Honor Our Commitment to Veterans Act

If the Senator will yield for a quick question?

I wanted to ask the distinguished Senator, earlier before he was able to come to the floor, there was a unanimous consent request offered with regard to the ALS registry, and I, on his behalf, lodged an objection, although I have no personal objection. I just want to ask the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma if it is his understanding it was on his behalf?

Mr. President, I understand why we find ourselves in this terrible posture today and why some people are calling this Congress the broken Congress, the dysfunctional Congress. If you look at the chart that was alluded to a moment ago about the last 31 days of the Senate, we have had 15 days of the last 31 days actually in session. We have had 10 rollcall votes. We have had 10 rollcall votes in the last 31 days. As a matter of fact, we should be having rollcall votes now on the farm bill, which is the bill I thought was before the Senate. But, instead, our colleagues from the other side of the aisle decided to put on this show for the American people to try to portray themselves as passing legislation, although they knew it could not be done in the manner in which they proposed--while we should be passing the farm bill.

Let me talk for a moment about the opportunities that they have squandered by their mismanagement of the calendar over this last year. I asked the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, if he would agree to a unanimous consent request, and also the majority leader, to help fund our troops who are in harm's way during a time of war. They objected to that.

As a matter of fact, Republicans attempted to call up the Veterans appropriations bill before the Veterans Day holiday, and the Democrats objected to bringing up that bill. Just to be clear, this is the appropriations bill that funds veterans affairs and military construction and is important not only to keeping our commitments to our veterans but to maintaining a decent quality of life for the families who are left behind while their loved one is in harm's way in Iraq or Afghanistan and other dangerous places across the world.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked that appropriations bill like they blocked the emergency funding for the troops that is needed in order to avoid the 100,000 notices to civilian employees of the Department of Defense that they are going to be laid off. They are going to get those notices before Christmas that they are going to be laid off by mid-February unless Congress does the job it should have done a long time ago. That is not even to mention--which I will mention--the funding necessary for the Department of Defense to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida and other foreign fighters, Islamic extremists who are trying to kill American

soldiers and who, if given an opportunity to reorganize themselves in Iraq, would use that as another launching pad to carry out murderous attacks against Americans and our allies.

Just to be clear, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, asked me about a meeting where the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State were present. I explained, as I have just explained here today, what the situation would be like if we failed to act, and as a result of their objection, we are not acting on a timely basis.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Republican leader that is dated December 7, 2007, signed by Gordon England to the Honorable Mitch McConnell.

Mr. President, as the letter makes clear, while the Department of Defense has the ability to fund the troops in the field until mid-February--around March for the Marine Corps--this comes at great expense to those in the Department of Defense, both in and out of uniform. The only reason the Department of Defense can basically rob Peter to pay Paul in terms of paying its bills is because other activities will not be funded, to include training, repair of equipment, and salaries. This letter makes clear that under the current law, furlough notices must soon be issued, potentially right around the time Christmas hits.

This is not any way to run the business of our Nation. Unfortunately, because of the way our colleagues have led the Senate, we have squandered a tremendous opportunity to solve the problems the American people sent us here to solve.

We have had 66 votes on cloture motions--in other words, efforts to force legislation down the throat of the minority without an opportunity for debate or amendment. That is a guaranteed recipe for failure. As everyone in this body knows, under the rules of the Senate, neither the majority nor the minority can have their own way without bipartisan cooperation. That is the way to get things done. But, rather than get things done for the American people, what we have seen is a ``my way or the highway'' approach on the part of the leadership on the other side of the aisle. That is the reason we have had 63 votes, 63 votes so far this session, on the war in Iraq, with various attempts on the other side of the aisle either to attach strings to that money or to impose arbitrary deadlines on our commanders in the field or what I would submit is basically to insist on surrender dates.

These are the same folks who called the surge a failure before it even started. They have said they supported the troops but yet, when it comes time to show their support by making sure they have the funding for the equipment and the training, to pay salaries, and to maintain a decent quality of life for their loved ones who are left behind, instead of acting on that stated support for the troops, have failed to act.

I know the other side of the aisle has given us a copy of various unanimous consent requests to give us fair notice of their intention to ask for unanimous consent, and we have done the same.

On behalf of this side of the aisle, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2363, which is funding for military construction and veterans affairs.

I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am disappointed to hear the objection. This is the same Veterans appropriations bill and Military Construction bill that was passed this summer by the Senate and this summer as well by the House. Why is it that it has been delayed all this time? This is funding for the very veterans who have sacrificed so much and given so much in the service to this country who are being told: No, we are going to hold that money back because essentially you are part of our political plans to put together a huge Omnibus appropriations at the end of the year and try to force the President and the minority to accept bloated Washington spending, when, in fact, there is no objection to passage of that Veterans bill or Military Construction bill, and it should be passed today by unanimous consent without further delay.

Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent request I would like to offer. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3997, a bill to provide tax relief for our troops. I further ask that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. 2340 and provides for full funding of our troops, emergency funding for our troops, be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. President, I regret the obstruction on the part of the majority. This provision, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief Act, would ensure that our military members are treated fairly under our own tax laws. It would make clear that combat pay can be treated as income for purposes of qualifying for the earned-income tax credit. It would also make improvements to the rules for mortgage bonds for veterans, clarify rules regarding survivor and disability payments, and continue to provide pay and benefits to National Guard and Reserve members called to Active Duty. I have already mentioned the component of it that would provide full funding on an emergency basis to our troops who are currently fighting and, unfortunately, some being wounded and dying in service to their country and protection of our freedoms, which has now been objected to once again.

