Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Mr. Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2007''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico.

Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides.

The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.

The Glorieta unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

Similar bills passed the Senate in the 106th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, and I hope it finally will be enacted this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Mr. Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2007''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico.

Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides.

The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.

The Glorieta unit of the park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

Similar bills passed the Senate in the 106th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, and I hope it finally will be enacted this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask each side, the Democratic and Republican sides, be given an additional 10 minutes to speak in this period. I will take the first 5 minutes of that, and then my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will take the second 5 minutes of the Democratic time remaining for us.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 6, which is the National Energy and Environment Security Act of 2007. This is a message bill that Senator Reid introduced earlier today. It lays out a number of important goals that will guide our thinking and action on energy-related matters, including the issue of global warming, in the 110th Congress.

Let me talk briefly about five key goals that are mentioned in the bill. These goals will be subject to much more detailed discussion in future weeks and to action both in the Energy Committee and, for some issues, in the Environment Committee as well.

The first goal of the bill is to reduce our dependence on foreign and un- sustainable energy sources. Any national energy strategy to reduce that dependence will have to maintain our domestic production of oil and gas as well as undertake three basic initiatives. The first of those initiatives is to greatly increase the efficiency of the cars and trucks that we put on the road in this country. There are a lot of ideas on how to do this. They include several proposals for increased CAFE standards as well as so-called ``feebate'' standards that send signals to the market to encourage the production and sale of high efficiency vehicles. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to move these proposals forward.

Another way to reduce our dependence is to further develop alternative fuels, particularly biofuels. In that regard we need to focus on broadening the base of biological feedstocks that are used to make fuels such as ethanol. This is an issue we will be focusing on in the Energy Committee.

A third way is to look at the other new technologies to power our cars and our trucks. There is much promise in hybrid vehicles with larger batteries that can be charged overnight, so-called plug-in hybrids. This sort of technology can help reduce demand for gasoline for short trips and deserves further attention.

The second goal in the bill is to reduce our exposure to the risks of global warming. While there are several Senate committees with great interest in this issue, obviously the Environment Committee has a primary role and the primary jurisdiction. But over 95 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 85 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production, distribution, and use. We want to work with other committees to find the best way to deal with this important issue and to balance environmental imperatives with the need for reliable and affordable energy into the future.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging Senator McCain in a colloquy over a certain provision, to be sure that its purpose is clear. In section 1(a)( 4) of the bill, there is a provision which states, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection--(A) allows grants authorized under paragraph 3(A) to be made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection.''

It is my understanding that the intent behind the amendment made by section 1(a)(4) of the bill is simply to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, section 2996(a) does not somehow authorize a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one State, territory, or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has the jurisdiction to do that.

I would like to ask Senator McCain if my understanding of this provision is correct.

It is also my understanding that the language, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection. . . (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection'' is intended to make it clear that the provisions of section 2996(a) and grant awards or denials pursuant to section 2996(a) have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding, or denying a grant of funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in section 2996(a). So, for example, if a State, territory, or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the State, territory, or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants under section 2996(a). The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection and nothing else.

I would like to ask Senator McCain whether my understanding of this provision of the bill is correct in this particular regard as well.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of engaging Senator McCain in a colloquy over a certain provision, to be sure that its purpose is clear. In section 1(a)( 4) of the bill, there is a provision which states, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection--(A) allows grants authorized under paragraph 3(A) to be made to, or used by, an entity for law enforcement activities that the entity lacks jurisdiction to perform; or (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection.''

It is my understanding that the intent behind the amendment made by section 1(a)(4) of the bill is simply to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, section 2996(a) does not somehow authorize a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a State, territory, or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one State, territory, or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has the jurisdiction to do that.

I would like to ask Senator McCain if my understanding of this provision is correct.

It is also my understanding that the language, ``Nothing in this subsection, or in the award or denial of any grant pursuant to this subsection. . . (B) has any effect other than to authorize, award, or deny a grant of funds to a state, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in this subsection'' is intended to make it clear that the provisions of section 2996(a) and grant awards or denials pursuant to section 2996(a) have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding, or denying a grant of funds to a State, territory, or Indian tribe for the purposes described in section 2996(a). So, for example, if a State, territory, or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the State, territory, or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants under section 2996(a). The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection and nothing else.

I would like to ask Senator McCain whether my understanding of this provision of the bill is correct in this particular regard as well.

Mr. President, earlier this week, Claude Wood celebrated his centennial. His name is familiar to several long-serving Members of this body, for he was the chief of staff to one of the Senate's giants, Clinton Anderson of New Mexico. For all of Senator Anderson's career in this Chamber, Claude was at his right hand.

A native New Mexican, he served our State, our Nation, and the Senate with distinction and honor. He retains an active interest in what we do here and is a great friend of the Senate Historian, Richard Baker. I myself have known Claude for many years and am very glad to have this opportunity to send him best wishes on this milestone birthday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, unless a Republican Senator appears wishing to speak, that Senator Stabenow of Michigan be allowed to follow.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about two issues, legislative issues, that still require attention before this Congress adjourns. The first is related to Medicare cuts. Effective January 1, Medicare reimbursement to health care providers is scheduled to be cut by 5 percent. I believe it is imperative that Congress step in and prevent that cut from occurring. Failure to do so will lessen access to quality health care for many in this country.

The sustainable growth rate, the SGR, as it is referred to here in Washington more commonly, was implemented in 1998 as a means to annually adjust Medicare's physician fees in line with a set of spending targets. Until 2002, the total physician spending was below the set targets, so physicians received an annual increase in their fees. However, starting in 2002, the trend was reversed. Spending on physician services began to exceed the target. The result was a 4.8 percent reduction in physician fees in 2002 and the realization that the SGR, or this sustainable growth rate formula, was flawed.

