in political science and master's degree in
liberal arts from Southern Methodist University in his home State
before joining the U.S. Army in 1989. Colonel Kruger completed airborne
and Ranger training.
As a soldier, Eric Kruger was of notable and rare distinction: during
his service he had earned the Bronze Star, numerous Meritorious Service
Awards and an Army Commendation medal. He was a man of deep patriotism
and conviction in his job. He believed in making the world a better
place and acted to help make that vision a reality.
But it is the testimony of those with whom he served that helps
illuminate the extraordinary character of Colonel Kruger. One fellow
soldier from Fort Carson remembered him as ``a wonderful man and a
great leader. Everyone who knew him loved him.'' A staff sergeant who
served under him said that Colonel Kruger was ``one of the few
leaders'' who helped her realize her life's path was with the U.S.
Army: ``Sir, your excitement, passion, and outstanding leadership moved
me in my military career,'' she wrote. Another staff sergeant spoke of
Kruger's respect for his fellow man, remembering that when he first met
Colonel Kruger, ``Even though he vastly outranked me, he always treated
me and all others with a vast respect and kindness.''
A fellow officer who served with Colonel Kruger in Afghanistan
recalled his commitment to his family. ``Eric was a good man, a fine
soldier and a loving father. We often spoke of our families, and I
remember being struck by his dedication to his family and his concern
for their wellbeing.'' There is no doubt: Colonel Kruger cared deeply
about his fellow man and dedicated his life to serving others.
To Colonel Kruger's wife Sara and their four children, Caitlin,
Joshua, Christian, and Elise: You and Eric are in our prayers, today
and always. May you find peace and solace in this time of grief,
knowing that Eric's service to this Nation will not be forgotten. The
many lives he positively shaped as an officer and American are tributes
to his leadership and to your support of his efforts. For this, our
entire Nation is grateful.
Colonel Eric Kruger was an unquestionable hero, a leader whom each of
us can admire and who can inspire every Member of this body to redouble
our efforts on behalf of him and every one of our Nation's veterans and
men and women serving in uniform.
California Casualties
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 47 young
Americans who have been killed in Iraq since July 18. This brings to
639 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in
California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This
represents 22 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.
LCpl Geofrey R. Cayer, 20, died July 18 from a nonhostile incident in
Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp
Pendleton, CA.
SPC Joseph A. Graves, 21, died on July 25 in Baghdad, Iraq, from
injuries sustained when his military vehicle encountered a vehicle-
borne improvised explosive device and small arms fire. He was assigned
to the 110th Military Police Company, 720th Military Police Battalion,
III Corps, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Discovery Bay, CA.
LCpl James W. Higgins, 22, died July 27 from wounds received while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was
assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Cpl Phillip E. Baucus, 28, died July 29 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Sgt Christian B. Williams, 27, died July 29 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
[[Page 22189]]
LCpl Anthony E. Butterfield, 19, died July 29 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Clovis, CA.
PFC Jason Hanson, 21, died July 29 while conducting combat operations
in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
LCpl Kurt E. Dechen, 24, died August 3 from wounds received while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was
assigned to 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division,
while attached to Regimental Combat Team 5, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Marc A. Lee, 28, was killed on August 2
during combat operations while on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq. Lee was an
aviation ordnanceman and a member of a SEAL team based in the San Diego
area.
LCpl Jeremy Z. Long, 18, died August 10 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st
Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
SGT Jeffrey S. Brown, 25, died on August 10 in Rutbah, Iraq, of
injuries sustained on August 8, when his helicopter crashed. He was
assigned to the 82nd Medical Company, Fort Riley, KS. He was from
Trinity Center, CA.
Hospitalman Chadwick T. Kenyon, 20, died on August 20 from wounds
sustained when his Light Armored Vehicle struck an improvised explosive
device while on combat patrol in Rawah, Iraq. He was assigned to the
3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
LCpl Randy L. Newman, 21, died August 20 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Cpl Adam A. Galvez, 21, died August 20 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Chief Petty Officer Paul J. Darga, 34, died August 22 when his
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team was struck by an improvised explosive
device while responding to a previous strike in the Al Anbar province,
Iraq. Darga was assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit
Two, serving with the 1st Marine Logistics Group, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SGT David J. Almazan, 27, died on August 27 in Hit, Iraq, of injuries
suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle
during combat operations. Almazan was assigned to the 1st Battalion,
36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division,
Friedberg, Germany. He was from Van Nuys, CA.
LCpl Shane P. Harris, 23, died on September 3 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light
Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.
Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Christopher G. Walsh, 30, died on
September 4 from wounds sustained when his vehicle struck an improvised
explosive device while on combat patrol in Al Anbar, Iraq. His Navy
Reserve Unit was attached to the I Marine Division in Camp Pendleton,
CA.
PFC Hannah L. Gunterman, 20, died on September 4 in Taji, Iraq, of
injuries sustained when she was struck by a vehicle. She was assigned
to the 542nd Maintenance Company, 44th Corps Support Battalion, 593rd
Corps Support Group, Fort Lewis, WA. She was from Redlands, CA.
SGT Luis A. Montes, 22, died on September 7 in Brooke Army Medical
Center, San Antonio, TX, of injuries suffered on September 1 in Abu
Ghraib, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion,
22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division,
Fort Hood, TX. He was from El Centro, CA.
Cpl Johnathan L. Benson, 21, died September 9 from wounds suffered on
June 17 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq.
He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine
Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SPC Harley D. Andrews, 22, died on September 11 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq,
of injuries suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near
his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the 54th
Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, Warner Barracks, Bamberg,
Germany. He was from Weimar, CA.
CPL Cesar A. Granados, 21, died on September 15 of injuries sustained
in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near
his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the 2nd
Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division,
Fort Hood, TX. He was from Le Grand, CA.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, 25, died September 29
while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Ramadi,
Iraq. He was a SEAL assigned to a San Diego-based command. He was from
Garden Grove, CA.
SGT Joseph W. Perry, 23, died on October 2, in Muhallah, Iraq, when
his mounted patrol came in contact with enemy forces using small arms
fire during combat operations. He was assigned to the 21st Military
Police Company, 16th Military Police Brigade, XVIIIth Airborne Corps,
Fort Bragg, NC. He was from Alpine, CA.
SSG Daniel Isshak, 25, died on October 3 in Tikrit, Iraq, from
injuries suffered when his vehicle received enemy small arms fire at
Hawija, Iraq, during combat operations. He was assigned to the 2nd
Battalion, 27th Infantry, 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division,
Schofield Barracks, HI. He was from Alta Loma, CA.
CPL Luis E. Tejeda, 20, died on September 30 in Hit, Iraq, of
injuries sustained when his military vehicle encountered an improvised
explosive device. He was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 36th
Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany. He was
from Huntington Park, CA.
PFC Kenny F. Stanton, Jr., 20, died on October 13 in Baghdad, Iraq,
when his military vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device.
He was assigned to the 57th Military Police Company, 728th Military
Police Battalion, Yong San, Korea. He was from Hemet, CA.
Sgt Jonathan J. Simpson, 25, died October 14 while conducting combat
operations against enemy forces in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was
assigned to 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp
Pendleton, CA.
PFC Keith J. Moore, 28, died October 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of a
noncombat-related injury. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 14th
Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division,
Fort Drum, NY. He was from San Francisco, CA.
CPT Mark C. Paine, 32, died October 15 in Taji, Iraq, from injuries
suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st
Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Rancho
Cucamonga, CA.
SGT Lester D. Baroncini, Jr., 33, died on October 15 in Samarra,
Iraq, when his military vehicle encountered multiple landmines. He was
assigned to A Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry
Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He was from
Bakersfield, CA.
SPC Jose R. Perez, 21, died October 18 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, from
injuries suffered from enemy small arms fire. He was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st
Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. He was from Ontario, CA.
SGT Norman R. Taylor III, 21, died on October 17 in Baqubah, Iraq,
when his military vehicle encountered an
[[Page 22190]]
improvised explosive device. He was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry
Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Blythe, CA.
SPC Matthew W. Creed, 23, died on October 22 in Baghdad, Iraq, of
injuries sustained from small arms fire. He was assigned to
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry
Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Covina, CA.
Hospital Corpsman Charles O. Sare, 23, died October 23 from enemy
action while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar Province,
Iraq. He was assigned to Naval Ambulatory Care Center, Port Hueneme,
CA. He was from Hemet, CA.
PFC Jason Franco, 18, died October 31 from a nonhostile incident in
Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Aviation Logistics
Squadron 11, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing,
Miramar, CA. He was from Corona, CA.
PVT Michael P. Bridges, 23, died November 2 in Taji, Iraq, from a
noncombat-related incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th
Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He
was from Placentia, CA.
SSG Joseph A. Gage, 28, died November 2 in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries
suffered when an IED detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Modesto, CA.
Cpl Jose A. Galvan, 22, died November 5 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st
Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary
Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
Cpl Kyle W. Powell, 21, died November 4, from wounds suffered while
conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was
assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I
Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.
SSG Richwell A. Doria, 25, died on November 7 in Kirkuk, Iraq, after
being struck by small arms fire during an air assault mission. He was
assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade,
25th Infantry Regiment, Schofield Barracks, HI. He was from San Diego,
CA.
SFC Rudy A. Salcido, 31, died on November 9 in Baghdad, Iraq, after
an improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy vehicle.
Salcido was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1114th Transportation
Company, Bakersfield, CA. He was from Ontario, CA.
SGT Angel De Lucio Ramirez, 22, died on November 11 in Ar Ramadi,
Iraq, when his military vehicle encountered an improvised explosive
device. He was assigned to the 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade,
1st Armored Division, Giessen, Germany. He was from Pacoima, CA.
LCpl Timothy W. Brown, 21, died November 14 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to the 2nd
Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine
Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, HI. He was from Sacramento, CA.
PFC Jang H. Kim, 20, died on November 13 when his military vehicle
encountered an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry
Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. He was from
Placentia, CA.
LCpl Mario D. Gonzalez, 21, died November 14 while conducting combat
operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd
Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine
Expeditionary Force, Kaneohe Bay, HI. He was from La Puente, CA.
I would also like to pay tribute to the four soldiers from or based
in California who have died while serving our country in Operation
Enduring Freedom since July 18.
SPC Andrew Velez, 22, died on July 25 in Sharona, Afghanistan, of a
noncombat-related injury. He was assigned to the 699th Maintenance
Company, Corps Support Battalion, Theater Support Command, Fort Irwin,
CA.
SFC Merideth L. Howard, 52, died in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September
8, when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated near her
vehicle. She was assigned to the Army Reserve's 405th Civil Affairs
Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC. She was from Alameda, CA.
SPC Fernando D. Robinson, 21, died on October 2 in Korengal,
Afghanistan, from injuries sustained when his patrol came under attack
by enemy forces using small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. He
was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade
Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY. He
was from Hawthorne, CA.
PFC Alex Oceguera, 19, died on October 31 in Wygal Valley,
Afghanistan, of injuries suffered when an IED detonated near his
vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment,
3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY. He was
from San Bernardino, CA.
____________________
INTERNET GAMBLING
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to address the recent enactment
of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006. Due to
procedural considerations at the end of the regular session, this law
was enacted as title VIII of H.R. 4954, a bill focused on port
security. But I want the record to show that I have been working to
pass this law for more than 10 years, with the support of many
colleagues. Indeed, the Senators serving as conferees for the port
security bill accepted including the Internet gambling title, as did
the leadership on both sides of the aisle. And this July, the House of
Representatives voted 317-93 in favor of a bill containing not only
identical enforcement measures to those that were recently enacted, but
also including the more controversial Wire Act amendments.
Over the last five Congresses, a stand-alone Internet gambling bill
has been passed by at least one Chamber of Congress, every time by
overwhelming bipartisan votes. The last time an Internet gambling bill
came before the whole Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent.
Unfortunately, the Jack Abramoff scandal corrupted the process for that
bill in the House of Representatives. Since then, the full Senate has
not had the opportunity to vote on more recent legislation repeatedly
passed by more than three-quarters of the House. So I greatly
appreciate the assistance of the majority leader and the conferees in
finally getting this long-overdue law to the President's desk.
The National Association of Attorneys General--NAAG--first approached
me in 1995 about the problem of Internet gambling. The State attorneys
general were concerned about the evasion and erosion of State laws by
gambling websites operating beyond the reach of State law enforcement.
I heeded NAAG's request and introduced the first Internet gambling bill
late that year to increase Federal enforcement of gambling laws.
Over the next 10 years, Senate and House Committees repeatedly held
hearings and markups. We listened to the experts about what types of
enforcement would be effective or impractical, and revised the
legislation in response. In 1999, the congressionally commissioned
National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report recommended that law
enforcement target the payment systems to combat illegal offshore
gambling, so that is the approach we adopted.
I have worked closely with Representative Jim Leach, former chair of
the House Financial Services Committee, a very capable and thoughtful
colleague who will be greatly missed in future Congresses.
Representative Mike Oxley, who succeeded Mr. Leach as Financial
Services chairman a few years ago, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner,
chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and Representative
Bob Goodlatte, who sponsored the bill scuttled by Jack
[[Page 22191]]
Abramoff, have all helped shape Internet gambling legislation over the
last several years.
Why has Congress been so supportive of Internet gambling legislation
for so long? Because offshore operators have been flouting American
laws for personal gain. They have been giving Americans the false
impression that these activities are legal. They have been profiteering
from this. The Federal Government has long given States the right to
prohibit or limit gambling activities for the protection of the public,
but offshore Web sites have been ignoring and circumventing the State
laws. State law enforcement officials and Congress refused to stand
idly by as our laws were evaded and eroded.
How could an illegal activity become so pervasive? Knowing that their
businesses are illegal in the United States and many other countries,
Internet-gambling businesses have set up shop in countries with very
few gambling regulations, such as Antigua and Costa Rica. These small
countries benefit from the billions of dollars of profit generated by
their local gambling operators. So when the United States tries to
prosecute a criminal violation of its gambling laws, these countries
are not interested in extraditing their wealthiest residents. The
United States is thwarted in its efforts to enforce its criminal laws
against offshore gambling businesses.
Some say that, instead of trying to enforce the law, we should
legalize and regulate online gambling. Why does this approach have so
little support in Congress? Because Internet gambling is a scourge to
society, leading to addiction and bankruptcy, and enticing young people
into a gambling lifestyle.
Internet gambling is highly addictive. Online gambling is available
24/7 from almost any location. Fast and continuous play, often financed
by credit, allows online gamblers to rapidly lose tens of thousands of
dollars, leading to bankruptcy, family devastation, and criminal
activity. It is easy to conceal the addiction because an online gambler
does not need to leave home or the office to gamble, and shows no
physical signs of addictive behavior like an alcohol or drug addict
does.
Various recent studies show that Internet gamblers are two to three
times more likely to become addicted than brick-and-mortar gamblers.
One study of students at the University of Connecticut found that 74
percent of Internet gamblers were problem or pathological gamblers. The
Annenberg Public Policy Center's 2005 National Annenberg Risk Survey of
Youth--NARSY--surveyed 900 young people between 14 and 22 and found
that 54 percent of youth who gamble online at least once a week are
problem gamblers, and that card players exhibit the most symptoms of
gambling addiction.
Internet gambling entices young people into a gambling lifestyle.
Young people who are accustomed to playing video games for hours on end
are particularly likely to be enticed by the games and to lack a
realistic perception of the consequences of gambling for money.
Conversely, traditional casinos appeal to mature adults: according to a
recent survey by the American Gaming Association, 75 percent of casino
customers are over 40 years old. Internet gambling appeals to the
opposite demographic: at least 70 percent of Internet gamblers are
under 40 according to the AGA, and they did not even count the millions
of online gamblers who are under 21. Also, Internet gambling appears to
be a gateway drug. According to that same survey, Internet gamblers are
twice as likely to engage in traditional gambling than the general
population. So the rise of online gambling is fertilizing the soil for
an explosion of gambling addictions in this country.
The United Kingdom is in the midst of an effort to legalize and
regulate online gambling, including efforts to prevent youth and
problem gambling. This effort is not going well. A report commissioned
by the British Government was issued a few weeks ago. The report admits
that most gambling operators choose jurisdictions where there is very
little regulation on their activities. This creates a race to the
bottom, where gambling operators in a few countries can offer services
that flout the laws of almost every other jurisdiction.
The new law confronts the problem of online gambling in three ways.
First, it transforms violations of State gambling laws into a Federal
crime as soon as the gambling operator receives money for the
transaction. Second, it authorizes Federal and State attorneys general
to enjoin persons who enable violations of the law, such as a person
running advertisements for illegal Web sites. Third, it requires
payment systems to block payments for illegal online gambling.
The new Federal criminal law is already having a positive effect. The
publicly traded online gambling companies, who have to answer to
financial institutions and other investors, have quickly withdrawn from
the U.S. market.
Some Web sites continue to deceive the American public about the
legality of online gambling, State and Federal law enforcement are now
empowered to enjoin advertising for these illegal websites, and any
other support services within their reach. Payment blocking is
necessary to reduce Internet gambling and make it clear to the American
public that this activity is illegal.
The payment blocking requirements will not become effective until the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve issue regulations. The
statutory deadline for these regulations is August 10, 2007. I urge the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to issue these regulations
on time, and to make them strong.
Most online gambling websites use third-party offshore payment
systems to receive money from U.S. customers, because many U.S.
financial institutions have already been blocking payments to these Web
sites for years. When a U.S. credit card or bank sends money to one of
these services, the U.S. financial institution does not know how the
money will be used. On the other hand, the third-party payers know the
money in their accounts is being used for online gambling by U.S.
customers. Therefore, these third-party payers are knowingly aiding and
abetting a criminal act when they send funds from U.S. customer
accounts to online gambling companies.
Firepay has appropriately chosen to stop making these illegal
payments for American customers, even though it operates out of
Ireland. The regulations need to make sure that law-abiding companies
such as Firepay are protected, while third-party payers who knowingly
aid and abet criminal activity are effectively sanctioned.
I would also note that this law empowers payment systems to make
strong efforts to stop the use of their systems for online gambling. To
that end, section 5364(d) of the new law protects entities from civil
liability for blocking restricted transactions, or if they mistakenly
block, prevent, or prohibit legal transactions when attempting, in good
faith, to comply with the law. At the same time, section 5364(b)(4)
clarifies that the government will attempt to draft the regulations to
catch as few legal transactions as possible.
The key is implementing the most effective and efficient enforcement
measures that are reasonably possible. We have not sat idly by while
unscrupulous operators profiteer from evading our laws and perpetrating
fraud on the public. We have worked long and hard to defend the letter
and the purpose of State and Federal gambling laws, and now we ask the
executive branch to help us finish the job. Strong regulations for
payment systems will cut off most fund transfers to offshore online
gambling operators and destroy U.S. markets. By drastically reducing
the availability of Internet gambling in the U.S., we will reduce new
addictions and violations of the law.
This is why, this year, 49 State attorneys general, as well as the
National District Attorneys Association, Federal Criminal
Investigators, and Fraternal Order of Police wrote in support of this
law. These law enforcement groups were not alone. They were joined by
extraordinarily diverse
[[Page 22192]]
groups that are concerned about the effect that online gambling has on
society and the rule of law.
First, sports organizations are concerned about preserving the
integrity of athletic competitions, and want to protect them from
perceptions of corruption or a culture of gambling. This is why the
National Football League, National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, and National
Hockey League all actively supported the law.
Second, financial institutions are concerned about Internet
gambling's association with money laundering, uncollectible consumer
debt, and use of their systems for criminal activity. This is why the
American Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, and
Securities Industry of America, joined by individual companies such as
American Express, Citigroup, and PayPal, wrote in support of the law.
Third, religious groups and family welfare groups are concerned about
the devastating effects that gambling addiction can have on families.
This is why this law was supported by a broad range of civic
organizations, from mainline churches such as the United Methodist
Church and the National Council of Churches, to coalitions such as the
National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, to conservative family
groups such as the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for
America.
This is why I am proud that this legislation was finally enacted. As
all these diverse groups recognized, online gambling is a threat to
civic society for many reasons. Failing to enforce laws that are meant
to diminish this threat undermines the rule of law itself. But today we
stand ready to reclaim the power to enforce the law, and I ask for the
help of the Treasury Department and other executive agencies to secure
this victory.
____________________
WORLD WAR II VETERANS OF FRANKFORT, KANSAS
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the valor and
great sacrifice of the citizens in Frankfort, KS. Frankfort is a small
town in northeast Kansas. It is a thriving rural community of
approximately 855 people. In the early 1940s, just as today, Frankfort
was teeming with good Americans, Americans who answered the call of
duty and fought so that their fellow Americans could live in freedom.
But that alone is not what makes Frankfort notable. Brave men and
women from small towns, big cities, and everywhere in America have
served our Nation in the Armed Forces. Many have made the ultimate
sacrifice.
What makes this town, then home to approximately 1,800 people,
notable is the solemn fact that 32 brave men from Frankfort and the
surrounding farmland gave their lives in World War II. Based on records
from local county newspapers of that time, it is concluded that the
Frankfort community lost more men in World War II than any other town
of similar size. This fact imparts both a deep sense of pride for the
bravery and commitment of these young Kansans and also sadness for the
great loss of life that is inherent in times of war.
During my years in public service, I have experienced many
opportunities to meet some amazing people and hear the incredible
stories that truly define America. This is exactly how I have come to
learn of this incredible contribution to our Nation's security. Frank
Benteman, a World War II Army veteran, shared this story. Mr. Benteman,
now 80 years old, is from Frankfort and was part of this ``greatest
generation'' who served. It was Mr. Benteman who continues to honor
those who went before by remembering their sacrifice and honoring their
memory. I am pleased to work along with Frank Benteman to honor the
heroes of Frankfort, KS, by entering their names into the Congressional
Record in recognition of their ultimate sacrifice to a grateful nation.
The brave men from Frankfort, KS, who gave their lives in the great
Second World War include Willard A. Backman, Fred Bentsen, Lloyd C.
Blackney, Leland Cook, Melvin Cope, Elmer Crumpton, Kenneth DeWalt,
Robert Emmingham, Victor Feldhausen, Peter Fiegener, William R. Gibson,
Don Hockensmith, Jr., Dale C. Hooper, Milan E. Jester, Koester
Johnston, Donald E. King, Vern F. Long, Weldon Maneval, Matt McKeon,
Carl O. Nord, Aloysius Noud, Howard Olson, Paul A. Paden, Charles Poff,
Charles L. Punteney, Theodore Rhodes, David L. Shyne, James Stoffel,
Clifford Watson, Robert B. Welsh, Charles F. Zinn, and Munro Zoellner.
Semper fi.
____________________
THE SATELLITE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to note that while I am
cosponsoring S. 4067, there are some outstanding issues that I believe
need to be addressed before we proceed with this legislation. It is
critical to my rural consumers that they continue to have access to
distant network signals that they have come to enjoy and depend on, and
through no fault of their own now face losing on December 1st, 2006. I
want to ensure that all of my constituents are protected. Accordingly,
I look forward to working with the bill sponsors to improve the
language when the Senate reconvenes in December. In Nevada we have over
5,000 consumers that will be shut off if action is not taken to restore
these signals.
____________________
MARINE CORPS BIRTHDAY
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to commemorate an
important event that took place on Veterans Day weekend. On November
10, the Marine Corps Birthday, I was privileged to give the annual
address at the revered Iwo Jima Memorial, and then to attend the
dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA.
This marvelous dedication featured remarks from President Bush,
President of the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation General (Ret.) Ron
Christmas and the distinguished news anchor and former marine, Jim
Lehrer. They were joined by thousands of fellow marines--past and
present--including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, GEN Pete Pace,
Commandant of the Marine Corps Michael Hagee and former Senators John
Glenn and Chuck Robb.
Especially moving was President Bush conferring our Nation's highest
military decoration, the Medal of Honor, posthumously, on Cpl Jason
Dunham, who was tragically killed outside the Iraqi town of Karabilah
in 2004.
For all who worked tirelessly to construct this wonderful museum that
highlights the Marine Corps experience, that dedication ceremony became
a tribute of a lifetime for all marines.
On this week of Veterans' Day, and the Marine Corps Birthday, we
remind ourselves that we are here solely because of the sacrifices of
men and women who for 231 years now have worn our Nation's uniform to
preserve our freedoms against outside enemies.
Like the ``Devil Dogs'' of Belleau Wood, today's generation of
Leathernecks--from the Commandant to the newest recruit at Parris
Island--have answered one of the highest callings: serving as a marine
for the greatest Nation on Earth.
As President Reagan famously observed, ``some people spend an entire
lifetime wondering if they have made a difference. Marines don't have
that problem.''
My good friend of many years, Jim Lehrer, gave a particularly
inspired speech at the museum dedication that captured the fundamental
nature of what it means to be a marine, and how that experience shaped
him, as it did all of us, in our lives.
I ask unanimous consent that his inspiring speech be printed in the
Record as a tribute to all marines, former or current, around the
world.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 22193]]
Tribute To Marines
(By Jim Lehrer)
Mr. President, generals, colonels, majors, captains,
lieutenants, warrant officers, sergeants, corporals,
privates, ladies and gentlemen.
We are the Marines. And in this museum, our story is told.
It is a single, monumental story, made up of 231 years of
many separate stories of heroism and courage, of dedication
and sacrifice, of service to our country and to our corps, of
honor and loyalty to each other in war and in peace; 231
years of professionalism and pride, of squared corners and
squared-away lockers, perfect salutes and good haircuts,
well-shined shoes, and eyes right, 231 years of Semper Fis
and DIs.
First time I came to Quantico was 51 years ago. I came as
an officer candidate, a PLC on the train from Washington,
having just traveled from Texas on the first airplane ride of
my life. On the orders of a drill instructor, a DI, I fell in
at attention with 40 other candidates on the platform at the
train station over at Quantico.
And the DI told us to answer up, ``Here, sir!'' when our
name was called. And he got to mine, and he said, ``Le-here-
er-er.'' And, like some kind of idiot, I blurted out, ``It's
pronounced Lehrer, sir!''
There was silence, absolute silence. And then I heard the
terrifying click, click, click of leather heels on the deck
of that train station platform coming in my direction. And
suddenly there he was, the DI, right in front of me, his face
right up in mine. And I paraphrase and cleanse it up a bit,
but he said, ``Candidate, if I say your name is Little Bo
Peep, your name is Little Bo Peep!''
``Do you hear me?'' Oh, I heard him all right. And I think
it was at that very moment that I really became a United
States Marine.
I'm still one today, and I will remain one forever, as did
my late father, and as is my older and only brother.
I came from a family of Marines into the family of Marines.
My father served in the 1920s under the great Smedley Butler
right here at Quantico. He saw combat in Haiti and came out a
corporal. My brother and I were both 1950s Cold War Marines
in the Third Marine Division in the Far East.
Since our corps was founded on this day in 1775, there have
been more than 4 million men and women who have worn the
uniform of a United States Marine. This museum is about all
of them, including us three ``Le-here-er-ers,'' and even the
Little Bo Peeps. That's because this museum is about what it
means to be a Marine, no matter the time, the length, place,
rank, or nature of the service.
It's about the shared experience and the shared knowledge
that comes from being a U.S. Marine, such as knowing that you
are only as strong and as safe as the person on your right
and on your left; that a well-trained and motivated human
being can accomplish almost anything; that being pushed to do
your very best is a godsend; that an order is an order, a
duty is a duty, that responsibility goes down the chain of
command, as well as up, as do loyalty and respect; that
leadership can be taught, so can bearing, discipline and
honor; that ``follow me'' really does mean ``follow me''; and
that that Semper Fidelis really does mean ``always
faithful''; and that the Marines hymn is so much more than
just a song.
My Marine experience helped shape who I am now personally
and professionally, and I am grateful for that on an almost
daily basis. And I often find myself wishing everyone had a
similar opportunity, to learn about shared dependence,
loyalty, responsibility to and for others, about mutual
respect and honor, and about the power of appealing to the
best that's in us as human beings, not the worst.
As a journalist, there has been one overriding effect of my
Marine experience: While debates over sending Americans into
harm's way are always about issues of foreign policy,
geopolitics and sometimes even politics-politics, for me,
they are also always about young lance corporals and second
lieutenants and other very real people in all branches of the
U.S. military, people with names, ranks, serial numbers,
faces, families, and futures that may never be.
When Marines stand for or sing the Marines' hymn, as we
will at the conclusion of this ceremony, it's never for
ourselves personally. It's always for the Marines who went
before us, with us, and after us, first and foremost for
those who gave their lives, their health, their everything at
places such as Tripoli, Belleau Wood, Haiti, Wake Island,
Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Chosin, Inchon, Danang, Khe
Sahn, Beirut, and Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi.
The death rate among Marines in Iraq has been more than
double that of the other services. That's a first-to-fight,
first-wave pattern that has pretty much held since the
Revolutionary War, when 49 of the very first U.S. Marines of
our country died in combat. Their mission was aboard ship;
there are still Marines who serve at sea.
There are others who fly and maintain jets and helicopters,
man the artillery, operate tanks and trucks, feed and supply
the troops, compute and collate, train and inspect, march and
make music, recruit, guard and escort, radio and communicate,
patrol and snipe, as well as save tsunami, earthquake and
other disaster victims around the world, collect toys at
Christmastime for American kids in need, stage a marathon run
through Washington, D.C., for charity, or do whatever else
needs to be done, particularly if the need is for it to be
done well and be done immediately.
We are the Marines. And in the language of the rifle range,
we are always ready on the right, ready on the left, all
ready on the firing line, whatever kind of firing is
required, and wherever that line may be.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 99TH INFANTRY
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this past August, the surviving members of
the 99th Infantry Division met together in Fort Mitchell, KY. Of this
division, only a few remain. But the survivors and their widows
gathered in August to complete the final chapter of the story of this
exceptional group of Americans.
The Battle of the Bulge is well known to most Americans, but the
efforts and triumphs of the 99th Infantry are less well recognized.
These men played a crucial role in the eventual Allied victory, though
few knew it at the time. This battle is best described by Professor
Stephen Ambrose, the preeminent World War II historian who provides a
snapshot of their efforts in an article in the Military History
Quarterly. Ambrose describes the scene along Elsenborn Ridge:
To the north, between Monschau and Losheim, the U.S. 99th
Infantry Division, newly arrived in Europe, and the 2nd
Infantry Division . . . did not simply delay the German
advance but stopped it along the critical point of the whole
battle, Elsenborn Ridge. The low ridge . . . was the main
objective of Sepp Dietrich's 6th Panzer Army. Elsenborn Ridge
was the Little Round Top of the battle. The German General
Dietrich drove his units mercilessly, but he could not take
it due to the steadfastness of the American resolve and the
sheer courage of these brave men facing the ultimate test in
brutal conditions.
Ambrose adds,
``In the vast literature of the Battle of the Bulge,
Elsenborn Ridge always yields pride of place to the far more
famous action . . . at Bastogne. Everyone knows about the
101st Airborne at Bastogne; almost no one knows even the
names of the 99th and 2nd Infantries. Yet it was along
Elsenborn Ridge . . . that these two ordinary infantry
divisions, largely out of touch with their commands,
outnumbered 5 to 1 and worse, outgunned and surprised,
managed to stop the Germans in their main line of advance.
The Germans never did take the Ridge.
Their heroic stand at Elsenborn Ridge helped turn the tide at the
Battle of the Bulge, where we suffered some 80,000 casualties. Although
many of the 99th have passed on, their tradition remains strong,
especially among their descendents.
Mr. George Pedersen, a distinguished Virginia businessman, is the
nephew of 99th Infantry soldier, SGT Arnie Goa. Like most of his fellow
soldiers of this little known but critically important action, Sergeant
Goa has passed into history, but his legacy lives on, and George
Pedersen thought it important to commemorate his uncle and the soldiers
of the 99th, so he volunteered to underwrite the reunion, paving the
way for the remaining soldiers and their families to meet, exchange
stories, and complete that final chapter of distinguished service to
their Nation.
Many of these fine men may have passed, but in a very real sense,
Sergeant Goa's spirit, and the spirit of his fellow soldiers, lives on
in the lives and sacrifices of our young men and women in uniform who
serve our country today. I know that these veterans of that long ago
battle would all be immensely proud of those who now follow in their
footsteps. I commend these veterans and their families for their great
contribution to each of us, and I commend Mr. Pedersen for his
contribution to their memories.
____________________
SUBMITTAL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a letter dated November 16, 2006.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page 22194]]
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2006.
Dear Mr. President: As chairman and vice chairman of the
Select Committee on Intelligence, we submit to the Senate the
report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
regarding its activities during the 108th Congress from
January 7, 2003, to December 8, 2004. The committee is
charged by the Senate with the responsibility of carrying out
oversight of the intelligence activities of the United
States. While much of the work of the committee is of
necessity conducted in secrecy, the committee believes that
the intelligence community and this committee should be as
accountable as possible to the public. This unclassified,
public report to the Senate is intended to contribute to that
objective.
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts,
Chairman,
John D. Rockefeller IV,
Vice Chairman.
____________________
NATIONAL ADOPTION DAY
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate National
Adoption Day.
As a mother, I understand the joy and the meaning that raising a
child can bring to one's life. I also understand the importance that a
stable home can play in a child's development. Each year, National
Adoption Day offers us all an opportunity to not only reflect on the
benefits that adoption can bring but also to raise awareness of the
thousands of children across our Nation who are still awaiting stable,
nurturing, and loving homes and families.
Last year, 227 events were held on National Adoption Day in 45
States. In the process, over 3,000 adoptions were finalized. At
Saturday's celebration in Hot Springs, AR, and at similar events across
the country, we all hope to build on that success as hundreds of
volunteers take time out of their schedules to help place children in
permanent homes.
In my State of Arkansas, our judges, courts, and child advocates have
worked tirelessly on behalf of our State's foster children. In
consultation with them and in cooperation with my colleagues, I have
done all I can to ensure our adoption process is as efficient as
possible. With an estimated 118,000 children across our country in
foster care and awaiting adoption, I urge my colleagues to continue
working together on behalf of these children. The opportunity to grow
up in a nurturing, loving, and stable family is something that none of
us should take for granted. It is our duty in this Congress to ensure
that these children are not denied this opportunity but given timely
placement with the home and the family that each and every one of them
deserve.
I would also like to once again express my support and offer my
heartfelt gratitude not only to the volunteers in Arkansas and across
the country who make National Adoption Day the success it is but also
to the selfless men and women who work every day on behalf of America's
children.
____________________
INFLAMMATORY BREAST CANCER
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to make my colleagues aware
of inflammatory breast cancer, IBC, the least common but most
aggressive type of breast cancer. Although IBC accounts for 1 to 5
percent of all breast cancer cases in the United States, it is an
especially aggressive and rare form of breast cancer.
The unique symptoms of IBC can result in misdiagnoses or late
diagnoses. IBC often presents with similar symptoms as mastitis, a type
of breast infection. The disease also occurs more frequently in younger
women. Physicians may believe these young women are at lower risk for
breast cancer and might misdiagnose their symptoms. Unfortunately,
these delays in correct diagnosis result in the sad fact that IBC is
more likely to have metastasized at the time of diagnosis than non- IBC
cases. IBC is also an especially aggressive form of breast cancer. As a
result, the survival rate for patients with IBC is significantly lower
than those with non-IBC breast cancer.
These sobering facts tell us that education and awareness about this
rare cancer are desperately needed so that women are quickly and
properly diagnosed. My home State of Washington is making important
strides in this direction. In fact, Washington State recently
celebrated Inflammatory Breast Cancer Awareness Week, thanks to the
foresight of Governor Christine Gregoire and the hard work of
Washington's IBC advocates. This special observance goes a long way in
raising awareness about IBC in my home State.
Efforts such as Washington State's awareness week are a good start,
but more education and awareness are needed for both patients and their
physicians. We also must increase access to screening, especially for
low-income women. One important step that Congress can take to increase
these efforts is to pass S. 1687, the National Breast and Cervical
Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act of 2005. For all
types of breast cancer--but especially for IBC--early detection is
critical to catching cancer early before it spreads. I am working with
Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy to bring this bill up for a
vote in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and it is
my hope that we can pass this bill before the end of the 109th
Congress.
In closing, I commend the efforts of Governor Gregoire and the IBC
advocates in Washington State. I am committed to making the Federal
Government a strong partner in these efforts by increasing awareness
and access to screening. Together, we can help ensure that every woman
gets screened for breast cancer and that she and her doctor have access
to the latest medical research.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a copy of the proclamation from Washington State to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Proclamation
Whereas, except for nonmelanoma skin cancers, breast cancer
is the most common cancer among woman, and is the second
leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung
cancer; and
Whereas, Inflammatory Breast Cancer (IBC) is the most
aggressive form of breast cancer and has a faster doubling
time than other breast cancers; and
Whereas, the total number of breast cancer cases diagnosed
for 2005 was 210,000, and of that number, six percent were
IBC; and
Whereas, symptoms of IBC are similar to those of mastitis,
a benign breast infection, and because IEC usually grows in
nests or sheets rather than a solid tumor, it can spread
throughout the breast without a detectable lump. It is
usually not detected by mammograms or ultrasounds unless
there is a defined tumor; and
Whereas, laboratory based research on IBC has been limited
because little, if any, pretreatment tumor tissue is
available for research; and
Whereas, we recognize the courage and strength of women
battling IBC, and the families and friend's who love and
support them, and our state is grateful for the hard work and
commitment of our dedicated researchers and medical
professionals; and
Whereas, with continued effort, we can raise any awareness
of IBC and find new ways to prevent and treat this deadly
disease;
Now, therefore, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the
state of Washington, do hereby proclaim October 1-7, 2006, as
Inflammatory Breast Cancer Awareness Week in Washington
State, and I urge all citizens to join me in this special
observance.
____________________
PRESERVING CRIME VICTIMS' RESTITUTION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator
Feinstein and cosponsor the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act
of 2006.
When a criminal defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by a jury
of his peers but dies before sentencing or while his case is on appeal,
the defendant's victims should not sustain a financial loss and the
defendant's estate should not profit from his crimes. The judicially
created doctrine of abatement provides, however, ``that the death of a
criminal defendant pending an appeal of his or her case abates, ab
initio, the entire criminal proceeding.''
In its most extreme form, the scope of the doctrine can be
breathtaking. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held
in United States v. Parsons:
[[Page 22195]]
[T]he appeal does not just disappear, and the case is not
merely dismissed. Instead, everything associated with the
case is extinguished, leaving the defendant ``as if he had
never been indicted or convicted.''
Common sense requires that punishments like imprisonment or
probationary supervision terminate once a defendant dies. But when a
criminal conviction involves remedial measures such as restitution to
the victims of the crime or implicates civil forfeiture of property
connected with the crime, we shouldn't pretend that nothing ever
happened. A convicted defendant's death while his case is pending may
cheat the hangman, and it may cheat the jailer--but it shouldn't cheat
the victims.
Taking a criminal case to trial and obtaining a conviction can
involve thousands of hours of work and a huge commitment of resources.
In the recent conviction of Ken Lay, for example, the trial took nearly
4 months and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. When a criminal
conviction involves financial restitution to the victims of the crime
or when the conviction could be used in a later civil law suit, those
effects of the conviction should not be erased by the death of the
defendant. It is wrong to force the victims or the government to start
over from scratch.
The Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act addresses the
unnecessary and unfair effects of the abatement doctrine. It preserves
restitution and the potential use of a criminal conviction. in later
civil proceedings such as civil forfeiture, while protecting a
defendant's rights.
If a defendant dies after pleading guilty or being found guilty by a
jury, restitution and the use of the conviction in civil proceedings
will be permitted. In such cases, the bill allows the defendant's
estate to step into his shoes and continue to defend the conviction.
The estate can appear on behalf of the defendant at sentencing, and it
can file post-trial motions. The estate can also appeal the conviction.
This assures that the integrity of the criminal and appellate process
is preserved and that there is an adequate opportunity to challenge the
validity of a conviction and ensure that justice has been done.
Basically, under this bill, the criminal and appellate process move
forward with respect to restitution and use of a conviction in later
civil proceedings just as though the defendant were still alive.
Ultimately, the Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act is about
fairness. It is fair to victims--who too often get overlooked in the
criminal process. It is fair to the Government--which may have
committed enormous time and resources to obtaining a conviction. And it
is fair to the defendant's estate--which should be allowed to represent
the defendant's interests and contest the Government's case but should
not be allowed to profit from crime simply because a defendant dies.
I hope we can move quickly to pass the Preserving Crime Victims'
Restitution Act of 2006, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
____________________
HELP COMMITTEE AGENDA
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the message from this election is clear.
There is little doubt that the American people want a change of course
in Iraq. But they also want a government that stands with them and
their families as they look to the future--jobs that reward their hard
work, health care that is good and affordable, and education that
continues to open the door to the American dream for all of our
citizens.
That was the agenda of the voters in this election and it will be the
agenda of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when we
convene in the new year. And with Senator Reid as our majority leader,
America's families will see great progress on the issues that they care
most about.
Yesterday, Democrats selected the membership of our committee. Every
member is an experienced legislator with a deep commitment to working
families and a solid record for getting things done.
So I welcome back Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski,
Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, Senator Jack Reed, and Senator
Clinton. And I welcome our new members: Senator Obama, Senator-elect
Sanders, and Senator-elect Brown.
I am also grateful to continue working together with Chairman Enzi.
The gavel may change hands, but our partnership will not. He is a true
leader and has set the standard for fairness and statesmanship, and I
look forward to working with him on the many issues before the
committee in the next Congress.
My first priority will be to increase the minimum wage. Americans are
working harder than ever, but millions of hard-working men and women
across the country aren't getting their fair share. We are not
rewarding work fairly anymore, and working families are falling behind.
The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for almost 10 years.
A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year still
makes just $10,700 a year--$6,000 below the poverty line for a family
of three. In this era of skyrocketing costs, these hard-working
Americans are forced to make impossible choices--between paying the
rent or buying food, between paying for gas or paying the doctor.
Americans understand fairness, and they know this is unfair. That is
why the American people took the battle into their own hands this year.
They pounded the pavements for months to put minimum wage increases on
the ballot in six States this year. And all six of these ballot
initiatives passed by decisive margins. If there is one message from
this election that emerged loud and clear, it is that no one who works
for a living should have to live in poverty.
Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will benefit almost 15
million Americans. It will help more than 7.3 million children whose
parents will receive a raise.
Minimum wage workers serve in many of the most difficult and most
important jobs in our society. They care for children in day care
centers, and for the elderly in nursing homes. They clean office
buildings, hotel rooms, and restaurants across the country. They are
men and women of dignity, and they deserve a fair wage that respects
the dignity of their work. It is long past time to give minimum wage
workers a raise.
Another high priority is to remove the barriers to lifesaving stem
cell research.
We are in the era of the life sciences, and no area of medical
research has more promise than stem cell research to speed the search
for new cures for diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, cancer, and many other
serious illnesses.
Thanks to the courage of leaders such as Michael J. Fox, the people
of Missouri last week chose hope over fear by approving a
constitutional amendment to allow stem cell research.