I will finish my remarks for this period where I started and say that we have squandered our opportunities to govern. The only way you can govern

in the Congress is by building a governing coalition, Democrats working with Republicans to try to solve the Nation's problems. When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throat of the other side, it does not work, and exhibit A is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.

I see why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are getting nervous, why their desperation to pass legislation is beginning to show, because they realize they had the opportunity to lead, they realize they had the opportunity to govern, but they have squandered that opportunity. So now, in the last week and a half before the Christmas recess, they are out here trying to act as if the minority has obstructed them, when, in fact, if they had only met us halfway and worked with us to solve some of the big issues that confront our country in a bipartisan and constructive way, we would have met them halfway and we would have solved many of those problems.

I will.

The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. My recollection is only 1 out of the 12 appropriations bills has actually been signed by the President, and that was after the fiscal year ended, meaning that essentially Congress is doing what no business, what no family could get away with; that is, basically to pay the bills on a timely basis. So it is another example of this broken Congress and squandered opportunity to work together to do our basic duty.

Unfortunately, I think what we have seen now is an unfortunate game being played out where, rather than pass those bills on an individual basis, there is going to be an attempt to roll them into a giant Omnibus appropriations bill, which someone observed the other day is Latin for ``hold on to your wallet.'' The President has insisted that he is going to hold the line, as he well should, on wasteful Washington spending which would require tax increases on the American people at a time when the economy is entering into a flat period. It is exactly the wrong time--if there is ever a right time--to raise taxes.

I would.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely correct.

I would further say in response to his question, you know there is a marked contrast to the tone that was set at the very beginning of this Congress with the new majority in charge. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who was on the floor earlier, said:

I think the people across America said to us in this last

election, we want you to compromise, we want you to find

solutions, we do not want you to play to a draw with nothing

to show for it.

Well, that is in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2007. I agreed with that statement then. But, as I say, it stands in marked contrast to what we have seem demonstrated this last year.

The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, who was on the floor earlier, on that same date said:

All too often we in Washington get lost in the world of

Washington, the focus on getting something done, something

done for the American people gets lost.

Well, I wish they had heeded their own advice because what we have to show for this last year is very little, indeed. Failing to take care of our most basic responsibilities, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, to fund the Government on a timely basis--the fact is, we find ourselves in a terrible position now, with just a few days remaining until the Christmas break to get that work done.

Mr. President, I agree again with the statement made and respond in the affirmative to the question propounded by the Senator from New Hampshire. This Congress has spent 11 months holding Iraq political votes that have had no chance of becoming law.

We have had 63 votes thus far this session. In the meantime, while the majority has been fiddling, the business of the American people has not been done. I think about the issues besides those of national security that cry out for solutions, things such as border security and immigration reform. Couldn't we have used some of this time more constructively to solve one of the biggest domestic issues confronting the country today? How about energy policy? We have an energy bill that raises taxes on domestic producers and encourages our dependence on foreign oil, when we could have worked together to pass an energy policy that would have prepared us for the future. We have not done that. Health care, which is a tremendous concern of my constituents in Texas and elsewhere, we could have acted to deal with the health care access cost and quality crisis in this country, but we have not.

I know there are other colleagues who wish to speak.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. President, in a moment I am going to yield and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso, for up to 10 minutes.

To be clear, we have had objections from the majority, from our Democratic friends, to legislation that is vitally important to our veterans and to our active-duty military: the Veterans' Administration and military construction funding bill that was passed by both Houses of the Congress last summer and which has been held up and held hostage to the political games here in Washington, as well as the emergency troop funding that is needed to fund ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which we have discussed as well. This is a personal issue, as 1.7 million veterans live in my State in Texas. We have 15 major military bases where military families live and work. One out of every 10 active-duty military members who wears the uniform of the United States calls Texas home, and we have guards and reservists who are also serving valiantly in Iraq and elsewhere.

The bill which has been blocked by the majority would provide $20 billion in military construction funds important for our troops and quality of life for our military families, and it is important to my State of Texas because of our support for the troops and military families. It contains almost $90 billion for our veterans, which includes their health care, upgrading facilities, money to hire additional claims processors so veterans don't have to wait so long to get the benefits to which they are entitled. As I said, there are about 1.7 million veterans in Texas and they need these funds, and they shouldn't be held hostage to the political games here in Washington with regard to an omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be evenly split between the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2318, a bill that provides permanent relief from the alternative minimum tax, which extends the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 capital gains dividends tax relief, and that the bill be read the third time and passed.

I further ask that the bill be held at the desk until the House companion arrives, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate-passed bill be inserted, and the House bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. President, I am disappointed, and I think the American people are going to be disappointed if we don't deal with the alternative minimum tax, which, of course, was targeted at the ``rich'' when it was passed but which now affects 6 million taxpayers and which, if we don't act, will affect 23 million middle-class taxpayers next year.

My distinguished colleague didn't mention the capital gains and dividends tax relief, which has been so important as a stimulus to the economy, which has resulted in 50 months of uninterrupted job growth since we passed that legislation. I hope we will continue to work on that.

Unfortunately, given the compression of time due to the squandering of opportunities earlier this year to act on this important legislation, I am afraid we are not going to get it done before we break for Christmas. The IRS is going to have to send out notices to many new taxpayers of their increased tax bill under this AMT, unless we act promptly.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq.

Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. I know that none of us arrive at this question lightly. In my 28-year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters--some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for--and love of--our great Nation. And there was-- and should not be today--no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops.

It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi government which fails to respond in kind. This amendment requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan--commonly referred to as the ``surge''--is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan.

Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment--a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed--the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are:

Iraqi assumption of control of its military . . .

Enactment of a Militia Law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq . . .

Completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . .

Completion of provincial election law and preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . .

Enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and

Enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the Commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period.

That is why, under this amendment, after 120 days, should the Commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counter- terrorism operations--i.e., those functions set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report. As General Petraeus stated in March, ``I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.''

The message must be loud and clear--the Iraqi government must understand in no uncertain terms that our presence is neither open- ended nor unconditional, and I support setting conditions for a phased withdrawal. My concern with the supplemental appropriations bill stems from the fact that it mandates a specific date for troop withdrawal by requiring it to occur within 120 days of passage. This arbitrary timeline would telegraph a precise and immediate departure date to our enemies that I believe would jeopardize the security of our men and women remaining on the ground.

Moreover, this mandated, 120-day timetable does not place the necessary pressure and conditions on the Iraqi government to implement national reconciliation and solidify their own security. Rather, we should require that the Iraqi government complete work within 120 days on the specific, concrete benchmarks they have already agreed to that would lead to national reconciliation. If the Iraqis cannot meet these benchmarks within this 120-day period, our commanders should begin planning for the phased redeployment of the troops we deployed for the Baghdad Security Plan.

My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not-- and still do not--believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation--we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi.

After our four-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been made on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments.

I believe we were all encouraged by the recent Ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and the follow-on ministerial conference called at the Iraqi government's request. These talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province.

We are now three months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that-- mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi government has moved on political reforms--their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts.

Two weeks ago, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-Ed, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' `` He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.'''

In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi government is a paramount precursor to

national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.''

To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us.

If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi government--and frankly our government as well--that my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions--not merely increased troop levels--presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice strong . . . together . . . and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act.'' This is a targeted, non-controversial measure. It would ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) fully consider the impacts of their final rules mandating how small public companies must comply with the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Our Nation's small stock companies are the cornerstone of our entrepreneurial economy, and it is essential that we carefully address the regulatory barriers that impede their growth.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was essential in restoring investor confidence after accounting fraud and massive company deceptions shook the public's trust in U.S. markets. The horrendous debacle of corporate greed from companies like Enron and Worldcom forced not only thousands of employees to lose their jobs, but also wiped out the life savings of many retirees. Now, as we refine Sarbanes-Oxley's regulations, we must carefully preserve investor protections and ensure company transparency and accountability.

In my home State of Maine, small publicly-traded companies are indispensable to the strength and renewal of our economy. However, the fact is that many of these small stock companies are struggling mightily with the cost and regulatory burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, regardless of

their industry. Whether it's a utility company, a dairy pharmaceutical company that makes large animal vaccines, or a community bank that fears being smothered by the combined weight of Sarbanes-Oxley and banking regulations, it is crucial that Maine's home grown companies focus their energies on developing new products, entering new markets, and creating jobs--not on compliance.

This is why I rise today, with Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007.'' Our bill would require the SEC to conduct a small business analysis, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), before the SEC publishes its final rules on small business internal controls compliance. This non- controversial provision simply restates existing law, ensuring that the SEC conducts a final RFA analysis. As the SEC should already be conducting this analysis as part of its final rulemaking process, this bill will impose no additional delay.

Our bill would also require the SEC to publish a small business compliance guide, consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). This compliance guide would explain, in plain language, the small business requirements under the rule. The SEC should publish this small businesses compliance guide when it publishes its final rule, so that small business understand the new requirements. As this non-controversial provision also restates existing law, this measure would impose no additional delay on the SEC's rulemaking process.

Regulations disproportionately affect small businesses and significantly hinder their competitiveness. In 2004, Senator Enzi and I jointly requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on small public companies' access to capital. The study found that the costs for complying with Sarbanes- Oxley were nine times greater for smaller companies than for large stock companies. We must reduce the burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley so that our small stocks in Maine, Minnesota, and across the country can continue to be some of the world's fastest growing and most innovative companies.

Finally, to address this disproportionate regulatory burden on small businesses, our bill would require that the GAO re-analyze the impact of these rules on small public companies two years after final rules are published. The GAO's report would include an assessment of the costs and time commitments the SEC and PCAOB requirements impose on small businesses and whether these costs are expected to decrease or increase in the future. Additionally, the final report would include recommendations, and regulatory alternatives, on how to simplify or improve the process of complying with SEC and PCAOB small company stock requirements. This provision simply ensures that the rules do not impose unintended, undue burdens on small businesses.

The ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007'' will help to ensure that small stock companies do not suffer from additional unintended consequences which harm their ability to compete, innovate, and grow--and, most importantly, create jobs.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Texas for their leadership. With that leadership comes a very clear voice about the problems this current Congress is facing. They are problems that are historic in character. I was once in the majority. It was the minority who said: We can do better and, therefore, we should run the Congress. In the last election, the American people listened and they changed the Congress. While I was chairing the Veterans' Affairs Committee at that time, we lost the Congress--we, the Republicans--by a reality of dropping to 32 percent in the minds of Americans as to an effective and responsible Congress. The minority played on that. They became the majority. They took over the leadership. They made a great deal of promises. Here we are in the eleventh and a half hour headed toward the twelfth hour of this session of Congress. They have not accomplished it. They have dropped below 11 percent in favorable rating among the American people.