Congress should learn from that example. Last year, a broad
bipartisan majority approved legislation to tear down the barriers that
have kept NIH scientists from realizing the full potential of this
research. That bill was rejected by the President, but hope can never
be vetoed.
We will be back again and again next year until we succeed in
overturning the restrictions on stem cell research that hinder the
search for new cures, and delay the day when the hope of a better
future becomes a reality for patients across America.
We must also address the crisis in college affordability that affects
every low and middle income family and that threatens our economic
progress. It is more important than ever for our citizens to have a
college education so they can compete in the global economy and have a
fair chance at the American Dream. But because of soaring college
costs, stagnant student aid and heavy student loan debt, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for our citizens to get such an education.
Today, students and families are pinching every penny to save for
college--but it is not enough. Each year, 400,000 low-income students
do not attend a 4-year college because of cost factors. Student debt is
also a barrier to the pursuit of vital but lower-paying professions
like teaching, public health, and social work.
[[Page 22196]]
Last year, we passed an increase in student aid through the Senate
only to see our proposals die in the House. With the House and Senate
under new management, next year we will provide needed help to families
struggling to put their children through college.
We will increase Pell Grants from $4,050 to $5,100. We will cap
college loan payments to no more than 15 percent of your income. We
will cut student loan interest rates. We will reform the student loan
program so it works for students and not just the banks. And we will
use the savings to increase student aid.
And at long last, we can no longer ignore the need for health care
reform. We must reduce the cost of health and we must make it available
to each and every American.
Every Member of the Senate, and their staffs, and every Federal
employee has a sense of security about health care that is denied to
millions of Americans. Members of Congress know that if we get sick, or
if our children need medical care, our health insurance plan will cover
virtually all of the costs.
Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have no such guarantee.
Nearly 50 million Americans lack health care coverage entirely, and
tens of millions more have inadequate coverage. In a nation with the
best doctors and finest hospitals in the world, it is profoundly wrong
that so many Americans suffer from illnesses that could have been
prevented or treated more effectively--if only health care had been
available and affordable.
The time is long overdue to address the crisis in health care.
Bipartisan health care reform is possible, and our first step toward it
should be effective legislation to strengthen and reauthorize CHIP, the
program that provides quality health care for 4 million children.
But our experience with health reform in Massachusetts showed that we
can do more. We proved that people from all parts of the political
spectrum can come together to provide health care for all. So this,
too, is one of our top goals for the coming Congress.
Together, we can--we must--make the promise of this century of the
life sciences a reality for all Americans by seeing that every American
has quality, affordable health care.
These are our top priorities for the new year, but they are not our
only priorities.
We must pass the CLASS Act and create a long-term care infrastructure
in this country that will support every American's choice to live at
home and be part of their community. Every older or disabled American
has this right, and it is our job in Congress to provide them with the
support they need to make this a reality.
We will strengthen early learning opportunities, starting at birth,
for each of our children. Prevention works in health care and it can
work in education as well.
We must also ensure that our schools are equipped to meet the
challenges of the global economy. Our Nation's future depends on many
things, but certainly one of the most important measures of the
strength of our democracy is the excellence of our public schools. This
year, we will revisit the reforms contained in the No Child Left Behind
Act.
The law charted a sound course for American education four years ago,
but it is time for us to reshape our commitment and provide better
solutions for schools to respond to the challenges identified by the
law. These reforms are right and we're ready to work with President
Bush, as we did 5 years ago. But given the many failures of
implementation by his administration and the meager commitments to
education reform in his budgets, the President has a high hurdle to
cross to demonstrate that he is seriously committed to these reforms.
In addition, we must give workers a stronger voice in their own
futures and in meeting the needs of their families. We must protect
workers' right to join together and fight for better wages and working
conditions, free from employer intimidation. Workers need opportunities
to improve their skills through job training programs. And families
deserve paid sick days to care for loved ones without fear of losing
their jobs.
Americans who have worked a lifetime to provide for their families
deserve to retire in dignity, not in poverty. We must ensure our
retirement system works for all Americans, not just corporate
executives.
We can make bipartisan progress, too, on measures that will improve
health care and reduce costs--not by denying services to patients, but
by improving efficiency and effectiveness. Congress should aid doctors,
hospitals, and patients to improve their use of electronic medical
records, and we should explore responsible ways to reward the quality
of health care, not just the quantity of care.
And we must fulfill our duty through our hearings and our legislative
program to ensure that Government is working for the people, that we
have strong laws to keep workers safe on the job and that workers are
fairly paid, that student loans work for students and not just the
banks, that students are protected from exploitation in the private
student loan market, that prescription drugs we rely on and the food we
eat are safe, that the workers that risked their lives for others on 9/
11 are cared for as they deal now with the illness and injury.
These will be my priorities as chairman of the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee next year. They come directly out of this
election where the American people spoke loud and clear. And I look
forward to working with my colleagues to make important progress for
America's families.
____________________
SOMALIA
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I remain deeply concerned about rising
instability and growing tension in Somalia. It is becoming clear that
efforts to date have failed to sufficiently address the stand off
between the Islamic courts and the transitional federal government,
TFG, and now new tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea is threatening to
engulf the entire region in a costly and devastating conflict.
Unfortunately, rising instability in Somalia is having a direct effect
on stability throughout the region and, if left unchecked, will have a
significant impact on our national security and the security of our
friends and allies.
As I have said many times before, it is imperative that the U.S.
Government begin playing a leadership role in helping to stabilize
Somalia and the region and that it do so immediately. We need a
comprehensive approach to engaging with regional actors, the
international community, and the U.N. to find a permanent solution to
this crisis. Such an approach will contribute to stability throughout
the Horn of Africa and to our national security.
We can't do this successfully, of course, unless we create a
comprehensive approach and apply sufficient resources and attention to
this growing problem. I was pleased when the Senate passed an amendment
I offered to the Defense authorization bill a few months ago that calls
for a comprehensive strategy for establishing long-term stability in
Somalia. I believe, as do a number of colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, that the United States must develop a comprehensive strategy for
Somalia that utilizes all facets of its power and capability and must
ramp up its diplomatic efforts throughout the region and the
international community to bring this crisis to an end.
Unfortunately, the administration has yet to appoint a senior
coordinator for Somalia to pull together a strategy and to engage
fulltime with international and regional partners in addressing this
crisis. There also appears to be a reluctance to put in place
additional personnel and resources needed to help execute this strategy
and to contribute to international efforts to bring about a lasting
peace throughout the region. Frustratingly, there has been reluctance
among administration officials to work closely with Congress to
identify what additional resources are needed to address changing
conditions in Somalia. I have asked repeatedly for a description of
needed resources and support that we in the U.S.
[[Page 22197]]
Congress can provide to help address instability in Somalia and have
yet to receive a sufficient response.
Meanwhile, conditions in Somalia are becoming more complex and more
troubling. According to a new United Nations report released this week,
both the ICU and the TFG are obtaining support from a range of outside
actors. If this is true, it signals a dangerous mix of regional and
international meddling that could ignite the entire region into a
devastating conflict. Recent statements by leaders throughout the
region, too, suggest that specific countries may be prepared to
intervene outside of the context of a political solution or coordinated
international intervention.
Our objectives must not be too lofty: we cannot hope to turn Somalia
into a peaceful and established democracy overnight. But we do need to
establish realistic goals and objectives and address this problem with
aggressive diplomacy and engagement--in Somalia, Nairobi, Addis Ababa,
New York, Brussels, Asmara, and throughout the Middle East. We must
work diligently to establish a robust political framework within which
both Somalia-specific and regional concerns can be addressed, and that
will help facilitate a broader arrangement that takes into account the
range of actors involved in this crisis. This framework must be
supported by the international community and key regional actors. It
must also take into consideration the very real security concerns of
Somalia's neighbors.
Unfortunately, we have very little time. Conditions continue to
deteriorate, and we can't count on weak diplomatic efforts to get us
what we need. Instability in Somalia has very real national security
implications for our country. Somalia remains what it has been for
years: a haven for known al-Qaida operatives and terrorist networks and
criminal networks that threaten U.S. interests. As we learned in
Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the conditions that breed and empower
extremist and terrorist organizations. Accordingly, it is essential
that we treat instability in Somalia like the true threat that it is.
We need to act quickly and decisively and as if American lives depend
on it. They do.
____________________
CELEBRATION OF THE 80TH BIRTHDAY OF EARL HOLDING
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dynamic
man, my constituent, a loyal friend, loving husband and father, and a
highly successful businessman--Mr. Earl Holding. Earl is reaching a
wonderful milestone, his 80th birthday, and I couldn't let this
occasion pass without honoring him for the good he has accomplished
throughout his life.
Earl has accomplished feats in business in Utah and throughout our
Nation that few have ever achieved. He has made a lasting imprint on
many industries including petroleum, ranching, and the travel and hotel
industry. His work ethic, and inspirational leadership has literally
transformed the business landscape of our State. His acumen and
tenacity are legendary and are admired by many.
Earl has not been alone in his success. In 1949, Earl married his
business partner, Carol Orme, and together they embarked on a
remarkable life journey. These two humble individuals worked together
to forge something real and lasting in all aspects of their lives. A
story is told of their early years that I believe poignantly displays
the dedication they both have always demonstrated. Their wedding night
at the Temple Square Hotel in Salt Lake City reached an early end when
they left at 5:00 a.m. to take their irrigation turn at their orchard.
In 1952, Earl and Carol accepted the responsibility of managing and
investing in Little America, a service station and motel located in a
remote area of western Wyoming. At the time Little America was
unprofitable. In just 2 short years, through hard work, perseverance,
and tenacity, the Holdings were able to turn Little America into the
largest and highest volume service station in the United States.
From this beginning, the Little America Hotels and hotel properties
led by Earl have became a favorite place for thousands of travelers
throughout the Western United States. In fact, in preparation for the
2002 Winter Olympic Games, Earl personally undertook a mission to build
the first five-star hotel in Utah. His dream became a reality with the
development and building of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City.
This property is truly ``grand.'' It is beautiful from the top to the
bottom and is a wonderful testament to Earl's dedication to quality and
service.
Earl's contribution to the travel and recreation arena doesn't end
with his hotel properties. He also owns and manages the Snowbasin ski
area in Utah, the home of several Olympic races during the 2002 Olympic
Winter Games; and the Sun Valley resort in Idaho, repeatedly named the
No. 1 ski resort in America.
Earl's business holdings also include a large petroleum portfolio
anchored by his purchase of Sinclair Oil in 1976. His innovative
leadership in the petroleum industry has enabled Sinclair Oil to grow
and is now one of the largest privately held, full integrated oil
companies in America.
His leadership and dedication have been recognized many times through
numerous awards and honors, including an honorary doctorate degree from
the University of Utah, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars of the Smithsonian Institution's Award for Corporate
Citizenship, appointments to the U.S. Postal Commission and the Salt
Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, and as president of the American
Independent Refiners Association.
Another hallmark of Earl's life has been his commitment to the
thousands of employees he has hired throughout the years. Each
Christmas season, Earl and Carol take the time to express personally
their gratitude to each one of their 7,000 employees.
A famous orator, John Wesley, once stated: ``Do all the good you can,
by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places
you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long
as ever you can.''
This describes Earl Holding. His good works accomplished through 80
years will be acknowledged and felt for generations to come. He is a
living example of courage, commitment, and dedication. Hard work has
never deterred him, and integrity has always been his guiding beacon.
Mr. President, I consider it a great honor to call Earl Holding a
friend. He is an exceptional human being whose footprints will last for
years. His success has not been achieved with one single magnificent
accomplishment but through a journey of good work and exceptional
leadership. I pay tribute to him today and hope my colleagues will join
with me in wishing him a very happy 80th birthday!
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNITION OF PROFESSORS OF THE YEAR
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the
winners of the United States Professor of the Year Award. Since 1981,
this program has saluted outstanding undergraduate instructors
throughout the country. This year, a State Professor of the Year was
also recognized in 43 States, the District of Columbia and Guam.
This award is recognized as one of the most prestigious honors
bestowed upon a professor. To be nominated for this award requires
dedication to the art of education and excellence in every aspect of
the profession. Professors personally vested in each student shape the
leaders of tomorrow. These individuals should be proud of their
accomplishment.
I commend and thank all the winners for your leadership and passion
for educating. No doubt you have inspired an untold number of students.
I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Congratulations and
best regards.
The four national award winners are:
Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor: K.E.
Brashier, associate professor of religion and humanities,
Reed College, Portland, Ore.
[[Page 22198]]
Outstanding Community Colleges Professor: Mark Lewine,
professor of anthropology, Coyahoga Community College,
Cleveland, Ohio
Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor:
Alex Filippenko, professor of astronomy, University of
California, Berkeley
Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges Professor:
Donna C. Boyd, professor of anthropology, Radford University.
State Winners:
Alabama: Scott Stephens, Professor of Art, University of
Montevallo.
Arizona: Rene Diaz-Lefebvre, Professor of Psychology,
Glendale Community College.
Arkansas: Catherine Bordeau, Associate Professor of French,
Lyon College.
California: David Paddy, Associate Professor of English
Language and Literature, Whittier College.
Colorado: Daniel Miller, Associate Professor of
Astronautics, United States Air Force Academy.
Connecticut: Scott Plous, Professor of Psychology, Wesleyan
University.
Delaware: Alan Fox, Associate Professor of Philosophy,
University of Delaware.
District of Columbia: Elizabeth Chacko, Associate Professor
of Geography and International Affairs, The George Washington
University.
Florida: William F. Felice, Professor of Political Science,
Eckerd College.
Georgia: Carmen Acevedo Butcher, Associate Professor of
English, Shorter College.
Guam: Vivian Dames, Associate Professor, University of
Guam.
Idaho: James Angresano, Professor of Political Economy,
Albertson College of Idaho.
Illinois: Miriam Ben-Yoseph, Associate Professor, DePaul
University.
Indiana: Randy Roberts, Professor of History and American
Studies, Purdue University.
Iowa: Jeff Barker, Professor of Theatre and Speech,
Northwestern College.
Kansas: Harald E.L. Prins, University Distinguished
Professor of Anthropology, Kansas State University.
Kentucky: Frank Wiseman, Professor of Chemistry, Georgetown
College.
Louisiana: Jo Dale Ales, Assistant Professor for Biology,
Baton Rouge Community College.
Maine: Eric Landis, Professor of Civil Engineering,
University of Maine.
Maryland: Joan Murray Naake, Professor of English,
Montgomery College, Rockville.
Massachusetts: Cathleen K. Stutz, Assistant Professor of
Education, Assumption College.
Michigan: Elfie Schults-Berndt, Director of Music, Lake
Michigan College.
Minnesota: Randy Moore, Professor of Biology, University of
Minnesota-Twin Cities.
Mississippi: Sarah Lea McGuire, Professor of Biology,
Millsaps College.
Missouri: Lynn Rose, Associate Professor of History, Truman
State University.
Montana: Robin Gerber, History and Social Sciences
Instructor, Miles Community College.
Nebraska: Maxine Fawcett-Yeske, Associate Professor of
Music, Nebraska Wesleyan University.
Nevada: Cheryll Glotfelty, Associate Professor of
Literature and the Environment, University of Nevada, Reno.
New Hampshire: Paul Christesen, Assistant Professor of
Classics, Dartmouth College.
New Jersey: Barry V. Qualls, Professor of English, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey.
New York: Charles Williamson, Professor in Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University.
North Carolina: Thomas Arcaro, Professor of Sociology, Elon
University.
Ohio: Ormond Brathwaite, Professor of Biology and
Chemistry, Cuyahoga Community College.
Oklahoma: Vivian Thomlinson, Associate Professor of
English, Cameron University.
Oregon: Karen Elizabeth Eifler, Associate Professor of
Education, University of Portland.
Pennsylvania: Patricia Nestler, Associate Professor of
English, Montgomery County Community College.
South Carolina: Maria K. Bachman, Associate Professor of
English, Coastal Carolina University.
Tennessee: George Poe, Professor of French and French
Studies, Sewanee: The University of the South.
Texas: Jennifer L. O'Loughlin-Brooks, Professor of
Psychology, Collin County Community College.
Utah: Eric Amsel, Professor of Psychology, Weber State
University.
Vermont: David T.Z. Mindich, Professor of Journalism and
Mass Communication, St. Michael's College.
Virginia: Joann Grayson, Professor of Psychology, James
Madison University.
Washington: David Domke, Associate Professor of
Communication, University of Washington.
West Virginia: Norman Duffy, Professor of Chemistry,
Wheeling Jesuit University.
Wisconsin: Donald A. Neumann, Professor in Physical
Therapy, Marquette University.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF DR. MILTON FRIEDMAN
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to take the
opportunity to honor the life of a great American economist, Dr. Milton
Friedman, who passed away today.
In his 94 years, he lead an intellectual movement at the University
of Chicago focused on the failure of government intervention in the
market process, wrote extensively on both economics and public policy,
served on the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force
and the President's Commission on White House Fellows, served on
President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, and served as
president of American Economic Association, the Western Economic
Association, and the Mont Pelerin Society. Dr. Friedman was awarded the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Medal of Science, and the
Nobel Prize in economic sciences.
Dr. Friedman was a prominent defender of the free market and small
government. A critic of the Federal Reserve, he argued that the
misguided policies of the directors of the Federal Reserve, through
contraction of the money supply, prolonged and worsened the effects of
the Great Depression.
I believe Dr. Friedman's greatness was not in being an academic but
in taking economic principles, and his immovable convictions, to
everyday people through his books, columns, public television series,
speeches, and television appearances.
To truly honor the life and achievements of Dr. Milton Friedman, we
should heed the lesson he dedicated much of his life to: the free
society and the free economy are both essential and inseparable. In his
book ``Capitalism and Freedom,'' Friedman reminds us that, ``Economic
arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On
the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of
freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In
the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means
toward the achievement of political freedom.''.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I wish to note the passing
and celebrate the life of Milton Friedman.
Nobel laureate Friedman was an economist whose work expanded academia
to influence Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Alan Greenspan, Ben S.
Bernanke, and many others. If I may dare to join such company, he also
influenced me.
Friedman argued that the goal of monetary policy should be long-term,
stable growth in the supply of money. He championed individual
initiative and deregulation and influenced decisions from severing the
dollar from gold to ending the military draft.
The Wall Street Journal today quoted Carnegie Mellon University
Professor Allan H. Meltzer as saying ``It's hard to think of anyone
who's had more of a direct influence on social and economic policy in
this generation.''
The PBS airing of his 10-part series ``Free to Choose,'' a defense of
free market economics, made a huge impression on me. I watched them all
and learned much.
Friedman was born in 1912. After graduating from high school before
his 16th birthday, Friedman won a scholarship to Rutgers University. He
later studied at the University of Chicago, where he met his future
wife, Rose Director. Friedman graduated with a master's degree from the
University of Chicago in 1933 and earned a doctorate from Columbia
University in 1946. He served as an economic adviser during Barry
Goldwater's Presidential campaign, won the Presidential Medal of
Freedom in 1988, and was most recently a senior research fellow at the
Hoover Institution.
His contribution to our country was vast, and I mourn his
passing.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Murray
State University in honor of their recognition by the annual U.S. News
and World Report America's Best Colleges issue. By constantly striving
for academic excellence and inspiring their students to
[[Page 22199]]
succeed, the faculty of this institute of higher education continues to
provide the tools needed to ensure a bright future for all graduates.
Every year, thousands of schools are surveyed by U.S. News, and the
rankings are based on expert opinion about academic program quality and
statistics that measure the quality of a school's faculty, research,
and students. The information gathered is consolidated and measured to
determine individual college ranking in the final report.
Murray State University has a long history of academic excellence and
continues to excel in enriching the academic careers of the students
who attend. The school was ranked sixth in the South as a ``Top
Public'' university. In addition, Murray was ranked 15th in the South
among public and private universities in the individual category of
``Best Masters Universities.'' The 10,000 students who attend this
school are ensured a successful academic career with diverse degree
programs and exceptional faculty support.
I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Murray
State University on their exceptional academic accomplishments.
Achievements such as this bring great pride to the entire Bluegrass
State. It is a true example of Kentucky at its finest.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. FRANK WISEMAN
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. Frank
Wiseman, who is the recipient of the 2006 U.S. Professor of the Year
Award for the State of Kentucky. This is a prestigious program that
honors and awards the most influential undergraduate instructors in the
country.
Since 1981, the U.S. Professors of the Year program has saluted
exceptional professors who have demonstrated a heightened dedication to
teaching, commitment to students, and creative instructional techniques
and methods. The program is sponsored by the Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education which collaborates with multiple
higher-education associations to direct and promote the program.
As a professor of chemistry at Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY,
Dr. Wiseman uses innovative teaching methods to help his students
understand the complexities of chemistry, a subject many find
challenging. He has developed games and animation exercises as well as
a unique grading system to address the diverse needs of his students.
By introducing and applying creative educating tactics along with
standard science research methods to assist his students, Dr. Wiseman
personifies everything an educator should strive for in their career.
I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Wiseman for
his dedication and commitment to the education of America's future. In
order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we
must have professors like Dr. Wiseman in our institutions of higher
learning, in our communities, and in our lives. He is Kentucky at its
finest.
____________________
COMMENDING NATALIE WILSON CRAWFORD
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to
commend Mrs. Natalie Wilson Crawford for her service to the Nation and
to the U.S. Air Force.
Mrs. Crawford is an internationally recognized expert on air and
space power who has been at the California-based RAND Corporation since
1964. For the past 9 years she has held the position of vice president,
RAND Corporation, and director of Project AIR FORCE, one of the
principal research divisions of this famous think tank.
For 60 years, Project AIR FORCE, originally called Project RAND, has
provided independent and objective analysis on issues of major concern
to the U.S. Air Force. During her tenure as its director, Mrs. Crawford
built and sustained an outstanding research team, expanded the research
agenda, and further cemented RAND's strategic relationship with the Air
Force's senior leaders.
Among her many honors, Mrs. Crawford has twice been awarded the Air
Force's Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service. In 2003, she
received both the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Air Force
Analytic Community and the Lieutenant General Glenn Kent Leadership
Award.
In October 2006, Mrs. Crawford stepped down from her administrative
roles in Project AIR FORCE, but she will continue to act as a senior
advisor to RAND's chief executive officer and as a senior mentor on the
USAF Scientific Advisory Board, where she has served since 1988.
It is my pleasure and privilege to thank Natalie Crawford for her
extraordinary contributions to preserving America's national security.
The dedication and energy she has shown in her four-decade career
demonstrate the highest ideals of service and commitment.
____________________
HONORING DR. DAVID E. JANSSEN
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I honor Dr. David E.
Janssen, who is retiring after an impressive career spanning 40 years
as a public servant in the State of California.
Dr. Janssen is retiring as chief administrative officer of the county
of Los Angeles where he has served with distinction since August 1996.
I extend to him my sincere congratulations for the decades of dedicated
service that he has given to his Nation, his State, and his county.
For the past decade, Dr. Janssen has played an invaluable role in
helping the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors accomplish its
Federal and State legislative priorities.
While his many accomplishments are too numerous to list here, his
most recent efforts clearly demonstrate just how much he has meant to
Los Angeles county and my State over his entire career.
Dr. Janssen has advocated closely on important Medicaid reform
proposals and helped to improve the flexibility of Federal foster care
funds.
He coordinated and developed advocacy strategies with local
government and housing and community development groups in the Los
Angeles region to protect vital community development block grant
funds.
Working to improve the county's health system, Dr. Janssen helped
assure critical Federal funding guarantees and assisted in creating an
action plan in the event of an avian flu epidemic. He also collaborated
with the State's congressional delegation, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, and the administration to secure funding for Martin
Luther King/Charles R. Drew Medical Center--King/Drew--in south Los
Angeles, preserving critical, life-saving services, and ensuring that
the patients served by King/Drew continue to have access to care.
In an issue that is of utmost importance to my State, he worked
closely with key administration officials and members of Congress to
ensure that Los Angeles Air Force Base would not be closed or
realigned.
In terms of homeland security, Dr. Janssen led the county in working
to boost funding and increase the allocation of first responder grants
to local governments. Likewise, he supported legislation to adopt a
threat-based formula that directs homeland security funds where they
are needed most.
These are just some of Dr. Janssen's significant accomplishments on
behalf of Los Angeles county and the State of California. As he
retires, I extend my gratitude to him for his many contributions
throughout a distinguished career. With sincere best wishes, I
congratulate him upon his retirement from public service. I am pleased
to join his many coworkers, family, friends, and associates in wishing
him health, happiness, and good fortune in all his future
endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CHUCK LARSON, SR.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the joys of my job as a
Senator is working closely with talented, dedicated Iowans from all
walks of life. One of those exceptional people is Chuck Larson, Sr.,
U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. With his retirement
next month, he will conclude
[[Page 22200]]
an extraordinary career in public service spanning nearly four decades.
Chuck has dedicated his life to the law and public safety, as
director of Iowa public safety in the 1970s, as a consultant in Saudi
Arabia to the Kingdom's Highway Patrol Project in the early 1980s, as
director of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, and as a
member of the President's Drug Free Communities Committee. In December,
he will complete two terms as U.S. attorney for the Northern District
of Iowa.
My staff and I have worked closely with Chuck for many years. I could
cite many examples of his leadership and professional excellence, but
one instance stands out in particular. Some time ago, my office was
contacted by members of an Iowa jurisdiction where various law
enforcement agencies and key players in the community were not
communicating effectively, leading to an increase in drug and gang
activity. My staff contacted Chuck, and he intervened in that community
personally and directly. He set up meetings with community members and
law enforcement agencies and brought them together in a positive
spirit. Today, that community is considered a national model for
cooperation in the fight against drugs and gangs. And one thing that
all groups in the community agree on is that it was Chuck's leadership
and personal skills--going above and beyond his job description--that
led to this success. Thanks to Chuck's work in that community and cross
my State, Iowa is a better, safer place to live, work, and raise a
family. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that Chuck's dedicated
work is one big reason why Iowa has one of the lowest crime rates in
the United States.
One key to Chuck's success is that he speaks with the authority of a
seasoned veteran of decades on the front line fighting crime and
improving public safety. Throughout his distinguished career, he has
put public service above personal gain. We have all heard the saying
that ``you get what you pay for.'' But in Iowa, when it comes to U.S.
attorneys, that is not the case. We get far better than we pay for.
Despite modest salaries, Iowa has been blessed with U.S. attorneys of
the highest caliber. And most folks in Iowa know this and appreciate
it. We hold our law enforcement professionals--from police officers
right up to the highest ranking prosecutors--in special esteem. And we
are grateful for the excellence, professionalism, and long hours that
they bring to their jobs.
I will miss Chuck's counsel and his can-do, cooperative attitude. My
staff and I have turned to him again and again over the years, and he
has never let us down. It has meant so much to be able to rely on
someone of his caliber for authoritative answers and prompt action.
Though I am sorry to see Chuck go, I know how much he is looking
forward to spending more time with his family--his wife Ellen and his
children and grandchildren. I am grateful for his decades of truly
distinguished and brilliant public service, and I wish him the very
best.
____________________
20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REDFIELD FIRE
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to remember the fire
that devastated the community of Redfield, SD, on November 16, 1986.
Though there was a tragic loss of life and many families saw their
property and possessions destroyed, the community was able to come
together to help each other through those difficult times and to
ultimately rebuild and thrive.
The fire began sometime prior to 4:30 that morning and was reported
by Dawn Waldner. Soon local police and firefighters were on the scene,
but the blaze proved uncontrollable. It was in the process of consuming
an apartment building with 31 apartments and many of the downtown
businesses in Redfield. The fire was so hot that it cracked the windows
of any building in the vicinity of the flames. The Senior Citizens
Center, Crawford Furniture, Coast to Coast hardware, Blaine St. Clair's
business office, American Family Insurance, KQKD Radio, and a TV repair
shop were among the businesses that were destroyed or damaged.
The day's greatest loss, however, was the life of young Rebecca
Nelson, who was just over a year old. She was trapped in the burning
apartment building, and though people on the scene made heroic efforts
to save her, they could not discover her in time. Civilian Gene
Freshour and police sergeant Dave Dosch both risked their lives by
going into the building without masks to search for the child.
Firefighters Bob Tiff, Jim Haider, Ron Eimers, and Rich Gruenwald
formed a search team, also risking their lives, in the attempt to find
Rebecca. Despite the brave actions of all those involved in the effort,
she could not be rescued.
The fire burned so hot that firefighters said they could see the
water evaporating before it even hit the fire. The tar on the streets
melted, and ammunition in the hardware store was set off. By the time
the embers were cold, over a million gallons of water had been used
putting it out. It wasn't long, though, before the community came
together to start the hard work of healing and rebuilding.
With the help of two community development block grants, the city was
able to purchase much of the damaged property. Over 580 truckloads of
debris were taken from the area, but new businesses have moved in and
prospered. The site also is home to a memorial to Rebecca Nelson. There
will be a memorial service in memory of the events of the day on
November 16, 2006, at Siegling's Parking Lot, near the Rebecca Nelson
Memorial. I extend my deepest condolences to those who suffered losses
in the fire and commend the community for their unity and perseverance
in rebounding from this disaster.
____________________
BIGHORN CENTER TRIBUTE
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Bighorn Center for Public Policy and to recognize the work of a great
Coloradan, the Bighorn Center's CEO and founder, Rutt Bridges.
The Bighorn Center for Public Policy was created in 1999 in an effort
to provide Colorado with a truly nonpartisan organization that
identifies, develops, and advocates public policies to enrich the
quality of life in the State of Colorado. Over the past 7 years, the
Bighorn Center has brought together leaders from both sides of the
aisle to find real solutions to Colorado's ever-changing public policy
needs.
Rutt Bridges is a close friend and colleague. He is a man who
understands the value of hard work and authentic leadership, and it has
been my pleasure to work with him over the years to improve Colorado.
More than 25 years ago, Mr. Bridges and his wife moved to Colorado
and founded a small software company that used emerging computer
technology to search for oil. With his ambition and intelligence, Mr.
Bridges revolutionized the oil exploration business. His small software
company quickly grew from 3 employees to over 70. When he sold his
company in 1994, he committed himself to doing good for Colorado, and
he has maintained that commitment to this day.
The Bighorn Center's list of accomplishments is impressive. As
Colorado attorney general, I worked with the Bighorn Center to develop
the Colorado Anti-Bully Project. The Bighorn Center and Mr. Bridges are
most well-known, however, for Colorado's telemarketing no-call list,
passed in 2001 by Colorado's General Assembly. I am most proud of
working with Rutt and the Center to help develop this landmark consumer
protection law. Taking on special interests and supplying grassroots
political pressure, the Bighorn Center was the driving force in making
it easy for Coloradans to choose to block intrusive and unwanted
telemarketing calls.
Mr. Bridges and the Bighorn Center did not stop there and have often
worked behind the scenes to encourage more campaign finance disclosure,
convene meetings to discuss Colorado's budget issues, and create a DNA
fingerprinting database for all criminals.
[[Page 22201]]
The Bighorn Center also created the Bighorn Leadership Development
Program, directed by another distinguished Coloradan, Brenda Morrison.
This bipartisan program has effectively recruited and trained over 200
young leaders to work for a better Colorado.
I am proud of the accomplishments of the Bighorn Center for Public
Policy, and I applaud Mr. Bridges, Ms. Morrison, and other staff at the
Bighorn Center for their dedication to making Colorado a better place
to live. While the Bighorn Center is closing its doors, its legacy and
the work of these civic-minded Coloradans will continue.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE DURING ADJOURNMENT
______
ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED
Under authority of the order of the Senate of January 4, 2005, the
Secretary of the Senate, on November 16, 2006, during the adjournment
of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives
announcing that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill and
joint resolution:
H.R. 6326. An act to clarify the provision of nutrition
services to older Americans.
H.J. Res. 100. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other
purposes.
The enrolled bill and joint resolution were subsequently signed by
the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 1:09 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill and joint resolution, in which it requests
the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 6325. An act to provide a new effective date for the
applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-
331.
H.J. Res. 101. Joint resolution appointing the day for the
convening of the first session of the One Hundred Tenth
Congress.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 423. Concurrent resolution authorizing the
printing as a House document of ``A History, Committee on the
Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, 1813-
2006''.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was discharged from the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs by unanimous consent, and referred to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
H.R. 3699. An act to provide for the sale, acquisition,
conveyance, and exchange of certain real property in the
District of Columbia to facilitate the utilization,
development, and redevelopment of such property, and for
other purposes.
The following bill was read, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 6325. An act to provide a new effective date for the
applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-
331; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-9038. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics),
transmitting, pursuant to law, five quarterly Selected
Acquisition Reports (SARs) for the quarter ending June 30,
2006; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-9039. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser
for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, international agreements other than treaties
entered into by the United States in the past sixty days; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-9040. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to U.S. military personnel
and civilian contractors involved in the anti-narcotics
campaign in Colombia; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-9041. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Services, Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Discretionary Grant
Programs--Notice of Final Priorities'' (71 FR 44671) received
on November 14, 2006; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
EC-9042. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to the progress the Commission has made in
achieving its mission to regulate and oversee energy
industries; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-9043. A communication from the Attorney General,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to audits
conducted on the Department of Justice's financial statements
of fiscal year 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
EC-9044. A communication from the Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Trade Agreements Thresholds and Morocco Free Trade
Agreement'' (DFARS Case 2005-D017) received on November 15,
2006; to the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-9045. A communication from the Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the Government National Mortgage Association management
report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-9046. A communication from the Chairman and President of
the Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report relative to transactions involving
U.S. exports to the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg and to
other countries yet to be determined; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-9047. A communication from the Counsel for Legislation
and Regulations, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Disposition of HUD-Acquired Single
Family Property; Disciplinary Actions Against HUD-Qualified
Real Estate Brokers'' (RIN2502-AI08) received on November 15,
2006; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-9048. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adequacy of
Missouri Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program'' (FRL No.
8242-9) received on November 15, 2006; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-9049. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adequacy of
Nebraska Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program'' (FRL No.
8242-6) received on November 15, 2006; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-9050. A communication from the Principal Deputy
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Economics and
Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standards of
Performance for Industrial-Commercial-Industrial Steam
Generating Units'' (RIN2060-AN96) received on November 15,
2006; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9051. A communication from the Acting Chief of the
Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revenue Procedure:
Reduction of Penalty for Understating Tax by Adequate
Disclosure of an Item on Return'' (Rev. Proc. 2006-48)
received on November 15, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-9052. A communication from the Acting Chief of the
Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``2006 Base Period T-
Bill Rate'' (Rev. Rul. 2006-54) received on November 15,
2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-9053. A communication from the Acting Chief of the
Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Substantiation of
Expenses of Native Alaskan Whaling Captains'' (Rev. Proc.
2006-50) received on November 15, 2006; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-9054. A communication from the Acting Chief of the
Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``2007 Standard Mileage
Rates'' (Rev. Proc. 2006-49) received on November 15, 2006;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-9055. A communication from the Acting Chief of the
Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue
Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amplification of
Revenue Procedure 2005-70''
[[Page 22202]]
(Rev. Proc. 2006-51) received on November 15, 2006; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-9056. A communication from the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law , the certification of a
proposed license for the export of defense articles and
defense services sold commercially under contract in the
amount of $100,000,000 or more to Italy; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
EC-9057. A communication from the Secretary, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the Department's Performance and Accountability Report for
Fiscal Year 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-9058. A communication from the Commissioner, Social
Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Administration's Performance and Accountability Report for
Fiscal Year 2006; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-9059. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's
Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-9060. A communication from the President of the United
States of America, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the export to the People's Republic of China of
items not detrimental to the United States space launch
industry (motorized mixer with a stainless steel vacuum
mixing tank and fine grain bulk graphite); to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
EC-9061. A communication from the President of the United
States of America, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the export to the People's Republic of China of
items not detrimental to the United States space launch
industry (twelve Honeywell inertial measurement units); to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. ROBERTS, from the Select Committee on Intelligence:
Special Report entitled ``Committee Activities of 108th
Congress'' (Rept. No. 109-360).
By Ms. SNOWE, from the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship:
Report to accompany S. 3778, An original bill to
reauthorize and improve the Small Business Act and the Small
Business Act of 1958, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 109-
361).
By Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
S. 4046. A bill to extend oversight and accountability
related to United States reconstruction funds and efforts in
Iraq by extending the termination date of the Office of the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:
By Ms. COLLINS for the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
*Stephen Thomas Conboy, of Virginia, to be United States
Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
for the term of four years.
*James H. Bilbray, of Nevada, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8,
2015.
*Thurgood Marshall, Jr., of Virginia, to be a Governor of
the United States Postal Service for a term expiring December
8, 2011.
*Dan Gregory Blair, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Commissioner of the Postal Rate Commission for a term
expiring October 14, 2012.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
____________________
DISCHARGED NOMINATIONS
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was discharged from further
consideration of the following nominations and the nominations were
confirmed:
Jack Vaughn, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2006.
Adolfo A. Franco, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2008, to which position he was
appointed during the recess of the Senate from January 6,
2005, to January 20, 2005.
Roger W. Wallace, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring October 6, 2008, to which position he was appointed
during the last recess of the Senate.
Kay Kelley Arnold, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring October 6, 2010. (Reappointment).
Gary C. Bryner, of Utah, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring June 26, 2008.
Thomas Joseph Dodd, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American
Foundation for a term expiring June 26, 2008.
John P. Salazar, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2012.
Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be a
Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American
Foundation for a term expiring September 20, 2012.
Jack Vaughn, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2012. (Reappointment).
Craig Roberts Stapleton, of Connecticut, to serve
concurrently and without additional compensation as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to Monaco.
Nominee: Craig R. Stapleton
Post: Ambassador to Monaco
The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: 2,000.00, 7/17/03, Bush-Cheney '04; 25,000.00, 12/
28/03, Bush/Cheney Victory 2004; 1,000.00, 2/13/04, John
Graves for Congress; 1,000.00, 5/28/04, Friends of Jack
Orchulli; 2,000.00, 5/28/04, Shays for Congress; 25,000.00,
6/21/04, RNC Presidential Trust; 500.00, 8/21/04, Republican
Majority for Choice; 1,000.00, 9/15/04, Peter Coors for
Senate; 2,000.00, 3/26/04, Simmons for Congress.
2. Spouse: Dorothy W. Stapleton, 2,000.00, 8/19/03, Bush-
Cheney '04; 1,000.00, 3/26/04, Simmons for Congress;
1,000.00, 8/13/04, Fed PAC; 1,000.00, 10/8/04, Coors for
Senate.
3. Children and Spouses: Walker Stapleton, 500.00, 9/24/02,
Beauprez for Congress; 2,000.00, 8/20/03, Bush-Cheney '04;
1,000.00, 5/24/04, 500.00, 10/08/04, Coors for Senate.
4. Parents: Katharine H. Stapleton, 2,000.00, 8/20/03,
Bush-Cheney '04.
5. Grandparents: No contributions.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Benjamin F. Stapleton III (Jane),
208.00, 10/13/04, Coburn for Senate; 208.00, 10/29/04, Coors
for Senate; 500.00, 8/06/04, Udall for Congress; 1,000.00, 8/
26/03, Bush-Cheney '04; 1,000.00, 6/15/04, Bush-Cheney '04;
1,000.00, 5/28/04, Shelby for Senate; 1,000.00, 8/04/04,
Coors for Senate; 2,496.00, 10/13/04, Majority Fund for
America's Future Committee.
7. Sisters and Spouses: No contributions.
____
Ronald Spogli, of California, to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Republic of San Marino.
Nominee: Ronald P. Spogli
Post: Ambassador, San Marino
The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: 24,500, 7/29/04, 2004 Joint Candidate Committee;
7,500, 7/29/04, 2004 Joint State Victory Committee; 2,000, 6/
30/04, Pete Coors for U.S. Senate-Primary; 2,000, 6/30/04,
Pete Coors. for U.S. Senate-General; 2,000, 3/26/04, John
Thune for U.S. Senate-Primary; 25,000, 2/24/04, Republican
National Committee; 25,000, 9/11/03, Republican National
Committee; 2,000, 6/20/03, Bush-Cheney'04 Inc.; 1,000, 2/5/
03, Kit Bond for U.S. Senate-Primary; 1,000, 7/11/02, John
Cornyn for U.S. Senate; 1,000, 4/18/02 James Talent for U.S.
Senate-Primary; 1,000, 4/18/02, James Talent for U.S. Senate-
General; 1,000, 4/18/02, Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate-
Primary; 1,000, 4/18/02, Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate-
General; 1,000, 4/18/02, John Thune for U.S. Senate-Primary;
1,000, 4/18/02, John Thune for U.S. Senate-General; 1,000, 4/
15/02, McConnell U.S. Senate Committee-General; 198,000, 4/
11/02, Republican National Committee State Elections Account;
10,000, 11/12/01, National Republican Senatorial Committee;
20,000, 5/8/01, Republican National Committee State Elections
Account; 1,000, 4/16/01, McConnell U.S. Senate Committee-
Primary; 8,702, 1/19/01, Republican National Committee State
Elections Account; 100,000, 1/2/01, Presidential Inaugural
Committee; 5,000, 12/6/00, Bush/Cheney Presidential
Transition Fund; 5,000, 11/16/00, Bush-Cheney Recount Fund;
300, 7/25/00, National Federation of Republican Women; 200,
7/6/00, Republican National Committee State Election Account;
1,000, 6/26/00, Abraham for U.S. Senate 2000; 125,000, 6/15/
00, Republican National Committee State Election Account;
50,000, 5/15/00, Republican National
[[Page 22203]]
Committee State Election Account; 15,000, 5/15/00, Republican
National Committee; 10,000, 12/17/99, 1999 State Victory Fund
Committee; 5,000, 11/16/99, Victory 2000 California
Republican Party--Federal Account; 15,000, 11/6/99, Victory
2000 California Republican Party; 1,000, 3/7/99, Bush
Presidential Exploratory Committee; 10,000, 3/23/98, George
Bush Committee.
2. Spouse: Georgia B. Spogli, 7,500, 8/2/04, 2004 Joint
State Victory Committee; 30,500, 8/2/4, 2004 Joint Candidate
Committee; 25,000, 2/25/04, Republican National Committee;
25,000, 9/12/03, Republican National Committee; 2,000, 6/20/
03, Bush-Cheney '04; 1,000, 2/5/03, Kit Bond for U.S. Senate-
Primary; 1,000, 4/18/02, James Talent for U.S. Senate-
Primary; 1,000, 4/18/02, James Talent for U.S. Senate-
General; 1,000, 4/18/02, Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate-
Primary; 1,000, 4/18/02, Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate-
General; 1,000, 4/18/02, John Thune for U.S. Senate-Primary;
1,000, 4/18/02, John Thune for U.S. Senate-General; 20,000,
4/30/01, Republican National Committee; 5,000, 5/14/00,
Victory 2004 California Republican Party; 15,000, 5/14/00,
Republican National Committee; 10,000, 12/20/99, 1999 State
Victory Fund; 5,000, 11/5/99, Victory 2000 California
Republican Party-Federal Account; 1,000, 3/7/99, George Bush
Presidential Exploratory Committee.
3. Children and Spouses: Caroline Hunter Spogli (daughter),
none; William Alexander Ridley Considine, none.