The American people do want to see us get along. At the same time, they want their Government to function in a timely and responsible way. That is exactly what this Congress has failed to do.

I come to the floor to speak about two issues specifically. The assistant majority leader came to the floor earlier today and asked unanimous consent that S. 1233 and S. 1315 be allowed to come to the floor under unanimous consent or to come to the floor with debate and final passage. The reason he had to do that was before the Thanksgiving recess, I came to the floor and objected to the movement of those bills. The Senator from Oklahoma also now objects to the movement of those bills. I think it is very important that not only does the record bear why we objected but the American people clearly understand why we are objecting, because these are veterans bills.

These are bills that deal with critical needs of America's veterans. I was once chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I am not going to suggest that I need to add credentials to my record as supporting America's veterans. My responsibility is to make sure the services to our veterans get delivered in a responsible and timely way, that the truly needy service-connected and poor veteran gets served, and that the needs of those coming in out of Afghanistan and Iraq, who then become veterans out of our active service, are met in an immediate way. That is the responsibility of this Congress. It is not to keep adding and adding and adding new programs that may or may not be necessary and adding and adding and adding billions of dollars that anyone in service to veterans can say is at best questionable. It is for those reasons that I objected to those bills.

Now, let me break down why because there are some very real issues here.

S. 1233 is an important piece of legislation that a majority of those of us who supported the legislation to begin with agreed to. It is called the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. Any bill with that title would capture your imagination. One of the great concerns we have today is the traumatic brain injuries our men and women in service are coming out of Iraq with, especially because of the types of bombs that are being used over there. Oftentimes, this kind of injury does not show up in a veteran until he or she becomes a veteran.

If you look down through the priorities of that bill, you look at increased veterans' travel benefits--yes, rural veterans coming to veterans centers to be served; a major medical facilities project; adding to the expanded services of veterans health care; professional scholarship programs; extended time for preferred care; help for low- income veterans; traumatic brain injury program enhancement; assisted- living pilot program enhancement--all of those very valuable and very meaningful, strongly supported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and strongly supported by this Senate.

But what happened at the last minute was that a Senator on the other side added a new program. They said: We are going to allow Priority 8 veterans to become eligible for the full service of health care under the veterans health care system. What is a Priority 8 veteran? A Priority 8 veteran is one who has no service-connected disability or injury or health care concern. Did they serve? Yes, they served. Did they sustain any injury or physical needs as a result of their service? No. Are they at the poverty level or below? No. They are above it. And in most instances--in fact, in a high percentage of them--through their own employment, they have health care.

So for a good number of years, because of costs, we who watch the veterans issues and Presidents and Secretaries of the VA have said we will not serve them. They will not be eligible for the full benefits. This President, President Bush, said: I will make them eligible, but they need to pay a small fee, a couple hundred bucks a year, to have access to the greatest health care program in the world. The minority at that time, the Democrats, said: No. They get it free of charge or they don't get it.

Well, all of a sudden into this very valuable bill they parachuted Priority 8 veterans. What does that do? Well, if you go talk to the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, they are going to tell you that it might cause a substantial problem. Why? Because all of a sudden in this health care system there could be 1.3 million more Americans eligible for health care--not planned for, not anticipated, not budgeted for, but parachuted in, I have to believe all in the name of trying to show a concern for veterans and to demonstrate that maybe we are a little more sensitive than the other side.

What does that mean? Well, it also means the potential of between $1.2 billion more expended in 2008 and up to $8.8 billion more by 2012. Did they fund it? No. Have they stuck it in the bill? Yes. Are they trying to create a priority? Yes. Are they trying to create a new expenditure? Yes. And I said: No. Let's serve our poor and our needy and our disabled first and our traumatically brain injured and our post-traumatic stress syndrome veterans. Let's serve them now. Let's put money into the bill to do that.

So the Senator from Texas talked about the VA-MILCON bill that is right at the desk right now, sent out by the ranking minority member of the VA-MILCON Subcommittee, on which I serve, of Appropriations, Senator Hutchison. We are trying to get a vote on it. That bill--that bill alone--has nearly $8 billion worth of new spending in it for veterans. That is a near 17.5-

to 18-percent increase over last year. I believe it can be said, other than defense, to be the largest increase in a budget of all of Government for this year. But the money I am talking about, the new money for Priority 8, is not even in that one. All of this new money for veterans needs that is in the bill that we are being told cannot be passed, that we keep trying to get a vote on, does not even include the $1.5 billion to $8 billion necessary to fund this new program for veterans who are not needy, who are not service connected, and who have not been eligible for a good number of years.

That is why we are saying no. You take Priority 8 out of this, and the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act, S. 1233, could pass, and it would pass on a voice vote because the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--have always supported our veterans. But we will not nor will I allow us to get caught in the game of first you argue on the other side that we have a war nobody likes and a President who is not managing it well, and then on the other side you are saying we are not taking care of our veterans. I reject that, and I reject it totally for these reasons.

While I was chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and throughout the Bush administration, we have increased the funding for veterans on an annualized basis anywhere from 10 to 12 percent. When I talk about the appropriations bill that is at the desk for veterans being a historically large increase, well, the one the year before was a historically large increase. We have never ducked our responsibility to veterans. But we must prioritize, and we must focus on the truly needy, and we must focus on those who are coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan and traumatic brain injury and all of those who continue to suffer today. That is the first bill, and it will continue to be objected to until they take out those kinds of add-ons.

Let's talk about the second bill. The second bill is S. 1315. Now, that is an interesting bill because if you look at it on its face value, you say: Yes, that makes some sense. We are going to give a veterans' benefit enhancement to a certain class of veteran. Let me tell you who that veteran is.

The bill includes roughly $900 million in new entitlement spending on an array of veterans' benefits, but what is interesting is, it is moving money away from poor, elderly, disabled and wartime U.S. veterans. It is taking effectively $2,000 annually from our veterans and moving it over to a veteran who does not even live in the United States and is not a citizen of the United States--a Filipino veteran.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Why I object to this--and I call this bill the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill--is quite simple. If any of you have watched the Ken Burns PBS series ``The War,'' there is one whole segment of that about the war in the Philippines and the Filipinos who came forward to fight with Americans and even serve in American uniforms in defense of their land and ours during World War II. They did not become American citizens. They were Filipinos, and they have always received benefits. But this bill now reaches in and takes money away from our veterans, our poor veterans, because of a court case and is giving it to them.

Here is my problem. First of all, they do not live in this country, and they are not U.S. citizens. They are currently receiving benefits. But for the average U.S. veteran, their benefits, right now under law, cannot exceed $10,929 a year. That is roughly 24 percent of the average U.S. household income. But this benefit which is in this bill gives to a veteran--a non-U.S. citizen, living in the Philippines--100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. They are taking that money away from our veterans to do it. That is the ``Robin Hood in reverse'' effect. At least Robin Hood, when he took money, left it in Nottingham. He spread it out amongst his own. Here we are taking money from our own and sending it all the way to the Philippines.

Now, let me say, and let me be very clear, Americans have treated Filipino veterans fairly. After the war, the United States provided $620 million--or $6.7 billion in today's dollars--to repair the Philippines. The United States provided $22.5 million--$196 million in today's dollars--for equipment and construction. We have a hospital in the Philippines, and Filipino veterans legally residing in the United States--in the United States--are fully eligible for all VA veterans' benefits based on their level of service. Survivors of Filipino veterans who died as a result of their service are eligible for educational assistance and all kinds of programs.

That is why I object. First of all, because we are taking money away from ours, but also because we have been more than generous since that war ended to our comrades, the Filipinos, who fought side by side with American men and women, who were in the Philippines at the time, after we were able to reclaim the Philippine Islands. So we have done wonderfully by them, and we have been very supportive of providing them with programs.

Remember, the average U.S. veterans' benefit--24 percent of U.S. average household income--is limited. Yet we are taking that money away from them now, giving it to Filipino veterans who are non-U.S. citizens, and increasing their benefit to over 100 percent of the average household income in the Philippines. U.S. dollars spent in the Philippines at that amount lifts--there is no question about it--lifts that Filipino dramatically. The question is, Is it fair? Is it equitable? My answer is, It is not. I offered to say, yes, we can bump them a little bit, but let's take the rest of this money and put it into educational benefits for our veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer in the committee was no.

So that is why these bills are in trouble on the floor. They have loaded them up. They are too heavy. The tires are blowing out from under the trucks of these bills simply because too much is too much. In the instance of this, Disabled American Veterans--that great organization which is a loud spokesperson for our veterans--is saying: Whoa, wait a moment here. Enough is enough, and this is too much. They themselves oppose this legislation as it is currently written.

So here we have a funding bill on the floor with a 17.5- to 18- percent increase over last year's funding for veterans, and we are not allowed to vote on it. We have funding at the highest level ever for America's veterans, as we should and as we must, but these bills take us well beyond it in an unfunded environment or in one instance reaching in the pocket of our poor and disabled veteran and taking that money out and putting it into the pocket of a veteran living in the Philippines, who never became an American citizen, and who never came to this country, who has chosen to stay in his homeland. We now give them benefits, but this is a benefit well beyond what is even currently being offered to our own. Those are the fundamental reasons why we have objected.

I was pleased when the Senator from Texas said to the Senator from Illinois, the assistant majority leader: No. Yes, we will object, and we are not embarrassed about doing it, because there have to be priorities to our funding, especially at a time when the VA budget that is at the desk is the largest increase of a veterans' budget, to my knowledge, ever. We are proud of that, but there is a point when enough is, in fact, enough.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request for material to be inserted in the Record?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that minority views on S. 1233 and minority views on S. 1315 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this morning we have heard about a lot of good causes and a lot of good bills. But what we have been asked to do is to pass bills without any debate, without the opportunity to amend, and we just heard a Senator say we could agree to a UC and not have to vote on it. Agreeing to a UC is the same as voting yes. The fact is, we have had plenty of time to bring up all these bills, put them on the floor, debate them and have great debates so the American people become informed, and offer amendments.

I will say for many of these bills, I am the Senator objecting. Senator Harkin knows I am objecting to the two bills he just raised.

The point is, our debt is rising $1 million a minute. When you authorize $100 million for the Realtime Writers Act, what you are saying is, I intend to get the money out of the appropriations process to develop training for something that the market should already be inducing through increased wages. If in fact there is a shortage, why is the market not taking care of it? Is it because the pay is too low? Maybe the pay ought to be higher. Maybe people ought to go into it. Instead we are going to inject $100 million of American taxpayers' money into something that will be solved through the market. If it is not, then the pay is entirely too low and the market will eventually adjust to it. But to say we are going to authorize something with no intent to ever spend, that is not the intent of an authorization. The intent of an authorization is to spend more money.