4. Parents: Helen Spogli, deceased; Valerio Spogli, none.
5. Grandparents: Gesue Spogli, deceased; Marisilia
Bartecchi Spogli Sacco, deceased; Salvatore Boccadori,
deceased; Amelia Boccardori, deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Robert Spogli, 100, 3/4/04, Bush-
Cheney; 100, 8/20/04, Republican National committee; 150, 8/
8/98, Republican Congressional Committee;
7. Sisters and Spouses: none.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. ALLEN:
S. 4057. A bill to protect the second amendment rights of
individuals to carry firearms in units of the National Park
System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 4058. A bill to expand the boundaries of the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuary; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 4059. A bill to prohibit departments, agencies, and
other instrumentalities of the Federal Government from
providing assistance to an entity for the development of
course material or the provision of instruction on human
development and sexuality, if such material or instruction
will include medically inaccurate information, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 4060. A bill to amend the Military Commissions Act of
2006 to improve and enhance due process and appellate
procedures, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 4061. A bill to create, adopt, and implement rigorous
and voluntary American education content standards in
mathematics and science covering kindergarten through grade
12, to provide for the assessment of student proficiency
benchmarked against such standards, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 4062. A bill to freeze non-defense discretionary
spending at fiscal year 2007 levels effective in fiscal year
2008; to the Committee on the Budget.
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 4063. A bill to provide for additional section 8
vouchers, to reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug
Elimination Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 4064. A bill to improve the amendments made by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 4065. A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a
study on the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to
the occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools
and secondary schools; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 4066. A bill to prohibit the designation of Brazil under
title V of the Trade Act of 1974; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Roberts, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr.
Ensign):
S. 4067. A bill to provide for secondary transmissions of
distant network signals for private home viewing by certain
satellite carriers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
S. 4068. A bill to clarify provisions relating to statutory
copyright licenses for satellite carriers; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 4069. A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal
elections; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 4070. A bill to exempt children of certain Filipino
World War II veterans from the numerical limitations on
immigrant visas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 4071. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the placed-in-service date requirement for low-
income housing credit buildings and bonus depreciation
property and the period for rehabilitation expenditures in
the Gulf Opportunity Zone; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 4072. A bill to address ongoing small business and
homeowner needs in the Gulf Coast States impacted by
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
By Mr. TALENT (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 4073. A bill to designate the outpatient clinic of the
Department of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington,
Missouri, as the ``Robert Silvey Department of Veterans
Affairs Outpatient Clinic''; considered and passed.
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 4074. A bill to provide certain counties with the
ability to receive television broadcast signals of their
choice; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
S. Res. 615. A resolution designating November 26, 2006, as
``Drive Safer Sunday''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FRIST:
S. Res. 616. A resolution authorizing the Majority Leader
and one staff member to travel to Mexico for the inauguration
of the new President of Mexico scheduled for December 2,
2006; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
S. Res. 617. A resolution designating November 2006 as
``National Lung Cancer Awareness Month''; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
S. Res. 618. A resolution designating November 26, 2006, as
``Drive Safer Sunday''; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Leahy):
S. Res. 619. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that Senator Paul Wellstone should be remembered for
his compassion and leadership on social issues and that
Congress should act to end discrimination against citizens of
the United States who live with mental illness by making
legislation relating to mental health parity a priority for
the 110th Congress; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
S. Res. 620. A resolution designating November 2006 as
``National Lung Cancer Awareness Month''; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman,
Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Menendez):
S. Res. 621. A resolution designating the week of February
5 through February 9, 2007, as ``National Teen Dating
Violence Awareness and Prevention Week''; considered and
agreed to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 408
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 408, a bill to provide for
programs and activities with respect to the prevention of underage
drinking.
S. 1081
At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1081, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum update
for physicians' services for 2006 and 2007.
[[Page 22204]]
S. 1508
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1508, a bill to
require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports
in electronic form.
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar)
were added as cosponsors of S. 1508, supra.
S. 2375
At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2375, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to advance medical research and treatments
into pediatric cancers, ensure patients and families have access to the
current treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers,
establish a population-based national childhood cancer database, and
promote public awareness of pediatric cancers.
S. 2506
At the request of Mr. Obama, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2506, a bill to require
Federal agencies to support health impact assessments and take other
actions to improve health and the environmental quality of communities,
and for other purposes.
S. 2990
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2990, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore financial stability to
Medicare anesthesiology teaching programs for resident physicians.
S. 3491
At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3491, a bill to establish
a commission to develop legislation designed to reform tax policy and
entitlement benefit programs and to ensure a sound fiscal future for
the United States, and for other purposes.
S. 3677
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3677, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate the in the home
restriction for Medicare coverage of mobility devices for individuals
with expected long-term needs.
S. 3678
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3678, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act with respect to public health security and
all-hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes.
S. 3685
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3685, a bill to establish a
grant program to provide vision care to children, and for other
purposes.
S. 3744
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) were added as cosponsors of S. 3744, a bill to establish the
Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Program.
S. 3768
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3768, a bill to
prohibit the procurement of victim-activated landmines and other
weapons that are designed to be victim-activated.
S. 3775
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3775, a bill
to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to assist countries in sub-
Saharan Africa in the effort to achieve internationally recognized
goals in the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other major
diseases and the reduction of maternal and child mortality by improving
human health care capacity and improving retention of medical health
professionals in sub-Saharan Africa, and for other purposes.
S. 3787
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3787, a bill
to establish a congressional Commission on the Abolition of Modern-Day
Slavery.
S. 3910
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor)
were added as cosponsors of S. 3910, a bill to direct the Joint
Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting
Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the
Capitol.
S. 4014
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 4014, a bill to endorse
further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
and to facilitate the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia,
and Macedonia to NATO, and for other purposes.
S. 4046
At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) were added as
cosponsors of S. 4046, a bill to extend oversight and accountability
related to United States reconstruction funds and efforts in Iraq by
extending the termination date of the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction.
At the request of Mr. Akaka, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
4046, supra.
S. RES. 549
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 549, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding modern-day
slavery.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 4059. A bill to prohibit departments, agencies, and other
instrumentalities of the Federal Government from providing assistance
to an entity for the development of course material or the provision of
instruction on human development and sexuality, if such material or
instruction will include medically inaccurate information, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my
bill, the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act.''
My bill would require that federally-funded sex education/abstinence
only programs contain medically accurate and factual information as
part of any course instruction.
During the past few years, there has been an increase in the number
of federally funded programs using curricula that provide medically
inaccurate or misleading information.
Some of these medical inaccuracies include teaching young people that
HIV can be transmitted by sweat and tears, citing failure rates of
condoms as high as 69 percent, as well as giving inaccurate symptoms
and outcomes of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, some
federally funded programs provided erroneous information about basic
scientific facts, for example, stating that human cells have 24
chromosomes from each parent when in fact the number is 23.
Inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention
can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive.
Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a
strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of
abortions, and mitigate the incidence of STD's.
Instruction regarding sexual health and reproduction that includes
inaccurate or biased information is not only irresponsible, but it is
also dangerous, and it puts our young people at risk for unintended
pregnancy and disease.
[[Page 22205]]
I urge my colleagues to support medically accurate sex-education--
programs that helps young people to develop the proper understanding of
their sexuality, so they can make responsible decisions throughout
their lives.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4059
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Guarantee of Medical
Accuracy in Sex Education Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) A 2006 Government Accountability Office report entitled
``Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and
Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs'' finds that the
Department of Health and Human Services does not review the
content of the major federally funded abstinence-only
education programs for accuracy.
(2) All federally funded programs aimed at helping young
people make healthy decisions regarding their relationships
and sexual health should include medically accurate
information.
(3) A 2004 report from the Minority Office of the Committee
on Government Reform of the House of Representatives found
serious medical inaccuracies associated with a large majority
of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
(4) The Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM) found in a
2006 position paper that abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs ``provide incomplete and/or misleading information''
and states that ``efforts to promote abstinence should be
based on sound science''.
(5) The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
have also expressed ``the importance of ensuring that all
federally funded sexuality education programs include
information that is medically accurate and complete''.
(6) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that
``children and adolescents need accurate and comprehensive
education about sexuality to practice healthy sexual behavior
as adults''.
(7) The American Public Health Association (APHA)
``recognize[s] that sexuality is a normal, healthy aspect of
human development ... and that individuals of all ages
require complete and accurate information about all aspects
of sexuality''. APHA ``endorses the right of children and
youth to receive comprehensive sexuality education that
includes facts, information, and data and that demonstrates
an appreciation of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity''.
(8) The American Medical Association ``urges schools to
implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate
sexuality education programs that are based on rigorous, peer
reviewed science''.
(9) Over 1 billion dollars in citizen taxpayer money has
been spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the
past quarter century without significant monitoring of the
content of these programs in order to guarantee they contain
medically accurate information and exclude inaccurate data.
SEC. 3. MEDICALLY INACCURATE SEX EDUCATION.
(a) Requirements.--A department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the Federal Government shall not provide
funds or other assistance to an entity for the development of
course material or the provision of instruction on human
development and sexuality, including any sex education,
family life education, abstinence education, comprehensive
health education, or character education, if such material or
instruction will include medically inaccurate information.
Before providing such funds or other assistance, the
department, agency, or instrumentality shall require a
sufficient assurance that such material or instruction will
not include medically inaccurate information.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act, the term ``medically
inaccurate information'' means information related to
medical, psychiatric, psychological, empirical, or
statistical statements that is unsupported or contradicted by
peer-reviewed research by leading medical, psychological,
psychiatric, and public health organizations and agencies.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 4060. A bill to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to
improve and enhance due process and appellate procedures, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise to introduce the Effective Terrorists
Prosecution Act of 2006. This legislation would make critically
important changes to the measure that Congress narrowly approved on
September 29, the Mi1itary Commissions Act of 2006. Let me be clear
from the outset of my remarks. I will take a backseat to no one when it
comes to defending our country against terrorism. I fully support the
use of military commissions to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite
judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. Unlike the Administration, I trust the United States
military and our legal system to arbitrate decisions related to enemy
combatants.
I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must
be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country. But in my
view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting
victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in
accordance with the rule of law.
My legislation provides essential legal tools for our war on terror
in seven key ways: It restores the writ of habeas corpus for
individuals held in U.S. custody. It narrows the definition of unlawful
enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities
against the United States who are not lawful combatants. It prevents
the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral
practices of torture and coercion. It empowers military judges to
exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the
military commissions. It limits the authority of the President to
interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and
makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight.
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its
provisions.
Before I elaborate on each of these critical points, let me simply
underscore the point that for more than 200 years, our Nation has
served as a shining example in its promotion of civil and human rights
throughout the world. Denial of basic legal proceedings to individuals
held in the custody of the United States has raised questions over our
basic adherence to the U.S. Constitution and also diminished our
reputation around the world. American citizens are questioning their
own government's judgments, terrorists are citing American abuses to
recruit new loyalists, and American servicemembers fear detention
overseas under similarly abusive conditions in violation of their human
rights.
Supporters of the administration's law may say that to speak out
against its enactment is being soft on terrorism. Not only is this
sentiment wholly inaccurate, it underestimates a fundamental strength
of our Nation and the best defense against terrorists--respect for the
rule of law.
For instance, the administration-backed law eliminates the principle
of habeas corpus which has served as the backbone of common law since
before the Magna Carta in the 13th century. Under the writ of habeas
corpus independent courts may review the legality of custody decisions.
My legislation would restore this basic tenet in the context of
military commissions.
The administration's approach allows the President to remove anyone
he so chooses from America's standard jurisprudence and designate him
or her as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he has engaged in
hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. Such
individuals are subject to arrest and detention indefinitely without
charge. In contrast, my legislation allows the designation of
``unlawful enemy combatants'' only for those individuals engaged in
armed conflict against the United States. This provision seeks to
curtail potential abuse of the enemy combatant designation so that
holding individuals in detention indefinitely without a trial will
prove to be the exception rather than the norm.
Also, unlike the law backed by the administration, my bill further
promotes humane treatment of military personnel by prohibiting the use
of evidence gained by coercion in a trial. Such a provision is
critically important for two reasons. First, the use of torture has
been proven ineffective in
[[Page 22206]]
interrogations when a detainee simply says what he believes an
interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Second it
deprives foreign militaries the ability to cite U.S. actions to justify
their own misconduct toward future American POWs.
My bill grants discretion to military judges to exclude hearsay
evidence determined to be unreliable. Under my legislation, judges are
given discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on
the innocence of an individual, but is excluded due to national
security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient.
America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to
handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to
recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's
bench and an affront to the U.S. military legal system. Moreover, my
bill properly grants the Armed Forces judicial review of these
decisions unlike the administration's law which denies the United
States Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces the right to hearing
military commission appeals.
And, just as important as restoring our commitment in the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, my legislation would also reaffirm America's
commitment to the contents of the Geneva Conventions. In contrast, the
Administration's Military Commissions Act gives unprecedented authority
to the president to define what interrogation techniques constitute
``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. The United States
President should not have the right to unilaterally define the legal
boundaries of torture. The United States Congress has ratified
universally recognized conventions prohibiting such conduct, and the
President should recognize them as the law of the land. Indeed, there
is a lesson to be learned in the events of the last 6 years,
particularly in the case of Abu Ghraib, when not only was our Nation's
reputation tarnished, but our commitment to the rule of law was
credibly called into question. This is not the America our Nation's
greatest generations have long fought for. Our country would have been
better served if we had looked to the pages of history to guide us
through this national crisis.
Just 60 years ago, the United States confronted the daunting task of
bringing history's most despicable war criminals to justice. In
determining how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of grave atrocities,
our country never forgot its pivotal role as the leader of the free
world. There were strong and persuasive voices crying for the execution
of these men who had commanded, with ruthless efficiency, the slaughter
of 6 million innocent Jews and 5 million other innocent men, women, and
children. Why should these men who had extinguished so many lives be
given a trial at all? Why should they not be subjected to the same fate
to which they had subjected countless innocent people? Why not just
shoot them, as Winston Churchill wanted? Why not just give in to legal
scholars, who said there was no court, no judge, no laws, and no
precedent?
Why not? Because, as I have recounted on this floor on several
occasions, America has always stood for something more. Our leaders at
Nuremberg, including the young prosecutor Thomas Dodd, my father,
rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial. In
doing so, we reaffirmed the ideal that this Nation should never tailor
its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we
did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.
Almost 60 years to the day after the Nuremberg verdicts, Congress
passed the Military Commissions Act, with the support of the
administration which steps away from the high principles established at
Nuremberg and honored in the decades since. In my view, this law has
dishonored our Nation's proud history.
Indeed, to watch the Senate, on the anniversary of Nuremberg, negate
these great principles and traditions was one of the saddest days I
have seen in a quarter century of service in this body. It pains me to
no end to have seen the administration and its allies rush this bill
through Congress in the days before an election with hopes of
exploiting Americans' fears of a terrorist attack. This administration
would have the American people believe that the war on terror requires
a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded--but not both. This
canard is untrue and frankly negligent.
I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake. And
that is why the final provision in my bill is perhaps the most
important one--it will ensure that each of the provisions of the
administration's Military Commission Act is quickly reviewed by our
Nation's courts, and appropriately evaluated for their
constitutionality. I do not pretend to have all the answers regarding
the legality and probity of this highly controversial statute. But I
believe it is essential for America's security and moral authority to
allow those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our
esteemed judiciary--to have an opportunity to overturn the most
egregious provisions of this Act.
In turn, we in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a
bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our
international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to
provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools
required by the global war on terror.
I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences if we fail to
correct the mistakes that have been made. I hope that Congress and the
administration will take a serious look at my proposal and work with me
to improve the current system, for the sake of our security, our
international standing, and our commitment to the rule of law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4060
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Effective Terrorists
Prosecution Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.
Paragraph (1) of section 948a of title 10, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Unlawful enemy combatant.--The term `unlawful enemy
combatant' means an individual who directly participates in
hostilities as part of an armed conflict against the United
States who is not a lawful enemy combatant. The term is used
solely to designate individuals triable by military
commission under this chapter.''.
SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS BY
COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL NOT
DISPOSITIVE FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Section 948d of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)),
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF
STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY COERCION.
Section 948r of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366)),
is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting
the following new subsection (c):
``(c) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Coercion.--A
statement obtained by use of coercion shall not be admissible
in a military commission under this chapter, except against a
person accused of coercion as evidence that the statement was
made.''.
SEC. 5. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO EXCLUDE HEARSAY
EVIDENCE DETERMINED TO BE UNRELIABLE OR LACKING
IN PROBATIVE VALUE.
Section 949a(b)(2)(E)(ii) of title 10, United States Code
(as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-366)), is amended by striking ``if the party opposing
the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence
is unreliable or lacking in probative value'' and inserting
``if the military judge determines, upon motion by counsel,
that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative
value''.
[[Page 22207]]
SEC. 6. DISCRETION OF MILITARY JUDGE TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS
IN EVENT THAT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CLASSIFIED
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT
THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
Section 949j(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code (as
enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-366)), is amended by adding at the end the following:
``If the military judge determines that the substitute is not
sufficient to protect the right of the defendant to a fair
trial, the military judge may--
``(A) dismiss the charges in their entirety;
``(B) dismiss the charges or specifications or both to
which the information relates; or
``(C) take such other actions as may be required in the
interest of justice.''.
SEC. 7. REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION DECISIONS BY UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
RATHER THAN COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION
REVIEW.
(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--Section 950f of title 10, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-366)), is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
``(a) Cases To Be Reviewed.--The United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces, in accordance with procedures
prescribed under regulations of the Secretary, shall review
the record in each case that is referred to the Court by the
convening authority under section 950c of this title with
respect to any matter of law raised by the accused.
``(b) Scope of Review.--In a case reviewed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under this
section, the Court may only act with respect to matters of
law.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter VI of chapter 47A of such title (as
so enacted) is amended by striking the item relating to
section 950f and inserting the following new item:
``950f. Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as so enacted), is further amended as follows:
(A) In section 950c(a), by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' and inserting ``the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(B) In section 950d, by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(C) In section 950g(a)(2), by striking ``the Court of
Military Commission Review'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces''.
(D) In section 950h, by striking ``the Court of Military
Commission Review'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
(2) Uniform code of military justice.--Section 867a(a) of
title 10, United States Code (article 67a(a) of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking
``Decisions'' and inserting ``Except as provided in sections
950d and 950g of this title, decisions''.
SEC. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 6(a) of the Military Commissions
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting after
``international character'' the following: ``and preserve the
capacity of the United States to prosecute nationals of enemy
powers for engaging in acts against members of the United
States Armed Forces and United States citizens that have been
prosecuted by the United States as war crimes in the past'';
and
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``the President has the authority for the
United States to interpret the meaning and application of the
Geneva Conventions and to promulgate'' and inserting ``the
President has the authority, subject to congressional
oversight and judicial review, to promulgate''; and
(ii) by striking ``higher standards and'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``interpretations''
and inserting ``rules''; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) The President shall notify other parties to the
Geneva Conventions that the United States expects members of
the United States Armed Forces and other United States
citizens detained in a conflict not of an international
character to be treated in a manner consistent with the
standards described in subparagraph (A) and embodied in
section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
subsection (b).''.
(b) Modifications of War Crimes Offenses.--
(1) Inclusion of denial of trial rights among offenses.--
Paragraph (1) of section 2441(d) of title 18, United States
Code (as enacted by the Military Commissions Act of 2006), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) Denial of trial rights.--The act of a person who
intentionally denies one or more persons the right to be
tried before a regularly constituted court affording all the
judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples as prescribed by common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions.''.
(2) Definition of serious physical pain or suffering.--
Clause (ii) of subparagraph ((D) of paragraph (2) of such
section (as so enacted) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) serious physical pain;''.
SEC. 9. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR INDIVIDUALS DETAINED
BY THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Restoration.--Subsection (e) of section 2241 of title
28, United States Code, as amended by section 7(a) of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 7 of
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366) is
repealed.
SEC. 10. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS
ACT OF 2006.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following
rules shall apply to any civil action, including an action
for declaratory judgment, that challenges any provision of
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), or
any amendment made by that Act, on the ground that such
provision or amendment violates the Constitution or the laws
of the United States:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard in that
Court by a court of three judges convened pursuant to section
2284 of title 28, United States Code.
(2) An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
in an action under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable as a
matter of right by direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of
appeal filed within 10 days after the date on which such
judgment, decree, or order is entered. The jurisdictional
statement with respect to any such appeal shall be filed
within 30 days after the date on which such judgment, decree,
or order is entered.
(3) It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of
the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to
the greatest possible extent the disposition of any action or
appeal, respectively, brought under this section.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
October 17, 2006, the date of the enactment of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), immediately
after the enactment of that Act and shall apply to all cases,
without exception, that are pending on or after such date.
______
By Mr. DODD:
S. 4061. A bill to create, adopt, and implement rigorous and
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics and
science covering kindergarten through grade 12, to provide for the
assessment of student proficiency bench marked against such standards,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Standards to
Provide Educational Access for Kids (SPEAK) Act. This bill will create,
adopt, and implement voluntary core American education content
standards in math and science while incentivizing states to adopt them.
America's leadership, economic, and national security rest on our
commitment to educate and prepare our youth to succeed in a global
economy. The key to succeeding in this endeavor is to have high
expectations for all American students as they progress through our
nation's schools.
Currently there are 50 different sets of academic standards, 50 State
assessments, and 50 definitions of proficiency under the No Child Left
Behind Act. As a result of varied standards, exams and proficiency
levels, America's highly mobile student-aged population moves through
the nation's schools gaining widely varying levels of knowledge, skills
and preparedness. And yet, in order for the United States to compete in
a global economy, we must strengthen our educational expectations for
all American children--we must compete as one Nation.
Recent international comparisons show that American students have
significant shortcomings in math and science. Many lack the basic
skills required for college or the workplace.
[[Page 22208]]
This affects our economic and national security: It holds us back in
the global marketplace and risks ceding our competitive edge. This is
unacceptable.
America was founded on the notion of ensuring equity in opportunity
for all. And yet, we risk both when we allow different students in
different states to graduate from high school with very different
educations. We live in a Nation with an unacceptably high high school
dropout rate. We live in a nation where 8th graders in some states
score more than 30 points higher on tests of basic science knowledge
than students in other states. I ask my colleagues today what equality
of opportunity we have under such circumstances.
This is where American standards come in. Voluntary, core American
standards in math and science are the first step in ensuring that all
American students are given the same opportunity to learn to a high
standard no matter where they reside. They will allow for meaningful
comparisons of student academic achievement across states, help ensure
that American students are academically qualified to enter college, or
training for the civilian or military workforce, and, help ensure that
students are better prepared to compete in the global marketplace.
Uniform standards are a first step in maintaining America's competitive
and national security edge.
While I realize there will be resistance to such efforts, education
is after all a state endeavor; we cannot ignore that at the end of the
day America competes as one country on the global marketplace. This
does not mean that I am asking States to cede their authority in
education. What the bill simply proposes is that we the convening power
of the federal government to develop standards and then provide states
with incentives to adopt them.
At the end of the day, this is a voluntary measure. States will
choose whether or not to participate. States that do participate, while
required to adopt the American standards, will be given the flexibility
to make them their own. They will have the option to add additional
content requirements, they will have final say in how coursework is
sequenced, and, ultimately, States and districts will still be the ones
developing the curriculum, choosing the textbooks and administering the
tests. The standards provided for under this legislation will simply
serve as a common core.
Here is what the SPEAK Act will do. It will task the National
Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) with creating rigorous and voluntary
core American education content standards in math and science for
grades K-12. It will require that such standards be anchored in the
National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) math and science
frameworks. It will ensure that such standards are internationally
competitive and comparable to the best standards in the world. It will
develop rigorous achievement levels. It will ensure that varying
developmental levels of students are taken into account in the
development of such standards. It will provide for periodic review and
update of such standards. It will allow participating States the
flexibility to add additional standards to the core. And, it
establishes an American standards Incentive Fund to incentivize states
to adopt the standards. Among the benefits of participating is a huge
infusion of funds for states to bolster their K-12 data systems.
What I propose today is a first step. A first step in regaining our
competitive edge. A first step in ensuring that all American students
have the opportunity to receive a first class, high-quality,
competitive education. I am hoping that the bill I introduce today will
at the very least spark a discussion. A discussion about what it is
that we want for future generations and how we will set along the path
to get it to them.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the SPEAK Act
and look forward to resuming the discussion and reintroducing this
important initiative in the coming Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 4061
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Standards to Provide
Educational Access for Kids Act'' or the ``SPEAK Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Throughout the years, educators and policymakers have
consistently embraced standards as the mechanism to ensure
that every student, no matter what school the student
attends, masters the skills and develops the knowledge needed
to participate in a global economy.
(2) Recent international comparisons make clear that
students in the United States have significant shortcomings
in mathematics and science, yet a high level of scientific
and mathematics literacy is essential to societal innovations
and advancements.
(3) With more than 50 different sets of academic content
standards, 50 State academic assessments, and 50 definitions
of proficiency under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)), there is
great variability in the measures, standards, and benchmarks
for academic achievement in mathematics and science.
(4) Variation in State standards and the accompanying
measures of proficiency make it difficult for parents and
teachers to meaningfully gauge how well their children are
learning mathematics and science in comparison to their peers
internationally or here at home.
(5) The disparity in the rigor of standards across States
results in test results that tell the public little about how
schools are performing and progressing, as States with low
standards or low proficiency scores may appear to be doing
much better than States with more rigorous standards or
higher requirements for proficiency.
(6) As a result, the United States' highly mobile student-
aged population moves through the Nation's schools gaining
widely varying levels of knowledge, skills, and preparedness.
(7) In order for the United States to compete in a global
economy, the country needs to strengthen its educational
expectations for all children.
(8) To compete, the people of the United States must
compare themselves against international benchmarks.
(9) Grounded in a real world analysis and international
comparisons of what students need to succeed in work and
college, rigorous and voluntary core American education
content standards will keep the United States economically
competitive and ensure that the children of the United States
are given the same opportunity to learn to a high standard no
matter where they reside.
(10) Rigorous and voluntary core American education content
standards in mathematics and science will enable students to
succeed in academic settings across States while ensuring an
American edge in the global marketplace.
SEC. 3. ASSESSING SCIENCE IN THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS.
(a) National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act.--Section 303 of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``science,'';
(iv) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' and inserting ``reading, mathematics, and
science''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``, require, or
influence'' and inserting ``or require''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``reading and
mathematics'' each place the term occurs and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''.
(b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 1111(c)(2) (20 U.S.C. 6311(c)(2))--
(A) by inserting ``(and, for science, beginning with the
2007-2008 school year)'' after ``2002-2003''; and
[[Page 22209]]
(B) by striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting
``reading, mathematics, and science''; and
(2) in section 1112(b)(1)(F) (20 U.S.C. 6312(b)(1)(F)), by
striking ``reading and mathematics'' and inserting ``reading,
mathematics, and science''.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 304 of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9623) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``In
this title:'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise provided,
in this title:'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Education.''.
SEC. 5. VOLUNTARY AMERICAN EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS;
AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress
Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 304 (as amended by section 4)
and 305 as sections 306 and 307, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 303 the following:
``SEC. 304. CREATION AND ADOPTION OF VOLUNTARY AMERICAN
EDUCATION CONTENT STANDARDS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational Access for
Kids Act and from amounts appropriated under section
307(a)(3) for a fiscal year, the Assessment Board shall
create and adopt voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science covering kindergarten
through grade 12.
``(b) Duties.--The Assessment Board shall implement
subsection (a) by carrying out the following duties:
``(1) Create and adopt voluntary American education content
standards for mathematics and science covering kindergarten
through grade 12 that reflect a common core of what students
in the United States should know and be able to do to compete
in a global economy.
``(2) Anchor the voluntary American education content
standards based on the mathematics and science frameworks and
the achievement levels under section 303(e) of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress for grades 4, 8, and 12.
``(3) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards are internationally competitive and comparable to
the best standards in the world.
``(4) Review State standards in mathematics and science as
of the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide
Educational Access for Kids Act and consult and work with
entities that are developing, or have already developed, such
State standards.
``(5) Review the reports, views, and analyses of a broad
spectrum of experts and the public as such reports, views,
and analyses relate to mathematics and science education,
including reviews of blue ribbon reports, exemplary practices
in the field, and recent reports by government agencies and
professional organizations.
``(6) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards reflect the best thinking about the knowledge,
skills, and competencies needed for a high degree of
scientific and mathematical understanding.
``(7) Ensure that varying developmental levels of students
are taken into account in the development of the voluntary
American education content standards.
``(8) Ensure that the voluntary American education content
standards reflect what students will be required to know and
be able to do after secondary school graduation to be
academically qualified to enter an institution of higher
education or training for the civilian or military workforce.
``(9) Widely disseminate the voluntary American education
content standards for public review and comment before final
adoption.
``(10) Provide for continuing review of the voluntary
American education content standards not less often than once
every 10 years, which review--
``(A) shall solicit input from outside organizations and
entities, including--
``(i) 1 or more professional mathematics or science
organizations;
``(ii) the State educational agencies that have received
American Standards Incentive Fund grants under section 305
during the period covered by the review; and
``(iii) other organizations and entities, as determined
appropriate by Assessment Board; and
``(B) shall address issues including--
``(i) whether the voluntary American education content
standards continue to reflect international standards of
excellence and the latest developments in the fields of
mathematics and science; and
``(ii) whether the voluntary American education content
standards continue to reflect what students are required to
know and be able to do in science and mathematics after
graduation from secondary school to be academically qualified
to enter an institution of higher education or training for
the civilian or military workforce, as of the date of the
review.
``SEC. 305. THE AMERICAN STANDARDS INCENTIVE FUND.
``(a) Establishment of Fund.--From amounts appropriated
under section 307(a)(4) for a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall establish and fund the American Standards Incentive
fund to carry out the grant program under subsection (b).
``(b) Incentive Grant Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the
Assessment Board adopts the voluntary American education
content standards under section 304, the Secretary shall use
amounts available from the American Standards Incentive fund
to award, on a competitive basis, grants to State educational
agencies to enable each State educational agency to adopt the
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics
and science as the core of the State's academic content
standards in mathematics and science by carrying out the
activities described in subsection (e).
``(2) Duration and amount.--A grant under this subsection
shall be awarded--
``(A) for a period of not more than 4 years; and
``(B) in an amount that is not more than $4,000,000 over
the period of the grant.
``(c) Core Standards.--A State educational agency receiving
a grant under subsection (b) shall adopt and use the
voluntary American education content standards in mathematics
and science as the core of the State academic content
standards in mathematics and science. The State educational
agency may add additional standards to the voluntary American
education content standards as part of the State academic
content standards in mathematics and science.
``(d) State Application.--A State educational agency
desiring to receive a grant under subsection (b) shall submit
an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
The application shall include--
``(1) timelines for carrying out each of the activities
described in subsection (e)(1); and
``(2) a description of the activities that the State
educational agency will undertake to implement the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science adopted under section 304, and the achievement levels
in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
the national and State assessments of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress, at both the State educational agency
and local educational agency levels, including any additional
activities described in subsection (e)(2).
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Mandatory activities.--A State educational agency
receiving a grant under subsection (b) shall use grant funds
to carry out all of the following:
``(A) Adopt the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science as the core of the
State's academic content standards in mathematics and science
not later than 2 years after the receipt of a grant under
this section.
``(B) Align the teacher certification or licensure, pre-
service, and professional development requirements of the
State to the voluntary American education content standards
in mathematics and science not later than 3 years after the
receipt of the grant.
``(C) Align the State academic assessments in mathematics
and science (or develop new such State academic assessments
that are aligned) with the voluntary American education
content standards in mathematics and science not later than 4
years after the receipt of the grant.
``(D) Align the State levels of achievement in mathematics
and science with the student achievement levels in
mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
the national and State assessments of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress.
``(2) Permissive activities.--A State educational agency
receiving a grant under subsection (b) may use the grant
funds to carry out, at the local educational agency or State
educational agency level, any of the following activities:
``(A) Train teachers and administrators on how to
incorporate the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science into classroom
instruction.
``(B) Develop curricula and instructional materials in
mathematics or science that are aligned with the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science.
``(C) Develop performance standards in mathematics or
science to accompany the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science.
``(D) Conduct other activities needed for the
implementation of the voluntary American education content
standards in mathematics and science.
``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section the
Secretary shall give priority to a State educational agency
that will use the grant funds to carry out all of the
activities described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (2).
[[Page 22210]]
``(f) Award Basis.--In determining the amount of a grant
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall take into
consideration--
``(1) the extent to which a State's academic content
standards, State academic assessments, levels of achievement
in mathematics and science, and teacher certification or
licensure, pre-service, and professional development
requirements, must be revised to align such State standards,
assessments, levels, and teacher requirements with the
voluntary American education content standards adopted under
section 304 and the achievement levels in mathematics and
science developed under section 303(e); and
``(2) the planned activities described in the application
submitted under subsection (d).
``(g) Annual State Educational Agency Reports.--A State
educational agency receiving a grant under subsection (b)
shall submit an annual report to the Secretary demonstrating
the State educational agency's progress in meeting the
timelines described in the application under subsection
(d)(1).
``(h) Grants for DoD and BIA Schools.--
``(1) Department of defense schools.--From amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the
Secretary, upon application by the Secretary of Defense, may
award grants under subsection (b) to the Secretary of Defense
on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools
operated by the Department of Defense to enable the
elementary schools and secondary schools to carry out the
activities described in subsection (e).
``(2) Bureau of indian affairs schools.--From amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior,
may award grants under subsection (b) to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs on behalf of elementary schools and secondary schools
operated or funded by the Department of the Interior to
enable the elementary schools and secondary schools to carry
out the activities described in subsection (e).
``(i) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the completion
of the first 4-year grant cycle for grants under this
section, the Commissioner for Education Statistics shall
carry out a study comparing the gap between the reported
proficiency on State academic assessments and assessments
under section 303 for State educational agencies receiving
grants under subsection (b), before and after the State
adopts the voluntary American education content standards in
mathematics and science as the core of the State education
content standards in mathematics and science.
``(j) Data Grant.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
section 305(a)(4), the Secretary shall award, to each State
educational agency that meets the requirements of paragraph
(3), a grant to be used to enhance State data systems as such
systems relate to the requirements under part A of title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(2) Amount of grant.--A grant awarded to a State
educational agency under this subsection shall be in an
amount equal to 5 percent of the amount allocated to the
State under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6332). If the amounts
available from the American Standards Incentive fund are
insufficient to pay the full amounts of grants under
paragraph (1) to all State educational agencies, the
Secretary shall ratably reduce the amount of all grants under
this subsection.
``(3) Requirements.--In order to receive a grant under this
subsection, a State educational agency shall--
``(A) have received a grant under subsection (b); and
``(B) successfully demonstrate to the Secretary that the
State has aligned--
``(i) the State's academic content standards and State
academic assessments in mathematics and science, and the
State's teacher certification or licensure, pre-service, and
professional development requirements, with the voluntary
American education content standards in mathematics and
science; and
``(ii) the State levels of achievement in mathematics and
science for grades 4, 8, and 12, with the achievement levels
in mathematics and science developed under section 303(e) for
such grades.
``(4) Nature of grant.--A grant under this subsection to a
State educational agency shall be in addition to any grant
awarded to the State educational agency under subsection (b).
``(5) Limit on number of grants.--In no case shall a State
educational agency receive more than 1 grant under this
subsection.
``(k) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of the Standards to Provide Educational
Access for Kids Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the status of
all grants awarded under this section.
``(l) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to establish a preferred national curriculum or
preferred teaching methodology for elementary school or
secondary school instruction.
``(m) Timeline Extension.--The Secretary may extend the 12-
year requirement under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)(F)) by not more than 4 years for a State served by
a State educational agency that receives a grant under
subsection (b).
``(n) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) In general.--The terms `elementary school', `local
educational agency', `professional development', `secondary
school', `State', and `State educational agency' have the
meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(2) Academic content standards.--The term `academic
content standards' means the challenging academic content
standards described in section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)).
``(3) Levels of achievement.--The term `levels of
achievement' means the State levels of achievement under
subclauses (II) and (III) of section 1111(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(1)(D)(ii)(II), (III)).
``(4) State academic assessments.--The term `State academic
assessments' means the academic assessments for a State
described in section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 307(a) of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization Act (as redesignated by section 5(1))
(20 U.S.C. 9624(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be
appropriated--
``(1) to carry out section 302, $6,000,000 for fiscal year
2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding
fiscal year;
``(2) to carry out section 303, $200,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year;
``(3) to carry out section 304, $3,000,000 for fiscal year
2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding
fiscal year; and
``(4) to carry out section 305, $400,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.''.
______
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 4062. A bill to freeze non-defense discretionary spending at
fiscal year 2007 levels effective in fiscal year 2008; to the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am here to work on what should be an
area of widespread, bipartisan agreement with the introduction of the
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006. Many, many people in both parties
profess the need to reduce our Government's spending. When I hear
individuals waxing poetic about the need for fiscal discipline, I
usually offer a simple, one-sentence amendment to restore some
discretionary spending discipline, but you should see my friends on the
other side of the aisle run for the hills when someone proposes we
actually do something about it. When the moment comes to move from mere
words to real action on fiscal discipline, over and over I have
confronted nearly united opposition to it on the other side of the
aisle.
Last year we did make some progress on our shared goal. We actually
held last year's non-security discretionary spending down below the
rate of inflation. Let me repeat that: We actually held last year's
non-security spending, over which we had discretion, down below the
rate of inflation.
Again, we are faced with the same task.
The President agrees that we must hold down spending and has proposed
to hold down discretionary spending. The Budget Committee agrees we
must hold down spending and has proposed to hold down discretionary
spending. The American people agree we must hold down spending. Senator
Dorgan has said that we need to provide spending cuts in a significant
manner. Senator Feingold has said, ``We also need to continue to cut
spending in Federal programs. . . .'' Senator Levin stated how we need
to cut spending when he advocated that ``Discretionary spending . . .
[be] frozen for 5 years.'' It seems that both parties agree that we
must hold down discretionary spending.
Well, let's hold down discretionary spending.
I will read the one sentence that is really the entirety of this
bill. I'm sure everyone in this body is familiar with it now--nearly
all of my friends on the other side of the aisle have voted against it
twice in the last twelve months, usually at a time when they are
promoting fiscal discipline. It says: ``Beginning with fiscal year 2008
and
[[Page 22211]]
thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending
shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a two-thirds
vote.'' This is simply a cap on discretionary spending.
It is very simple, cut and dried, something that can pass. I hope
those individuals who have a more complicated approach to this will
recognize this is something that is doable.
I want to focus briefly on one point in the President's most recent
budget proposal. President Bush wisely sent us a budget that encourages
long-term fiscal constraint by including several budget process and
program oversight reforms, including setting enforceable limits on
total spending to stabilize budget growth in the long-term. Simply put,
the President proposes that we put in place a process by which we can
control discretionary spending.
I have been working on a solution to the massive problem of
government spending with this simple language for quite some time. I
have actually wanted to offer it previously on appropriations bills,
but held off. I offered it as an amendment last November and again this
year in March. It has been defeated every time I offer it--every single
time. It's usually defeated by nearly unanimous opposition on the other
side of the aisle. And what's more, they usually vote against it in a
debate during which they cry foul of deficits and declare the need for
fiscal restraint. It's astounding how much rhetoric we hear about the
need to hold down spending and the need for fiscal restraint. I guess
for some, it truly is much easier said than done.
So, I am offering it again.
I will restate the crux of this bill, the Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 2006, one more time before I close: ``Beginning with fiscal year
2008 and thereafter, all non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary
spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels without a
two-thirds vote.'' Folks, it's that easy. I ask that you join me in
holding down spending.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4062
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2006''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Enforcement.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(g) Excess Non-Defense Discretionary Federal Spending
Reduction Point of Order.--
``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or
resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference report on
that bill or resolution) that would cause spending for non-
defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending for the
budget year to exceed the amount of spending for such
activities in fiscal year 2007.
``(2) Allocations.--The allocations under section 302(a)
shall include allocations for the amount described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Super majority waiver or appeal.--This subsection may
be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate,
duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to
sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of
order raised under this subsection.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning
with fiscal year 2008.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 4063. A bill to provide for additional section 8 vouchers, to
reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable
Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing
affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around
the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and
affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and
federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also
providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction.
Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability
challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing
affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters
throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and
secure housing is about more than just providing families with
somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children
with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve
at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows
families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities
including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save
money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites
around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable
housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that
families have to undertake in order to afford housing.
Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more,
available in the United States. Research shows that the number of
families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million
households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families
spends more than 30 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The
National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000
Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million
Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities,
towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack
of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that
confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans.
Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of
Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance
to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe
and affordable housing.
Congress has created effective affordable housing and community
development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal
social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do
not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we
can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into
account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in
1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's
budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized.
Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the
demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of
Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list
for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for 24 hours and
received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not
accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports
that hundreds of families are on the waiting list.
Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country.
According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness
Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in
Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and
currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its
waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its
waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical
waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given
these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8
vouchers than currently exist.
While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to
be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government
agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of
Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their
housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined
that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section
[[Page 22212]]
8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing
programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission
reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost-
effective, and successful in its mission.''
The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to
be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters
access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also
called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for
families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the
calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for
100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually
by Congress.
My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000
incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough
funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000
vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the
total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it
is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were
passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of
these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine
where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide
sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program.
According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers
have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to
four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it
will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to
find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased
funding for Section 8 vouchers.
We should examine doing more than just providing more money for
Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of
Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging
from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to
rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens
landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program.
Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula
the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to
address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more
effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the
country.
But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the
housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to
increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our
communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable
to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments
Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990
to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing
for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows
participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other
existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low
income Americans throughout the country.
According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23
billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating
jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units
committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports
that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in
my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and
have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and
States around the country are able to report numerous success stories
in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to
participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial
Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and
recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.
Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has
seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9
billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than
$1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating
jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some
jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to
ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we
must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in
need.
But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs
to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation
seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by
using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating
jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating
jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or
preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or
people at 30 percent of area median income or below.
As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe
affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data
from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low
income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues
while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with
affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low
income owner households are severely burdened by affordability
concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with
severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families
and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half
of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing
Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in
America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income
renter households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted
that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or
production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.
Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe
and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area
median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of
the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard
from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective
housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is
why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program;
local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of
the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary
and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.
Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding
under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the
needs of the extremely low income families in their respective
communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this
funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on
how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are
intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating
jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that
the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding
for extremely low income households in no way excuses such
jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve
extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding
will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to
dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing
for the most vulnerable Americans.
My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant
program: the
[[Page 22213]]
Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program,
formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not
been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in
2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which
provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing
authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200
million per year for five years for this program.
After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics
indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across
the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime
increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest,
violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing
authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the
effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their
resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with
funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related
crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their
tenants.
Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug
Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long
enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator
Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing
and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded
numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the
country.
In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important
programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of
Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day
to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work
collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the
Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public
safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year,
dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and
other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing
Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies,
providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of
educational, job training and life skill programs.
When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002
budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures
should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised
an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP
funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to
continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in
the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can
be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee--
have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of
their crime reduction programs.
It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants.
Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide
housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing
entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.
But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with
grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more
resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most
effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains
several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program.
It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R)
to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and
issue a report within six months identifying effective programs,
providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require
PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to
develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation
of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant
program that have not previously been subject to that type of
evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of
information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require
HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns
from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most
effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted
housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related
guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving
the effectiveness of the program going forward.
As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use
of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on
their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program
was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can
be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used
inappropriately.
My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on
Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the
outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry,
Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a
National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with
them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust
fund.
I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the
goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next
10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect
the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and
very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local
communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing
units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters
the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.
Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and
states throughout the country, including recently in the city of
Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for
working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces
and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help
Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe
and affordable housing to all Americans.
This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year
to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me
over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening
sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous
proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit.
This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our
most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and,
unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are
struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families.
This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that
communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This
issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head,
however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs,
better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans.
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work
together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all
Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and
other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of
affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page 22214]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4063
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Affordable Housing Expansion
and Public Safety Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERS.
(a) In General.--In fiscal year 2007 and subject to
renewal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide an additional 100,000 incremental vouchers for
tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8(o) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$8,400,000,000 for the provision and renewal of the vouchers
described in subsection (a).
(2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.
(3) Carryover.--To the extent that any amounts appropriated
for any fiscal are not expended by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development in such fiscal year for purposes of
subsection (a), any remaining amounts shall be carried
forward for use by the Secretary to renew the vouchers
described in subsection (a) in subsequent years.
(c) Distribution of Amounts.--
(1) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may not use more
than $800,000,000 of the amounts authorized under paragraph
(1) to cover the administrative costs associated with the
provision and renewal of the vouchers described in subsection
(a).
(2) Voucher costs.--The Secretary shall use all remaining
amounts authorized under paragraph (1) to cover the costs of
providing and renewing the vouchers described in subsection
(a).
SEC. 3. TARGETED EXPANSION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
(HOME) PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
(1) To authorize additional funding under subtitle A of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12741 et seq.), commonly referred to as the
Home Investments Partnership (``HOME'') program, to provide
dedicated funding for the expansion and preservation of
housing for extremely low-income individuals and families
through eligible uses of investment as defined in paragraphs
(1) and (3) of section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act.
(2) Such additional funding is intended to supplement the
HOME funds already allocated to a participating jurisdiction
to provide additional assistance in targeting resources to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
(3) Such additional funding is not intended to be the only
source of assistance for extremely low-income individuals and
families under the HOME program, and participating
jurisdictions shall continue to use non-set aside HOME funds
to provide assistance to such extremely low-income
individuals and families.
(b) Set Aside for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and
Families.--
(1) Eligible use.--Section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Extremely low-income individuals and families.--
``(A) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
use funds provided under this subtitle to provide affordable
housing to individuals and families whose incomes do not
exceed 30 percent of median family income for that
jurisdiction.
``(B) Exception.--If a participating jurisdiction can
certify to the Secretary that such participating jurisdiction
has met in its jurisdiction the housing needs of extremely
low-income individuals and families described in subparagraph
(A), such participating jurisdiction may use any remaining
funds provided under this subtitle for purposes of
subparagraph (A) to provide affordable housing to individuals
and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of median
family income for that jurisdiction.
``(C) Rule of construction.--The Secretary shall notify
each participating jurisdiction receiving funds for purposes
of this paragraph that use of such funds, as required under
subparagraph (A), does not exempt or prevent that
participating jurisdiction from using any other funds awarded
under this subtitle to provide affordable housing to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
``(D) Rental housing.--Notwithstanding section 215(a),
housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable
housing under this paragraph only if such housing is occupied
by extremely low-income individuals or families who pay as a
contribution toward rent (excluding any Federal or State
rental subsidy provided on behalf of the individual or
family) not more than 30 percent of the monthly adjusted
income of such individual or family, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Pro rata distribution.--Section 217 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Pro Rata Distribution for Extremely Low-Income
Individuals and Families.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, in any fiscal year the Secretary shall
allocate any funds specifically approved in an appropriations
Act to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6), such funds
shall be allocated to each participating jurisdiction in an
amount which bears the same ratio to such amount as the
amount such participating jurisdiction receives for such
fiscal year under this subtitle, not including any amounts
allocated for any additional set-asides specified in such
appropriations Act for that fiscal year.''.
(3) Certification.--Section 226 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12756) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
certify on annual basis to the Secretary that any funds used
to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6) were actually
used to assist such families.
``(2) Content of certification.--Each certification
required under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) state the number of extremely low-income individuals
and families assisted in the previous 12 months;
``(B) separate such extremely low-income individuals and
families into those individuals and families who were
assisted by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle; and
``(C) describe the type of activities, including new
construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing,
provided to such extremely low-income individuals and
families that were supported by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle.
``(3) Inclusion with performance report.--The certification
required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the
jurisdiction's annual performance report submitted to the
Secretary under section 108(a) and made available to the
public.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated under any other
law or appropriations Act to carry out the provisions of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 et. seq), there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
SEC. 4. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG
ELIMINATION PROGRAM.
(a) Title Change.--The chapter heading of chapter 2 of
subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 2--PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG ELIMINATION
PROGRAM''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Amounts authorized.--Section 5129(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908(a)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this chapter $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.''.
(2) Set aside for the office of policy development and
research.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Set Aside for the Office of Policy Development and
Research.--Of any amounts made available in any fiscal year
to carry out this chapter not less than 2 percent shall be
available to the Office of Policy Development and Research to
carry out the functions required under section 5130.''.
(c) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by
striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``,
except that the activities conducted under any such program
and paid for, in whole or in part, with grant funds awarded
under this chapter may only include--
``(A) providing access to treatment for drug abuse through
rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
``(B) providing education about the dangers and adverse
consequences of drug use or violent crime;
``(C) assisting drug users in discontinuing their drug use
through an education program, and, if appropriate, referring
such users to a drug treatment program;
``(D) providing after school activities for youths for the
purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or
violent crime by youths;
``(E) providing capital improvements for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime; and
``(F) providing security services for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime.''.
[[Page 22215]]
(d) Effectiveness.--
(1) Application plan.--Section 5125(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``To the maximum extent feasible,
each plan submitted under this section shall be developed in
coordination with relevant local law enforcement agencies and
other local entities involved in crime prevention and
reduction. Such plan also shall include an agreement to work
cooperatively with the Office of Policy Development and
Research in its efforts to carry out the functions required
under section 5130.''
(2) HUD report.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Effectiveness Report.--The Secretary shall submit a
report to the Congress not later than 4 years after the date
of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and
Public Safety Act that includes--
``(1) aggregate data regarding the categories of program
activities that have been funded by grants under this
chapter;
``(2) promising strategies related to preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and
federally assisted low-income housing derived from--
``(A) a review of existing research; and
``(B) evaluations of programs funded by grants under this
chapter that were conducted by the Office of Policy
Development and Review or by the grantees themselves;
``(3) how the information gathered in paragraph (2) has
been incorporated into--
``(A) the guidance provided to applicants under this
chapter; and
``(B) the implementing regulations under this chapter; and
``(4) any statutory changes that the Secretary would
recommend to help make grants awarded under this chapter more
effective.''.
(3) Office of policy development and research review and
plan.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 5130. OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REVIEW
AND PLAN.
``(a) Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Office of Policy Development and
Research established pursuant to section 501 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1) shall
conduct a review of existing research relating to preventing
and reducing violent and drug-related crime to assess, using
scientifically rigorous and acceptable methods, which
strategies--
``(A) have been found to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes; and
``(B) would be likely to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes in public and
federally assisted low-income housing environments.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public
Safety Act, the Secretary shall issue a written report with
the results of the review required under paragraph (1).
``(b) Evaluation Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the review required
under subsection (a)(1), the Office of Policy Development and
Research, in consultation with housing authorities, social
scientists, and other interested parties, shall develop and
implement a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of
strategies funded under this chapter, including new and
innovative strategies and existing strategies, that have not
previously been subject to rigorous evaluation methodologies.
``(2) Methodology.--The plan described in paragraph (1)
shall require such evaluations to use rigorous methodologies,
particularly random assignment (where practicable), that are
capable of producing scientifically valid knowledge regarding
which program activities are effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and other
federally assisted low-income housing.''.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A
NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Only 1 in 4 eligible households receives Federal rental
assistance.
(2) The number of families facing severe housing cost
burdens grew by almost 2,000,0000 households between 2001 and
2004.
(3) 1 in 3 families spend more than 30 percent of their
earnings on housing costs.
(4) More than 75 percent of renter households with severe
housing affordability burdens are extremely low-income
families.
(5) More than half of extremely low-income households pay
at least half of their income on housing.
(6) At least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day.
(7) 2,000,000 to 3,000,0000 Americans are homeless for
various lengths of time each year.
(8) It is estimated that the development of an average
housing unit creates on average more than 3 jobs and the
development of an average multifamily unit creates on average
more than 1 job.
(9) It is estimated that over $80,000 is produced in
government revenue for an average single family unit built
and over $30,000 is produced in government revenue for an
average multifamily unit built.
(10) The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission stated
that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the
mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter
households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.''.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Congress shall create a national affordable housing
trust fund with the purpose of supplying 1,500,000 additional
affordable housing units over the next 10 years;
(2) such a trust fund shall contain sufficient income
targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced
by extremely low-income and very low-income families; and
(3) such a trust fund shall contain enough flexibility to
allow local communities to produce, preserve, and
rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that
such affordable housing development fosters the creation of
healthy and sustainable communities.
SEC. 6. OFFSETS.
(a) Repeal of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A
Raptor Fighter Aircraft.--Effective as of October 17, 2006,
section 134 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), relating to
multiyear procurement authority for F-22A Raptor fighter
aircraft, is repealed.
(b) Advanced Research for Fossil Fuels.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy shall not
carry out any program that conducts, or provides assistance
for, applied research for fossil fuels.
(c) Termination of Advanced Technology Program.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Commerce may not award any new grants under the Advanced
Technology Program, provided for under section 28 of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C.
278n), effective October 1, 2006.
______
By Mr. CRAPO:
S. 4064. A bill to improve the amendments made by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Improving No Child
Left Behind--INCLB--Act. As a father and a legislator, I am committed
to advocating for public education in Idaho and throughout the Nation.
Ensuring that every child receives a good education is one of my top
priorities. President Bush's sweeping education reforms included in the
No Child Left Behind Act have had measurable positive effects on many
students across the country, and I support the law's objective of
ensuring that every child achieves his or her potential.
However, given time to observe the implementation of the law, it is
now appropriate to review opportunities for needed improvements to the
underlying program. After conferring with a number of organizations in
Idaho and at the national level, I have identified implementation
concerns that seem common to various stakeholder groups. In response, I
have created the Improving No Child Left Behind Act. This bill contains
a number of workable, commonsense modifications to the law. These
provisions preserve the major focus on student achievement and
accountability and, at the same time, ensure that schools and school
districts are accurately and fairly assessed. The act ensures that
local schools and districts have more flexibility and control in
educating our Nation's children. The goal of the act is expressed in
its name: to improve No Child Left Behind.
The bill does a number of things: INCLB would allow supplemental
services like tutoring to be offered to students sooner than they are
currently available; INCLB would provide flexibility for States to use
additional types of assessment models for measuring student progress;
INCLB grants States more flexibility in assessing students with
disabilities; INCLB would ensure more fair and accurate assessments of
Limited English Proficiency--LEP--students; INCLB would create a
student testing participation range, providing flexibility for
uncontrollable variations in student attendance; INCLB would allow
schools to target resources to those student populations who need the
most attention by applying sanctions only when the same student group
fails to make adequate progress in the same subject for two consecutive
years; and INCLB would
[[Page 22216]]
ensure that students are counted properly and accurately in assessment
and reporting systems.
Taken together, these provisions reflect a realistic assessment of
both the strengths and weaknesses of No Child Left Behind. While there
may be many issues that divide us, our responsibility in education is
clear. We must promote successful, meaningful public education for our
children. The INCLB Act will ensure that INCLB continues to be an
avenue to success for educators and students throughout Idaho and the
Nation.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 4065. A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on
the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of
school-related crime in elementary schools and secondary schools; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accurate
Crime Trends for School Act, a bill that is critical in protecting our
children from crimes within their schools.
Each day, parents send their children off to school with a sense of
security that they are spending their day in a classroom free from
danger. The latest outbreaks of school violence and crimes are a clear
reminder that this is not always the case. While the majority of our
schools are safe, some parents send their children off to school only
to find that their child has become the victim of a crime.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires States and local educational
agencies to publicly report criminal activity in our schools, based on
their own reports and best-guess surveys. However, there is no Federal
crime reporting and tracking system for K-12 schools in the United
States.
I strongly believe that accurate data on the crimes occurring in our
schools will help us develop preventative measures and effectively
address crimes occurring in our nation's classrooms.
My bill, the Accurate Crime Trends (``ACT'') for Schools Act, directs
the Attorney General, in consultation with the FBI and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, to determine the
feasibility of expanding the National Incidents Based Reporting System
(``NIBRS'') to include information on K-12 school-related crime. NIBRS
is the FBI's comprehensive, detailed crime reporting system. It
provides a greater capability of reporting the details of crimes than
self-reporting or surveys do.
I want it to be clear that expanding NIBRS would not create a new
level of bureaucracy. This bill would neither bring the FBI into our
schools, nor place any new requirements or new burdens upon educators.
Expanding NIBRS would use existing crime reporting infrastructures to
collect specific K-12 crime data, allowing us to improve the safety of
our kids in school.
This year The Office of the New York State Comptroller released a
study that underscored the need for such legislation. The report showed
that at schools sampled, 80 percent of documented incidents of crimes
went unreported to the State, with a number of these instances being
serious crimes. This is the type of information that we need that we
are not currently getting.
As a parent, I truly believe it is imperative to be made aware of any
crime that takes place in our children's schools. Our parents,
educators, and children need and deserve a sense of comfort and
security from their schools. When we have accurate data on what is
occurring in our school, we will be able to develop effective policies
to make sure our schools are safe. This bill is a critical first step
in achieving this goal.
The infrastructure for collecting this data is already in place. All
we have to do is determine the best way to utilize it. The Accurate
Crime Trends for Schools Act will accomplish just that.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4065
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Accurate Crime Trends for
Schools Act'' or the ``ACT for Schools Act''.
SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) Study.--The Attorney General shall, after consultation
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of expanding the National
Incident-Based Reporting System to include information on the
occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and
secondary schools. Such study shall include the
identification and evaluation of methods that may be used to
collect and report such information.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report containing the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a) to the appropriate committees of Congress.
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary
school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 2, $250,000 for fiscal year 2007.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Byrd,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Pryor, Mr.
Enzi, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Ensign):
S. 4067. A bill to provide for secondary transmissions of distant
network signals for private home viewing by certain satellite carriers;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators
Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, and Byrd, Pryor, Enzi, and Clinton
are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret
the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect
consumers--especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont.
This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that
soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV
services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major
corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help
corporations, but to help home satellite viewers.
A Federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly
and repeatedly violated Federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should
be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is
ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this:
EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did
not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the
penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit
had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any
distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will
suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the
country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the
free, over-the-air broadcast networks.
The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and--
most importantly--pro-consumer solution to a problem of Echo Star's
creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1,
will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to
any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the
injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where
EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our
legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network
stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not
available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant
network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas
that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring
in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no
[[Page 22217]]
local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring
localities that are considered ``significantly viewed'' by the Federal
Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations,
could be carried.
This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement
provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally
providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act
therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and
requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright
office to cover any future violations.
This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of
broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it
serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and
the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying
for these services.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4067
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: SECONDARY
TRANSMISSIONS OF DISTANT NETWORK SIGNALS FOR
PRIVATE HOME VIEWING BY CERTAIN SATELLITE
CARRIERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 119 the following:
``Sec. 119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary
transmissions of distant network signals for private home
viewing by certain satellite carriers
``(a) Statutory License Granted.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any injunction issued
under section 119(a)(7)(B), a satellite carrier found to have
engaged in a pattern or practice of violations pursuant to
section 119(a)(7)(B) is granted a statutory license to
provide a secondary transmission of a performance or display
of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a
network station in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
``(2) Significantly viewed signals.--Under the statutory
license granted by paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may
provide a secondary transmission of a primary transmission
made by a network station as provided in paragraph (2)(C) or
(3) of section 119(a).
``(3) Distant signals.--
``(A) In general.--Under the statutory license granted by
paragraph (1), a satellite carrier may provide a secondary
transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied
in a primary transmission made by a network station, subject
to the limitations of subparagraphs (B) and (C), of not more
than 1 network station in a single day for each television
network.
``(B) Non-local-into-local markets.--A satellite carrier
may provide a secondary transmission under subparagraph (A)
in a local market (as defined in section 122(j)) in which a
satellite carrier does not currently provide, and has not
ever provided, a transmission pursuant to a statutory license
under section 122, if the satellite carrier--
``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a
statutory license under section 119; and
``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days
after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a
subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all
subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a
statutory license under this section in that local market
reside in unserved households, as determined under section
119(a)(2)(B)(ii); and
``(iii) deposits, in addition to the deposits required by
section 119(b)(1), a duplicate payment with the Register of
Copyrights in the same amount for each network station in the
local market affiliated with the same network as the network
station being imported.
``(C) Short markets.--In a local market (as defined in
section 122(j)) in which a network station (as defined in
section 119(d)) affiliated with the ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox
television network is not licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, a satellite carrier may provide
secondary transmission under subparagraph (A) of the primary
signals of a network station affiliated with that network, if
the satellite carrier--
``(i) complies with the terms and conditions for a
statutory license under section 119; and
``(ii) certifies to the Copyright Office within 30 days
after the date of enactment of the Satellite Consumer
Protection Act of 2006, or before initiating service to a
subscriber under this section, whichever is later, that all
subscribers receiving secondary transmissions pursuant to a
statutory license under this section in that local market
reside in unserved households, as determined under section
119(a)(2)(B)(ii).
``(D) Short market exception.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (C), a
satellite carrier may not provide secondary transmission of
the primary signals of a network station under that
subparagraph if secondary transmission of those signals could
be provided under paragraph (2).
``(ii) Discontinuance of secondary transmission when
primary signal becomes available.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (C), a satellite carrier that has been providing
secondary transmission of the primary signals of a network
station under subparagraph (C) in a local market may not
provide such secondary transmission in that local market more
than 30 days after the date on which a network station
affiliated with the same network begins to broadcast or
rebroadcast the basic programming service of that network in
that local market and could be carried pursuant to a license
under section 122.
``(b) Distribution of Duplicate Deposit Amounts.--The
Copyright Royalty Judges shall authorize the Librarian of
Congress to distribute semiannually amounts received by the
Register of Copyrights as deposits under subsection
(a)(3)(B)(iii), after deducting the reasonable costs incurred
by the Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges
under this section, in accordance with a process that the
Copyright Royalty Judges may prescribe by regulation, to a
network station (as defined in section 119(d)(2)) affiliated
with the network whose signals are being carried under this
section to a community within the local market (as defined in
section 122(j)) in which such signals are being provided
under this section.
``(c) Statutory Damages.--
``(1) In general.--The violation by a satellite carrier of
subsection (a) is actionable as an act of infringement under
section 501 and is subject to statutory damages equal to $100
per month multiplied by the number of subscribers with
respect to which the violation was committed for each month
during which the violation was committed (treating each month
of a continuing violation as a separate violation).
``(2) Petition.--A petition for statutory damages may be
made to the Copyright Royalty Judges, pursuant to such rules
as may be prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Judges by
regulation. In any proceeding under this section, the
satellite carrier shall have the burden of proving that its
secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a network
station is to a subscriber who is eligible to receive the
secondary transmission under this section.
``(3) Escrow.--As a condition of using the statutory
license under subsection (a), a satellite carrier must
deposit the sum of $20,000,000 in escrow with the Copyright
Office. The Copyright Office shall deposit the escrow funds
in an account in the Treasury of the United States, in such
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury directs, and invested
in interest-bearing securities of the United States with any
interest from such investment to be credited to the account.
The Copyright Royalty Judges shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to determine liability for and entitlement to
the statutory damages owed to the petitioning party in
accordance with a process to be prescribed by regulation and
they shall authorize the Librarian of Congress to distribute
funds from the escrow account to satisfy this determination.
After all petitions under this section against a satellite
carrier have been resolved, any amount remaining in the
satellite carrier's escrow account after February 17, 2009,
after deducting the reasonable costs incurred by the
Copyright Office and the Copyright Royalty Judges under this
section, shall be returned to the satellite carrier.
``(4) Judicial review.--A satellite carrier may seek
judicial review of all determinations of the Copyright
Royalty Judges on a consolidated basis in a single petition
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days after the later
of--
``(A) February 17, 2009; or
``(B) the date on which all amounts in the escrow account
have been distributed or returned.
``(d) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after February
17, 2009.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
1 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 119 the following:
``119A. Limitations on exclusive rights: secondary transmissions of
distant network signals for private home viewing by
certain satellite carriers''.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my
colleagues Senators Leahy and Allard in introducing the Satellite
Consumer Protection Act of 2006. I am pleased
[[Page 22218]]
that Senators Byrd, Inouye, Salazar, Snowe, Roberts, Enzi, and Ensign
are original cosponsors.
I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. This
bill builds upon the hard work and legislative language that
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) and I originally developed. Congressman
Boucher has been invaluable in making all sure that all interested
parties work together to protect consumers, and I must thank him for
all of his hard work on this issue.
We have introduced this legislation to protect consumers who through
no fault of their own can no longer receive network television signals
from DISH Network. Our constituents have lost this right because of a
nationwide legal battle between DISH Network and television
broadcasters. The Court found that DISH Network had violated the law
and imposed a penalty. This decision impacted thousands of my
constituent and I believe that Congress needed to restore the ability
of these consumers to receive network signals. For many rural West
Virginians, cable television is not available.
We have a looming crisis on our hands and Congress must pass our bill
immediately. We have a duty to our consumers to minimize the disruption
to their daily lives, and our bill allows those consumers who do not
have the ability to get local television stations in their area to
continue to receive distant signals.
Again, I urge quick adoption of this legislation.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 4070. A bill to exempt children of certain Filipino World War II
veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has long been evident that our
immigration system needs to be reformed, and the current debate on
immigration is long overdue. I am pleased that this body is addressing
this important issue in such a comprehensive manner. However, if the
Senate's debate on immigration is to be truly comprehensive, it must
address not only its better-known propositions and factors but also its
lesser-known ones as well.
My bill seeks to address and resolve an immigration issue that, while
rooted in a set of historical circumstance more than seven decades old,
remains unresolved to this day. It is an issue of great concern to
Filipino World War II veterans and to Filipino Americans, and it ought
to be an issue of great concern to all American veterans and citizens
with an interest in justice and fairness.
Before I discuss the specifics of my bill, I would first like to
thank my dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii,
Daniel K. Inouye, for cosponsoring this bill. In the 101st Congress,
Senator Inouye authored Section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990,
which provided for the naturalization of Filipino World War II
veterans. Senator Inouye has a long history of being involved in this
important effort and it is an honor to have his support on my bill
today.
To understand the significance of this bill, it is important to first
provide some background about the historical circumstances that got us
to where we are today.
In 1941, on the basis of 1934 legislation enacted prior to Philippine
independence, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive
order. Through this order, President Roosevelt invoked his authority to
``call and order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United
States,'' including ``all of the organized military forces of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.'' This order drafted
more than 200,000 Filipino citizens into the United States military.
Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipino soldiers
fought alongside American soldiers in the defense of our country.
Throughout the course of World War II, these Filipino soldiers proved
themselves to be courageous and honorable comrades in arms as they
helped the United States fulfill its mission. There was no question
that they would be treated the same as American troops.
These Filipino soldiers are war heroes, and deserved to be treated as
such. They provided active duty service on behalf of the U.S. military,
which should have qualified them for the same benefits as other active-
duty veterans. Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the First
Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act in 1946, which
included a rider that conditioned an appropriation of $200 million, for
the benefit of the postwar Philippine Army, on the basis that service
in the Commonwealth Army should not be deemed to have been service in
the Armed Forces of the United States.
Commonwealth Army members were those called into the service of the
United States Armed Forces for the Far East. These members served
between July 26, 1941, and June 30, 1946. Similarly, Congress enacted
the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which
provided that service in the New Philippine Scouts was not deemed to be
service in the U.S. military.
New Philippine Scouts were Filipino citizens who served with the
United States Armed Forces with the consent of the Philippine
government. They served between October 6, 1945, and June 30, 1947.
These veterans are now in their eighties and nineties. Of the 200,000
Filipino veterans that served in World War II, close to 49,000 survive.
Some of these veterans receive U.S. benefits, some do not. By 2010, it
is estimated that there will be just 20,000 survivors.
With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of the
many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War
II was finally recognized by our government, and Filipino veterans were
offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. According to the
former Immigration and Naturalization Service, about 15,000 Filipino
veterans live in the U.S. and became citizens between 1941 and 1995
under the authority of the Immigration Act of 1990. Between that time
about 11,000 veterans who live in the Philippines were successfully
naturalized. These thousands of Filipino veterans clearly wished to
spend their golden years in the United States, and I am pleased that
the 1990 Immigration reform efforts provided them the opportunity to do
so.
Unfortunately, the offer did not extend to the adult sons and
daughters of these veterans. As a result, the Filipino veterans who
fought on behalf of America, and who now live in American and continue
to contribute to America, must do so alone. Due to a backlog in the
issuing of visas, many of the children of these veterans have waited
more than twenty years before being able to obtain an immigrant visa.
My bill, by exempting children of certain Filipino World War II
veterans from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas, will ensure
that our Filipino World War II veterans can enjoy and be supported by
their family members in their twilight years. I believe it is a simple
yet profound way that this country may honor the sacrifices made more
than six decades ago by these war heroes.
I urge my colleagues to honor the valiant contributions of Filipino
World War II veterans to our Nation by supporting my bill.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 4071. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the placed-in-service date requirement for low-income housing credit
buildings and bonus depreciation property and the period for
rehabilitation expenditures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the people of New Orleans and the rest
of the Gulf Coast have been working hard to rebuild their communities
and the economy of the region. The Gulf Opportunity (GO) Zone
legislation that the Congress passed and the President signed into law
at the end of last year, has contributed greatly to the rebuilding
efforts.
The benefits of this legislation have been tremendous so far.
Hundreds of businesses, large and small, will be able
[[Page 22219]]
to take advantage of tax incentives made possible by the GO Zone bill.
These include a bonus depreciation provision that allows businesses to
take a 50 percent depreciation deduction in the first year on new plant
or equipment in the GO Zone. This has helped jump start our recovery by
giving businesses the incentive to invest quickly in the GO Zone.
The GO Zone Act also increased the amount of low income housing tax
credits available to GO Zone states. The Louisiana Housing Finance
Agency reports that it has awarded more than $80 million in low income
housing tax credits. These credits will be leveraged to finance 195
rental housing developments for working families.
The GO Zone also included an increased rehabilitation tax credit to
encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures.
We have many beautiful, old buildings in New Orleans and along the
Gulf. They are part of our heritage and as we rebuild we want to
preserve that heritage.
The problem with the GO Zone Act is that these tax benefits have
limits in terms of the time that they are available for our rebuilding.
Most require that any plant and equipment, or the housing financed by
the tax credits, must be placed in service by the end of 2008--that is
only two years away. The rehabilitation tax credit is also only
available until the end of 2008. The problem with this is that our
recovery is going to take longer. In Louisiana we are rebuilding an
entire city essentially from scratch. Whole communities were wiped out
in Mississippi. We have never seen a recovery like the one we are
attempting in the Gulf.
The placed in service date is particularly difficult for the low
income housing tax credits. It can take years to get together all of
the financing for housing developments and even more time for
construction. The current placed in service date effectively makes any
credits allocated in 2008 unusable because it would be nearly
impossible to get a building financed and constructed by the end of the
year.
Today, I am introducing legislation to extend the placed in service
dates for the various GO Zone tax benefits for an additional two years.
This will give us more time to take full advantage of the opportunities
the GO Zone legislation has given us. Our recovery is proceeding
steadily, but it will take time. We do not want to diminish the impact
these tax credits will have on our recovery by artificially limiting
their availability. My bill would make these credits available for a
longer period of time so that the recovery in the Gulf will be
sustained.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4071
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PLACED-IN-SERVICE DATE REQUIREMENT
FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT BUILDINGS AND
BONUS DEPRECIATION PROPERTY AND PERIOD FOR
REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES IN GULF OPPORTUNITY
ZONE.
(a) Low-Income Housing Credit Buildings.--Section 1400N(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2008'' in paragraph (3)(A) and
inserting ``2008, 2009, or 2010'',
(2) by striking ``during such period'' in paragraph
(3)(B)(ii) and inserting ``during the period described in
subparagraph (A)'', and
(3) by striking ``or 2008'' in paragraph (4)(A) and
inserting ``2008, 2009, or 2010''.
(b) Bonus Depreciation Property.--Section 1400N(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2007 (December 31, 2008, in
the case of nonresidential real property and residential
rental property)'' in paragraph (2)(A)(v) and inserting
``December 31, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' in paragraph (3)(B) and
inserting ``January 1, 2011''.
(c) Increase in Rehabilitation Credit.--Section 1400N(h) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``2008'' and inserting ``2010''.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 4072. A bill to address ongoing small business and homeowner needs
in the Gulf Coast States impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
Rita; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU: Mr. President, I come to the floor today to highlight
the ongoing needs of our small businesses and homeowners in the Gulf
Coast who were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In Louisiana
alone, these disasters claimed 1,464 lives, destroyed more than 200,000
homes and 18,000 businesses and inflicted $25 billion in uninsured
losses. Many of my colleagues here in the Senate have been down to
Louisiana and have seen firsthand the size and scope of the
destruction. The Congress has been very generous in providing billions
of Federal recovery dollars as well as valuable Gulf Opportunity (GO)
Zone tax incentives to help spur recovery in the region. These
resources will be key in the recovery of the region but there are
additional needs on the ground that still must be addressed. That is
why I am proud to introduce a bill today, the Gulf Coast Back to
Business and Homes Act of 2006, which I believe, addresses these
problems and shows our small businesses and homeowners that the Federal
government is responsive to their needs. I am happy that my colleague,
Senator Kerry, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Committee, has joined me by cosponsoring this
legislation.
Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit the United
States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the Louisiana
and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane ever to hit
the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part of my state
and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated Louisiana
lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish in the west
to Plaquemines Parish in the east.
We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities
that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse
mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's
uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local
economies now and far into the future.
My State estimates that there were 71,000 businesses in the Katrina
and Rita disaster zones. As I mentioned, a total of 18,752 of these
businesses were catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale,
according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small and
medium-sized businesses in the Gulf region were disrupted by Katrina
and Rita. Many of these businesses have yet to resume operations and
others are struggling to survive. We will never succeed without these
small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization of the
Gulf Coast. We also cannot succeed if our homeowners are being buried
under red tape and regulations.
The people who work for the Small Business Administration and FEMA
are dedicated and interested to help in the recovery of our region.
However, these individuals are operating under a system which is
inadequate and, in some cases, unresponsive to needs on the ground.
I come to the floor today to introduce a bill which provides
commonsense solutions to get the Federal assistance to our struggling
businesses and homeowners. If we don't help them now, building a strong
Gulf Coast will be all the more difficult if residents cannot rebuild
their homes and businesses cannot open their doors.
After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my
State, there are two things that they need right now: access to capital
and additional time to repay their SBA Disaster loans. For homeowners,
they are still encountering an SBA which is only disbursing small
amounts of loan funds for home rebuilding. The SBA is also deducting
proceeds from State-administered housing recovery grants to payoff
existing SBA Disaster home loans. I understand the SBA is just doing
its job and following the current laws, but I believe this is a
situation where the current laws are actually
[[Page 22220]]
hurting taxpayers in their efforts to fully recover.
For example, under current law, the SBA cannot disburse more than
$10,000 for an approved Disaster Loan without showing collateral. This
is to limit the loss to the SBA in the event that a loan defaults.
However, this disbursement amount has not been increased since 1998 and
these days, $10,000 is not enough to get a business up and running or
to allow a homeowner to start making repairs. Our bill increases this
collateral requirement for Katrina and Rita Disaster Loans from $10,000
to $35,000.
To address the lack of access to capital for our businesses, the bill
includes a provision to provide funds to Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Texas to help small businesses now. Not three months from
now, but as quickly as possible. We are asking for $100 million so that
businesses can have money they need to repair, rebuild, and pay their
employees until they get back up and running again. The States know
what the needs of their affected businesses are and we want to provide
them with this money so they can start helping businesses now.
Many businesses and homeowners are also coming up on the end of their
standard one-year deferment of payment on principal and interest on
their SBA Disaster Loans. For most disasters, one-year is more than
enough time for borrowers to get back on their feet. But for disasters
on the scale of Katrina and Rita, one-year came and went, with
communities just now seeing gas stations open and some homeowners are
just now returning to rebuild their homes. This is a unique situation
and for French Quarter businesses, where tourism is down 85 percent
from pre-Katrina levels, to require them to start making payments on a
$50,000 loan is virtually impossible if there are no customers!
Homeowners too are experiencing widespread uncertainty and I believe
the current one-year deferment requires serious reconsideration. That
is why this bill gives borrowers an additional year to get their lives
in order--allow residents to begin fixing their homes and allow
businesses the time for economic activity to pick back up.
For homeowners in Louisiana, the State is doing its part by setting
up the Louisiana Road Home program, to provide homeowners with up to
$150,000 in grant proceeds for uninsured losses on their properties.
However, many applicants are concerned because under the Stafford and
Small Business Acts, the SBA is required to ensure there are no
`duplication of benefits' provided to disaster victims. This means that
SBA must review every file which received an SBA Disaster Loan, and if
there is deemed to be a duplication, deduct the duplication amount from
the grant proceeds. As I said, I want the SBA to ensure taxpayers funds
are used wisely, but at the same time, I want to ensure that all
residents are able to get the funds they need to rebuild their homes.
Under the current scenario, some residents who have additional
uninsured losses, are being required to still pay back these grant
proceeds. This is because many SBA loss inspections were done right
after the storms in 2005, but since then building/labor costs have
increased dramatically, and this is not reflected in the SBA verified
loss. Borrowers are able to request a loan modification from SBA, but
many residents who waited months and months for SBA to respond, are
wary to go through the process again, especially if there is a prospect
they will be declined for the increased loan amount. I can't blame them
because there is enough uncertainty down there right now. Personally, I
would also be hesitant to go through the SBA loan process again if I
had to fill out as much paperwork as my constituents have had to fill
out, and to receive constant requests for more information once they
think they are done with submitting information.
For this reason, this bill provides the SBA Administrator the
flexibility to consider this `duplication of benefits' to be, rather
than the entire SBA loan amount, to instead be the difference between
the Federal Government's subsidized interest rate on the loan and the
market rate at which the borrower could have borrowed such funds. This
provides borrowers with additional funds for rebuilding while retaining
the Federal Government's financial responsibility to taxpayers.
In introducing this bill today, I am hopeful it sends the signal to
Gulf Coast residents and businesses that Congress has not forgotten
about them. Congress has done a great deal during the 109th Congress to
help disaster victims, but that does mean we should just write off
recurring problems to the responsibility of states or disaster victims
themselves. I believe that both the leadership on the Senate Committee
on Small Business & Entrepreneurship as well as the new SBA
Administrator, Steve Preston, are receptive to addressing these ongoing
needs in the Gulf Coast. I look forward to working closely with them in
the coming weeks to provide substantive and lasting solutions for our
small businesses and homeowners.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 4072
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Gulf Coast Back to Business
and Homes Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) 43 percent of businesses that close following a natural
disaster never reopen;
(2) an additional 29 percent of businesses close down
permanently within 2 years of a natural disaster;
(3) Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United
States on August 29, 2005, negatively impacting small
business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama;
(4) Hurricane Rita struck the Gulf Coast of the United
States on September 24, 2005, negatively impacting small
business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of
Texas and Louisiana;
(5) according to the United States Chamber of Commerce,
more than 125,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the
Gulf Coast were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane
Rita;
(6) due to a slow initial Federal response and the
widespread devastation in the affected States, businesses
impacted by Hurricane Katrina are in dire need of increased
access to capital and technical assistance to recover and
prosper; and
(7) without the full recovery and prosperity of affected
businesses, the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the United
States, will be negatively impacted.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``Disaster Area'' means an area in which the
President has declared a major disaster in response to
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005;
(2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122); and
(3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN RECOVERY GRANTS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Commerce $100,000,000 for the Economic
Development Administration of the Department of Commerce to
make grants to the appropriate State government agencies in
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, to carry out this
section.
(b) Disbursement of Funds.--The Department of Commerce
shall disburse the funds authorized under subsection (a) in
the most expeditious manner possible to the designated
States, based on--
(1) the number of small business concerns directly damaged
or disrupted by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita
of 2005 in the State;
(2) the number of residents displaced from the State by
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005;
(3) the number of jobs lost or disrupted by Hurricane
Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 in the State;
(4) the extent of economic disruption by Hurricane Katrina
of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 in the State; and
(5) the number of evacuees from any other State due to
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, to whom
the designated State is providing assistance.
(c) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Grants awarded to a State under subsection
(a) shall be used by the State to provide grants, which may
be made to any small business concern located in a Disaster
Area that was negatively impacted
[[Page 22221]]
by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, to
assist such small business concern for the purposes of--
(A) paying employees;
(B) paying bills and other existing financial obligations;
(C) making repairs;
(D) purchasing inventory;
(E) restarting or operating that business in the community
in which it was conducting operations prior to Hurricane
Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, or to a
neighboring area or county or parish in a Disaster Area; or
(F) covering additional costs until that small business
concern is able to obtain funding through insurance claims,
Federal assistance programs, or other sources.
(2) Criteria.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
in making grants under paragraph (1), a State may use such
criteria as the State determines appropriate, and shall not
be required to apply eligibility criteria for programs
administered by the Federal Government, including the
Department of Commerce.
(3) Administrative expenses.--The Department of Commerce
may use not more than $1,000,000 of the funds authorized
under subsection (a) to administer the provision of grants to
the designated States under this subsection.
SEC. 5. DISASTER LOANS AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE
RITA.
(a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting immediately after
paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Disaster loans after hurricane katrina or hurricane
rita in a disaster area.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the term `Disaster Area' means an area in which the
President has declared a major disaster in response to
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005; and
``(ii) the term `qualified borrower' means a person to whom
the Administrator made a loan under this section because of
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
``(B) Deferment of disaster loan payments.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, payments of principal and interest on a loan to a
qualified borrower made before December 31, 2006, shall be
deferred, and no interest shall accrue with respect to such
loan, during the time period described in clause (ii).
``(ii) Time period.--The time period for purposes of clause
(i) shall be 1 year from the later of the date of enactment
of this paragraph or the date on which funds are distributed
under a loan described in clause (i), but may be extended to
2 years from such date, at the discretion of the
Administrator.
``(iii) Resumption of payments.--At the end of the time
period described in clause (ii), the payment of periodic
installments of principal and interest shall be required with
respect to such loan, in the same manner and subject to the
same terms and conditions as would otherwise be applicable to
any other loan made under this subsection.''.
(b) Increasing Collateral Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, including section 7(c)(6) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(c)(6)), the Administrator may not require
collateral for any covered loan made by the Administrator.
(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
loan'' means a loan in an amount of not more than $35,000
made--
(A) under section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)(1));
(B) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane
Rita of 2005; and
(C) after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. WAIVER OF DUPLICATION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 9 of title II of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234;
120 Stat. 471) is amended under the heading ``community
development fund (including transfer of funds)'' under the
heading ``Community Planning and Development'' under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'', by
inserting after ``Army Corps of Engineers:'' the following:
``Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso
or any other provision of law, in providing assistance in the
State of Louisiana, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration may (in determining whether activities are
reimbursable under, or whether funds have been made available
under, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) using amounts made
available under this heading) use as the amount of a loan
under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)) the amount attributable to the difference between the
rate of interest on such loan and the market rate at which
such borrower could have borrowed such funds, over the period
of such loan:''.
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be deemed to have taken effect as though enacted as
part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery,
2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 418).
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any application for assistance under section
7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) that is
submitted not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 615--DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 26, 2006, AS ``DRIVE SAFER
SUNDAY''
Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 516
Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of
transportation in the United States;
Whereas everyone on the roads and highways needs to drive
more safely to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from
motor vehicle accidents;
Whereas the death of almost 43,000 people a year in more
than 6 million highway crashes in the United States has been
called an epidemic by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta;
Whereas according to the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, wearing a seat belt saved 15,434 lives
in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005; and
Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest
highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) encourages--
(A) high schools, colleges, universities, administrators,
teachers, primary schools, and secondary schools to launch
campus-wide educational campaigns to urge students to be
careful about safety when driving;
(B) national trucking firms to alert their drivers to be
especially focused on driving safely during the heaviest
traffic day of the year, and to publicize the importance of
the day using Citizen's band (CB) radios and in truck stops
across the Nation;
(C) clergy to remind their members to travel safely when
attending services and gatherings;
(D) law enforcement personnel to remind drivers and
passengers to drive particularly safely on the Sunday after
Thanksgiving; and
(E) everyone to use the Sunday after Thanksgiving as an
opportunity to educate themselves about highway safety; and
(2) designates November 26, 2006, as ``Drive Safer
Sunday''.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution to
designate Sunday, November 26, 2006, as Drive Safer Sunday.
Motor vehicle travel is the primary source of travel in the United
States and statistics show that the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the
busiest highway traffic day of the year. Too many holidays end
tragically due to the careless and reckless behavior of motorists and I
hope that this resolution will raise awareness and help save lives. It
should also serve as a reminder to those traveling over Thanksgiving
holidays and all year long to be vigilant, alert, and careful.
Steve and Susan Owings are constituents of mine in Atlanta, GA. In
2002, their son Cullum Owings was in a fatal crash on the Sunday after
Thanksgiving while traveling back to college. This resolution is in
honor of Cullum, and designed with the hope that other families like
the Owings, will not have to suffer such a tragic loss.
According to the Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety, our
Georgia roads had 348,040 crashes with 1,744 fatalities in 2005. Two of
the major contributing factors to the loss of life in these crashes
were speeding and unrestrained passengers.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration,
An estimated 15,434 lives in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005 were saved
as a result of passengers wearing their seatbelts.
Safety belts, when used, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front
seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent.