At $1.3 billion a day, we are going into debt, and it is not our debt. We are transferring it to our children and our grandchildren. To come down here and want to authorize and spend and pass without debate and pass without amendment multitudes of bills with no debate is to say, in other words, take it or leave it. And if you want to amend it or you want to have a chance to vote on it, tough luck; we are going to do it without you. It is called ``UC.''

The fact is, we find ourselves $9 trillion in debt now. The fact is, our children are facing $79 trillion worth of unfunded mandates. It is time that we change the business in the Senate. To come down and claim you want to just authorize but not spend is a hoax because you would not be authorizing unless you do spend.

The other thing the American people ought to know is, out of the over $1 trillion in discretionary budget that we spend right now, $280 billion of it is not authorized. The appropriators totally ignore the authorizers. When it comes to appropriations, they appropriate whatever they want. So it doesn't have to be authorized to get it done. They will appropriate it if they want to do it. They don't pay any attention to authorization.

When we have $8 trillion worth of authorized programs now, to say we cannot eliminate some program that is not being funded to be able to make room for one that should be funded, and to say we should not have to do that, that doesn't pass the commonsense test with the American public.

I understand that is irritating and bristling to the way we have done things in the past. I apologize if at times I am irritable and irritating, but I think the future generations are worth it. I do not think we can continue doing business as usual. So we have seen an ALS bill come down. The CDC doesn't want the ALS bill, the registry, and the reason is they can already do it. If we are going to do an ALS bill, we ought to do it for all neurologic diseases in terms of a registry, not just one. What we have decided is a celebrity or an interest group can come and we will place a priority there. Regardless of what the science says, regardless of what the basic science and the pure science says in terms of guiding us where to go on diseases, we will just respond. We will create a new program, and we will tell NIH where they have to go, or CDC where they have to go when science doesn't guide them there.

If we are going to do that, if we really think as a body we ought to be going the disease-specific direction, then why don't we do it all? Why don't we say we will do the peer-reviewed science on all the programs at NIH? Since we are going to pick the ones that have a cause behind them, why don't we do them all. Why don't we let the lobbyists tell us which ones should be first? Of course, we wouldn't do that because we know the scientists at CDC and the scientists at NIH make decisions, not on popularity, not on politics, but on the raw science that will give us the best benefit for the most people.

We look good when we do those things. We do satisfy a yearning for those who are handicapped or paralyzed or have breast cancer or have colon cancer. But if we are going to do a registry for ALS, why aren't we doing one for diabetes? We aren't we doing one for multiple myeloma? Why? Why aren't we doing those things? If we are going to pick one, if we are going to do

a neurological disease, let's do it for all of them. It shows the shallowness of what we are trying to do. Our hearts are big, but we are not looking at the big picture.

The FHA we discussed. The component in the FHA that I object to is, we have a study in the FHA bill that the GAO is mandated to do on reverse mortgages. But at the same time, regardless of what the study shows, we lift the cap. All I have asked for from the authors of the bill is to keep the cap where it is until we get the GAO study back so we know what we are doing, rather than responding to a clamoring which we have no basis, in fact, to know is the accurate thing to do; otherwise, we wouldn't be asking for the study in the first place. It is a simple request.

Instead, we come to the Senate floor and try to make us, those who object, seem unreasonable when we say common sense would say if we have a study in the bill to tell us where to go, but we are already ignoring what the results of that study may or may not be, to question that we should not have a debate about that, that we should not have an ability to amend that, we should just blindly say yes, that is not what the Senate tradition is. This is a body that is supposed to be about debate.

In the past 31 days the Senate has been in session 15 days. We have had 10 votes in 15 days, and we have had 8 days without any votes at all. All these bills could have been on the floor and had accurate debate. I would have lost most of my amendments, based on the historical record of my amendments, but the American people would have benefited from the debate about those bills. Instead, we are made to look as if we don't care if we want to try to improve a bill because we will not agree to blindly accept a bill to go through. We are made to say we don't care about people who are losing their mortgages because we think there are some commonsense changes to a bill? That isn't quite right.

You hear the reference that people vote or the committee voted or that there wasn't an amendment. The fact is, on voice votes if you do not vote, you are not recorded because there is not a recorded vote. But that doesn't mean you agree to bring the bill to the floor. We all know that.

The fact is, and you have heard me say it many times in this body, if you are born today you inherit $400,000 worth of unfunded liabilities. There is a lot of things we do wrong on our side of the aisle, I will admit that, and have done wrong on our side of the aisle, both in the tenor of how we approach things and in how we characterize things. But the best way to right what we are doing wrong is start doing it right. The fact is, it is no legacy that we should leave to the next two generations that they are born into the world with a stone around their neck. The culture and methodology the Senate--I asked the President of the Senate a moment ago: What does unanimous consent mean when we bring up these bills? It is the rules of the Senate, I was told. The rules of the Senate are, you get no opportunity to amend.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes for me.

You get no opportunity to debate, you get no opportunity to amend, you have no opportunity to vote. So, if you truly object to a bill or a component of a bill you are told: Stuff it. What you think about it doesn't matter, let alone the very real loss of the American people not hearing a full debate about these issues.