Six out of 10 children who died in passenger vehicle crashes were
unbelted.
At least 4 percent of automobile crashes are the result of distracted
driving.
An average 119 people died each day as a result of motor crashes in
2005--an average of one every 12 minutes.
From 1975 through 2005, an estimated 211,128 lives were saved by
safety belts.
[[Page 22222]]
From 1975 through 2005, an estimated 7,896 lives were saved by child
restraints.
In 2005, 68 percent of pickup drivers killed in traffic crashes were
not using a safety belt.
With families traveling to see relatives and students nationwide
trying to get back to school, America's highways and interstates are
highly congested and present many opportunities for dangerous or fatal
accidents. This resolution encourages automobile drivers, truckers,
passengers, and law enforcement agencies to work together to make the
highways a safer place this Sunday after Thanksgiving. It also
encourages all Americans to slow down, wear their seatbelts, use
signals, and be aware of all the other cars and trucks on the road. It
is my hope that we can all work together to reduce the number of
injuries and fatalities that result from car crashes while keeping
families happy and together.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 616--AUTHORIZING THE MAJORITY LEADER AND ONE STAFF
MEMBER TO TRAVEL TO MEXICO FOR THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW PRESIDENT OF
MEXICO SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 2, 2006
Mr. FRIST submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 616
Resolved, That the Majority Leader and one staff member are
authorized to travel to Mexico for the inauguration of the
new President of Mexico scheduled for December 2, 2006.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 617--DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2006 AS ``NATIONAL LUNG
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH''
Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 617
Whereas lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of both
men and women, accounting for nearly 1 in every 3 cancer
deaths in the United States;
Whereas lung cancer claims the lives of more people each
year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, and kidney cancers
combined;
Whereas the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
(SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute estimates
that, in 2006, 174,470 new lung cancer cases will be
diagnosed and 162,460 individuals will die of lung cancer in
the United States;
Whereas both incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer
are significantly higher in black males than in the general
population of the United States;
Whereas smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in
the United States;
Whereas the best way to decrease the number of diagnoses
and deaths per year from lung cancer is to encourage people
in the United States to quit smoking;
Whereas a former smoker's risk of lung cancer does not
decrease significantly until 20 years after the individual
quit smoking;
Whereas the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program
has demonstrated in a 14-year study with 31,567 participants
that computer tomography scans can detect lung cancer in
Stage I when the cancer can be more easily treated and cured,
giving individuals who are diagnosed early a 10-year survival
rate of 88 percent;
Whereas there is a need to increase public awareness of
statistics, risk factors, and the importance of early
diagnosis;
Whereas individuals with cancers that are routinely
diagnosed at early stages through screening, such as breast
cancer and prostate cancer, have high survival rates of 88
percent and 99 percent, respectively;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer in the
United States is still only 15 percent, a rate virtually
unchanged since the enactment of the National Cancer Act of
1971; and
Whereas designating November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month'', as proposed by the Lung Cancer Alliance
and the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia, will increase public
awareness about lung cancer and the need for lung cancer
research and early detection: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month''; and
(2) reaffirms the Senate's commitment to--
(A) advancing lung cancer research and early detection, and
particularly the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia's goal of
significantly increasing the 5-year survival rate of
individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States
to 50 percent within 10 years; and
(B) working with all Federal agencies involved in cancer
research to develop a coordinated roadmap for accomplishing
that goal.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution
recognizing November as National Lung Cancer Awareness Month. It is
important for Americans to recognize the large number of individuals
who are diagnosed with and die from lung cancer each year. This
resolution is a reminder to all Americans to help raise awareness about
lung cancer, including the importance of early detection and treatment
of this dreadful disease.
In the United States, nearly 125,000 Americans die from lung,
trachea, and bronchus cancer each year. According to the Centers for
Disease Control, CDC, lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer
deaths nationally for men and women. More American women will die from
lung cancer than die from breast cancer each year. The disease kills
more individuals than breast, prostate, colon, liver, and kidney
cancers combined. In my home state of Georgia this year alone, more
than 6,200 Georgians will be diagnosed with and almost 5,000 will die
from lung cancer.
The best way to decrease the amount of diagnosis and deaths per year
from lung cancer is for Americans not to smoke. According to the CDC,
cigarette smoking is harmful to human health and plays a major role in
90 percent of all lung cancer deaths. The sooner that a person quits
smoking, the greater chance that person has of not contracting lung
cancer.
For the fiscal year 2007, the National Institutes of Health, NIH,
will spend an estimated $285 million, and the National Cancer
Institute, NCI, will spend $261 million on lung cancer research. This
money will be spent to reduce the risk of contracting the disease and
find a cure for lung cancer. As our Nation continues the fight against
cancer, it is important for Congress to provide continued support to
the NIH and NCI in order to find a cure for this terrible disease and
reach our goal of eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015.
Through advancements in science and research, cancer has become one of
the most preventable and increasingly curable life threatening
diseases. As a cancer survivor, I will be the first to tell you that
prevention and detection greatly increases your chances of survival. It
is my hope that recognizing November as National Lung Cancer Awareness
Month will remind everyone that maintaining a healthy lifestyle coupled
with early detection through screening greatly reduces the risk of
cancer.
I commend the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia on all of their hard
work in helping to raise awareness regarding this deadly disease. The
Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia has been at the forefront in organizing
the state movement to combat lung cancer, releasing a state report card
for Georgia that brings to light many specific problems our state has
in relation to lung cancer. It is important to bring these problems to
the forefront in order to work together to help reduce the rate of lung
cancer incidence and deaths. I commend my friend Ed Levitt, his wife
Linda, and Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia, for all of their hard work
in making lung cancer awareness a top priority.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 618--DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 26, 2006, AS ``DRIVE SAFER
SUNDAY''
Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 618
Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of
transportation in the United States;
Whereas everyone on the roads and highways needs to drive
more safely to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from
motor vehicle accidents;
Whereas the death of almost 43,000 people a year in more
than 6 million highway crashes in the United States has been
called an epidemic by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta;
Whereas according to the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, wearing a seat belt saved 15,434 lives
in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005; and
[[Page 22223]]
Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest
highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) encourages--
(A) high schools, colleges, universities, administrators,
teachers, primary schools, and secondary schools to launch
campus-wide educational campaigns to urge students to be
careful about safety when driving;
(B) national trucking firms to alert their drivers to be
especially focused on driving safely during the heaviest
traffic day of the year, and to publicize the importance of
the day using Citizen's band (CB) radios and in truck stops
across the Nation;
(C) clergy to remind their members to travel safely when
attending services and gatherings;
(D) law enforcement personnel to remind drivers and
passengers to drive particularly safely on the Sunday after
Thanksgiving; and
(E) everyone to use the Sunday after Thanksgiving as an
opportunity to educate themselves about highway safety; and
(2) designates November 26, 2006, as ``Drive Safer
Sunday''.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 619--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT SENATOR
PAUL WELLSTONE SHOULD BE REMEMBERED FOR HIS COMPASSION AND LEADERSHIP
ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND THAT CONGRESS SHOULD ACT TO END DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO LIVE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS BY
MAKING LEGISLATION RELATING TO MENTAL HEALTH PARITY A PRIORITY FOR THE
110TH CONGRESS
Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg,
and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 619
Whereas Paul Wellstone served with distinction as a Senator
from the State of Minnesota;
Whereas, for more than 20 years, Paul Wellstone inspired
the students of Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota;
Whereas Paul Wellstone was a loving father and husband, a
loyal citizen of the United States, and a compassionate
person;
Whereas Paul Wellstone dedicated his life to bringing equal
access to education, economic opportunity, and comprehensive
healthcare to all citizens of the United States;
Whereas Paul Wellstone worked tirelessly to advance mental
health parity for all citizens of the United States;
Whereas more than 44,000,000 citizens of the United States
suffer from some form of a mental health-related condition;
Whereas only \1/3\ of those citizens seek or receive
treatment for their mental health-related condition;
Whereas 34 States have enacted laws that require some form
of access to mental health treatments that is similar to
physical health coverage; and
Whereas the tragic and premature death of Paul Wellstone on
October 25, 2002, silenced 1 of the leading voices of the
Senate who spoke on behalf of the citizens of the United
States who live with a mental illness: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) on the fourth anniversary of his passing, Senator Paul
Wellstone should be remembered for his compassion and
leadership on social issues throughout his career; and
(2) Congress should act to end discrimination against
citizens of the United States who live with a mental illness
by enacting legislation to provide for coverage of mental
health benefits with respect to health insurance coverage.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 620--DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2006 AS ``NATIONAL LUNG
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH''
Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 620
Whereas lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of both
men and women, accounting for nearly 1 in every 3 cancer
deaths in the United States;
Whereas lung cancer claims the lives of more people each
year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, and kidney cancers
combined;
Whereas the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
(SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute estimates
that, in 2006, 174,470 new lung cancer cases will be
diagnosed and 162,460 individuals will die of lung cancer in
the United States;
Whereas both incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer
are significantly higher in black males than in the general
population of the United States;
Whereas smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in
the United States;
Whereas the best way to decrease the number of diagnoses
and deaths per year from lung cancer is to encourage people
in the United States to quit smoking;
Whereas a former smoker's risk of lung cancer does not
decrease significantly until 20 years after the individual
quit smoking;
Whereas the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program
has demonstrated in a 14-year study with 31,567 participants
that computer tomography scans can detect lung cancer in
Stage I when the cancer can be more easily treated and cured,
giving individuals who are diagnosed early a 10-year survival
rate of 88 percent;
Whereas there is a need to increase public awareness of
statistics, risk factors, and the importance of early
diagnosis;
Whereas individuals with cancers that are routinely
diagnosed at early stages through screening, such as breast
cancer and prostate cancer, have high survival rates of 88
percent and 99 percent, respectively;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer in the
United States is still only 15 percent, a rate virtually
unchanged since the enactment of the National Cancer Act of
1971; and
Whereas designating November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month'', as proposed by the Lung Cancer Alliance
and the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia, will increase public
awareness about lung cancer and the need for lung cancer
research and early detection: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month''; and
(2) reaffirms the Senate's commitment to--
(A) advancing lung cancer research and early detection, and
particularly the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia's goal of
significantly increasing the 5-year survival rate of
individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States
to 50 percent within 10 years; and
(B) working with all Federal agencies involved in cancer
research to develop a coordinated roadmap for accomplishing
that goal.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 621--DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 5 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 9, 2007, AS ``NATIONAL TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND
PREVENTION WEEK''
Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Murkowski,
and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 621
Whereas 1 in 3 female teens in a dating relationship have
feared for their physical safety;
Whereas 1 in 2 teens in serious relationships have
compromised their beliefs to please their partner;
Whereas nearly 1 in 5 teens who have been in a serious
relationship said their boyfriend or girlfriend would
threaten to hurt themselves or their partner if there was a
breakup;
Whereas 1 in 5 teens in a serious relationship report they
have been hit, slapped, or pushed by a partner;
Whereas more than 1 in 4 teens have been in a relationship
where their partner verbally abuses them;
Whereas 13 percent of Hispanic teens reported that hitting
a partner was permissible;
Whereas 29 percent of girls who have been in a relationship
said they have been pressured to have sex or engage in sex
they did not want;
Whereas nearly 50 percent of girls worry that their partner
would break up with them if they did not agree to engage in
sex;
Whereas Native American women experience higher rates of
interpersonal violence than any other population group;
Whereas violent relationships in adolescence can have
serious ramifications for victims who are at higher risk for
substance abuse, eating disorders, risky sexual behavior,
suicide, and adult revictimization;
Whereas the severity of violence among intimate partners
has been shown to increase if the pattern has been
established in adolescence;
Whereas 81 percent of parents surveyed either believe
dating violence is not an issue or admit they do not know if
it is an issue; and
Whereas the establishment of the National Teen Dating
Violence Awareness and Prevention Week will benefit schools,
communities, and families regardless of socio-economic
status, race, or sex: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of February 5 through February 9,
2007, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and
Prevention Week''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States, high
schools, law enforcement, State and local officials, and
interested groups, to
[[Page 22224]]
observe National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and
Prevention Week with appropriate programs and activities that
promote awareness and prevention of the crime of teen dating
violence in their communities.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 5168. Mr. LUGAR proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear
materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to
implement the United States Additional Protocol.
SA 5169. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Obama) proposed an amendment to
the bill S. 3709, supra.
SA 5170. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3709, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 5171. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5172. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States
exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to
India, and to implement the United States Additional
Protocol; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5173. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Harkin) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 3709, supra.
SA 5174. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy)
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, supra.
SA 5175. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Thomas) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by Mr. Frist to the bill H.R. 5384,
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5176. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5177. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5178. Mr. DORGAN proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear
materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to
implement the United States Additional Protocol.
SA 5179. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment
to the bill S. 3709, supra.
SA 5180. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr.
Domenici)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, supra.
SA 5181. Mr. ENSIGN proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, supra.
SA 5182. Mr. DORGAN proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, supra.
SA 5183. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, supra.
SA 5184. Mr. CRAPO submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations
for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5185. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5186. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5187. Mrs. BOXER proposed an amendment to the bill S.
3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear
materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to
implement the United States Additional Protocol.
SA 5188. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Reid,
Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Wyden)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5189. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5190. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5191. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5192. Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an
amendment to the bill S. 994, to authorize the Attorney
General to make grants to improve the ability of State and
local governments to prevent the abduction of children by
family members, and for other purposes.
SA 5193. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to
the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 101, condemning the
repression of the Iranian Baha'i community and calling for
the emancipation of Iranian Baha'is.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 5168. Mr. LUGAR proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
TITLE I--UNITED STATES-INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``United States-India
Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act''.
SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) strong bilateral relations with India are in the
national interest of the United States;
(2) the United States and India share common democratic
values and the potential for increasing and sustained
economic engagement;
(3) commerce in civil nuclear energy with India by the
United States and other countries has the potential to
benefit the people of all countries;
(4) such commerce also represents a significant change in
United States policy regarding commerce with countries not
parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
remains the foundation of the international non-proliferation
regime;
(5) any commerce in civil nuclear energy with India by the
United States and other countries must be achieved in a
manner that minimizes the risk of nuclear proliferation or
regional arms races and maximizes India's adherence to
international non-proliferation regimes, including, in
particular, the Guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG); and
(6) the United States should not seek to facilitate or
encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any
other party if such exports are terminated under United
States law.
SEC. 103. DECLARATION OF POLICY CONCERNING UNITED STATES-
INDIA PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION.
It shall be the policy of the United States with respect to
any peaceful atomic energy cooperation between the United
States and India--
(1) to achieve as quickly as possible a cessation of the
production by India and Pakistan of fissile materials for
nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices;
(2) to achieve as quickly as possible the Government of
India's adherence to, and cooperation in, the full range of
international non-proliferation regimes and activities,
including India's--
(A) full participation in the Proliferation Security
Initiative;
(B) formal commitment to the Statement of Interdiction
Principles;
(C) public announcement of its decision to conform its
export control laws, regulations, and policies with the
Australia Group and with the Guidelines, Procedures,
Criteria, and Controls List of the Wassenaar Arrangement; and
(D) demonstration of satisfactory progress toward
implementing the decision described in subparagraph (C);
(3) to ensure that India remains in full compliance with
its non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament
agreements, obligations, and commitments;
(4) to ensure that any safeguards agreement or Additional
Protocol thereto to which India is a party with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can reliably
safeguard any export or reexport to India of any nuclear
materials and equipment;
(5) to meet the requirements set forth in subsections a.(1)
and a.(3)-a.(9) of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153);
(6) to act in a manner fully consistent with the Guidelines
for Nuclear Transfers and the Guidelines for Transfers of
Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software and
Related Technology developed by the multilateral Nuclear
Suppliers Group and the rules and practices regarding NSG
decision-making;
(7) given the special sensitivity of equipment and
technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of
heavy water, to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group, individually and collectively, to further restrict the
transfers of
[[Page 22225]]
such equipment and technologies, including to India;
(8) to maintain the fullest possible international support
for, adherence to, and compliance with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty; and
(9) that exports of nuclear fuel to India should not
contribute to, or in any way encourage, increases in the
production by India of fissile material for non-civilian
purposes.
SEC. 104. WAIVERS FOR COOPERATION WITH INDIA.
(a) Waiver Authority.--If the President submits a
determination under section 105 to the appropriate
congressional committees and makes available to such
committees the text of the agreement described in paragraph
(3) of such section, the President may--
(1) subject to subsection (b), exempt a proposed agreement
for cooperation with India arranged pursuant to section 123
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153) from the
requirement of subsection a.(2) of such section;
(2) waive the application of section 128 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2157) with respect to exports
to India; and
(3) waive the application of any sanction with respect to
India under--
(A) section 129 a.(1)(D) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2158(a)(1)(D)); and
(B) section 129 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2158) regarding any
actions that occurred before July 18, 2005.
(b) Joint Resolution of Approval Requirement.--An agreement
for cooperation exempted by the President pursuant to
subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to the second proviso in
subsection d. of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2153(d)) applicable to agreements exempted by the
President pursuant to subsection (a) of such section.
SEC. 105. DETERMINATION REGARDING UNITED STATES-INDIA
PEACEFUL ATOMIC ENERGY COOPERATION.
The determination referred to in section 104 is a written
determination by the President, which shall be accompanied by
a report to the appropriate congressional committees, that--
(1) India has provided to the IAEA and the United States a
credible plan to separate its civil nuclear facilities,
materials, and programs from its military facilities,
materials, and programs;
(2) India has filed a complete declaration regarding its
civil nuclear facilities and materials with the IAEA;
(3) an agreement between India and the IAEA requiring the
application of safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with
IAEA standards, principles, and practices to civil nuclear
facilities, programs, and materials described in paragraph
(2) has entered into force;
(4) India and the IAEA are making substantial progress
toward implementing an Additional Protocol;
(5) India is working with the United States to conclude a
multilateral treaty on the cessation of the production of
fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices;
(6) India is supporting international efforts to prevent
the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology to any
state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning
enrichment or reprocessing plants;
(7) India has secured nuclear and other sensitive materials
and technology through the application of comprehensive
export control legislation and regulations, including through
effective enforcement actions, and through harmonization of
its control lists with, and adherence to, the guidelines of
the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Nuclear
Suppliers Group; and
(8) the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided to permit civil
nuclear commerce with India pursuant to a decision taken by
the Nuclear Suppliers Group that--
(A) was made by consensus; and
(B) does not permit nuclear commerce with any non-nuclear
weapon state other than India that does not have IAEA
safeguards on all nuclear materials and all peaceful nuclear
activities within the territory of such state, under its
jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
SEC. 106. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EXPORTS AND REEXPORTS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Nuclear regulatory commission.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not
authorize pursuant to part 110 of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, licenses for the export or reexport to India of
any equipment, materials, or technology related to the
enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear
fuel, or the production of heavy water.
(2) Secretary of energy.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the Secretary of Energy may not authorize pursuant to
part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, licenses
for the export or reexport to India of any equipment,
materials, or technology to be used for the enrichment of
uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, or the
production of heavy water.
(b) Exceptions.--Exports or reexports otherwise prohibited
under subsection (a) may be approved if--
(1) the end user--
(A) is a multinational facility participating in an IAEA-
approved program to provide alternatives to national fuel
cycle capabilities; or
(B) is a facility participating in, and the export or
reexport is associated with, a bilateral or multinational
program to develop a proliferation-resistant fuel cycle; and
(2) the President determines that the export or reexport
will not improve India's ability to produce nuclear weapons
or fissile material for military uses.
SEC. 107. END-USE MONITORING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The President shall ensure that all
appropriate measures are taken to maintain accountability
with respect to nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
sold, leased, exported, or reexported to India and to ensure
United States compliance with Article I of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty.
(b) Measures.--The measures taken pursuant to subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Obtaining and implementing assurances and conditions
pursuant to the export licensing authorities of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Department of Commerce and the
authorizing authorities of the Department of Energy,
including, as appropriate, conditions regarding end-use
monitoring.
(2) A detailed system of reporting and accounting for
technology transfers, including any retransfers in India,
authorized by the Department of Energy pursuant to section 57
b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)). Such
system shall be capable of providing assurances that--
(A) the identified recipients of the nuclear technology are
authorized to receive the nuclear technology;
(B) the nuclear technology identified for transfer will be
used only for peaceful safeguarded nuclear activities and
will not be used for any military or nuclear explosive
purpose; and
(C) the nuclear technology identified for transfer will not
be retransferred without the prior consent of the United
States, and facilities, equipment, or materials derived
through the use of transferred technology will not be
transferred without the prior consent of the United States.
(3) In the event the IAEA is unable to implement safeguards
as required by an agreement between the United States and
India arranged pursuant to section 123 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), arrangements that conform with
IAEA safeguards standards, principles, and practices that
provide assurances equivalent to that intended to be secured
by the system they replace, including--
(A) review in a timely fashion of the design of any
equipment transferred pursuant to the agreement for
cooperation, or of any facility that is to use, fabricate,
process, or store any material so transferred or any special
nuclear material used in or produced through the use of such
material and equipment;
(B) maintenance and disclosure of records and of relevant
reports for the purpose of assisting in ensuring
accountability for material transferred pursuant to the
agreement and any source or special nuclear material used in
or produced through the use of any material and equipment so
transferred; and
(C) access to places and data necessary to account for the
material referred to in subparagraph (B) and to inspect any
equipment or facility referred to in subparagraph (A).
(c) Implementation.--The measures described in subsection
(b) shall be implemented to provide reasonable assurances
that the recipient is complying with the relevant
requirements, terms, and conditions of any licenses issued by
the United States regarding such exports, including those
relating to the use, retransfer, safe handling, secure
transit, and storage of such exports.
SEC. 108. IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE.
(a) Information on Nuclear Activities of India.--The
President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees
fully and currently informed of the facts and implications of
any significant nuclear activities of India, including--
(1) any material non-compliance on the part of the
Government of India with--
(A) the non-proliferation commitments undertaken in the
Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, between the President of
the United States and the Prime Minister of India;
(B) the separation plan presented in the national
parliament of India on March 7, 2006, and in greater detail
on May 11, 2006;
(C) a safeguards agreement between the Government of India
and the IAEA;
(D) an Additional Protocol between the Government of India
and the IAEA;
(E) a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement between the
Government of India and the United States Government pursuant
to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2153) or any subsequent arrangement under section 131 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 2160);
(F) the terms and conditions of any approved licenses; and
(G) United States laws and regulations regarding the export
or reexport of nuclear material or dual-use material,
equipment, or technology;
[[Page 22226]]
(2) the construction of a nuclear facility in India after
the date of the enactment of this Act;
(3) significant changes in the production by India of
nuclear weapons or in the types or amounts of fissile
material produced; and
(4) changes in the purpose or operational status of any
unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle activities in India.
(b) Implementation and Compliance Report.--Not later than
180 days after the date on which an agreement between the
Government of India and the United States Government pursuant
to section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2153) enters into force, and annually thereafter, the
President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report including--
(1) a description of any additional nuclear facilities and
nuclear materials that the Government of India has placed or
intends to place under IAEA safeguards;
(2) a comprehensive listing of--
(A) all licenses that have been approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Secretary of Energy for exports
and reexports to India under parts 110 and 810 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) any licenses approved by the Department of Commerce for
the export or reexport to India of commodities, related
technology, and software which are controlled for nuclear
non-proliferation reasons on the Nuclear Referral List of the
Commerce Control List maintained under part 774 of title 15,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(C) any other United States authorizations for the export
or reexport to India of nuclear materials and equipment; and
(D) with respect to each such license or other form of
authorization described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)--
(i) the number or other identifying information of each
license or authorization;
(ii) the name or names of the authorized end user or end
users;
(iii) the name of the site, facility, or location in India
to which the export or reexport was made;
(iv) the terms and conditions included on such licenses and
authorizations;
(v) any post-shipment verification procedures that will be
applied to such exports or reexports; and
(vi) the term of validity of each such license or
authorization;
(3) any significant nuclear commerce between India and
other countries, including any such trade that--
(A) does not comply with applicable guidelines or decisions
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group; or
(B) would not meet the standards applied to exports or
reexports of such material, equipment, or technology of
United States origin;
(4) either--
(A) a certification that India is in full compliance with
the commitments and obligations contained in the agreements
and other documents referenced in subparagraphs (A) through
(F) of subsection (a)(1); or
(B) if the President cannot make such certification, an
identification and assessment of all compliance issues
arising with regard to the adherence by India to its
commitments and obligations, including--
(i) the steps the United States Government has taken to
remedy or otherwise respond to such compliance issues;
(ii) the responses of the Government of India to such
steps; and
(iii) an assessment of the implications of any continued
noncompliance, including whether nuclear commerce with India,
if not already terminated under section 129 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2158), remains in the national
security interest of the United States;
(5) a detailed description of--
(A) United States efforts to promote national or regional
progress by India and Pakistan in disclosing, securing,
capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles,
pending creation of a world-wide fissile material cut-off
regime, including the institution of a Fissile Material Cut-
off Treaty;
(B) the reactions of India and Pakistan to such efforts;
and
(C) assistance that the United States is providing, or
would be able to provide, to India and Pakistan to promote
the objectives in subparagraph (A), consistent with its
obligations under international law and existing agreements;
and
(6) a detailed description of efforts and progress made
toward the achievement of India's--
(A) full participation in the Proliferation Security
Initiative;
(B) formal commitment to the Statement of Interdiction
Principles;
(C) public announcement of its decision to conform its
export control laws, regulations, and policies with the
Australia Group and with the Guidelines, Procedures,
Criteria, and Controls List of the Wassenaar Arrangement; and
(D) demonstration of satisfactory progress toward
implementing the decision described in subparagraph (C).
(c) Submittal With Other Annual Reports.--
(1) Report on proliferation prevention.--Each annual report
submitted under subsection (b) after the initial report may
be submitted together with the annual report on proliferation
prevention required under section 601(a) of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. 3281(a)).
(2) Report on progress toward regional non-proliferation.--
The information required to be submitted under subsection
(b)(5) after the initial report may be submitted together
with the annual report on progress toward regional non-
proliferation required under section 620F(c) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2376(c)).
(d) Form.--Each report submitted under this section shall
be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a
classified annex.
SEC. 109. UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE WITH ITS NUCLEAR NON-
PROLIFERATION TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
This title shall not be deemed to constitute authority for
any action in violation of any obligation of the United
States under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
SEC. 110. INOPERABILITY OF DETERMINATION AND WAIVERS.
A determination under section 105 and any waiver under
section 104 shall cease to be effective if the President
determines that India has detonated a nuclear explosive
device after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 111. MTCR ADHERENT STATUS.
Congress finds that India is not an MTCR adherent for the
purposes of Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2797b).
SEC. 112. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 1112(c)(4) of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Act of 1999 (title XI of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg
Donovan Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113
and contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-
486)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) so much of the reports required under section 108 of
the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation
Act as relates to verification or compliance matters; and''.
SEC. 113. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) The term ``Additional Protocol'' means a protocol
additional to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as
negotiated between a country and the IAEA based on a Model
Additional Protocol as set forth in IAEA information circular
(INFCIRC) 540.
(2) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(3) The term ``atomic energy'' has the meaning given the
term in section 11 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014(c)).
(4) The term ``dual-use material, equipment, or
technology'' means those items controlled by the Department
of Commerce pursuant to section 309(c) of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978.
(5) The term ``IAEA safeguards'' has the meaning given the
term in section 830(3) of the Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6305(3)).
(6) The term ``nuclear materials and equipment'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4(5) of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. 3203(3)).
(7) The term ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into
force March 5, 1970 (21 UST 483).
(8) The terms ``nuclear weapon'' and ``nuclear explosive
device'' have the meaning given the term ``nuclear explosive
device'' in section 830(4) of the Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6305(4)).
(9) The terms ``reprocessing'' and ``reprocess'' refer to
the separation of nuclear materials from fission products in
spent nuclear fuel.
(10) The term ``source material'' has the meaning given the
term in section 11 z. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2014(z)).
(11) The term ``special nuclear material'' has the meaning
given the term in section 11 aa. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(aa)).
(12) The term ``unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity''
means research on, or development, design, manufacture,
construction, operation, or maintenance of--
(A) any existing or future reactor, critical facility,
conversion plant, fabrication plant, reprocessing plant,
plant for the separation of isotopes of source or special
fissionable material, or separate storage installation with
respect to which there is no obligation to accept IAEA
safeguards at the relevant reactor, facility, plant, or
installation that contains source or special fissionable
material; or
(B) any existing or future heavy water production plant
with respect to which there is no obligation to accept IAEA
safeguards on any nuclear material produced by or used in
connection with any heavy water produced therefrom.
[[Page 22227]]
TITLE II--UNITED STATES ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``United States Additional
Protocol Implementation Act''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings--
(1) The proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear
explosive devices poses a grave threat to the national
security of the United States and its vital national
interests.
(2) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has proven
critical to limiting such proliferation.
(3) For the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be
effective, each of the non-nuclear-weapon State Parties must
conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA,
and such agreements must be honored and enforced.
(4) Recent events emphasize the urgency of strengthening
the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the
safeguards system. This can best be accomplished by providing
IAEA inspectors with more information about, and broader
access to, nuclear activities within the territory of non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties.
(5) The proposed scope of such expanded information and
access has been negotiated by the member states of the IAEA
in the form of a Model Additional Protocol to its existing
safeguards agreements, and universal acceptance of Additional
Protocols by non-nuclear weapons states is essential to
enhancing the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
(6) On June 12, 1998, the United States, as a nuclear-
weapon State Party, signed an Additional Protocol that is
based on the Model Additional Protocol, but which also
contains measures, consistent with its existing safeguards
agreements with its members, that protect the right of the
United States to exclude the application of IAEA safeguards
to locations and activities with direct national security
significance or to locations or information associated with
such activities.
(7) Implementation of the Additional Protocol in the United
States in a manner consistent with United States obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty may encourage
other parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
especially non-nuclear-weapon State Parties, to conclude
Additional Protocols and thereby strengthen the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty safeguards system and help reduce the
threat of nuclear proliferation, which is of direct and
substantial benefit to the United States.
(8) Implementation of the Additional Protocol by the United
States is not required and is completely voluntary given its
status as a nuclear-weapon State Party, but the United States
has acceded to the Additional Protocol to demonstrate its
commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime and to
make United States civil nuclear activities available to the
same IAEA inspections as are applied in the case of non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties.
(9) In accordance with the national security exclusion
contained in Article 1.b of its Additional Protocol, the
United States will not allow any inspection activities, nor
make any declaration of any information with respect to,
locations, information, and activities of direct national
security significance to the United States.
(10) Implementation of the Additional Protocol will conform
to the principles set forth in the letter of April 30, 2002,
from the United States Permanent Representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the Vienna Office of
the United Nations to the Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Additional protocol.--The term ``Additional Protocol'',
when used in the singular form, means the Protocol Additional
to the Agreement between the United States of America and the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of
Safeguards in the United States of America, with Annexes,
signed at Vienna June 12, 1998 (T. Doc. 107-7).
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International
Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives.
(3) Complementary access.--The term ``complementary
access'' means the exercise of the IAEA's access rights as
set forth in Articles 4 to 6 of the Additional Protocol.
(4) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has
the meaning given such term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code.
(5) Facility.--The term ``facility'' has the meaning set
forth in Article 18i. of the Additional Protocol.
(6) IAEA.--The term ``IAEA'' means the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
(7) Judge of the united states.--The term ``judge of the
United States'' means a United States district judge, or a
United States magistrate judge appointed under the authority
of chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code.
(8) Location.--The term ``location'' means any geographic
point or area declared or identified by the United States or
specified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
(9) Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.--The term ``Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London,
and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970
(21 UST 483).
(10) Nuclear-weapon state party and non-nuclear-weapon
state party.--The terms ``nuclear-weapon State Party'' and
``non-nuclear-weapon State Party'' have the meanings given
such terms in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(11) Person.--The term ``person'', except as otherwise
provided, means any individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private
institution, any State or any political subdivision thereof,
or any political entity within a State, any foreign
government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or
political subdivision of any such government or nation, or
other entity located in the United States.
(12) Site.--The term ``site'' has the meaning set forth in
Article 18b. of the Additional Protocol.
(13) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
as a geographic reference, means the several States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and the
commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United
States and includes all places under the jurisdiction or
control of the United States, including--
(A) the territorial sea and the overlying airspace;
(B) any civil aircraft of the United States or public
aircraft, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (17) and
(41), respectively, of section 40102(a) of title 49, United
States Code; and
(C) any vessel of the United States, as such term is
defined in section 3(b) of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903(b)).
(14) Wide-area environmental sampling.--The term ``wide-
area environmental sampling'' has the meaning set forth in
Article 18g. of the Additional Protocol.
SEC. 204. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of this title, or the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it
is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 211. AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--The President is authorized to implement
and carry out the provisions of this title and the Additional
Protocol and shall designate through Executive order which
executive agency or agencies of the United States, which may
include but are not limited to the Department of State, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, shall issue or amend and
enforce regulations in order to implement this title and the
provisions of the Additional Protocol.
(b) Included Authority.--For any executive agency
designated under subsection (a) that does not currently
possess the authority to conduct site vulnerability
assessments and related activities, the authority provided in
subsection (a) includes such authority.
(c) Exception.--The authority described in subsection (b)
does not supersede or otherwise modify any existing authority
of any Federal department or agency already having such
authority.
Subtitle B--Complementary Access
SEC. 221. REQUIREMENT FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT COMPLEMENTARY
ACCESS.
(a) Prohibition.--No complementary access to any location
in the United States shall take place pursuant to the
Additional Protocol without the authorization of the United
States Government in accordance with the requirements of this
title.
(b) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Complementary access to any location in
the United States subject to access under the Additional
Protocol is authorized in accordance with this title.
(2) United states representatives.--
(A) Restrictions.--In the event of complementary access to
a privately owned or operated location, no employee of the
Environmental Protection Agency or of the Mine Safety and
Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the Department of Labor may participate in
the access.
(B) Number.--The number of designated United States
representatives accompanying IAEA inspectors shall be kept to
the minimum necessary.
SEC. 222. PROCEDURES FOR COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
(a) In General.--Each instance of complementary access to a
location in the United States under the Additional Protocol
shall be conducted in accordance with this subtitle.
[[Page 22228]]
(b) Notice.--
(1) In general.--Complementary access referred to in
subsection (a) may occur only upon the issuance of an actual
written notice by the United States Government to the owner,
operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the location to be
subject to complementary access.
(2) Time of notification.--The notice under paragraph (1)
shall be submitted to such owner, operator, occupant, or
agent as soon as possible after the United States Government
has received notification that the IAEA seeks complementary
access. Notices may be posted prominently at the location if
the United States Government is unable to provide actual
written notice to such owner, operator, occupant, or agent.
(3) Content of notice.--
(A) In general.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall
specify--
(i) the purpose for the complementary access;
(ii) the basis for the selection of the facility, site, or
other location for the complementary access sought;
(iii) the activities that will be carried out during the
complementary access;
(iv) the time and date that the complementary access is
expected to begin, and the anticipated period covered by the
complementary access; and
(v) the names and titles of the inspectors.
(4) Separate notices required.--A separate notice shall be
provided each time that complementary access is sought by the
IAEA.
(c) Credentials.--The complementary access team of the IAEA
and representatives or designees of the United States
Government shall display appropriate identifying credentials
to the owner, operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the
location before gaining entry in connection with
complementary access.
(d) Scope.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in a warrant issued
under section 223, and subject to the United States
Government's rights under the Additional Protocol to limit
complementary access, complementary access to a location
pursuant to this title may extend to all activities
specifically permitted for such locations under Article 6 of
the Additional Protocol.
(2) Exception.--Unless required by the Additional Protocol,
no inspection under this title shall extend to--
(A) financial data (other than production data);
(B) sales and marketing data (other than shipment data);
(C) pricing data;
(D) personnel data;
(E) patent data;
(F) data maintained for compliance with environmental or
occupational health and safety regulations; or
(G) research data.
(e) Environment, Health, Safety, and Security.--In carrying
out their activities, members of the IAEA complementary
access team and representatives or designees of the United
States Government shall observe applicable environmental,
health, safety, and security regulations established at the
location subject to complementary access, including those for
protection of controlled environments within a facility and
for personal safety.
SEC. 223. CONSENTS, WARRANTS, AND COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Procedure.--
(A) Consent.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
appropriate official of the United States Government shall
seek or have the consent of the owner, operator, occupant, or
agent in charge of a location prior to entering that location
in connection with complementary access pursuant to sections
221 and 222. The owner, operator, occupant, or agent in
charge of the location may withhold consent for any reason or
no reason.
(B) Administrative search warrant.--In the absence of
consent, the United States Government may seek an
administrative search warrant from a judge of the United
States under subsection (b). Proceedings regarding the
issuance of an administrative search warrant shall be
conducted ex parte, unless otherwise requested by the United
States Government.
(2) Expedited access.--For purposes of obtaining access to
a location pursuant to Article 4b.(ii) of the Additional
Protocol in order to satisfy United States obligations under
the Additional Protocol when notice of two hours or less is
required, the United States Government may gain entry to such
location in connection with complementary access, to the
extent such access is consistent with the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, without obtaining either a
warrant or consent.
(b) Administrative Search Warrants for Complementary
Access.--
(1) Obtaining administrative search warrants.--For
complementary access conducted in the United States pursuant
to the Additional Protocol, and for which the acquisition of
a warrant is required, the United States Government shall
first obtain an administrative search warrant from a judge of
the United States. The United States Government shall provide
to such judge all appropriate information regarding the basis
for the selection of the facility, site, or other location to
which complementary access is sought.
(2) Content of affidavits for administrative search
warrants.--A judge of the United States shall promptly issue
an administrative search warrant authorizing the requested
complementary access upon an affidavit submitted by the
United States Government--
(A) stating that the Additional Protocol is in force;
(B) stating that the designated facility, site, or other
location is subject to complementary access under the
Additional Protocol;
(C) stating that the purpose of the complementary access is
consistent with Article 4 of the Additional Protocol;
(D) stating that the requested complementary access is in
accordance with Article 4 of the Additional Protocol;
(E) containing assurances that the scope of the IAEA's
complementary access, as well as what it may collect, shall
be limited to the access provided for in Article 6 of the
Additional Protocol;
(F) listing the items, documents, and areas to be searched
and seized;
(G) stating the earliest commencement and the anticipated
duration of the complementary access period, as well as the
expected times of day during which such complementary access
will take place; and
(H) stating that the location to which entry in connection
with complementary access is sought was selected either--
(i) because there is probable cause, on the basis of
specific evidence, to believe that information required to be
reported regarding a location pursuant to regulations
promulgated under this title is incorrect or incomplete, and
that the location to be accessed contains evidence regarding
that violation; or
(ii) pursuant to a reasonable general administrative plan
based upon specific neutral criteria.
(3) Content of warrants.--A warrant issued under paragraph
(2) shall specify the same matters required of an affidavit
under that paragraph. In addition, each warrant shall contain
the identities of the representatives of the IAEA on the
complementary access team and the identities of the
representatives or designees of the United States Government
required to display identifying credentials under section
222(c).
SEC. 224. PROHIBITED ACTS RELATING TO COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS.
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to fail or
refuse to permit, or to disrupt, delay, or otherwise impede,
a complementary access authorized by this subtitle or an
entry in connection with such access.
Subtitle C--Confidentiality of Information
SEC. 231. PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.
Information reported to, or otherwise acquired by, the
United States Government under this title or under the
Additional Protocol shall be exempt from disclosure under
sections 552 of title 5, United States Code.
Subtitle D--Enforcement
SEC. 241. RECORDKEEPING VIOLATIONS.
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to fail or
refuse--
(1) to establish or maintain any record required by any
regulation prescribed under this title;
(2) to submit any report, notice, or other information to
the United States Government in accordance with any
regulation prescribed under this title; or
(3) to permit access to or copying of any record by the
United States Government in accordance with any regulation
prescribed under this title.
SEC. 242. PENALTIES.
(a) Civil.--
(1) Penalty amounts.--Any person that is determined, in
accordance with paragraph (2), to have violated section 224
or section 241 shall be required by order to pay a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each
violation. For the purposes of this paragraph, each day
during which a violation of section 224 continues shall
constitute a separate violation of that section.
(2) Notice and hearing.--
(A) In general.--Before imposing a penalty against a person
under paragraph (1), the head of an executive agency
designated under section 211(a) shall provide the person with
notice of the order. If, within 15 days after receiving the
notice, the person requests a hearing, the head of the
designated executive agency shall initiate a hearing on the
violation.
(B) Conduct of hearing.--Any hearing so requested shall be
conducted before an administrative judge. The hearing shall
be conducted in accordance with the requirements of section
554 of title 5, United States Code. If no hearing is so
requested, the order imposed by the head of the designated
agency shall constitute a final agency action.
(C) Issuance of orders.--If the administrative judge
determines, upon the preponderance of the evidence received,
that a person named in the complaint has violated section 224
or section 241, the administrative
[[Page 22229]]
judge shall state his findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and issue and serve on such person an order described in
paragraph (1).
(D) Factors for determination of penalty amounts.--In
determining the amount of any civil penalty, the
administrative judge or the head of the designated agency
shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent,
and gravity of the violation or violations and, with respect
to the violator, the ability to pay, effect on ability to
continue to do business, any history of such violations, the
degree of culpability, the existence of an internal
compliance program, and such other matters as justice may
require.
(E) Content of notice.--For the purposes of this paragraph,
notice shall be in writing and shall be verifiably served
upon the person or persons subject to an order described in
paragraph (1). In addition, the notice shall--
(i) set forth the time, date, and specific nature of the
alleged violation or violations; and
(ii) specify the administrative and judicial remedies
available to the person or persons subject to the order,
including the availability of a hearing and subsequent
appeal.
(3) Administrative appellate review.--The decision and
order of an administrative judge shall be the recommended
decision and order and shall be referred to the head of the
designated executive agency for final decision and order. If,
within 60 days, the head of the designated executive agency
does not modify or vacate the decision and order, it shall
become a final agency action under this subsection.
(4) Judicial review.--A person adversely affected by a
final order may, within 30 days after the date the final
order is issued, file a petition in the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit or in the Court of Appeals
for the district in which the violation occurred.
(5) Enforcement of final orders.--
(A) In general.--If a person fails to comply with a final
order issued against such person under this subsection and--
(i) the person has not filed a petition for judicial review
of the order in accordance with paragraph (4), or
(ii) a court in an action brought under paragraph (4) has
entered a final judgment in favor of the designated executive
agency,
the head of the designated executive agency shall commence a
civil action to seek compliance with the final order in any
appropriate district court of the United States.
(B) No review.--In any such civil action, the validity and
appropriateness of the final order shall not be subject to
review.
(C) Interest.--Payment of penalties assessed in a final
order under this section shall include interest at currently
prevailing rates calculated from the date of expiration of
the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (3) or the date of
such final order, as the case may be.