We have plenty of time to debate them. We have quorum calls much too much. We should have two or three bills on the floor at the same time. I am willing to debate and lose, but I am not willing to give consent I disagree with and imply to the people I represent, in my oath to the Constitution, that it doesn't matter. It does matter. It matters immensely.

The future is at risk. We are on an unsustainable course, and we are seeing some of that played out in the mortgage market today. We are seeing some of that played out with the value of the dollar today. We are seeing some of that played out in the confidence of the American people, not only in the future and what they see, but in how they view us. We do, in fact, have an obligation to secure the future, and we do, in fact, have an obligation to make tough choices, priorities. Those priorities ought to be framed in the light of what the everyday American family has to do to frame their priorities.

Instead, what we have the habit of is not making any priorities at all because we take it all. We don't choose. We choose to do it all, knowing that the consequences of that choice bear on two generations from us. We will long be gone, but the legacy we leave will deny the very essence of this country. The essence of this country is one generation sacrificing for the future, for the next. The legacy we are leaving is exactly the opposite.

So I beg some patience on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, in fact, if we disagree on a bill going by UC, it doesn't necessarily mean we disagree with the intent. It does mean that we think it can be improved or we think it can be held more accountable or, as the case of the SBA bills I am holding now, one of them is atrocious in terms of the money it is losing for the American people. Yet we are supposed to agree with those bills without amending or voting or debating.

I will be back to talk later in our time, and at the present time I yield.

Absolutely. There is no question. I thank you for covering for me in that regard.

Mr. President, we are 2 days away from the expiration of the continuing resolution--our second one. We had difficulty as a party when we were in the majority with getting the bills done on time. It is difficult to move things through this body. That is not necessarily always the majority's fault, but it requires that we work together. One way to take the pressure--the crash pressure in coming up against a point where everybody ends up losing is to have an automatic CR so we don't have that problem. There has been a bill offered that says if we cannot get our work done, there is an automatic CR, that the Government continues to run at the rate it was, or at the lower of the Senate- or House-passed bills. It takes us away from the idea of playing chicken and protects the American people and those employed by the Federal Government. I think it is common sense. It is something we ought to do. It takes the pressure off both sides so we are not running down to the end and looking at bills that nobody knows what is in them, thereby doing a grave injustice to the rest of the American people. I think it is an idea whose time has come.

On the basis of that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2070, the Government shutdown prevention bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that tells us something. That tells us we are going to get a bill that none of us knows what is in it because we are going to run it up against a deadline--the deadline was September 30, we know that. We need a way to relieve the pressure. This bill relieves it; otherwise, we are going to do a great and harmful injustice to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, to introduce the Nuclear Safeguards and Supply Act of 2007.

The future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the larger nonproliferation system it supports is in doubt. The existing safeguards regime used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has succeeded in forestalling nuclear weapons programs in the world's advanced industrial states, several of which were weighing the nuclear option 40 years ago. Unfortunately, this regime has failed to keep pace with the increase in the global availability of nuclear weapons technology, especially the technology and equipment for uranium enrichment and spent nuclear reactor fuel reprocessing, which can produce fissile material for weapons. Now the road to nuclear weapons can be traveled by determined countries with only a minimal industrial base. While the number of recognized nuclear weapon states has not dramatically increased over the years, the dangers of proliferation have become all too apparent as demonstrated by the A.Q. Khan network, the Iranian, North Korean, and Libyan examples.

The construction of facilities for the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in new states, even for ostensibly peaceful purposes, poses an unacceptable long-term risk to the national security of the United States. The enrichment technology intended to produce fuel for reactors can also be used to create highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, and the plutonium that is produced from reprocessing spent fuel is also suitable for nuclear weapons and susceptible to diversion to terrorists. The spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities will dangerously increase the chances that new nations will develop nuclear weapons and that terrorists might obtain fissile or radiological materials for crude devices. It is therefore incumbent on the United States to lead an international effort to halt the expansion of enrichment and reprocessing to new countries.

We know President Bush shares our assessment of this situation. On February 11, 2004, he stated, ``The world's leading nuclear exporters should ensure that states have reliable access at reasonable cost to fuel for civilian reactors, so long as those states renounce enrichment and reprocessing. Enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.''

The threats posed by new nuclear fuel cycle facilities in new states are made worse by the fact that the use of nuclear power is likely to increase, both in developed and developing countries. As energy costs have soared in recent years, many states are reexamining nuclear power as a potential source of electricity. Importantly, however, the expansion of nuclear power does not require--either technically or economically--the construction of enrichment or reprocessing facilities in countries that do not currently have them.

Senator Bayh and I believe the United States should adopt as a basic nonproliferation principle that countries who give up their own enrichment and reprocessing programs have an assurance, either bilateral or multilateral or both, of nuclear reactor fuel at reasonable prices. Today, the market provides the basic framework for commerce in and access to nuclear fuel, and should not be interrupted by government action, but the exchange of nuclear fuel and fuel services for enrichment and reprocessing capabilities is not currently explicit. This would also require that states agreeing to accept fuel services and leasing of fuel, in return for giving up joining the group of states possessing reprocessing and enrichment capabilities, would also consent to wide access and close monitoring of their nuclear energy activities, exceeding the requirements of the IAEA Additional Protocol. Related efforts in this area should also move forward in the [Nuclear Suppliers Group, where various nations have advocated a criteria-based approach to nuclear fuel supply.