(b) Criminal.--Any person who violates section 224 or
section 241 may, in addition to or in lieu of any civil
penalty which may be imposed under subsection (a) for such
violation, be fined under title 18, United States Code,
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
SEC. 243. SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction over civil actions brought by the
head of an executive agency designated under section 211(a)--
(1) to restrain any conduct in violation of section 224 or
section 241; or
(2) to compel the taking of any action required by or under
this title or the Additional Protocol.
(b) Civil Actions.--
(1) In general.--A civil action described in subsection (a)
may be brought--
(A) in the case of a civil action described in paragraph
(1) of such subsection, in the United States district court
for the judicial district in which any act, omission, or
transaction constituting a violation of section 224 or
section 241 occurred or in which the defendant is found or
transacts business; or
(B) in the case of a civil action described in paragraph
(2) of such subsection, in the United States district court
for the judicial district in which the defendant is found or
transacts business.
(2) Service of process.--In any such civil action, process
shall be served on a defendant wherever the defendant may
reside or may be found.
Subtitle E--Environmental Sampling
SEC. 251. NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS OF IAEA BOARD APPROVAL OF
WIDE-AREA ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the Board of Governors of the IAEA approves wide-area
environmental sampling for use as a safeguards verification
tool, the President shall notify the appropriate
congressional committees.
(b) Content.--The notification under subsection (a) shall
contain--
(1) a description of the specific methods and sampling
techniques approved by the Board of Governors that are to be
employed for purposes of wide-area sampling;
(2) a statement as to whether or not such sampling may be
conducted in the United States under the Additional Protocol;
and
(3) an assessment of the ability of the approved methods
and sampling techniques to detect, identify, and determine
the conduct, type, and nature of nuclear activities.
SEC. 252. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY EXCLUSION TO WIDE-
AREA ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
In accordance with Article 1(b) of the Additional Protocol,
the United States shall not permit any wide-area
environmental sampling proposed by the IAEA to be conducted
at a specified location in the United States under Article 9
of the Additional Protocol unless the President has
determined and reported to the appropriate congressional
committees with respect to that proposed use of environmental
sampling that--
(1) the proposed use of wide-area environmental sampling is
necessary to increase the capability of the IAEA to detect
undeclared nuclear activities in the territory of a non-
nuclear-weapon State Party;
(2) the proposed use of wide-area environmental sampling
will not result in access by the IAEA to locations,
activities, or information of direct national security
significance; and
(3) the United States--
(A) has been provided sufficient opportunity for
consultation with the IAEA if the IAEA has requested
complementary access involving wide-area environmental
sampling; or
(B) has requested under Article 8 of the Additional
Protocol that the IAEA engage in complementary access in the
United States that involves the use of wide-area
environmental sampling.
SEC. 253. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY EXCLUSION TO
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING.
In accordance with Article 1(b) of the Additional Protocol,
the United States shall not permit any location-specific
environmental sampling in the United States under Article 5
of the Additional Protocol unless the President has
determined and reported to the appropriate congressional
committees with respect to that proposed use of environmental
sampling that--
(1) the proposed use of location-specific environmental
sampling is necessary to increase the capability of the IAEA
to detect undeclared nuclear activities in a non-nuclear
weapons state;
(2) the proposed use of location-specific environmental
sampling will not result in access by the IAEA to locations,
activities, or information of direct national security
significance; and
(3) with respect to the proposed use of environmental
sampling, the United States--
(A) has been provided sufficient opportunity for
consultation with the IAEA if the IAEA has requested
complementary access involving location-specific
environmental sampling; or
(B) has requested under Article 8 of the Additional
Protocol that the IAEA engage in complementary access in the
United States that involves the use of location-specific
environmental sampling.
SEC. 254. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
As used in this subtitle, the term ``necessary to increase
the capability of the IAEA to detect undeclared nuclear
activities in the territory of a non-nuclear-weapon State
Party'' shall not be construed to encompass proposed uses of
environmental sampling that might assist the IAEA in
detecting undeclared nuclear activities in the territory of a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party by--
(1) setting a good example of cooperation in the conduct of
such sampling; or
(2) facilitating the formation of a political consensus or
political support for such sampling in the territory of a
non-nuclear-weapon State Party.
Subtitle F--Protection of National Security Information and Activities
SEC. 261. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.
(a) Locations and Facilities of Direct National Security
Significance.--No current or former Department of Defense or
Department of Energy location, site, or facility of direct
national security significance shall be declared or be
subject to IAEA inspection under the Additional Protocol.
(b) Information of Direct National Security Significance.--
No information of direct national security significance
regarding any location, site, or facility associated with
activities of the Department of Defense or the Department of
Energy shall be provided under the Additional Protocol.
(c) Restricted Data.--Nothing in this title shall be
construed to permit the communication or disclosure to the
IAEA or IAEA employees of restricted data controlled by the
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011
et seq.), including in particular ``Restricted Data'' as
defined under paragraph (1) of section 11 y. of such Act (42
U.S.C. 2014(y)).
(d) Classified Information.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to permit the communication or disclosure to the
IAEA or IAEA employees of national security information and
other classified information.
SEC. 262. IAEA INSPECTIONS AND VISITS.
(a) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Obtaining Access.--
No national of a country designated by the Secretary of State
under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371) as a government supporting acts of international
terrorism shall
[[Page 22230]]
be permitted access to the United States to carry out an
inspection activity under the Additional Protocol or a
related safeguards agreement.
(b) Presence of United States Government Personnel.--IAEA
inspectors shall be accompanied at all times by United States
Government personnel when inspecting sites, locations,
facilities, or activities in the United States under the
Additional Protocol.
(c) Vulnerability and Related Assessments.--The President
shall conduct vulnerability, counterintelligence, and related
assessments not less than every 5 years to ensure that
information of direct national security significance remains
protected at all sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that are subject to IAEA inspection
under the Additional Protocol.
Subtitle G--Reports
SEC. 271. REPORT ON INITIAL UNITED STATES DECLARATION.
Not later than 60 days before submitting the initial United
States declaration to the IAEA under the Additional Protocol,
the President shall submit to Congress a list of the sites,
locations, facilities, and activities in the United States
that the President intends to declare to the IAEA.
SEC. 272. REPORT ON REVISIONS TO INITIAL UNITED STATES
DECLARATION.
Not later than 60 days before submitting to the IAEA any
revisions to the United States declaration submitted under
the Additional Protocol, the President shall submit to
Congress a list of any sites, locations, facilities, or
activities in the United States that the President intends to
add to or remove from the declaration.
SEC. 273. CERTIFICATION REGARDING VULNERABILITY AND RELATED
ASSESSMENTS.
Concurrently with the submission to Congress of the initial
declaration list under section 271 and each list update under
section 272, the President shall submit to Congress a report
certifying that--
(1) each site, location, facility, and activity included in
the list has been examined by each agency with national
security equities with respect to such site, location,
facility, or activity; and
(2) appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that
information of direct national security significance will not
be compromised at any such site, location, facility, or
activity in connection with an IAEA inspection.
SEC. 274. REPORT ON EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS.
Not later than 180 days after the entry into force of the
Additional Protocol, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on--
(1) measures that have been or should be taken to achieve
the adoption of additional protocols to existing safeguards
agreements signed by non-nuclear-weapon State Parties; and
(2) assistance provided by the United States to the IAEA in
order to promote the effective implementation of additional
protocols to existing safeguards agreements signed by non-
nuclear-weapon State Parties and the verification of the
compliance of such parties with IAEA obligations.
SEC. 275. NOTICE OF IAEA NOTIFICATIONS.
The President shall notify Congress of any notifications
issued by the IAEA to the United States under Article 10 of
the Additional Protocol.
Subtitle H--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 281. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title.
______
SA 5169. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Obama) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and
technology to India, and to implement the United States Additional
Protocol; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following
new section:
SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR FUEL RESERVE TO INDIA.
It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear
power reactor fuel reserve provided to the Government of
India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities
should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating
requirements.
______
SA 5170. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials,
equipment, and technology to India, and to implement the United States
Additional Protocol; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 262 and insert the following:
SEC. 262. IAEA INSPECTIONS AND VISITS.
(a) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Obtaining Access.--
No national of a country designated by the Secretary of State
under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371) as a government supporting acts of international
terrorism shall be permitted access to the United States to
carry out an inspection activity under the Additional
Protocol or a related safeguards agreement.
(b) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Entering the United
States.--The head of any agency or department of the United
States may deny entry into the United States of an IAEA
inspector seeking such entry to carry out official business
of the IAEA if the head of such agency or department suspects
the IAEA inspector of having links to foreign intelligence
services.
(c) Presence of United States Government Personnel.--IAEA
inspectors shall be accompanied at all times by United States
Government personnel when inspecting sites, locations,
facilities, or activities in the United States under the
Additional Protocol.
(d) Use of United States Equipment, Materials, and
Resources.--Any inspections conducted by personnel of the
IAEA in the United States pursuant to the Additional Protocol
shall by carried out using equipment, materials, and
resources that are purchased, owned, inspected, and
controlled by the United States.
(e) Vulnerability and Related Assessments.--The President
shall conduct vulnerability, counterintelligence, and related
assessments not less than every 5 years to ensure that
information of direct national security significance remains
protected at all sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that are subject to IAEA inspection
under the Additional Protocol.
______
SA 5171. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 168, strike lines 7 and 8 and insert the following:
the purchase of land and moving of utilities;
(6) the city of Waycross, Georgia, a rural area for
purposes of eligibility for rural development programs of the
Department of Agriculture; and
(7) the cities of Alamo, Mercedes, Weslaco, and
______
SA 5172. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials,
equipment, and technology to India, and to implement the United States
Additional Protocol; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
In title II, strike the paragraph defining ``appropriate
congressional committees'' and insert the following:
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the
Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
______
SA 5173. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Harkin) proposed an amendment to the bill
S. 3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and
technology to India, and to implement the United States Additional
Protocol; as follows:
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert the
following: ``Group;
(8) India is fully and actively participating in United
States and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and
contain Iran for its nuclear program consistent with United
Nations Security Council resolutions; and
(9) the Nuclear
______
SA 5174. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) proposed an
amendment by him to the bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of
nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to implement
the United States Additional Protocol; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 6, after line 21, add the following:
(c) Operation of Waivers.--Notwithstanding any waiver under
subsection (a)--
(1) no nuclear equipment or sensitive nuclear technology
may be exported to India
[[Page 22231]]
unless the President has determined, and has submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees a report stating, that
both India and the United States are taking specific steps to
conclude a multilateral treaty on the cessation of the
production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons or
other nuclear explosive devices; and
(2) no nuclear materials may be exported to India unless
the President has determined, and has submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees a report stating, that
India has stopped producing fissile materials for weapons
pursuant to a unilateral moratorium or multilateral
agreement.
______
SA 5175. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Thomas) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by Mr. Frist to the bill H.R. 5384, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 100, line 20, before the colon insert the
following: ``; and of which not less than $500,000 shall be
used by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Wyoming Department of Agriculture, to compensate livestock
producers in the State of Wyoming for losses due to wolves''.
______
SA 5176. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following:
Sec. 7___. The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in
this section as the ``Secretary'') shall prepare a report for
submission by the President to Congress, along with the
fiscal year 2008 budget request under section 1105 of title
31, United States Code, that--
(1) identifies measures to address bark beetle infestation
and the impacts of bark beetle infestation as the first
priority for assistance under the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.);
(2) describes activities that will be conducted by the
Secretary to address bark beetle infestations and the impacts
of bark beetle infestations;
(3) describes the financial and technical resources that
will be dedicated by the Secretary to measures to address
bark beetle infestations and the impacts of the infestations;
(4) describes the manner in which the Secretary will
coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior and State and
local governments in conducting the activities under
paragraph (2);
(5) identifies the number of hazardous fuel reduction and
forest health projects and acres in Forest Service Region 2
that--
(A) have received approval under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(B) have not been implemented;
(6) identifies the number of hazardous fuel reduction and
forest health projects and acres in Forest Service Region 2
that are being analyzed under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(7) describes--
(A) the goals and expectations identified in the vegetation
management program for Forest Service Region 2;
(B) any progress towards the goals described under
subparagraph (A); and
(C) the funding levels necessary to meet the goals
described under subparagraph (A).
______
SA 5177. Mr. SALAZAR submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following:
Sec. 7__. For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire
Management'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE''
of title III of the Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law
109-54; 119 Stat. 533), there is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,000,000
for fiscal year 2007 for the conduct of hazardous fuel
reduction and forest health projects of the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service:
Provided, That the amount provided under this section is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as made
applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law 109-
234.
______
SA 5178. Mr. DORGAN proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
On page 5, beginning on line 15, strike ``Treaty; and'' and
all that follows through ``that exports'' on line 16 and
insert the following: ``Treaty;
(9) to continue to support implementation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1172 (1998); and
(10) that exports
______
SA 5179. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Bingaman) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and
technology to India, and to implement the United States Additional
Protocol; as follows:
On page 18, beginning on line 7, strike ``existing'' and
all that follows through ``description'' on line 9 and insert
the following: ``existing agreements;
(6) an estimate of--
(A) the amount of uranium mined in India during the
previous year;
(B) the amount of such uranium that has likely been used or
allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(C) the rate of production in India of--
(i) fissile material for nuclear explosive devices; and
(ii) nuclear explosive devices;
(7) an analysis as to whether imported uranium has affected
the rate of production in India of nuclear explosive devices;
and
(8) a detailed description
______
SA 5180. Mr. LUGAR (for Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Domenici))
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to exempt from certain
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of
nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India, and to implement
the United States Additional Protocol; as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 114. UNITED STATES-INDIA SCIENTIFIC COOPERATIVE THREAT
REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, shall establish a cooperative threat
reduction program to pursue jointly with scientists from the
United States and India a program to further common
nonproliferation goals, including scientific research and
development efforts related to nuclear nonproliferation, with
an emphasis on nuclear safeguards (in this section referred
to as the ``program'').
(b) Consultation.--The program shall be carried out in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense.
(c) National Academies Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into
an agreement with the National Academies to develop
recommendations for the implementation of the program.
(2) Recommendations.--The agreement entered into under
paragraph (1) shall provide for the preparation by qualified
individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge and the
communication to the Secretary of Energy each fiscal year
of--
(A) recommendations for research and related programs
designed to overcome existing technological barriers to
nuclear nonproliferation; and
(B) an assessment of whether activities and programs funded
under this section are achieving the goals of the activities
and programs.
(3) Public availability.--The recommendations and
assessments prepared under this subsection shall be made
publicly available.
(d) Consistency With Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.--All
United States activities related to the program shall be
consistent with United States obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
______
SA 5181. Mr. ENSIGN proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
Strike section 262 and insert the following:
SEC. 262. IAEA INSPECTIONS AND VISITS.
(a) Certain Individuals Prohibited From Obtaining Access.--
No national of a country designated by the Secretary of State
under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371) as a government supporting acts of international
terrorism shall be permitted access to the United States to
carry out an inspection activity under the
[[Page 22232]]
Additional Protocol or a related safeguards agreement.
(b) Presence of United States Government Personnel.--IAEA
inspectors shall be accompanied at all times by United States
Government personnel when inspecting sites, locations,
facilities, or activities in the United States under the
Additional Protocol.
(c) Use of United States Equipment, Materials, and
Resources.--Any inspections conducted by personnel of the
IAEA in the United States pursuant to the Additional Protocol
shall by carried out using equipment, materials, and
resources that are purchased, owned, inspected, and
controlled by the United States.
(d) Vulnerability and Related Assessments.--The President
shall conduct vulnerability, counterintelligence, and related
assessments not less than every 5 years to ensure that
information of direct national security significance remains
protected at all sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that are subject to IAEA inspection
under the Additional Protocol.
______
SA 5182. Mr. DORGAN proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``the Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert
the following: ``Group;
(8) India has committed to--
(A) the development of a credible separation plan between
civilian and military facilities by ensuring all reactors
that supply electricity to the civilian sector are declared
and are subject to permanent IAEA standards and practices;
(B) a binding obligation to the same extent as nuclear-
weapon State Parties under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty--
(i) not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear
weapons or nuclear explosive devices or control over such
devices directly or indirectly; and
(ii) not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any
non-nuclear-weapon State Party to manufacture or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or
acquire control over such weapons or explosive devices; and
(C) consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--
(i) pursuing negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament, including ending
fissile material production for nuclear weapons;
(ii) joining a legally-binding nuclear test moratorium;
(iii) verifiably reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile;
and
(iv) eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons; and
(9) the Nuclear
______
SA 5183. Mr. FEINGOLD proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
On page 8, beginning on line 17, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``(8) the Nuclear'' on line 18 and
insert the following: ``Group;
(8) the scope and content of United States nuclear
cooperation with India in the proposed nuclear cooperation
agreement pursuant to section 123 a. of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153(a)) does nothing to directly or
indirectly assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture
or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive
devices, specifically that--
(A) India cannot use United States-origin equipment,
technology, or nuclear material in an unsafeguarded facility
or nuclear weapons-related complex; and
(B) India cannot replicate and subsequently use United
States-origin technology in an unsafeguarded nuclear facility
or unsafeguarded nuclear-related complex, or for any activity
related to the research, development, testing, or manufacture
of nuclear explosive devices;
(9) India has provided sufficient assurances that the
provision by the United States of nuclear fuel will not
facilitate the increased production by India of fissile
material in unsafeguarded nuclear facilities; and
(10) the Nuclear
______
SA 5184. Mr. CRAPO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 117, strike lines 9 through 12 and insert the
following:
described in section 306E of such Act; of which the Secretary
may use not less than $5,000,000 nor more than $50,000,000 to
provide grants to States, not to exceed $1,000,000 per grant,
to assist communities of less than 2,500 individuals, or
entities that serve those communities, in complying with
environmental regulations affecting the communities based on
assistance approval criteria developed by the State and
approved by the Secretary: Provided, That each State
assistance approval criteria and any application for
assistance funded under the criteria shall be approved by a
council of citizens of the State that represent the regions
of the State: Provided further, That the assistance may be
used in conjunction with any other assistance provided by any
Federal agency and shall be treated as funds of the community
and not of the Federal Government: Provided further, That no
matching requirement may be imposed on a community as a
condition of receiving the assistance: Provided further, That
funds not needed by a State in accordance with the grant
application of the State may be repooled by the Secretary;
and of which $88,234,000 shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in sections
381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided further, That of
the total amount
______
SA 5185. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 9 of title II of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234;
120 Stat. 471) is amended under the heading ``community
development fund (including transfer of funds)'' under the
heading ``Community Planning and Development'' under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT'', by
inserting after ``Army Corps of Engineers:'' the following:
``Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso
or any other provision of law, in providing assistance in the
State of Louisiana, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration may (in determining whether activities are
reimbursable under, or whether funds have been made available
under, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) using amounts made
available under this heading) use as the amount of a loan
under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(b)) the amount attributable to the difference between the
rate of interest on such loan and the market rate at which
such borrower could have borrowed such funds, over the period
of such loan:''.
(b) Effective Date and Applicability.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as though enacted as part of the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234;
120 Stat. 418).
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any application for assistance under section
7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) that is
submitted not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act.
______
SA 5186. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 93, line 11, after ``Service:'' insert ``Provided
further, That not less than $600,000 of the amount made
available under this heading shall be used to provide funding
for the soil and water research unit located at Louisiana
State University:''.
______
SA 5187. Mrs. BOXER proposed an amendment to the bill S. 3709, to
exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology
to India, and to implement the United States Additional Protocol; as
follows:
On page 8, beginning on line 8, strike ``Group; and'' and
all that follows through ``Nuclear'' on line 9 and insert the
following: ``Group;
(8) India has agreed to suspend military-to-military
cooperation with Iran, including training exercises, until
such time as the
[[Page 22233]]
Government of Iran no longer supports acts of international
terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of State under
section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2371) and section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of
1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)); and
(9) the Nuclear
______
SA 5188. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr, Kyl,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 175, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 758. For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire
Management'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR''
of title I of the Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law
109-54), there is appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $60,000,000 for the
conduct of emergency wildfire suppression activities of the
Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That the amount provided
under this section is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007,
as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public
Law 109-234.
Sec. 759. For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire
Management'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE''
of title III of the Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law
109-54), there is appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $300,000,000 for the
conduct of emergency wildfire suppression activities of the
Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the
Forest Service: Provided, That the amount provided under this
section is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as
made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law
109-234.
______
SA 5189. Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE IX--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ROYALTY REFORM AND ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 901. LEASES, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF.
Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Royalty Suspension Provisions.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4),
the Secretary shall agree to a request by any lessee to amend
any lease issued as a result of a Central or Western Gulf of
Mexico lease sale held during the period beginning on January
1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1999, to incorporate
price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions
in the amount of $34.73 per barrel (2005 dollars) for oil and
for natural gas of $4.34 per million Btu (2005 dollars).
``(2) Adjustment.--The oil and natural gas price thresholds
established under paragraph (1) shall be adjusted during any
calendar year after 2005 by the percentage, if any, by which
the implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product as
computed and published by the Department of Commerce changed
during the preceding calendar year.
``(3) New royalty suspension volumes.--After the date of
enactment of this subsection, price thresholds shall apply to
any royalty suspension volumes granted by the Secretary.
``(4) Effective date.--Any amended lease shall impose the
new price thresholds effective beginning October 1, 2006.
``(r) Conservation of Resources Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish,
by regulation, a conservation of resources fee for producing
leases that will apply to new and existing leases which shall
be established at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million
Btu for gas (2006 dollars).
``(2) Covered areas.--The fee shall only apply to leases
issued with deep water royalty relief for which royalties are
not being paid when prices exceed $34.73 per barrel for oil
and $4.34 per million Btu for natural gas (2005 dollars).
``(3) Effective date.--A fee imposed under this subsection
shall apply to production that occurs on or after October 1,
2006.''.
SEC. 902. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 31(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``The'' and inserting the following:
``(A) Fiscal years 2007 through 2010.--The''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Certain royalty revenues.--Notwithstanding section 9,
of the amount of any royalty revenues payable to the United
States from any lease issued with deep water royalty relief
as the result of a Central or Western Gulf of Mexico lease
sale held during the period beginning on January 1, 1998, and
ending on December 31, 1999, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall deposit--
``(i) the amount of the royalty revenues in a special
account in the Treasury, to be available to the Secretary of
the Interior, without further appropriation, for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2016, for disbursement to Gulf
producing States and coastal political subdivisions in
accordance with this section, except that the amount made
available under this clause shall not exceed a total of
$2,500,000,000; and
``(ii) any remainder of the royalty revenues in the general
fund of the Treasury, to be used for deficit reduction.'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon
at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2016 shall be
determined using qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues
received for fiscal year 2010.''.
______
SA 5190. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:
On page 100, line 20, strike ``influenza:'' and insert
``influenza; and of which not less than $1,500,000 shall be
divided equally among each State that borders a Great Lake
for use in enhancing facilities of the State to test for the
presence of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in fish caught or
farmed in the State:''.
______
SA 5191. Mr. MARTINEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 5384, making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Strike section 755.
______
SA 5192. Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. Feinstein) proposed an amendment to the
bill S. 994, to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to
improve the ability of State and local governments to prevent the
abduction of children by family members, and for other purposes; as
follows:
On page 1, line 5, strike ``Act of 2005'' and insert ``Act
of 2006''.
On page 6, line 1, strike ``fiscal year 2006'' and all that
follows through line 2 and insert the following: ``fiscal
year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2009 and 2010.''.
______
SA 5193. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to the
concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 101, condemning the repression of
the Iranian Baha'i community and calling for the emancipation of
Iranian Baha'is; as follows:
On page 3, lines 3 and 4, strike ``Universal Declaration of
Human Rights'' and insert ``International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights''.
____________________
AUTHORlTY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
Committee on commerce, science and transportation
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a Full
Committee hearing on the Reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Program
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell
Senate Office Building.
[[Page 22234]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. The
purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Kevin M.
Kolevar, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy
(Electricity Delivery and Energy).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday,
November 16, 2006 following the first vote Committee on Environment and
Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting to consider the
following agenda:
Alex Beehler to be Inspector General of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday,
November 16, 2006, at 2 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to
hear testimony on ``The CHIP Program From the States' Perspective.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a
hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 16, 2006
at 10 a.m. in SD-430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and government affairs
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to hold an
off-the-floor markup during the session on Thursday, November 16, 2006,
to consider pending committee business (agenda attached).
Agenda
Legislation: S. 4046, Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of 2006.
Nominations: The Honorable James H. Bilbray to be Governor, U.S.
Postal Service; Thurgood Marshall Jr. to be Governor, U.S. Postal
Service; The Honorable Dan G. Blair to be Chairman, Postal Rate
Commission, Stephen T. Conboy to be U.S. Marshal, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing
on ``Oversight of the Civil Rights Division'' on Thursday, November 16,
2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The
witness list is attached.
Panel I: The Hon. Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Panel II: Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day, Washington, DC;
Mr. Ted Shaw, Director-Counsel and President, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), New York, NY; Mr. Robert N. Driscoll,
Partner, Alston & Bird, LLP Washington, DC; Mr. Joseph Rich, Director
of Fair Housing and Community Development, Lawyer's Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law Washington, DC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
permanent subcommittee on investigations
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November
16, 2006, at 10 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``The Defense Travel
System: Boon or Boondoggle (Part 2).''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on November 16, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., to hold a closed
briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, November 16 at 2:30 p.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony relating to S.
2626, a bill to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation,
improve public land, and provide for high quality economic development
in Washington County, Utah, and for other purposes; and S. 3772, a bill
to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public
land, and provide for high quality development in White Pine Nevada,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on readiness and management support
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support of the Committee on
Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on November 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive
testimony on Department of Defense business systems modernization
efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon
Squassoni, a specialist with the Congressional Research Service, be
granted privileges of the floor during the duration of the Senate's
consideration of S. 3709.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William
Johnson and Lona Stoll, who are fellows in Senator Kennedy's office, be
granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 3709.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that Henry Abeyta, a fellow with
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, be granted the
privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 3709, the
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. First, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator
Feingold that a fellow in his office by the name of David Bonine be
granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 3709, the
India-United States nuclear legislation, and any vote thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
On Tuesday, November 14, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5385, as
follows:
H.R. 5385
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 5385) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the
military quality of life functions of the Department of
Defense, military construction, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.'', do pass with
the following amendments:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes, namely:
[[Page 22235]]
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Army
(Including Rescissions of Funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $2,172,622,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2011: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $199,540,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of
Defense determines that additional obligations are necessary
for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Army'' under Public Law 109-114, $43,348,000 are hereby
rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Army'' under Public Law 109-13,
$125,800,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of
the amount provided under this heading, $34,800,000 is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as made
applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law 109-
234.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
(Including Rescissions of Funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,238,065,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $71,626,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Defense determines that additional obligations
are necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps'' under Public Law 108-132, $30,000,000
are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated for ``Military Construction, Navy and Marine
Corps'' under Public Law 108-324, $8,000,000 are hereby
rescinded.
Military Construction, Air Force
(Including Rescissions of Funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $1,214,885,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That of
this amount, not to exceed $71,381,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law
108-324, $2,694,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Air Force'' under Public Law 109-114, $19,816,000 are hereby
rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
for ``Military Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law
109-13, $10,800,000 are hereby rescinded.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including Rescissions and transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $1,162,281,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $172,150,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'' under Public Law 108-132, $9,000,000 are
hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated for ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide''
under Public Law 108-324, $43,000,000 are hereby rescinded:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for
``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' under Public Law 109-
114, $72,065,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That
of the amount provided under this heading, $100,886,000 is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as made
applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law 109-
234.
Military Construction, Army National Guard
(Including Rescission of Funds)
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$539,804,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Military
Construction, Army National Guard'' under Public Law 109-114,
$2,129,000 are hereby rescinded.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$252,834,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by chapter
1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $191,450,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
Military Construction, Navy Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code, and Military Construction Authorization
Acts, $48,408,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military
Construction Authorization Acts, $44,936,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $205,985,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$578,791,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $675,617,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $305,071,000, to remain available until September 30,
2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $498,525,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
(Including Rescissions of Funds)
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$1,182,138,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing
Construction, Air Force'' under Public Law 108-324,
$23,400,000 are hereby rescinded: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated for ``Family Housing Construction, Air
Force'' under Public Law 109-114, $42,800,000 are hereby
rescinded.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including
[[Page 22236]]
debt payment, leasing, minor construction, principal and
interest charges, and insurance premiums, as authorized by
law, $755,071,000.
Family Housing Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for construction, including
acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, extension, and
alteration, as authorized by law, $8,808,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2011.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $48,506,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $2,500,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by law,
$140,993,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011,
which shall be only for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives program.
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $191,220,000, to remain available until expended.
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $5,237,100,000, to remain available until
expended.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds made available in this title for
construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds made available in this title for
construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where
the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public
interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title
for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate
any activity from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts
estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects
to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Sea if that country has not increased its defense
spending by at least 3 percent in calendar year 2005, unless
such contracts are awarded to United States firms or United
States firms in joint venture with host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title
for military construction in the United States territories
and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used to award any
contract estimated by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to
a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall not
be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a United States contractor
exceeds the lowest responsive and responsible bid of a
foreign contractor by greater than 20 percent: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to contract awards
for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the
lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a
Marshallese contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the
appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including
the Committees on Appropriations, of the plans and scope of
any proposed military exercise involving United States
personnel 30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended
for construction, either temporary or permanent, are
anticipated to exceed $750,000.
Sec. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the funds made
available in this title which are limited for obligation
during the current fiscal year shall be obligated during the
last two months of the fiscal year.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 115. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 116. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to a military department or defense
agency for the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project or contract, or
for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time
before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were made available, if
the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from
funds available for military construction projects; and (2)
do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus
any amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
Sec. 118. (a) Not later than December 1, 2006, the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress a report on actions taken by the
Department of Defense and the Department of State during the
previous fiscal year to encourage host countries to assume a
greater share of the common defense burden of such countries
and the United States.
(b) The report under subsection (a) shall include a
description of--
(1) attempts to secure cash and in-kind contributions from
host countries for military construction projects;
(2) attempts to achieve economic incentives offered by host
countries to encourage private investment for the benefit of
the United States Armed Forces;
(3) attempts to recover funds due to be paid to the United
States by host countries for assets deeded or otherwise
imparted to host countries upon the cessation of United
States operations at military installations;
(4) the amount spent by host countries on defense, in
dollars and in terms of the percent of gross domestic product
(GDP) of the host country; and
(5) for host countries that are members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the amount contributed
to NATO by host countries, in dollars and in terms of the
percent of the total NATO budget.
(c) In this section, the term ``host country'' means other
member countries of NATO, Japan, South Korea, and United
States allies bordering the Arabian Sea.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 120. Subject to 30 days prior notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, such
additional amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of
Defense may be transferred to: (1) the Department of Defense
Family Housing Improvement Fund from
[[Page 22237]]
amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing''
accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes and for the same period of time as amounts
appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of
Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction of military
unaccompanied housing in ``Military Construction'' accounts,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made
available to the Funds shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, and
supporting facilities.
Sec. 121. (a) Not later than 60 days before issuing any
solicitation for a contract with the private sector for
military family housing the Secretary of the military
department concerned shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the notice
described in subsection (b).
(b)(1) A notice referred to in subsection (a) is a notice
of any guarantee (including the making of mortgage or rental
payments) proposed to be made by the Secretary to the private
party under the contract involved in the event of--
(A) the closure or realignment of the installation for
which housing is provided under the contract;
(B) a reduction in force of units stationed at such
installation; or
(C) the extended deployment overseas of units stationed at
such installation.
(2) Each notice under this subsection shall specify the
nature of the guarantee involved and assess the extent and
likelihood, if any, of the liability of the Federal
Government with respect to the guarantee.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 122. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the accounts established by sections
2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund
established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance
Program. Any amounts transferred shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same time period
as the fund to which transferred.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding this or any other provision of
law, funds made available in this title for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days prior notification to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, except that an
after-the-fact notification shall be submitted if the
limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated with
environmental remediation that could not be reasonably
anticipated at the time of the budget submission: Provided
further, That the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
to report annually to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress all operation and maintenance
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer
quarters for the prior fiscal year: Provided further, That
nothing in this section precludes the Secretary of a military
department, after notifying the congressional defense
committees and waiting 21 days, from using funds derived
under section 2601, chapter 403, chapter 603, or chapter 903
of title 10, United States Code, for the maintenance or
repair of general and flag officer quarters at the military
service academy under the jurisdiction of that Secretary:
Provided further, That each Secretary of a military
department shall provide an annual report by February 15 to
the congressional defense committees on the amount of funds
that were derived under section 2601, chapter 403, chapter
603, or chapter 903 of title 10, United States Code, in the
previous year and were obligated for the construction,
improvement, repair, or maintenance of any military facility
or infrastructure.
Sec. 124. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement
Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of
title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be
available until expended for the purposes specified in
subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred
pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 125. None of the funds made available in this title,
or in any Act making appropriations for military construction
which remain available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended to carry out a military construction, land
acquisition, or family housing project at or for a military
installation approved for closure, or at a military
installation for the purposes of supporting a function that
has been approved for realignment to another installation, in
2005 under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), unless such a project at a military installation
approved for realignment will support a continuing mission or
function at that installation or a new mission or function
that is planned for that installation, or unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the cost to the United
States of carrying out such project would be less than the
cost to the United States of cancelling such project, or if
the project is at an active component base that shall be
established as an enclave or in the case of projects having
multi-agency use, that another Government agency has
indicated it will assume ownership of the completed project.
The Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds made
available as a result of this limitation from any military
construction project, land acquisition, or family housing
project to another account or use such funds for another
purpose or project without the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This
section shall not apply to military construction projects,
land acquisition, or family housing projects for which the
project is vital to the national security or the protection
of health, safety, or environmental quality: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional
defense committees within seven days of a decision to carry
out such a military construction project.
Sec. 126. Section 3001(o) of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat.
1238; 5 U.S.C. App., note to section 8G of Public Law 95-
452), as amended by section 1054(b) of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), is amended to read as follows:
``(o) Termination.--(1)(A) The Office of the Inspector
General shall terminate 10 months after 80 percent of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund have been expended.
``(B) For purposes of calculating the termination of the
Office of the Inspector General under this subsection, any
United States funds appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2006 for the reconstruction of Iraq,
irrespective of the designation of such funds, shall be
deemed to be amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
``(2) The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
shall, prior to the termination of the Office of the Special
Inspector General under paragraph (1), prepare a final
forensic audit report on all funds deemed to be amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq Relief
and Reconstruction Fund.''.
Sec. 127. (a) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Family Housing
Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $7,500,000 may be
available for the lease of not more than 300 additional
housing units in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska. Such
funds may not be available for the construction or purchase
of such units.
(b)(1) The total cost of a unit leased under subsection
(a), including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and
operation, may not exceed $25,000 per year.
(2) A lease entered into under subsection (a) may not
exceed 5 years in duration or include an option to extend the
lease beyond the 5-year period beginning on the date the
lease commences.
Sec. 128. (a) The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' and available for
``Replacement Vehicle Bridge, Increment 2, Naval Station,
Newport, Rhode Island'' is hereby increased by $3,410,000.
(b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title under the heading ``Military Construction, Navy
and Marine Corps'' and available for ``Hazardous Material
Storage Facility, Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island'' is
hereby reduced by $3,410,000.
Sec. 129. (a) The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air Force'' is hereby increased by $750,000.
(b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by this title under the heading ``Military Construction, Air
Force'', as increased by subsection (a), $750,000 may be
available for the Air Force Financial Management Center.
(c) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program'' is hereby reduced
by $750,000.
Sec. 130. Subsection (c) of section 1077 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364) is hereby repealed.
Sec. 131. (a) The amount available for ``Military
Construction, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by $25,400,000
for ``Basic Expeditionary Airmen Training Facility, Lackland
AFB, Texas''.
(b) The amount available for ``Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 2005'' is hereby increased by $25,400,000.
Sec. 132. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by chapter 7 of title I of the Department of
Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006 (Public Law 109-148) under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' and available for the
replacement of a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi,
$13,400,000 may be available for the construction of an
additional Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi.
[[Page 22238]]
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Programs
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, the Reinstated
Entitlement Program for Survivors, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of title
IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 540
et seq.) and for other benefits as authorized by law (38
U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55,
and 61; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76 Stat. 1198),
$38,007,095,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $28,112,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical services'' for
necessary expenses in implementing the provisions of chapters
51, 53, and 55 of title 38, United States Code, the funding
source for which is specifically provided as the
``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: Provided
further, That such sums as may be earned on an actual
qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to ``Medical
care collections fund'' to augment the funding of individual
medical facilities for nursing home care provided to
pensioners as authorized.
Readjustment Benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61),
$3,262,006,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That expenses for rehabilitation program services and
assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under
section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than
under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5), and (11) of that section,
shall be charged to this account.
Veterans Insurance and Indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by title 38, United States Code, chapter 19; 70
Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 487, $49,850,000, to remain available
until expended.
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account
(Including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2007, within the resources available, not
to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans are
authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $153,185,000.
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $53,000, as authorized by
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$4,242,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $305,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, $615,000: Provided, That no new loans in
excess of $30,000,000 may be made in fiscal year 2007.
Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans Program
Account
For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
transitional housing loan program authorized by subchapter VI
of chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, not to exceed
$750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this Act for
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical services'' may
be expended.
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including
medical supplies and equipment and salaries and expenses of
healthcare employees hired under title 38, United States
Code, and aid to State homes as authorized by section 1741 of
title 38, United States Code; and for necessary expenses in
the administration of the medical, hospital, nursing home,
domiciliary, construction, supply, and research activities,
as authorized by law; administrative expenses in support of
capital policy activities; and administrative and legal
expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering
amounts owed the Department as authorized under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, and the Federal Medical Care
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.); $28,689,000,000, plus
reimbursements: Provided, That of the funds made available
under this heading, not to exceed $1,350,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2008: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall establish a priority for treatment for
veterans who are service-connected disabled, lower income, or
have special needs: Provided further, That, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall give priority funding for the provision of basic
medical benefits to veterans in enrollment priority groups 1
through 6: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may
authorize the dispensing of prescription drugs from Veterans
Health Administration facilities to enrolled veterans with
privately written prescriptions based on requirements
established by the Secretary: Provided further, That the
implementation of the program described in the previous
proviso shall incur no additional cost to the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
medical facilities
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and
other necessary facilities for the Veterans Health
Administration; for administrative expenses in support of
planning, design, project management, real property
acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of
any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department; for oversight, engineering and architectural
activities not charged to project costs; for repairing,
altering, improving or providing facilities in the several
hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the Department,
not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire
of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases
of facilities; and for laundry and food services,
$3,569,000,000, plus reimbursements, of which $250,000,000
shall be available until September 30, 2008.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, to remain
available until September 30, 2008, $412,000,000, plus
reimbursements, of which not less than $15,000,000 shall be
used for Gulf War Illness research.
National Cemetery Administration
For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $160,733,000, of which not
to exceed $8,037,000 shall be available until September 30,
2008.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail,
$1,467,764,000: Provided, That expenses for services and
assistance authorized under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and
(11) of section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, that
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines are necessary to
enable entitled veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible,
to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable
employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily
living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further,
That the Veterans Benefits Administration shall be funded at
not less than $1,167,859,000: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$75,000,000 shall be available for obligation until September
30, 2008: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase up to two passenger motor
vehicles for use in operations of that Administration in
Manila, Philippines.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
to include information technology, in carrying out the
provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, $70,599,000,
of which $3,474,950 shall remain available until September
30, 2008.
Construction, Major Projects
For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities including parking projects under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections
316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122
[[Page 22239]]
of title 38, United States Code, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services
costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and
storm drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more
than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title
38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were
made available in a previous major project appropriation,
$429,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$2,000,000 shall be to make reimbursements as provided in
section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C.
612) for claims paid for contract disputes: Provided, That
except for advance planning activities, including needs
assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments,
and other capital asset management related activities, such
as portfolio development and management activities, and
investment strategy studies funded through the advance
planning fund and the planning and design activities funded
through the design fund and CARES funds, including needs
assessments which may or may not lead to capital investments,
none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
used for any project which has not been approved by the
Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That
funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 2007,
for each approved project (except those for CARES activities
referenced above) shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of
a construction documents contract by September 30, 2007; and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 2008: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall promptly report in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress any approved major
construction project in which obligations are not incurred
within the time limitations established above.
Construction, Minor Projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities including parking projects under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which
may lead to capital investments, architectural and
engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period
services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided
under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and
site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in
sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110,
8122, and 8162 of title 38, United States Code, where the
estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than the
amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code, $168,000,000, to remain available until
expended, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such
section for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical facilities
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department which
are necessary because of loss or damage caused by any natural
disaster or catastrophe; and (2) temporary measures necessary
to prevent or to minimize further loss by such causes.
Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by sections 8131-8137 of title 38,
United States Code, $85,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Grants for Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries
For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by section
2408 of title 38, United States Code, $32,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Information Technology Systems
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for information technology systems
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems;
including pay and associated cost for operations and
maintenance associated staff; for the capital asset
acquisition of information technology systems, including
management and related contractual costs of said
acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with
operations authorized by chapter 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, $1,255,900,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That none of these funds may be
obligated until the Department of Veterans Affairs submits to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress,
and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that: (1)
meets the capital planning and investment control review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget; (2) complies with the Department of Veterans Affairs
enterprise architecture; (3) conforms with an established
enterprise life cycle methodology; and (4) complies with the
acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and systems
acquisition management practices of the Federal Government:
Provided further, That within 60 days of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
reprogramming base letter which provides, by project, the
costs included in this appropriation.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2007, in this
Act or any other Act, for ``Compensation and pensions'',
``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans insurance and
indemnities'' may be transferred as necessary to any other of
the mentioned appropriations: Provided, That before a
transfer may take place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall request from the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an
approval is issued, or absent a response, a period of 30 days
has elapsed.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 202. Amounts made available for fiscal year 2007, in
this Act or any other Act, under the ``Medical services'' and
``Medical facilities'' accounts may be transferred between
the accounts to the extent necessary to implement the
restructuring of the Veterans Health Administration accounts:
Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.
Sec. 203. Appropriations available in this title for
salaries and expenses shall be available for services
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land
or both; and uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized
by sections 5901-5902 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title (except the
appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and
``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the
purchase of any site for the construction of any new hospital
or home.
Sec. 205. No appropriations in this title shall be
available for hospitalization or examination of any persons
(except beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing such
benefits to veterans, and persons receiving such treatment
under sections 7901-7904 of title 5, United States Code or
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless
reimbursement of cost is made to the ``Medical services''
account at such rates as may be fixed by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 207. Appropriations available in this title shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2007, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year
2007 that are available for dividends in that program after
claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves
have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of
administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of
surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost
of administration for fiscal year 2007 which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to
the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.
Sec. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds
to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account
during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease
services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which
the proceeds are received.