Unfortunately, as the world looks to increase the number of civilian nuclear power plants, the IAEA, charged with ensuring that energy programs do not stray into weapons efforts through the verification of safeguards agreements, operates on a shortsighted budget with old equipment. This situation threatens the institution, and to some degree the nuclear stability that the IAEA's safeguards verification mandate supports. The IAEA is responsible for verifying that states do not violate their obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA monitors states' nuclear programs through safeguards agreements and additional protocols to ensure that nuclear material, equipment, and technology are used for declared, peaceful purposes.

Last November, I visited the IAEA and its Safeguards Analytical Laboratory (SAL), located just outside Vienna, Austria. Samples collected by IAEA inspectors during inspections are brought to the SAL to verify that safeguards obligations are being met and that there are no undeclared materials and activities. Unfortunately the laboratory's aging equipment and dangerous working conditions will hamper the important work done there, particularly as more samples arrive there and as more states expand their nuclear power infrastructure. Such a situation could, in the future, shut down a critical nonproliferation facility. The IAEA's nuclear materials analysis capability is vulnerable to a single point of failure given the situation at SAL. Laboratory staff is also severely limited in the time they can spend analyzing evidence in the ``hot'' or nuclear part of SAL because of the dilapidated air purification system in one part of the laboratory. Equally disturbing, SAL is still using equipment manufactured in the 1970's. If the IAEA is supposed to be the world's nuclear watchdog, the least we can do is to provide the people who work there with appropriate and effective tools to do their job.

Absent refurbishment of SAL, or the construction of a new IAEA facility with modem equipment, President Ronald Reagan's charge ``trust but verify'' will be abandoned because we have not taken action.

The SAL helped to discover the inconsistencies in Iran's cover-up of its nuclear weapons program. The analysis and questioning by inspectors prompted stonewalling by Tehran. The Iranian failure to provide information and access led the IAEA Board of Governors to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. While I wish this might have happened more quickly, the fact is that SAL, the network of laboratories in other Member States, and the IAEA's inspectors provided the evidence necessary to build consensus on Iranian violations.

The Lugar-Bayh legislation works to create both bilateral and multilateral assurances of nuclear fuel supply by specifically authorizing the President to pursue such mechanisms. Importantly, our legislation takes note of the fact that merely ensuring fuel supply is not enough to truly deal with the potential proliferation that could arise as a result of many more nuclear reactors being built around the world. Proliferation of fuel cycle technologies may continue, regardless of the ability of our Nation and others to craft layers of assurance in fuel supply. Our bill makes an important point--that fuel supply for new nuclear power is as important as the safeguards applied to nuclear power.

The Lugar-Bayh legislation makes it the policy of the United States to discourage the development of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities in additional countries, and to encourage the creation of bilateral and multilateral assurances of nuclear fuel supply,

and ensure that all supply mechanisms operate in strict accordance with the IAEA safeguards system and do not result in any additional unmet verification burdens for the system. To ensure that SAL does not cease to function, we authorize an additional $10,000,000 for the refurbishment or possible replacement of the IAEA Safeguards Analytical Laboratory. We also authorize the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy and the Directors of the National Laboratories, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, to pursue a program that will improve nuclear safeguards technology development.

With regard to fuel supply, our bill authorizes the President to create, consistent with existing law, bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to provide a reliable supply of nuclear fuel to those countries and groups of countries that adhere to policies designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that decide to forgo a national uranium enrichment program and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities. Such mechanisms must confront the challenges of international politics, thus the authority contained in the bill is designed to provide a flexible framework, rather than a final set of requirements, for such mechanisms. The bill embraces both bilateral and multilateral fuel supply mechanisms, and calls for a report on the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Authority.

The United States cannot fix the IAEA's problems alone, but we must lead. An international diplomatic effort is required to raise the funds necessary to ensure that the IAEA has the resources and leadership it needs to continue its important mission. But the IAEA, its Member States and Board of Governors must also act. The Board must review and revise SAL staffing policies as they apply to professional staff working at SAL to ensure that it attracts and retains key personnel. Current policies are self-defeating and force experts out just as they are accumulating the level of experience and expertise necessary to succeed.

Not only is the existing IAEA infrastructure in desperate need of modernization, but a global nuclear power expansion will require a commensurate increase in IAEA capability. We must strengthen the organization to ensure that multiplying nuclear power facilities are not diverted to weapons work. This can and should be accompanied by better support to our own efforts in verification activities and technologies, such as through the Key Assets Verification Fund at the Department of State and the U.S. Program of Technical Assistance to IAEA Safeguards or POTAS.

If the world is at the dawn of a new nuclear power age, then there will be more facilities and materials for the IAEA to inspect and verify. The IAEA is not prepared for such a future, but there is still time to put the necessary investments in place to ensure that it continues its important role. The United States and other Member States have the ability to plan and make decisions now that will ensure a safer nuclear power option in the future. It is incumbent upon the United States to assist in the construction of the best possible safeguards system to provide for international peace and security. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy are only as good as the means to verify them.

The current budget of the IAEA cannot sustain further stress, nor can the world afford to allow another state to develop nuclear weapons in secret. The IAEA is underfunded to perform its current tasks and would be required to do much more should nuclear energy become more widespread. The Bush Administration must significantly increase funding to the IAEA to improve its ability to exercise its rights and meet its obligations. We hope this legislation will begin that process.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Foreign Relations on these important matters. I thank Senator Bayh for his partnership in this endeavor.