Sec. 210. Funds available in this title or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management
and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint
Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will
recover actual costs but not exceed $31,246,000 for the
Office of Resolution Management and $3,059,000 for the Office
of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication:
Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services
to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further,
That amounts received shall be credited to ``General
operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the
service.
Sec. 211. No appropriations in this title shall be
available to enter into any new lease of real property if the
estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 unless the
Secretary submits a report which the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress approve within 30
days following the date on which the report is received.
[[Page 22240]]
Sec. 212. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs
shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or
medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected
disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title,
unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current,
accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes
of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary
may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the
United States, the reasonable charges for such care or
services from any person who does not make such disclosure as
required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for
care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which
amounts are received.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, at
the discretion of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, proceeds
or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing activities
(including disposal) may be deposited into the
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including
site acquisition and disposition), alterations and
improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction
or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such
sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for
in ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects''.
Sec. 214. Amounts made available under ``Medical services''
are available--
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and
equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the Department.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 215. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical Care
Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical
services'', to remain available until expended for the
purposes of this account.
Sec. 216. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall allow veterans eligible
under existing Department of Veterans Affairs medical care
requirements and who reside in Alaska to obtain medical care
services from medical facilities supported by the Indian
Health Service or tribal organizations. The Secretary shall:
(1) limit the application of this provision to rural Alaskan
veterans in areas where an existing Department of Veterans
Affairs facility or Veterans Affairs-contracted service is
unavailable; (2) require participating veterans and
facilities to comply with all appropriate rules and
regulations, as established by the Secretary; (3) require
this provision to be consistent with Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services activities; and (4) result
in no additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs
or the Indian Health Service.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to the Department
of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section
8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction,
minor projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended
for the purposes of these accounts.
Sec. 218. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this Act, or any other Act, may be used
for payment for E-Gov initiatives.
Sec. 219. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors of
the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.
Sec. 220. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a
quarterly report on the financial status of the Veterans
Health Administration.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 221. Amounts made available under the ``Medical
services'', ``Medical facilities'', ``General operating
expenses'', and ``National Cemetery Administration'' accounts
for fiscal year 2007, may be transferred to or from the
``Information technology systems'' account: Provided, That
before a transfer may take place, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall request from the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer
and an approval is issued.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 222. For purposes of perfecting the funding sources of
the Department of Veterans Affairs' new ``Information
technology systems'' account, funds made available for fiscal
year 2007, in this or any other Act, may be transferred from
the ``General operating expenses'', ``National Cemetery
Administration'', and ``Office of Inspector General''
accounts to the ``Medical services'' account: Provided, That
before a transfer may take place, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall request from the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress the authority to make the transfer
and an approval is issued.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 223. Amounts made available for the ``Information
technology systems'' account may be transferred between
projects: Provided, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting
a request to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress to make the transfer and an approval is issued,
or absent a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed.
Sec. 224. No funds in this Act may be deposited into the
DOD/VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund.
Sec. 225. The authority provided by section 2011 of title
38, United States Code, shall continue in effect through
September 30, 2007.
Sec. 226. Report on Use of Lands at West Los Angeles
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. (a) Report.--
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a
report on the master plan of the Department of Veterans
Affairs relating to the use of Department lands at the West
Los Angeles Department of Veterans Medical Center,
California.
(b) Report Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
set forth the following:
(1) The master plan referred to in that subsection, if such
a plan currently exists.
(2) A current assessment of the master plan.
(3) Any proposal of the Department for a veterans park on
the lands referred to in subsection (a), and an assessment of
each such proposal.
(4) Any proposal to use a portion of those lands as
dedicated green space, and an assessment of each such
proposal.
(c) Alternative Report Element.--If a master plan referred
to in subsection (a) does not exist as of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall set forth in the
report under that subsection, in lieu of the matters
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), a plan
for the development of a master plan for the use of the lands
referred to in subsection (a) during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 25 years
later and during the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending 50 years later. The master
plan referred to in subsection (a) shall be completed prior
to the adoption of the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES) plan for that property, or prior to the
issuance of any enhanced use lease on the subject property.
The CARES plan for the subject property shall be consistent
with the master plan required by this section.
(d) Limitations on Implementation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may not implement any
portion of the master plan referred to in subsection (a)
until 120 days after the date of the receipt by the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the report required by that subsection.
(2) Actions other than direct veterans services.--In the
case of any portion of the master plan referred to in
subsection (a) that does not relate exclusively to direct
veterans services on the site referred to in subsection (a),
the Secretary may not carry out such portion of the master
plan without the approval of the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(e) Exemptions.--Nothing contained in this provision shall
prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from providing
maintenance, service or programs consistent with the mission
of the Department.
Sec. 227. None of the funds available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, in this Act, or any other Act, may be used
to replace the current system by which the Veterans
Integrated Services Networks select and contract for diabetes
monitoring supplies and equipment.
Sec. 228. The major medical facility project for a
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Orleans,
Louisiana, for which funds were appropriated for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the ``Construction, major
projects'' account in Public Law 109-234 and Public Law 109-
148 shall be treated for purposes of section 8104(b) of title
38, United States Code, as a major medical facility project
that has been specifically authorized by law, and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may obligate and expend amounts
so appropriated for that account for that project for the
purchase of a site including property exchange for, and new
construction, restoration, or replacement of, the Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Sec. 229. Of the amount appropriated by this title, up to
$18,000,000 may be available for necessary expenses,
including salaries and expenses, for the provision of
additional mental health services through centers for
readjustment counseling and related mental health services
for veterans under section 1712A of title 38, United States
Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''), to veterans
who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sec. 230. Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report on the actions taken by the
Secretary to test veterans for vestibular damage.
Sec. 231. (a) Increase in Threshold for Major Medical
Facility Projects.--Section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``$7,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2006, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.
Sec. 232. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary is authorized to carry out major medical facility
projects and leases for which any funds have been
appropriated under this Act or any other Act. Further, for
major medical facility projects authorized under Public Law
108-170, the Secretary may carry out
[[Page 22241]]
contracts through September 30, 2007, including land purchase
on projects for which Phase I design has been authorized.
Sec. 233. Of the amount appropriated by this title under
the heading ``Veterans Health Administration'', up to
$1,000,000 shall be available for the Office of Inspector
General.
Sec. 234. (a) Colocation of Community Based Outpatient
Clinic With Wagner Indian Health Service Unit, Wagner, South
Dakota.--No amount appropriated or otherwise made available
for the Department of Veterans Affairs by this title may be
obligated or expended to implement a business plan of
Veterans Integrated Service Network 23 (VISN 23) for the
implementation a Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) in
Wagner, South Dakota, unless such business plan contains an
evaluation and an analysis of the prospect of colocating such
Community Based Outpatient Clinic with the Wagner Indian
Health Service unit in Wagner, South Dakota.
(b) Availability of Amounts for Emergency Room Services at
Wagner Indian Health Service Unit.--Of the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs by this title under the heading ``Medical
Facilities'', at the discretion of the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs up to $500,000 may be
available for emergency room services at the Wagner Indian
Health Service unit pending implementation of a business plan
meeting the requirements in subsection (a).
Sec. 235. (a) Study on Costs of Comprehensive Service
Programs for Homeless Veterans.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall carry out a study of costs associated with the
Comprehensive Service Programs authorized by sections 2011
and 2012 of title 38 United States Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on
the study required by subsection (a). The report shall set
forth the following:
(1) The number of authorized and operational transitional
housing beds and service centers under the programs referred
to in subsection (a) in fiscal year 2006, and the number of
such beds and centers in each State and in each Congressional
District during such fiscal year.
(2) The cost in fiscal year 2006 of grants under section
2011 of title 38, United States Code, to authorized and
operational transitional housing beds and service centers
under the programs referred to in that subsection.
(3) The cost in fiscal year 2006 of per diem payments under
section 2012 of title 38 United States Code, to authorized
and operational transitional housing beds and service centers
under the programs referred to in that subsection.
(4) The number of applications received, scored as
qualified, and awarded pursuant to the Capital Grant Notice
of Funds Availability published on April 20, 2006.
(5) The range of per diem payment rates, the average per
diem payment rate, and the median per diem payment rate paid
to recipients of grants under section 2012 of title 38,
United States Code, in fiscal year 2006.
(6) The number and percentage of total recipients of grants
under section 2011 of title 38 United States Code, in fiscal
year 2006 being paid under section 2012 of title 38, United
States Code, the rate authorized for State homes for
domiciliary care under section 1741(a)(1)(A) of that title
for fiscal year 2006.
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement only)
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $7,500
for official reception and representation expenses; and
insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign countries,
when required by law of such countries, $37,088,000, to
remain available until expended.
Foreign Currency Fluctuations
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, $4,900,000, to remain
available until expended, for purposes authorized by section
2109 of title 36, United States Code.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
sections 7251-7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$19,790,000: Provided, That $1,260,000 shall be available for
the purpose of providing financial assistance as described,
and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures
set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102-229.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $26,550,000, to remain
available until expended. In addition, such sums as may be
necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement,
to be derived from the Lease of Department of Defense Real
Property for Defense Agencies account.
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington, District of Columbia and the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
$54,846,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. None of the funds in this title under the heading
``American Battle Monuments Commission'' shall be available
for the Capital Security Costs Sharing program.
(Including Rescission of Funds)
Sec. 302. (a) For an additional amount for ``United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Salaries and
Expenses'', $500,000, to remain available until expended, for
implementation of the Appellate Case Management Electronic
Case Files System.
(b) Of the amount appropriated under the heading ``United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Salaries and
Expenses'', in the Military Quality of Life, Military
Construction, and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-114), $500,000 are rescinded.
(c) This section shall take effect immediately upon
enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2007 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 404. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 405. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 406. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any
other appropriations Act.
Sec. 407. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate.
TITLE V--DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 502. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) is amended by inserting the
following after subsection (f):
``(g) Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary, shall establish a Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program to assist
eligible institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use
of, digital and wireless networking technologies to improve
the quality and delivery of educational services at eligible
institutions.
``(2) Authorized activities.--An eligible institution may
use a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract awarded under
this subsection--
``(A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking
capability, hardware and software, digital network
technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to
further the objective of the Program described in paragraph
(1);
[[Page 22242]]
``(B) to develop and provide training, education, and
professional development programs, including faculty
development, to increase the use of, and usefulness of,
digital and wireless networking technology;
``(C) to provide teacher education, including the provision
of preservice teacher training and in-service professional
development at eligible institutions, library and media
specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid
certification to individuals who seek to acquire or enhance
technology skills in order to use digital and wireless
networking technology in the classroom or instructional
process, including instruction in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology subjects; and
``(D) to foster the use of digital and wireless networking
technology to improve research and education, including
scientific, mathematics, engineering, and technology
instruction.
``(3) Application and review procedures.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract under this subsection, an
eligible institution shall submit an application to the Under
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Under Secretary may require. Such
application, at a minimum, shall include a description of how
the funds will be used, including a description of any
digital and wireless networking technology to be acquired,
and a description of how the institution will ensure that
digital and wireless networking will be made accessible to,
and employed by, students, faculty, and administrators. The
Under Secretary, consistent with subparagraph (B), shall
establish procedures to review such applications. The Under
Secretary shall publish the application requirements and
review criteria in the Federal Register, along with a
statement describing the availability of funds.
``(B) Review panels.--Each application submitted under this
subsection by an eligible institution shall be reviewed by a
panel of individuals selected by the Under Secretary to judge
the quality and merit of the proposal, including the extent
to which the eligible institution can effectively and
successfully utilize the proposed grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract to carry out the program described in
paragraph (1). The Under Secretary shall ensure that the
review panels include representatives of minority serving
institutions and others who are knowledgeable about eligible
institutions and digital and wireless networking technology.
The Under Secretary shall ensure that no individual assigned
under this subsection to review any application has a
conflict of interest with regard to that application. The
Under Secretary shall take into consideration the
recommendations of the review panel in determining whether to
award a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract to an
eligible institution.
``(C) Matching requirement.--The Under Secretary may not
award a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract to an
eligible institution under this subsection unless such
institution agrees that, with respect to the costs incurred
by the institution in carrying out the program for which the
grant, cooperative agreement, or contract was awarded, such
institution shall make available, directly, or through
donations from public or private entities, non-Federal
contributions in an amount equal to one-quarter of the grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract awarded by the Under
Secretary, or $500,000, whichever is the lesser amount. The
Under Secretary shall waive the matching requirement for any
institution or consortium with no endowment, or an endowment
that has a current dollar value lower than $50,000,000.
``(D) Awards.--
``(i) Limitation.--An eligible institution that receives a
grant, cooperative agreement, or contract under this
subsection that exceeds $2,500,000 shall not be eligible to
receive another grant, cooperative agreement, or contract.
``(ii) Consortia.--Grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts may only be awarded to eligible institutions.
Eligible institutions may seek funding under this subsection
for consortia which may include other eligible institutions,
a State or a State educational agency, local educational
agencies, institutions of higher education, community-based
organizations, national nonprofit organizations, or
businesses, including minority businesses.
``(iii) Planning grants.--The Under Secretary may provide
funds to develop strategic plans to implement such grants,
cooperative agreements, or contracts.
``(iv) Institutional diversity.--In awarding grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts to eligible
institutions, the Under Secretary shall ensure, to the extent
practicable, that awards are made to all types of
institutions eligible for assistance under this subsection.
``(v) Need.--In awarding funds under this subsection, the
Under Secretary shall give priority to the institution with
the greatest demonstrated need for assistance.
``(E) Annual report and evaluation.--
``(i) Annual report required from recipients.--Each
institution that receives a grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract awarded under this subsection shall provide an
annual report to the Under Secretary on its use of the grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract.
``(ii) Independent assessment.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Under
Secretary shall enter into a contract with the National
Academy of Public Administration to conduct periodic
assessments of the program. The Assessments shall be
conducted once every 3 years during the 10-year period
following the enactment of this subsection. The assessments
shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program in improving the education and training of students,
faculty and staff at eligible institutions that have been
awarded grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts under
the program; an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program in improving access to, and familiarity with, digital
and wireless networking technology for students, faculty, and
staff at all eligible institutions; an evaluation of the
procedures established under subparagraph (A); and
recommendations for improving the program, including
recommendations concerning the continuing need for Federal
support. In carrying out its assessments, the National
Academy of Public Administration shall review the reports
submitted to the Under Secretary under clause (i).
``(iii) Report to congress.--Upon completion of each
independent assessment carried out under clause (ii), the
Under Secretary shall transmit the assessment to Congress
along with a summary of the Under Secretary's plans, if any,
to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of
Public Administration.
``(F) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(i) Digital and wireless networking technology.--The term
`digital and wireless networking technology' means computer
and communications equipment and software that facilitates
the transmission of information in a digital format.
``(ii) Eligible institution.--The term `eligible
institution' means an institution that is--
``(I) a historically Black college or university that is a
part B institution, as defined in section 322(2) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)), or an
institution described in section 326(e)(1) of that Act (20
U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1));
``(II) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in
section 502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5));
``(III) a tribally controlled college or university, as
defined in section 316(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3));
``(IV) an Alaska Native-serving institution under section
317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b)); or
``(V) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution under section
317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b)).
``(iii) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001).
``(iv) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(v) Minority business.--The term `minority business'
includes HUBZone small business concerns (as defined in
section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)).
``(vi) Minority individual.--The term `minority individual'
means an American Indian, Alaskan Native, Black (not of
Hispanic origin), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban and Central or South American origin), or
Pacific Islander individual.
``(vii) State.--The term `State' has the meaning given the
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(viii) State educational agency.--The term `State
educational agency' has the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).''.
SEC. 503. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Technology
Administration of the Department of Commerce to carry out
section 5(g) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation
Act of 1980 such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2010.
This Act may be cited as the ``Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2007''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act making
appropriations for Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.''.
____________________
ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4073 introduced earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4073) to designate the outpatient clinic of the
Department of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington,
Missouri, as the ``Robert Silvey Department of Veterans
Affairs Outpatient Clinic.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read
the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 4073) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time and passed, as follows:
[[Page 22243]]
S. 4073
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
OUTPATIENT CLINIC.
(a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department
of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, shall be
known and designated as the ``Robert Silvey Department of
Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Robert Silvey Department of Veterans
Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE MAJORITY LEADER AND ONE STAFF MEMBER TO TRAVEL TO
MEXICO FOR THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW PRESIDENT OF MEXICO SCHEDULED
FOR DECEMBER 2, 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 616, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 616) authorizing the Majority Leader
and one staff member to travel to Mexico for the inauguration
of the new President of Mexico scheduled for December 2,
2006.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 616) was agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 616
Resolved, That the Majority Leader and one staff member are
authorized to travel to Mexico for the inauguration of the
new President of Mexico scheduled for December 2, 2006.
____________________
PAINT BANK AND WYTHEVILLE NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES CONVEYANCE ACT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 621, H.R. 5061.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5061) to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to convey Paint Bank National Fish Hatchery and Wytheville
National Fish Hatchery to the State of Virginia.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read
the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 5061) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
AMENDING THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT TO REAUTHORIZE A
PROGRAM RELATING TO THE LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 663, H.R. 6121.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6121) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to reauthorize a program relating to the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6121) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND TO
THE TOWNS OF LAONA AND WABENO, WISCONSIN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4559 just received from the
House and at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4559) to provide for the conveyance of certain
National Forest System land to the towns of Laona and Wabeno,
Wisconsin, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded
to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third
time and passed, a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4559) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE FORMER KONNAROCK LUTHERAN GIRLS
SCHOOL IN SMYTH COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5103, which was received from
the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5103) to provide for the conveyance of the
former Konnarock Lutheran Girls School in Smyth County,
Virginia, which is currently owned by the United States and
administered by the Forest Service, to facilitate the
restoration and reuse of the property, and for other
purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 5103) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2006
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to H.R.
5690 just received from the House and at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5690) to adjust the boundaries of the Ouachita
National Forest in the States of Oklahoma and Arkansas.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 5690) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING AS A HOUSE DOCUMENT OF ``A HISTORY, COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1813-2006''
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 423, which was received from
the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page 22244]]
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 423) authorizing the
printing as a House document of ``A History, Committee on the
Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, 1813-
2006''.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 423) was agreed to.
____________________
NAMING THE ARMED FORCES READINESS CENTER IN GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, IN
HONOR OF CAPTAIN WILLIAM WYLIE GALT, A RECIPIENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
MEDAL OF HONOR
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Armed Services be
discharged from further consideration of S. 3759, and the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3759) to name the Armed Forces Readiness Center
in Great Falls, Montana, in honor of Captain William Wylie
Galt, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3759) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
ENDORSING FURTHER ENLARGEMENT OF NATO
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign
Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 4014 and the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4014) to endorse further enlargement of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any
statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 4014) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 4014
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``NATO Freedom Consolidation
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The sustained commitment of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to mutual defense has made possible the
democratic transformation of Central and Eastern Europe.
Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can and
should play a critical role in addressing the security
challenges of the post-Cold War era in creating the stable
environment needed for those emerging democracies in Europe.
(2) Lasting stability and security in Europe requires the
military, economic, and political integration of emerging
democracies into existing European structures.
(3) In an era of threats from terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization is increasingly contributing to
security in the face of global security challenges for the
protection and interests of its member states.
(4) In the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of
Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress declared
that ``full and active participants in the Partnership for
Peace in a position to further the principles of the North
Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the
North Atlantic area should be invited to become full NATO
members in accordance with Article 10 of such Treaty at an
early date ...''.
(5) In the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title
VI of section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law
104-208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress called for the prompt
admission of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and
Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and
declared that ``in order to promote economic stability and
security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine ... the process of
enlarging NATO to include emerging democracies in Central and
Eastern Europe should not be limited to consideration of
admitting Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia
as full members of the NATO Alliance''.
(6) In the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of
division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note),
Congress declared that ``Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic should not be the last emerging democracies in
Central and Eastern Europe invited to join NATO'' and that
``Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria ... would
make an outstanding contribution to furthering the goals of
NATO and enhancing stability, freedom, and peace in Europe
should they become NATO members [and] upon complete
satisfaction of all relevant criteria should be invited to
become full NATO members at the earliest possible date''.
(7) In the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act
of 2002 (Public Law 107-187; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), Congress
endorsed
``... the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance
articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and
by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996''.
(8) At the Madrid Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in July 1997, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic were invited to join the Alliance, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization heads of state and government
issued a declaration stating ``[t]he alliance expects to
extend further invitations in coming years to nations willing
and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of
membership ... [n]o European democratic country whose
admission would fulfill the objectives of the [North
Atlantic] Treaty will be excluded from consideration''.
(9) At the Washington Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in April 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization heads of state and government issued a
communique declaring ``[w]e pledge that NATO will continue to
welcome new members in a position to further the principles
of the [North Atlantic] Treaty and contribute to peace and
security in the Euro-Atlantic area ... [t]he three new
members will not be the last ... [n]o European democratic
country whose admission would fulfill the objectives of the
Treaty will be excluded from consideration, regardless of its
geographic location ...''.
(10) In May 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, the foreign
ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
the Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia
issued a statement (later joined by Croatia) declaring that--
(A) their countries will cooperate in jointly seeking
membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the
next round of enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization;
(B) the realization of membership in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization by one or more of these countries would
be a success for all; and
(C) eventual membership in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization for all of these countries would be a success
for Europe and for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
(11) On June 15, 2001, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland,
President George W. Bush stated ``[a]ll of Europe's new
democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that
lie between, should have the same chance for security and
freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of
Europe--as Europe's old democracies have ... I believe in
NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it
and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings
... [a]s we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as
a pawn in the agenda of others ... [w]e will not trade away
the fate of free European peoples ... [n]o more Munichs ...
[n]o more Yaltas ... [a]s we plan the Prague Summit, we
should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how
much we can do to advance the cause of freedom''.
(12) On October 22, 1996, in a speech in Detroit, Michigan,
former President William J. Clinton stated ``NATO's doors
will not close behind its first new members ... NATO should
remain open to all of Europe's emerging democracies who are
ready to shoulder the responsibilities of membership ... [n]o
nation will be automatically excluded ... [n]o country
outside NATO will have a veto ... [a] gray zone of insecurity
must not reemerge in Europe''.
(13) At the Prague Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in November
[[Page 22245]]
2002, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia were invited to join the Alliance in
the second round of enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization since the end of the Cold War, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization heads of state and government
issued a declaration stating ``NATO's door will remain open
to European democracies willing and able to assume the
responsibilities and obligations of membership, in accordance
with Article 10 of the Washington Treaty''.
(14) On May 8, 2003, the United States Senate unanimously
approved the Resolution of Ratification to Accompany Treaty
Document No. 108-4, Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of
1949 on Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, inviting Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to join
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
(15) At the Istanbul Summit of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in June 2004, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization heads of state and government issued a
communique reaffirming that NATO's door remains open to new
members, declaring ``[w]e celebrate the success of NATO's
Open Door Policy, and reaffirm tody that our seven new
members will not be the last. The door to membership remains
open. We welcome the progress made by Albania, Croatia, and
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1) in implementing
their Annual National Programmes under the Membership Action
Plan, and encourage them to continue pursuing the reforms
necessary to progress toward NATO membership. We also commend
their contribution to regional stability and cooperation. We
want all three countries to succeed and will continue to
assist them in their reform efforts. NATO will continue to
assess each country's candidacy individually, based on the
progress made towards reform goals pursued through the
Membership Action Plan, which will remain the vehicle to keep
the readiness of each aspirant for membership under review.
We direct that NATO Foreign Ministers keep the enlargement
process, including the implementation of the Membership
Action Plan, under continual review and report to us. We will
review at the next Summit progress by aspirants towards
membership based on that report''.
(16) Georgia has stated its desire to join the Euro-
Atlantic community, and in particular, is seeking to join
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Georgia is working
closely with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its
members to meet criteria for eventual membership in NATO.
(17) At a press conference with President Mikhail
Saakashvili of Georgia in Washington, D.C. on July 5, 2006,
President George W. Bush stated that ``... I believe that
NATO would benefit with Georgia being a member of NATO, and I
think Georgia would benefit. And there's a way forward
through the Membership Action Plan ... And I'm a believer in
the expansion of NATO. I think it's in the world's interest
that we expand NATO''.
(18) Following a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in New
York on September 21, 2006, NATO Secretary General Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer announced the launching of an Intensified
Dialogue on membership between the Alliance and Georgia.
(19) Contingent upon their continued implementation of
democratic, defense, and economic reform, and their
willingness and ability to meet the responsibilities of
membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
Congress calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia,
Georgia, and Macedonia to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization to promote security and stability in Europe.
(20) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization heads of state
and government will hold a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Summit in Riga, Latvia, in November 2006.
SEC. 3. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.
Congress--
(1) reaffirms its previous expressions of support for
continued enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization contained in the NATO Participation Act of 1994,
the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, the European
Security Act of 1998, and the Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom
Consolidation Act of 2002;
(2) supports the commitment to further enlargement of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include European
democracies that are able and willing to meet the
responsibilities of Membership, as expressed by the Alliance
in its Madrid Summit Declaration of 1997, its Washington
Summit Communique of 1999, its Prague Summit Declaration of
2002, and its Istanbul Summit Communique of 2004; and
(3) endorses the vision of further enlargement of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization articulated by President George
W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J.
Clinton on October 22, 1996, and urges our allies in the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization to work with the United
States to realize a role for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in promoting global security, including
continued support for enlargement to include qualified
candidate states, specifically by entering into a Membership
Action Plan with Georgia and recognizing the progress toward
meeting the responsibilities and obligations of NATO
membership by Albania, Croatia, Georgia, and Macedonia at the
NATO Summit in Riga, Latvia.
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF ALBANIA, CROATIA, GEORGIA, AND
MACEDONIA AS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1994.
(a) Designation.--
(1) Albania.--The Republic of Albania is designated as
eligible to receive assistance under the program established
under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994
(title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), and
shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to
section 203(d)(1) of such Act.
(2) Croatia.--The Republic of Croatia is designated as
eligible to receive assistance under the program established
under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994,
and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to
section 203(d)(1) of such Act.
(3) Georgia.--Georgia is designated as eligible to receive
assistance under the program established under section 203(a)
of the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and shall be deemed to
have been so designated pursuant to section 203(d)(1) of such
Act.
(4) Macedonia.--The Republic of Macedonia is designated as
eligible to receive assistance under the program established
under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994,
and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to
section 203(d)(1) of such Act.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The designation of the Republic
of Albania, the Republic of Croatia, Georgia, and the
Republic of Macedonia pursuant to subsection (a) as eligible
to receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994--
(1) is in addition to the designation of Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, and Slovenia pursuant to section 606 of
the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (title VI of
section 101(c) of title I of division A of Public Law 104-
208; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), the designation of Romania,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria pursuant to section
2703(b) of the European Security Act of 1998 (title XXVII of
division G of Public Law 105-277; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note), and
the designation of Slovakia pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-187; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) as eligible to
receive assistance under the program established under
section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994; and
(2) shall not preclude the designation by the President of
other countries pursuant to section 203(d)(2) of the NATO
Participation Act of 1994 as eligible to receive assistance
under the program established under section 203(a) of such
Act.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES
DESIGNATED UNDER THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT OF
1994.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal year 2007 under
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763)--
(1) $3,200,000 is authorized to be available on a grant
basis for the Republic of Albania;
(2) $3,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant
basis for the Republic of Croatia;
(3) $10,000,000 is authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Georgia; and
(4) $3,600,000 is authorized to be available on a grant
basis for the Republic of Macedonia.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
Congress affirms that it stands ready to consider, and if
all applicable criteria are satisfied, to support efforts by
Ukraine to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
should Ukraine decide that is wishes to pursue membership in
the Alliance.
____________________
FAMILY ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. 994 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 994) to authorize the Attorney General to make
grants to improve the ability of State and local governments
to prevent the abduction of children by family members, and
for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on October 26, 2006, the Esperanza
fire engulfed five firefighters dispatched to battle an uncontrollable
blaze. All five firefighters died as a result.
Before it was extinguished, the fire consumed more than 40,000 acres
of the southern California foothills and destroyed more than 30 homes.
But while
[[Page 22246]]
the forests will eventually return and the homes will be rebuilt, we
can never reclaim the lives of our fallen firefighters.
Today I am cosponsoring a resolution with Senator Boxer to honor the
firefighters and other public servants who bravely responded to the
Esperanza fire.
On November 5, 2006, I delivered a eulogy at the Memorial Service in
San Bernardino, CA, held in honor of the five firefighters who lost
their lives in the fire. I believe it is appropriate at this time to
enter these remarks into the Congressional Record:
I'm here to express gratitude to the five brave
firefighters who lost their lives in the battle against the
Esperanza fire.
They gave the ultimate sacrifice. Their heroism will not be
forgotten and so do their families' sacrifice as well.
My heart goes out to you, mothers and fathers, sisters and
brothers, sons and daughters of the five firefighters who
perished from Engine Crew 57: Captain Mark Loutzenhiser, Jess
McLean, Jason McKay, Daniel Hoover-Najera, and Pablo Cerda.
These five men were on the front lines, protecting
thousands of lives and tens of thousands of acres, when they
were overwhelmed by the fire's flames.
They are truly heroes.
Mark Loutzenhiser, Engine Captain, was 43 years old. He had
21 years of service as a firefighter. Mark was loved and
respected by so many in the Idyllwild community.
To Maria, I know little can be said that mutes grief and
overwhelming loss with one exception--five beautiful
children--Mark and Maria's enduring legacy.
To your five children, Jacob, Teesha, Savannah, and the
twins Kyle and Seth, I say this: Your dad was a true hero. He
was a coach, a mentor, a friend. He is great in all our eyes.
And to Mark's parents, Russ and Polly: You can be so proud
of his contributions. He made a difference. He leaves a
legacy: a grateful community--a wife--five children.
Jess McLean, Fire Engine Operator, was 27 years old. He had
seven years of experience.
To his mother, Cecilia: Jess was a thoughtful young man, a
model son. I am so sorry for your loss.
Jess's wife, Karen: You were married just three years ago.
But those three years are packed with memories, dreams shared
and you will find new strength because of these years.
Jason McKay, Assistant Fire Engine Operator, 27 years old.
He had five years of Forest Service experience.
To Bonnie McKay, Jason's mother, you know that Jason lived
out his boyhood dream of becoming a fireman.
To his fiancee, Staci Burger, you know Jason as a brave and
decent man. Carry that with you, always.
Daniel Hoover-Najera, Firefighter, 20 years old and in his
second season of firefighting. As a young man, he was
determined to one day grow up and become a firefighter.
To his mother Gloria Ayala, his stepfather Efren Ayala, his
father and stepmother, Tim and Lisa Hoover, his brother
Michael, his sister Monica, and his grandfather Patrick
Najera, who helped raise him: I say this: Daniel will be
missed by all those who knew him. He was a passionate young
man, full of many talents, hopes and dreams. He was taken too
young. But he leaves a strong heritage--hold onto it.
Pablo Cerda, 23 years old when he lost his life in his
second season with the Forest Service.
To his father, Pablo, your son graduated from Riverside
Community College's fire academy only last May. He paid his
own way. His services, his terrible burns will not be
forgotten by any of us.
And to his older sister, Claudia, your brother Pablo will
be remembered for his strength and dedication. Be proud of
him always.
The deaths of these five members of the Engine 57 crew
represent a tremendous loss for this community, our State,
and the nation.
As we move forward from this painful tragedy, we must work
to protect ourselves from another fire like.
Just a few miles from here, in the mountains of the San
Bernardino National Forest, are over a half million acres of
bark beetle infested forest. Nestled among these trees are
the homes of roughly 150,000 people.
The five firefighters who lost their lives and the more
than 2,500 firefighters who fought this fire had to prevent
the flames from reaching the bark beetle infested areas,
which would have likely caused a catastrophic fire taking
with it, whole communities and thousands of homes.
Governor Schwarzenegger, Representatives Lewis, Bono, Baca
and I have fought for increased funding to protect our
communities from hazardous fuels.
We must recommit ourselves to this effort and remove these
dead and dying trees and non-native brush that present such a
great fire hazard.
And our firefighters must have the tools and training to do
their jobs.
To the 34 families who lost your homes. I say this: We will
help in any way we can. Our heartfelt feelings are extended
to you.
To the firefighters here today, we owe you no less. Know
that we value your service and commitment to fire prone
communities up and down the state.
Finally, in closing--to the families of these five brave
firefighters, I offer my sincerest and deepest condolences.
My heart is truly with you.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent a Feinstein amendment, which is at
the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and
passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 5192) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 5192
On page 1, line 5, strike ``Act of 2005'' and insert ``Act
of 2006''.
On page 6, line 1, strike ``fiscal year 2006'' and all that
follows through line 2 and insert the following: ``fiscal
year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2009 and 2010.''.
The bill (S. 994), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
MEASURES DISCHARGED
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that appropriate
committees be discharged from and the Senate now proceed to the en bloc
consideration of the following resolutions:
S. Res. 595, S. Res. 596, S. Res. 597, S. Res. 598, S. Res. 599, S.
Res. 600, S. Res. 601, S. Res. 602, S. Res. 603, S. Res. 604, S. Res.
608, S. Res. 609, S. Res. 611, S. Res. 614, H. Con. Res. 384, S. Con.
Res. 119, S. Res. 547, H. Con. Res. 175, and S. Con. Res. 101.
I further ask that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration
en bloc of the following resolutions that were introduced earlier
today: S. Res. 618, S. Res. 619, S. Res. 620, and S. Res. 621.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolutions en bloc.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments
at the desk be agreed to, the resolutions as amended, if amended, be
agreed to, the preambles as amended, if amended, be agreed to, and the
motions to reconsider be laid on the table, all en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY
The resolution (S. Res. 595) recognizing the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory as one of the premier science and research
institutions of the world was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 595), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 595
Whereas the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was
founded on August 26, 1931, by Ernest Orlando Lawrence,
winner of the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics for his invention
of the cyclotron, a circular particle accelerator that opened
the door to modern high-energy physics;
Whereas the belief of Mr. Lawrence that scientific research
is best done through teams of individuals with different
fields of expertise left a legacy that has yielded rich
dividends for the United States in basic knowledge and
applied technology;
Whereas that distinguished legacy of accomplishment
includes 10 Nobel Laureates associated with the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, and a dozen scientists of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who have won the
National Medal of Science;
Whereas, in 2006, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
continues to be used to conduct research across a wide range
of scientific disciplines with key efforts in fundamental
studies of the universe, quantitative biology, nanoscience,
new energy systems, environmental solutions, and the use of
integrated computing as a tool for discovery;
Whereas scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory discovered the revolutionary new truth of the
accelerating expansion of the universe, are pioneering the
promising new scientific field of synthetic biology, and are
harnessing the secrets of the genome to help solve the grand
challenges of the world;
Whereas, through those accomplishments and others,
including finding the antiproton,
[[Page 22247]]
advancing energy efficiency and conservation technologies,
deciphering the photosynthetic process, pioneering the field
of nuclear medicine, and spearheading the development of
alternative energy sources, scientists of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory have played a critical role in
advancing the world leadership of the United States in
fundamental and applied sciences;
Whereas the national scientific user facilities of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory provide the highest
level of scientific, engineering, and technical support to
thousands of scientists each year whose published works
continue to consistently enrich their respective research
fields;
Whereas the newest user facility of the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, the Molecular Foundry, opened its doors
on March 24, 2006, to enable the design, synthesis, and
characterization of nanoscale materials, thereby opening the
door to unimagined scientific and technological advancements;
Whereas the Advanced Light Source of the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory is a national user facility that
generates intense light for scientific and technological
research that, among other accomplishments, has helped reveal
how bacteria resist antibiotics, how inexpensive and
efficient solar cells can be fabricated, and how unique
substances like quasicrystals possess properties never before
seen by humans;
Whereas the National Center for Electron Microscopy of the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory houses several of the
most advanced microscopes and tools for microcharacterization
in the world, including the One-Angstrom Microscope and the
Spin Polarized Low-Energy Electron Microscope, that allow
scientists to gain a basic scientific understanding of new
energy-efficient materials, as well as to analyze the
behavior of materials such as magnets, superconductors,
ceramics, and high-temperature alloys; and
Whereas the National Energy Research Scientific Computing
Center of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the
flagship scientific computing facility for the Office of
Science of the Department of Energy, and is 1 of the largest
facilities in the world that is devoted to providing
computational resources and expertise for basic scientific
research: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the outstanding and unique role that the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has played over the
past 75 years in the scientific and technological advancement
of the United States and the international community; and
(2) congratulates the dedicated past and present scientists
and researchers who have worked at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory to make the institution 1 of the greatest
research resources in the world.
____________________
NATIONAL FIREFIGHTER APPRECIATION DAY
The resolution (S. Res. 596) designating Tuesday, October 10, 2006,
as ``National Firefighter Appreciation Day'' to honor and celebrate the
firefighters of the United States was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 596
Whereas there are more than 1,100,000 firefighters in the
United States;
Whereas approximately 75 percent of all firefighters in the
United States are volunteers who receive little or no
compensation for their heroic work;
Whereas there are more than 30,000 fire departments in the
United States;
Whereas thousands of firefighters have died in the line of
duty since the date that Benjamin Franklin founded the first
volunteer fire department in 1735;
Whereas 346 firefighters and emergency personnel died while
responding to the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001;
Whereas firefighters respond to more than 20,000,000 calls
during a typical year;
Whereas firefighters also provide emergency medical
services, hazardous materials response, special rescue
response, terrorism response, and life safety education;
Whereas, in 1922, President Harding declared the week of
October 9 to be ``Fire Prevention Week''; and
Whereas the second Tuesday in October is an appropriate day
for the establishment of a ``National Firefighter
Appreciation Day'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate designates Tuesday, October 10,
2006, as ``National Firefighter Appreciation Day'' to honor
and celebrate the firefighters of the United States.
____________________
NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA WEEK
The resolution (S. Res. 597) designating the period beginning on
October 8, 2006, and ending on October 14, 2006, as ``National Hispanic
Media Week'' in honor of the Hispanic media of the United States was
considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 597), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 597
Whereas, for almost 470 years, the United States has
benefitted from the work of Hispanic writers and publishers;
Whereas more than 600 Hispanic publishers circulate more
than 20,000,000 copies of publications every week in the
United States;
Whereas 1 out of every 8 citizens of the United States is
served by a Hispanic publisher;
Whereas the Hispanic press informs many citizens of the
United States about the great political, economic, and social
issues of the day;
Whereas the Hispanic press of the United States
particularly focuses on informing and promoting the well-
being of the Hispanic community of the United States; and
Whereas, by commemorating the achievements of the Hispanic
press, the Senate acknowledges the important role that the
Hispanic press has played in the history of the United
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the period beginning on October 8, 2006, and
ending on October 14, 2006, as ``National Hispanic Media
Week'', in honor of the Hispanic Media of the United States;
and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe
the week with appropriate programs and activities.
____________________
NATIONAL CHARACTER COUNTS WEEK
A resolution (S. Res. 598) designating the week beginning October 15,
2006, as ``National Character Counts Week'' was considered and agreed
to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 598), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 598
Whereas the well-being of the United States requires that
the young people of the United States become an involved,
caring citizenry with good character;
Whereas the character education of children has become more
urgent as violence by and against youth increasingly
threatens the physical and psychological well-being of the
people of the United States;
Whereas more than ever, children need strong and
constructive guidance from their families and their
communities, including schools, youth organizations,
religious institutions, and civic groups;
Whereas the character of a nation is only as strong as the
character of its individual citizens;
Whereas the public good is advanced when young people are
taught the importance of good character and the positive
effects that good character can have in personal
relationships, in school, and in the workplace;
Whereas scholars and educators agree that people do not
automatically develop good character and that, therefore,
conscientious efforts must be made by institutions and
individuals that influence youth to help young people develop
the essential traits and characteristics that comprise good
character;
Whereas, although character development is, first and
foremost, an obligation of families, the efforts of faith
communities, schools, and youth, civic, and human service
organizations also play an important role in fostering and
promoting good character;
Whereas Congress encourages students, teachers, parents,
youth, and community leaders to recognize the importance of
character education in preparing young people to play a role
in determining the future of the United States;
Whereas effective character education is based on core
ethical values, which form the foundation of democratic
society;
Whereas examples of character are trustworthiness, respect,
responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship, and honesty;
Whereas elements of character transcend cultural,
religious, and socioeconomic differences;
Whereas the character and conduct of our youth reflect the
character and conduct of society, and, therefore, every adult
has the responsibility to teach and model ethical values and
every social institution has the responsibility to promote
the development of good character;
Whereas Congress encourages individuals and organizations,
especially those who have an interest in the education and
training of the young people of the United States, to adopt
the elements of character as intrinsic to the well-being of
individuals, communities, and society;
Whereas many schools in the United States recognize the
need, and have taken steps, to integrate the values of their
communities into their teaching activities; and
Whereas the establishment of National Character Counts
Week, during which individuals, families, schools, youth
organizations, religious institutions, civic groups,
[[Page 22248]]
and other organizations would focus on character education,
would be of great benefit to the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning October 15, 2006, as
``National Character Counts Week''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States and
interested groups--
(A) to embrace the elements of character identified by
local schools and communities, such as trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship;
and
(B) to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies,
programs, and activities.
____________________
NATIONAL CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION WEEK
The resolution (S. Res. 599) designating the week of October 23,
2006, through October 27, 2006, as ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Week'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 599), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 599
Whereas lead poisoning is a leading environmental health
hazard to children in the United States;
Whereas according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 310,000 preschool children in the United States
have harmful levels of lead in their blood;
Whereas lead poisoning may cause serious, long-term harm to
children, including reduced intelligence and attention span,
behavior problems, learning disabilities, and impaired
growth;
Whereas children from low-income families are significantly
more likely to be poisoned by lead than are children from
high-income families;
Whereas children may be poisoned by lead in water, soil, or
consumable products;
Whereas children most often are poisoned in their homes
through exposure to lead particles when lead-based paint
deteriorates or is disturbed during home renovation and
repainting; and
Whereas lead poisoning crosses all barriers of race,
income, and geography: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of October 23, 2006, through
October 27, 2006, as ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Week''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe
the week with appropriate programs and activities.
____________________
NATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE DAY
The resolution (S. Res. 600) designating October 12, 2006, as
``National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 600), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 600
Whereas the United States should reduce the dependence of
the Nation on foreign oil and enhance the energy security of
the Nation by creating a transportation sector that is less
dependent on oil;
Whereas the United States should improve the air quality of
the Nation by reducing emissions from the millions of motor
vehicles that operate in the United States;
Whereas the United States should foster national expertise
and technological advancement in cleaner, more energy-
efficient alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles;
Whereas a robust domestic industry for alternative fuels
and alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles will
create jobs and increase the competitiveness of the United
States in the international community;
Whereas the people of the United States need more options
for clean and energy-efficient transportation;
Whereas the mainstream adoption of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles will produce benefits at the
local, national, and international levels;
Whereas consumers and businesses require a better
understanding of the benefits of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles;
Whereas first responders require proper and comprehensive
training to become fully prepared for any precautionary
measures that they may need to take during incidents and
extrications that involve alternative fuel and advanced
technology vehicles;
Whereas the Federal Government can lead the way toward a
cleaner and more efficient transportation sector by choosing
alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles for the
fleets of the Federal Government; and
Whereas Federal support for the adoption of alternative
fuel and advanced technology vehicles can accelerate greater
energy independence for the United States, improve the
environmental security of the Nation, and address global
climate change: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates October 12, 2006, as ``National Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Day'';
(2) proclaims National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day as a
day to promote programs and activities that will lead to the
greater use of cleaner, more efficient transportation that
uses new sources of energy, including--
(A) biofuels;
(B) battery-electric and hybrid-electric power;
(C) natural gas and propane;
(D) hydrogen and fuel cells; and
(E) emerging alternatives to conventional vehicle
technologies; and
(3) urges Americans--
(A) to increase the personal and commercial use of cleaner
and energy-efficient alternative fuel and advanced technology
vehicles;
(B) to promote public sector adoption of cleaner and
energy-efficient alternative fuel and advanced technology
vehicles; and
(C) to encourage the enactment of Federal policies to
reduce the dependence of the United States on foreign oil
through the advancement and adoption of alternative,
advanced, and emerging vehicle and fuel technologies.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUTSTANDING HISPANIC
SCIENTISTS IN THE UNITED STATES
The resolution (S. Res. 601) recognizing the efforts and
contributions of outstanding Hispanic scientists in the United States
was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 601), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 601
Whereas the purpose of the National Hispanic Scientist of
the Year Award is to recognize outstanding Hispanic
scientists in the United States who promote a greater public
understanding of science and motivate Hispanic youth to
develop an interest in science;
Whereas the sixth annual National Hispanic Scientist of the
Year Gala will be held at the Museum of Science & Industry in
Tampa, Florida, on Saturday, October 28, 2006;
Whereas proceeds of the National Hispanic Scientist of the
Year Gala support scholarships for Hispanic boys and girls to
participate in the Museum of Science & Industry's Youth
Enriched by Science Program, known as the ``YES! Team''; and
Whereas a need to acknowledge the work and effort of
outstanding Hispanic scientists in the United States has led
to the selection of Dr. Ines Cifuentes as the honoree of the
sixth annual National Hispanic Scientist of the Year Award,
in recognition of her dedication to training science and
mathematics educators, and her involvement in encouraging
young students to study the earth sciences: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes efforts to educate, support, and provide
hope for the Hispanic community, including efforts to honor
outstanding Hispanic scientists in the United States at the
annual National Hispanic Scientist of the Year Gala and to
organize a ``Meet the Hispanic Scientist Day''; and
(2) congratulates Dr. Ines Cifuentes for being honored as
the National Hispanic Scientist of the Year for 2006 by the
Museum of Science & Industry, in recognition of the
dedication Dr. Cifuentes has shown to training science and
mathematics educators and her involvement in encouraging
young students to study the earth sciences.
____________________
CONTRIBUTIONS OF BYRON NELSON
The resolution (S. Res. 602) memorializing and honoring the
contributions of Byron Nelson was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 602), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 602
Whereas Byron Nelson was born on a cotton farm in Ellis
County, near Waxahachie, Texas, on February 4, 1912;
Whereas Byron Nelson became a caddie and taught himself the
game of golf at Glen Garden Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas
in 1922;
Whereas Byron Nelson became a professional golfer in 1932
and won 54 PGA-sanctioned tournaments;
Whereas Byron Nelson is widely credited as being the father
of the modern swing;
Whereas, in the 1945 professional season, Byron Nelson won
a 1-season record of 18 tournaments and averaged 68.33
strokes;
Whereas, in the 1945 professional season, Byron Nelson won
a record 11 straight tournaments;
Whereas Byron Nelson was the winner of 5 major
championships including the 1937 and 1945 Masters, the 1939
United States Open, and the 1940 and 1945 PGA Championships;
Whereas the Salesmanship Club of Dallas created the EDS
Byron Nelson Championship
[[Page 22249]]
in 1968 and remains the only PGA Tour event named in honor of
a professional golfer;
Whereas the EDS Byron Nelson Championship has raised more
than $94,000,000 for the Salesmanship Club Youth and Family
Centers and has raised more money for charity than any other
PGA Tour event;
Whereas Byron Nelson was elected as an inaugural inductee
into the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1974; and
Whereas Byron Nelson will be remembered for his kindness
and dedication that have won the respect and admiration of
his peers, present-day players, and fans of all ages: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate honors the life and legacy of
Byron Nelson.
____________________
FEED AMERICA DAY
The resolution (S. Res. 603) designating Thursday, November 16, 2006,
as ``Feed America Day'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 603), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 603
Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless
giving and an appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon
which the United States was founded;
Whereas, in 2006, great numbers of citizens of the United
States continue to suffer hunger and other privations; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of
Thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring the fundamental
principles of the society of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates Thursday, November 16, 2006, as ``Feed
America Day''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States--
(A) to sacrifice 2 meals on Thursday, November 16, 2006;
and
(B) to donate to a religious or charitable organization of
their choice the money that they would have spent on food for
that day for the purpose of feeding the hungry.
____________________
MR. BRITT ``MAX'' MAYFIELD
The resolution (S. Res. 604) recognizing the work and accomplishments
of Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield, Director of National Hurricane Center's
Tropical Prediction Center upon his retirement was considered and
agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 604), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 604
Whereas Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield is known as the ``Walter
Cronkite of Weather'', trustworthy, calming, and always
giving the facts straight;
Whereas Mr. Mayfield is a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society and a nationally and internationally
recognized expert on hurricanes, and has presented papers at
national and international scientific meetings, lectured in
training sessions sponsored by the United Nations World
Meteorological Organization, and provided numerous interviews
to electronic and print media worldwide;
Whereas in 2006, Mr. Mayfield received the Government
Communicator of the Year Award from the National Association
of Government Communicators, a national not-for-profit
professional network of government employees who disseminate
information within and outside the government, as well as the
prestigious Neil Frank Award from the National Hurricane
Conference;
Whereas in 2005, Mr. Mayfield received a Presidential Rank
Award for Meritorious Service from President George W. Bush
and was named ABC Television Network's ``Person of the Week''
after Hurricane Katrina;
Whereas in 2004, the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological
Services and Supporting Research presented the Richard
Hagemeyer Award to Mr. Mayfield at the Interdepartmental
Hurricane Conference for his contributions to the hurricane
warning program of the United States;
Whereas also in 2004, the National Academy of Television
Arts and Sciences Suncoast Chapter recognized Mr. Mayfield
with the Governor's Award, more commonly known as an
``Emmy'', for extraordinary contributions to television by an
individual not otherwise eligible for an Emmy;
Whereas in 2000, Mr. Mayfield received an Outstanding
Achievement Award at the National Hurricane Conference and in
1996 the American Meteorological Society honored him with the
Francis W. Reichelderfer Award for exemplary performance as
coordinator of the National Hurricane Center's hurricane
preparedness training for emergency preparedness officials
and the general public;
Whereas Mr. Mayfield and his colleagues have been
recognized by the Department of Commerce with Gold Medals for
work during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Isabel in
2003, and a Silver Medal during Hurricane Gilbert in 1988;
Whereas Mr. Mayfield was also awarded a National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Bronze Medal for creating a
public-private partnership to support the disaster
preparedness of the United States; and
Whereas Mr. Mayfield is the current Chairman of the World
Meteorological Organization Regional Association-IV, which
supports 26 members from Atlantic and eastern Pacific
countries: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) honors Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield's commitment to
improving the accuracy of hurricane forecasting as Director
of the National Hurricane Center's Tropical Prediction
Center;
(2) thanks Mr. Mayfield for his service, which has
undoubtedly helped to save countless lives and the property
of citizens around the world;
(3) commends Mr. Mayfield's dedication to expanding
educational opportunities for State and local emergency
management officials;
(4) acknowledges the critical role that Mr. Mayfield has
played in forecast and service improvements over his 34-year
career;
(5) recognizes the unwavering support of Mr. Mayfield's
family in supporting his career;
(6) wishes Mr. Mayfield continued success in his future
endeavors; and
(7) recognizes the support and work of the staff of the
National Hurricane Center's Tropical Prediction Center during
Mr. Mayfield's tenure as Director of the Center.
____________________
HISPANIC ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
The resolution (S. Res. 608) recognizing the contributions of
Hispanic Serving Institutions and the 20 years of educational endeavors
provided by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities was
considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 608), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 608
Whereas 202 Hispanic Serving Institutions provide a gateway
to higher education for the Hispanic community, enrolling
nearly half of all Hispanic students in college today;
Whereas the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, founded in San Antonio, Texas, has grown from
18 founding colleges and universities, to more than 400
United States colleges and universities, which the
Association recognizes as Hispanic Serving Institutions,
associate members, and partners;
Whereas the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities plays a vital role in advocating for the growth,
development, and infrastructure enhancement of Hispanic
Serving Institutions in order to provide a better and more
complete postsecondary education for Hispanics and other
students who attend these institutions;
Whereas the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities is the only national education association that
represents Hispanic Serving Institutions and advocates on a
national and State level for the educational achievement and
success of Hispanic students in higher education;
Whereas the membership of the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities has extended beyond the borders of
the United States to include over 45 colleges and
universities in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal in order
to expand education, research, and outreach through
international opportunities for faculty, internships,
scholarships, and governmental partnerships for students at
Hispanic Serving Institutions; and
Whereas the 4th week in October 2006 is an appropriate time
to express such recognition during the 20th Anniversary
Conference of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities in San Antonio, Texas: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the national role of the Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities as an advocate and
champion for Hispanic higher education and congratulates the
organization on its 20th Anniversary;
(2) applauds Hispanic Serving Institutions for their work
to provide quality educational opportunities to all Hispanic
and other students who attend their institutions; and
(3) urges university presidents, faculty, staff, and
supporters of Hispanic higher education to continue their
efforts to recruit, retain, educate, and graduate students
who might not otherwise pursue a postsecondary education.
____________________
CHILD AWARENESS WEEK
The resolution (S. Res. 609) honoring the children's charities,
youth-serving
[[Page 22250]]
organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations committed to
enriching and bettering the lives of children and designating the week
of September 24, 2006, as ``Child Awareness Week'' was considered and
agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 609), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 609
Whereas the children and youths of the United States
represent the future of the United States;
Whereas numerous individuals, children's organizations, and
youth-serving organizations that work with children and
youths on a daily basis provide invaluable services that
serve to enrich and better the lives of children and youths;
Whereas by strengthening and supporting children's and
youth-serving charities and other similar nongovernmental
organizations and by encouraging greater collaboration among
these organizations, the lives of many more children may be
enriched and made better;
Whereas heightening people's awareness of and increasing
the support by the United States for children and youth-
serving organizations that provide access to healthcare,
social services, education, the arts, sports, and other
services will help to improve the lives of children and
youths;
Whereas September is a time when parents, families,
teachers, school administrators, and others increase their
focus on preparing children and youths of the United States
for the future as they begin a new school year and it is a
time for the people of the United States as a whole to
highlight and be mindful of the needs of children and youths;
Whereas ``Child Awareness Week'', observed in September,
recognizes the children's charities, youth-serving
organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations across
the United States for the work they do to improve and enrich
the lives of children and youths of the United States; and
Whereas a week-long salute to children and youths is in the
public interest and will encourage support for these
charities and organizations that seek to provide a better
future for the children and youths of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of September 24, 2006, as ``Child
Awareness Week'';
(2) recognizes with great appreciation the children's
charities and youth-serving organizations across the United
States for their efforts on behalf of children and youths;
and
(3) calls on the people of the United States to--
(A) observe the week of September 24, 2006, by focusing on
the needs of the children and youths of the United States;
(B) recognize the efforts of children's charities and
youth-serving organizations to enrich and better the lives of
the children and youths of the United States; and
(C) support the efforts of the children's charities and
youth-serving organizations of the United States as an
investment for the future of the United States.
____________________
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA
The resolution (S. Res. 611) supporting the efforts of the
Independent National Electoral Commission of the Government of Nigeria,
political parties, civil societies, religious organizations, and the
people of Nigeria from one civilian government to another in the
general elections to be held in April 2007 was considered and agreed
to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 611), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 611
Whereas the United States maintains strong and friendly
relations with Nigeria and values the leadership role that
Nigeria plays throughout the continent of Africa,
particularly in the establishment of the New Partnership for
African Development and the African Union;
Whereas Nigeria is an important strategic partner with the
United States in combating terrorism, promoting regional
stability, and improving energy security;
Whereas Nigeria has been, and continues to be, a leading
supporter of the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations
and the Economic Community of West African States by
contributing troops to operations in Lebanon, Yugoslavia,
Kuwait, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, Rwanda, and Sudan;
Whereas past corruption and poor governance have resulted
in weak political institutions, crumbling infrastructure, a
feeble economy, and an impoverished population;
Whereas political aspirants and the democratic process of
Nigeria are being threatened by increasing politically-
motivated violence, including the assassination of 3
gubernatorial candidates in different states during the
previous 2 months; and
Whereas the Chairperson of the Independent National
Electoral Commission has--
(1) announced that governorship and state assembly
elections will be held on April 14, 2007;
(2) stated that voting for the president and national
assembly will take place on April 21, 2007; and
(3) vowed to organize free and fair elections to facilitate
a smooth democratic transition: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the importance of Nigeria as a strategic
partner and long-time friend of the United States;
(2) acknowledges the increasing significance of the
leadership of Nigeria throughout the region and continent;
(3) commends the decision of the National Assembly of
Nigeria to reject an amendment to the constitution that would
have lifted the existing 2-term limit and allowed for a third
presidential term;
(4) encourages the Government of Nigeria and the
Independent National Electoral Commission to demonstrate a
commitment to successful democratic elections by--
(A) developing an aggressive plan for voter registration
and education;
(B) addressing charges of past or intended corruption in a
transparent manner; and
(C) conducting objective and unbiased recruitment and
training of election officials;
(5) urges the Government of Nigeria to respect the freedoms
of association and assembly, including the right of
candidates, members of political parties, and others--
(A) to freely assemble;
(B) to organize and conduct public events; and
(C) to exercise those and other rights in a manner free
from intimidation or harassment;
(6) urges a robust effort by the law enforcement and
judicial officials of Nigeria to enforce the rule of law,
particularly by--
(A) preventing and investigating politically-motivated
violence; and
(B) prosecuting those suspected of such acts;
(7) urges--
(A) President Bush to ensure that the United States
supports the democratic gains made in Nigeria during the last
8 years; and
(B) the Government of Nigeria to actively seek the support
of the international community for democratic, free, and fair
elections in April 2007; and
(8) expresses the support of the United States for
coordinated efforts by the Government of Nigeria and the
Independent National Electoral Commission to work with
political parties, civil society, religious organizations,
and other entities to organize a peaceful political
transition based on free and fair elections in April 2007 to
further consolidate the democracy of Nigeria.
____________________
ESPERANZA INCIDENT FIRE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN OCTOBER 2006
The resolution (S. Res. 614) honoring the firefighters and other
public servants who responded to the devastating Esperanza incident
fire in southern California in October 2006 was considered and agreed
to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 614), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 614
Whereas, in late October 2006, the mountain communities
west of Palm Springs, California were struck by a vast
wildfire, which came to be known as the Esperanza Incident
and which authorities believe was started by an arsonist;
Whereas the Esperanza Incident fire tragically claimed
lives, homes and other buildings, and more than 40,000 acres
of terrain;
Whereas nearly 3,000 firefighters from dozens of fire crews
courageously battled the fast-spreading blaze, which was
fanned by Santa Ana wind gusts up to 60 miles per hour;
Whereas 4 firefighters--Mark Loutzenhiser, Jess McLean,
Jason McKay, and Daniel Hoover-Najera--made the ultimate
sacrifice by giving their lives when flames overtook them as
they tried to protect a home;
Whereas an additional firefighter, Pablo Cerda, joined them
in that sacrifice when he too lost his life, after fighting
to survive for 6 days in a hospital before succumbing to
burns he had received fighting alongside his fallen
colleagues;
Whereas firefighters honored the spirit of their fallen
colleagues by completing the job they started and controlling
the blaze, even while recognizing considerable danger to
their own well-being;
Whereas skilled and courageous aircraft personnel and
additional emergency personnel, including law enforcement and
medical personnel, also responded to the threat posed by the
fire; and
[[Page 22251]]
Whereas law enforcement personnel are aggressively pursuing
the conviction of the arsonist, and generous Californians
have offered additional funds, on top of those offered by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors, to help bring the
arsonist to justice: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes and honors--
(A) all of the firefighters who responded to the
devastating Esperanza Incident fire in southern California in
October 2006; and
(B) all others, including emergency, law enforcement, and
medical personnel and aircraft crews, who contributed to
controlling the fire, keeping Californians safe, and finding
and arresting the suspected arsonist; and
(2) commends the firefighters and other personnel who
responded to the fire for dedicated service to the people of
California.
____________________
ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY, INCORPORATED
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 384) recognizing and honoring
the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Alpha Phi Alpha
Fraternity, Incorporated, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter
fraternity established for African Americans, was considered and agreed
to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT
PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN THE ABILITY OF
FARMERS AND RANCHERS TO JOIN TOGETHER IN COOPERATIVE SELF-HELP EFFORTS
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 119) expressing the sense of
the Congress that public policy should continue to protect and
strengthen the ability of farmers and ranchers to join together in
cooperative self-help efforts was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 119), with its preamble,
reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 119
Whereas the ability of farmers and ranchers in the United
States to join together in cooperative self-help efforts is
vital to their continued economic viability;
Whereas Federal laws have long recognized the importance of
protecting and strengthening the ability of farmers and
ranchers to join together in cooperative self-help efforts,
including to cooperatively market their products, ensure
access to competitive markets, and help achieve other
important public policy goals;
Whereas farmer- and rancher-owned cooperatives play an
important role in helping farmers and ranchers improve their
income from the marketplace, manage their risk, meet their
credit and other input needs, and compete more effectively in
a rapidly changing global economy;
Whereas farmer- and rancher-owned cooperatives also play an
important role in providing consumers in the United States
and abroad with a dependable supply of safe, affordable,
high-quality food, fiber, and related products;
Whereas farmer- and rancher-owned cooperatives also help
meet the energy needs of the United States, including through
the production and marketing of renewable fuels such as
ethanol and biodiesel;
Whereas there are nearly 3,000 farmer- and rancher-owned
cooperatives located throughout the United States with a
combined membership representing a majority of the nearly 2
million farmers and ranchers in the United States; and
Whereas farmer- and rancher-owned cooperatives also
contribute significantly to the economic well being of rural
America as well as the overall economy, including accounting
for as many as 250,000 jobs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the Sense of the Congress that public
policy should continue to protect and strengthen the ability
of farmers and ranchers to join together in cooperative self-
help efforts--
(1) to improve their income from the marketplace and their
economic well-being;
(2) to capitalize on new market opportunities; and
(3) to help meet the food and fiber needs of consumers,
provide for increased energy production, promote rural
development, maintain and create needed jobs, and contribute
to a growing United States economy.
____________________
ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT OF 1997
The resolution (S. Res. 547) recognizing and supporting the successes
of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 in increasing adoption,
observing the efforts that the act has spurred, including National
Adoption Day and National Adoption Month, and encouraging citizens of
the United States to consider adoption throughout the year was
considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 547), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 547
Whereas, since the passage of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1305 note; Public Law 105-
89), the number of children adopted from the foster care
system has increased significantly, with approximately 51,000
children adopted from the foster care system in fiscal year
2004 alone;
Whereas, despite that remarkable progress, approximately
118,000 children in the foster care system of the United
States are waiting to be adopted, and 49 percent of those
children are at least 9 years old;
Whereas adoptive families make an important difference in
the lives of the children they adopt by providing a stable,
nurturing environment for those children;
Whereas National Adoption Day is a collective national
effort to find permanent, loving families for children in the
foster care system;
Whereas both National Adoption Day and National Adoption
Month occur in November;
Whereas, in 2002, the Department of Health and Human
Services launched a series of public service announcements
promoting the adoption of children aged 8 and older;
Whereas more than 6,000 children have been placed into
adoptive homes since the Department of Health and Human
Services launched www.adoptuskids.org. a national photo
listing service for children awaiting adoption across the
United States;
Whereas, in 2005, judges, attorneys, adoption
professionals, child welfare agencies, and child advocates in
45 States and the District of Columbia participated in 227
events in conjunction with National Adoption Day; and
Whereas those events finalized the adoptions of more than
3,300 children from the foster care system: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes and supports--
(A) the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1305 note; Public Law 105-89) and the efforts
that the Act has spurred; and
(B) the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day and
National Adoption Month; and
(2) encourages the citizens of the United States to
consider adoption throughout the year.
____________________
ACKNOWLEDGING AFRICAN DESCENDANTS OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 175) acknowledging African
descendants of the transatlantic slave trade in all of the Americas
with an emphasis on descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean,
recognizing the injustices suffered by these African descendants, and
recommending the United States and the international community work to
improve the situation of Afro-descendant communities in Latin America
and the Caribbean was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
____________________
CONDEMNING THE REPRESSION OF THE IRANIAN BAHA'I COMMUNITY
The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution (S. Con.
Res. 101) condemning the repression of the Iranian Baha'i community and
calling for the emancipation of Iranian Baha'is.
The amendment (No. 5193) was agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 5193
On page 3, lines 3 and 4, strike ``Universal Declaration of
Human Rights'' and insert ``International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights''.
The concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 101), as amended, with its
preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 101
Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and
2000, Congress, by concurrent resolution, declared that it
deplores the religious persecution by the Government of Iran
of the Baha'i community and holds the Government of Iran
responsible for upholding the rights of all Iranian
nationals, including members of the Baha'i Faith;
Whereas on March 20, 2006, the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ms. Asma
Jahangir, revealed the existence of a confidential letter
dated October 29, 2005, from the Chairman of the Command
Headquarters of Iran's Armed Forces to the Ministry of
Information, the
[[Page 22252]]
Revolutionary Guard, and the Police Force, stating that the
Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, had instructed the
Command Headquarters to identify members of the Baha'i Faith
in Iran and monitor their activities;
Whereas the United Nations Special Rapporteur expressed
``grave concern and apprehension'' about the implications of
this letter for the safety of the Baha'i community;
Whereas in 2005 the Iranian Government initiated a new wave
of assaults, homes raids, harassment, and detentions against
Baha'is, and in December 2005, Mr. Zabihullah Mahrami died
after 10 years of imprisonment on charges of apostasy due to
his membership in the Baha'i Faith; and
Whereas beginning in October 2005, an anti-Baha'i campaign
has been conducted in the state-sponsored Kayhan newspaper
and in broadcast media: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Government of Iran for the October 29,
2005 letter, calls on the Government of Iran to immediately
cease such activities and all activities aimed at the
repression of the Iranian Baha'i community, and continues to
hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding all the
rights of its nationals, including members of the Baha'i
community; and
(2) requests the President to--
(A) call for the Government of Iran to emancipate the
Baha'i community by granting those rights guaranteed by the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
other international covenants on human rights;
(B) emphasize that the United States regards the human
rights practices of the Government of Iran, including its
treatment of the Baha'i community and other religious
minorities, as a significant factor in the foreign policy of
the United States Government regarding Iran; and
(C) initiate an active and consistent dialogue with other
governments and the European Union in order to persuade the
Government of Iran to rectify its human rights practices.
____________________
DRIVE SAFER SUNDAY
The resolution (S. Res. 618) designating November 26, 2006, as
``Drive Safer Sunday'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 618), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 618
Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of
transportation in the United States;
Whereas everyone on the roads and highways needs to drive
more safely to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from
motor vehicle accidents;
Whereas the death of almost 43,000 people a year in more
than 6 million highway crashes in the United States has been
called an epidemic by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta;
Whereas according to the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, wearing a seat belt saved 15,434 lives
in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005; and
Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest
highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) encourages--
(A) high schools, colleges, universities, administrators,
teachers, primary schools, and secondary schools to launch
campus-wide educational campaigns to urge students to be
careful about safety when driving;
(B) national trucking firms to alert their drivers to be
especially focused on driving safely during the heaviest
traffic day of the year, and to publicize the importance of
the day using Citizen's band (CB) radios and in truck stops
across the Nation;
(C) clergy to remind their members to travel safely when
attending services and gatherings;
(D) law enforcement personnel to remind drivers and
passengers to drive particularly safely on the Sunday after
Thanksgiving; and
(E) everyone to use the Sunday after Thanksgiving as an
opportunity to educate themselves about highway safety; and
(2) designates November 26, 2006, as ``Drive Safer
Sunday''.
____________________
SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE
The resolution (S. Res. 619) expressing the sense of the Senate that
Senator Paul Wellstone should be remembered for his compassion and
leadership on social issues and that Congress should act to end
discrimination against citizens of the United States who live with
mental illness by making legislation relating to mental health parity a
priority for the 110th Congress was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 619), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 619
Whereas Paul Wellstone served with distinction as a Senator
from the State of Minnesota;
Whereas, for more than 20 years, Paul Wellstone inspired
the students of Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota;
Whereas Paul Wellstone was a loving father and husband, a
loyal citizen of the United States, and a compassionate
person;
Whereas Paul Wellstone dedicated his life to bringing equal
access to education, economic opportunity, and comprehensive
healthcare to all citizens of the United States;
Whereas Paul Wellstone worked tirelessly to advance mental
health parity for all citizens of the United States;
Whereas more than 44,000,000 citizens of the United States
suffer from some form of a mental health-related condition;
Whereas only \1/3\ of those citizens seek or receive
treatment for their mental health-related condition;
Whereas 34 States have enacted laws that require some form
of access to mental health treatments that is similar to
physical health coverage; and
Whereas the tragic and premature death of Paul Wellstone on
October 25, 2002, silenced 1 of the leading voices of the
Senate who spoke on behalf of the citizens of the United
States who live with a mental illness: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) on the fourth anniversary of his passing, Senator Paul
Wellstone should be remembered for his compassion and
leadership on social issues throughout his career; and
(2) Congress should act to end discrimination against
citizens of the United States who live with a mental illness
by enacting legislation to provide for coverage of mental
health benefits with respect to health insurance coverage.
____________________
NATIONAL LUNG CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
The resolution (S. Res. 620) designating November 2006 as ``National
Lung Cancer Awareness Month'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 620), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 620
Whereas lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of both
men and women, accounting for nearly 1 in every 3 cancer
deaths in the United States;
Whereas lung cancer claims the lives of more people each
year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, and kidney cancers
combined;
Whereas the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
(SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute estimates
that, in 2006, 174,470 new lung cancer cases will be
diagnosed and 162,460 individuals will die of lung cancer in
the United States;
Whereas both incidence and mortality rates for lung cancer
are significantly higher in black males than in the general
population of the United States;
Whereas smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in
the United States;
Whereas the best way to decrease the number of diagnoses
and deaths per year from lung cancer is to encourage people
in the United States to quit smoking;
Whereas a former smoker's risk of lung cancer does not
decrease significantly until 20 years after the individual
quit smoking;
Whereas the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program
has demonstrated in a 14-year study with 31,567 participants
that computer tomography scans can detect lung cancer in
Stage I when the cancer can be more easily treated and cured,
giving individuals who are diagnosed early a 10-year survival
rate of 88 percent;
Whereas there is a need to increase public awareness of
statistics, risk factors, and the importance of early
diagnosis;
Whereas individuals with cancers that are routinely
diagnosed at early stages through screening, such as breast
cancer and prostate cancer, have high survival rates of 88
percent and 99 percent, respectively;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for lung cancer in the
United States is still only 15 percent, a rate virtually
unchanged since the enactment of the National Cancer Act of
1971; and
Whereas designating November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month'', as proposed by the Lung Cancer Alliance
and the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia, will increase public
awareness about lung cancer and the need for lung cancer
research and early detection: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates November 2006 as ``National Lung Cancer
Awareness Month''; and
(2) reaffirms the Senate's commitment to--
(A) advancing lung cancer research and early detection, and
particularly the Lung Cancer Alliance of Georgia's goal of
significantly increasing the 5-year survival rate of
individuals diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States
to 50 percent within 10 years; and
[[Page 22253]]
(B) working with all Federal agencies involved in cancer
research to develop a coordinated roadmap for accomplishing
that goal.
____________________
NATIONAL TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AWARENESS AND PREVENTION WEEK
The resolution (S. Res. 621) designating the week of February 5
through February 9, 2007, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness
and Prevention Week'' was considered and agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 621), with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 621
Whereas 1 in 3 female teens in a dating relationship have
feared for their physical safety;
Whereas 1 in 2 teens in serious relationships have
compromised their beliefs to please their partner;
Whereas nearly 1 in 5 teens who have been in a serious
relationship said their boyfriend or girlfriend would
threaten to hurt themselves or their partner if there was a
breakup;
Whereas 1 in 5 teens in a serious relationship report they
have been hit, slapped, or pushed by a partner;
Whereas more than 1 in 4 teens have been in a relationship
where their partner verbally abuses them;
Whereas 13 percent of Hispanic teens reported that hitting
a partner was permissible;
Whereas 29 percent of girls who have been in a relationship
said they have been pressured to have sex or engage in sex
they did not want;
Whereas nearly 50 percent of girls worry that their partner
would break up with them if they did not agree to engage in
sex;
Whereas Native American women experience higher rates of
interpersonal violence than any other population group;
Whereas violent relationships in adolescence can have
serious ramifications for victims who are at higher risk for
substance abuse, eating disorders, risky sexual behavior,
suicide, and adult revictimization;
Whereas the severity of violence among intimate partners
has been shown to increase if the pattern has been
established in adolescence;
Whereas 81 percent of parents surveyed either believe
dating violence is not an issue or admit they do not know if
it is an issue; and
Whereas the establishment of the National Teen Dating
Violence Awareness and Prevention Week will benefit schools,
communities, and families regardless of socio-economic
status, race, or sex: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of February 5 through February 9,
2007, as ``National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and
Prevention Week''; and
(2) calls upon the people of the United States, high
schools, law enforcement, State and local officials, and
interested groups, to observe National Teen Dating Violence
Awareness and Prevention Week with appropriate programs and
activities that promote awareness and prevention of the crime
of teen dating violence in their communities.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 496, which was received
from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 496) providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related
to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 496) was agreed to, as
follows:
H. Con. Res. 496
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Wednesday, November 15, 2006, Thursday, November 16,
2006, or Friday, November 17, 2006, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday,
December 5, 2006, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or
adjourns on Thursday, November 16, 2006, or Friday, November
17, 2006, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, December 4, 2006,
or Tuesday, December 5, 2006, as may be specified by its
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or
adjourn, or such other time on that day as may be specified
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to
recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
____________________
SIGNING AUTHORIZATION
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the
Senate, the majority leader and both Senators from Virginia be
authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
APPOINTMENTS AUTHORIZATION
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the upcoming
recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the
President pro tempore, and majority and minority leaders be authorized
to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences,
or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent
action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 903, 977, 996,
997, 998, 999, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; further,
that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from consideration
of the following nominations and the Senate proceed to their immediate
consideration, all en bloc: Ronald Spogli, PN2064; Craig Roberts
Stapleton, PN2063; Kay Kelley Arnold, PN2046; Gary C. Bryner, PN2047;
Thomas Joseph Dodd, PN2048; Adolfo A. Franco, PN183; John P. Salazar,
PN2050; Thomas A. Shannon, PN2051; Roger Wallace, PN1305; Jack Vaughn,
PN96; Jack Vaughn, PN2052.
I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc,
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return
to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
federal communications commission
Kevin J. Martin, of North Carolina to be a Member of the
Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years
from July 1, 2006.
in the navy
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Ann E. Rondeau, 0000
in the army
The following named officer for appointment in the Reserve
of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. James B. Mallory, III, 0000
in the navy
The following named officer for appointment as Vice Chief
of Naval Operations, United States Navy and appointment to
the
[[Page 22254]]
grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and
5035:
To be admiral
Vice Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Thomas J. Kilcline, Jr., 0000
Department of justice
Stephen Thomas Conboy, of Virginia, to be United States
Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
for the term of four years, vice Todd Walther Dillard.
Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk
in the air force
PN2087 AIR FORCE nomination of Thomas C. Hankins, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 28, 2006.
PN2098 AIR FORCE nominations (15) beginning Jeffery C.
Carstens, and ending MARCIA WHEELER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 29, 2006.
in the army
PN2099 ARMY nominations (6) beginning ROBERT E. SUTER, and
ending DAWN HAROLD, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
29, 2006.
PN2100 ARMY nomination of John M. Cotten, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 29, 2006.
PN2101 ARMY nominations (2) beginning LAUREEN A. OTTO, and
ending DEE A. PAOLI, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of September
29, 2006.
PN2102 ARMY nominations (2) beginning STEVEN F. WILLIAMS,
and ending JESSICA N. STANTON, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of September 29, 2006.
PN2103 ARMY nomination of Lee A. Knox, which was received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
September 29, 2006.
Jack Vaughn, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2006.
Adolfo A. Franco, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2008, to which position he was
appointed during the recess of the Senate from January 6,
2005, to January 20, 2005.
Roger W. Wallace, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring October 6, 2008, to which position he was appointed
during the last recess of the Senate.
Kay Kelley Arnold, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring October 6, 2010. (Reappointment).
Gary C. Bryner, of Utah, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring June 26, 2008.
Thomas Joseph Dodd, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American
Foundation for a term expiring June 26, 2008.
John P. Salazar, of New Mexico, to be a Member of the Board
of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2012.
Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be a
Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American
Foundation for a term expiring September 20, 2012.
Jack Vaughn, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Inter-American Foundation for a term
expiring September 20, 2012. (Reappointment).
Craig Roberts Stapleton, of Connecticut, to serve
concurrently and without additional compensation as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to Monaco.
Ronald Spogli, of California, to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Republic of San Marino.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
return to legislative session.
____________________
MEASURES REPORTED
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the
immediate en bloc consideration of the following bills reported out of
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Calendar Nos. 546, 557,
558, and 643, and that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3817 and H.R. 2383, and
the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments
be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF A LICENSE FOR A CERTAIN FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2028) to provide for
the reinstatement of a license for a certain Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission project, which had been reported from the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, with an amendment, as follows:
(The part of the bill intended to be stricken is shown in boldface
brackets and the part of the bill intended to be inserted is shown in
italics.)
S. 2028
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE FOR FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to project numbered 7307 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, the Commission shall, on the
request of the licensee for the project, in accordance with
that section (including the good faith, due diligence, and
public interest requirements of that section and procedures
established under that section), extend the time required for
commencement of construction of the project until December
31, 2007.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to the
project on the expiration of any extension, issued by the
Commission under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 806), of the time required for commencement of
construction of the project.
[(c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If a license of the
Commission for the project expires before the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
[(1) reinstate the license effective as of the date of the
expiration of the license; and]
(c) Reinstatement of Terminated License.--If a license of
the Commission for the project has been terminated before the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
(1) reinstate the license effective as of the date of the
termination of the license; and
(2) extend the time required for commencement of
construction of the project until December 31, 2007.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill, (S. 2028), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, was read the third time; and passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC CONFINEMENT SITES WHERE
JAPANESE AMERICANS WERE DETAINED DURING WORLD WAR II, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 1492) to provide for
the preservation of the historic confinement sites where Japanese
Americans were detained during World War II, and for other purposes,
which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with amendments, as follows:
(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in
italics.)
H.R. 1492
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC CONFINEMENT SITES.
(a) Preservation Program.--The Secretary shall create a
program within the National Park Service to encourage,
support, recognize, and work in partnership with citizens,
Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, other
public entities, educational institutions, and private
nonprofit organizations for the purpose of identifying,
[[Page 22255]]
researching, evaluating, interpreting, protecting, restoring,
repairing, and acquiring historic confinement sites in order
that present and future generations may learn and gain
inspiration from these sites and that these sites will
demonstrate the Nation's commitment to equal justice under
the law.
[(b) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Japanese American National Heritage Coalition, shall make
grants to State, local, and tribal governments, other public
entities, educational institutions, and private nonprofit
organizations to assist in carrying out subsection (a).]
(b) Grants.--
(1) Criteria.--The Secretary, after consultation with
State, local, and tribal governments, other public entities,
educational institutions, and private nonprofit organizations
(including organizations involved in the preservation of
historic confinement sites), shall develop criteria for
making grants under paragraph (2) to assist in carrying out
subsection (a).
(2) Provision of grants.--Not later than 180 days after the
date on which funds are made available to carry out this Act,
the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, make grants to the entities described in
paragraph (1) only in accordance with the criteria developed
under that paragraph.
(c) Property Acquisition.--
(1) Authority.--Federal funds made available under this
section may be used to acquire non-Federal property for the
purposes of this section, in accordance with section 3, only
if that property is within the areas described in paragraph
(2).
(2) Property descriptions.--The property referred to in
paragraph (2) is the following:
(A) Jerome, depicted in Figure 7.1 of the Site Document.
(B) Rohwer, depicted in Figure 11.2 of the Site Document.
(C) Topaz, depicted in Figure 12.2 of the Site Document.
(D) Honouliuli, located on the southern part of the Island
of Oahu, Hawaii, and within the land area bounded by H1 to
the south, Route 750 (Kunia Road) to the east, the Honouliuli
Forest Reserve to the west, and Kunia town and Schofield
Barracks to the north.
(3) No effect on private property.--The authority granted
in this subsection shall not constitute a Federal designation
or have any effect on private property ownership.
(d) Matching Fund Requirement.--The Secretary shall require
a [25 percent] 50 percent non-Federal match for funds
provided under this section.
(e) Sunset of Authority.--This Act shall have no force or
effect on and after the date that is 2 years after the
disbursement to grantees under this section of the total
amount of funds authorized to be appropriated under section
4.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act the following definitions apply:
(1) Historic Confinement Sites.--(A) The term ``historic
confinement sites'' means the 10 internment camp sites
referred to as Gila River, Granada, Heart Mountain, Jerome,
Manzanar, Minidoka, Poston, Rohwer, Topaz, and Tule Lake and
depicted in Figures 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.4, 9.2, 10.6, 11.2,
12.2, and 13.2, respectively, of the Site Document; and
(B) other historically significant locations, as determined
by the Secretary, where Japanese Americans were detained
during World War II.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Site document.--The term ``Site Document'' means the
document titled ``Confinement and Ethnicity: An Overview of
World War II Japanese American Relocation Sites'', published
by the Western Archeological and Conservation Center,
National Park Service, in 1999.
SEC. 3. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION.
No Federal funds made available to carry out this Act may
be used to acquire any real property or any interest in any
real property without the written consent of the owner or
owners of that property or interest in property.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$38,000,000 to carry out this Act. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
The committee amendments were agreed to.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 1492), as amended, was read the third time, and
passed.
____________________
REVISIONS TO PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM IRRIGATION DISTRICTS
REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
The bill (H.R. 4000) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
revise certain repayment contracts with the Bostwick Irrigation
District in Nebraska, the Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District No. 2,
the Frenchman-Cambridge Irrigation District, and the Webster Irrigation
District No. 4, all a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program,
and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to a third reading,
read the third time, and passed.
____________________
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
The bill (H.R. 4377), to extend the time required for construction of
a hydroelectric project, and for other purposes, was considered,
ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
VALLE VIDAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
The bill (H.R. 3817) to withdraw the Valle Vidal Unit of the Carson
National Forest in New Mexico from location, entry, and patent under
the mining laws, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
C.W. ``BILL'' JONES PUMPING PLANT
The bill (H.R. 2383) to redesignate the facility of the Bureau of
Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California, as the
``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping Plant'', was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.
____________________
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006, AND TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment under the
provisions of H. Con. Res. 496 until 10 a.m. on Monday, December 4. I
further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning
hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date,
and the Senate then automatically adjourn over until 12 noon on
Tuesday, December 5; provided further that following the prayer and
pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings
be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the
Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 2 p.m., with
Senator DeWine to speak for up to 2 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I congratulate Chairman Lugar and Senator
Biden for outstanding work on the United States-India cooperative
agreement legislation, which passed tonight by a vote of 85 to 12. I
also appreciate the assistance of all Members who were willing to defer
amendments and allow us to finish the bill this evening.
We will return for business after the Thanksgiving holiday. The
continuing resolution will expire at the end of that week, as of
December 8, and therefore we will need to work toward a conclusion on
the appropriations process. As I announced earlier, our next vote will
occur on Tuesday, December 5, around 5 p.m.
I wish all of my colleagues a safe and pleasant Thanksgiving holiday.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2006, AT 10 A.M.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 496.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:01 p.m., adjourned until
Monday, December 4, 2006, at 10 a.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate Thursday, November 16,
2006:
federal communications commission
KEVIN J. MARTIN, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS
FOM JULY 1, 2006.
department of justice
STEPHEN THOMAS CONBOY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FOR THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS.
[[Page 22256]]
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
department of state
CRAIG ROBERTS STAPLETON, OF CONNECTICUT, TO SERVE
CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO MONACO.
RONALD SPOGLI, OF CALIFORNIA, TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY
AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE
REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO.
inter-american foundation
JACK VAUGHN, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2006.
ADOLFO A. FRANCO, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2008, TO WHICH POSITION HE WAS
APPOINTED DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE FROM JANUARY 6,
2005, TO JANUARY 20, 2005.
ROGER W. WALLACE, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2008, TO WHICH POSITION HE WAS APPOINTED
DURING THE LAST RECESS OF THE SENATE.
KAY KELLEY ARNOLD, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2010. (REAPPOINTMENT).
GARY C. BRYNER, OF UTAH, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN KUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING
JUNE 26, 2008.
THOMAS JOSEPH DODD, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN
FOUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 26, 2008.
JOHN P. SALAZAR, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2012.
THOMAS A. SHANNON, JR., OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN
FOUNDATION FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2012.
JACK VAUGHN, OF TEXAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 20, 2012. (REAPPOINTMENT).
in the navy
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
Vice Adm. Ann E. Rondeau
in the army
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. James B. Mallory III
in the navy
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS VICE CHIEF
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES NAVY AND APPOINTMENT TO
THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A POSITION OF
IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTIONS 601 AND 5035:
To be admiral
Vice Adm. Patrick M. Walsh
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be Vice admiral
Rear Adm. Thomas J. Kilcline, Jr.
in the air force
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF THOMAS C. HANKINS TO BE COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JEFFERY C. CARSTENS
AND ENDING WITH MARCIA WHEELER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006.
in the army
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERT E. SUTER AND ENDING
WITH DAWN HAROLD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON SEPTEMBER
29, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATION OF JOHN M. COTTEN TO BE LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LAUREEN A. OTTO AND ENDING
WITH DEE A. PAOLI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON SEPTEMBER
29, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEVEN F. WILLIAMS AND
ENDING WITH JESSICA N. STANTON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATION OF LEE A. KNOX TO BE MAJOR.