This was the beginning of what has become a yearly game of brinksmanship, and we are in that game of brinksmanship again today

with Medicare threatening to enact the cuts deemed appropriate by the SGR formula and Congress averting the fee cuts one year after another.

As of January 1 of next year, physician fees will be cut by 5 percent. In my view, this is causing understandable concern in the medical community. I hear on a daily basis from physicians, both within and without my State of New Mexico, that these cuts will adversely affect patient care and access. I have no reason to doubt that statement. The Albuquerque Journal in my home State of New Mexico reports that the proposed cuts will cost New Mexico doctors $12 million in 2007 alone. Presbyterian Health Plan president David Scrase believes the cuts will result in closer to $32 million in cuts.

I believe this chart which was just put up here makes the point I am trying to make very well. It is labeled ``Crisis in Medicare Physician Payments.'' The black line, which is going up, as everyone can see, is the increase we have seen in the cost of medical practice in the last 5 years. We can see very clearly that continues. It is a relentless increase. The red line is physician payment updates under Medicare. We can see those have been declining and are scheduled for a substantial decline in 2007 again.

What I am trying to say is Congress needs to step in and at least keep this line flat, at least hold physicians harmless in this 5 percent cut. I hope we are able to do even more than that. In my view, these reductions will result in access problems for Medicare patients across the Nation. Cuts such as these, along with the yearly uncertainty of whether the reduction will be implemented, make long- term planning for small to medium physician practices almost impossible.

In addition to the financial stresses of potential decreases in Medicare payments, physicians are being asked to adopt expensive health information technologies to improve the quality of medical care. This is a lot to expect from even large health systems, much less smaller physician groups.

If the Medicare cuts go into effect--and all expert advice I have received leads me to believe they will--there will be access problems encountered by Medicare beneficiaries. But what may be even equally problematic are the other measures physicians will be forced to take to compensate for this cut. I am talking about the reduction of staff, forgoing health insurance for their employees, and delaying implementation of new technologies. All of these are substantial new burdens we are putting on physicians operating their medical practices throughout our country.

Where does this leave us? I believe we need to act both in the short term and in the long term. Congress needs to take immediate action to halt the scheduled 5 percent cut. I hope this can occur before this week is over. Over the long term, we need to find solutions to continue to provide quality care to Medicare beneficiaries as well as fair payment to physicians for their work. That is not going to be easy.

Frankly, we are going to have to rethink this whole SGR system we adopted nearly a decade ago, and we are going to have to find ways to have a fair formula that provides a fair level of compensation. In my opinion, this is a priority. It is something that has been the subject of intense negotiations between House and Senate Members in the last few days. I understand that. I hope reason will prevail and that we can come out with a solution that makes sense for seniors in this country and for those who depend upon the Medicare system for their health care.

Finding long-term solutions to continue to provide quality care to Medicare beneficiaries as well as fair payment to physicians for their work will require effort and collaboration between lawmakers and the medical community. Earlier this year I introduced legislation that I believe is part of the solution. Because part of the payment that Medicare makes to physicians is based upon geographic location, physicians in rural parts of the country are paid less than those in more urban areas. This known as the geographic practice cost indices, or GPCIs. Congress determined that such extensive geographic disparities were unfair and, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, language from one of my bills was included that brought all geographic areas up to the national average for the calculation of this piece of the Medicare physician payment formula. This year I introduced legislation to extend this law. We should extend this law before Congress adjourns and, at the very least prevent the cuts that are set to occur at the end of the year.

To do less is to fail in our responsibility to the million of Americans who depend on Medicare.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the problem of funding for wildfire suppression. This is an issue that particularly affects us in the West. We have a looming train wreck with regard to emergency wildfire suppression funding.

This year, wildfires burned a record of more than 9.5 million acres, most of that in the West. The wildfires are still burning out of control in southern California, where five more houses burned this weekend.

Federal wildfire-fighting expenditures also set a record at nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 2006. That was more than twice what was appropriated for that fiscal year. When the cost of suppressing wildfires exceeds what has been appropriated, the agencies spend what they have been appropriated for the fiscal year and the amount that has been provided to them in emergency supplemental appropriations. This year, they also spent $500 million from what is called the emergency wildfire reserve account and an additional $110 million which they had to borrow from other accounts. Congress has not repaid any of that money as of yet. There is $610 million that has not been repaid to this wildfire reserve account and to the other accounts from which the Forest Service has had to borrow.

Those agencies, particularly the Forest Service, have been left short. They are financially unprepared for even an average wildfire year in 2007. As we begin to look forward into next year, we are faced with a very severe problem. In addition to the proposed 2007 appropriations, the agencies will need about $835 million if they are to maintain recent levels of financial preparedness. If the continuing resolution goes into effect, as we are advised it is likely to, the numbers are likely to get even worse.

I filed an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill to begin to address the problem by providing $360 million in emergency wildfire suppression funding for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. That amendment was sponsored by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Burns filed a similar amendment to the Military Construction bill. But it is apparent that neither of those bills will get to the President for signature this year.

We have an enormous need for wildfire suppression funding and no clear way to address it. I urge my colleagues to find a way to address it before we leave at the end of this week. Providing some additional funds to these agencies for this purpose is essential. I believe it will be unfortunate if this Congress adjourns leaving those agencies in the financial straits which they are in. I know there are many agencies across the Federal Government which are going to encounter great difficulty in carrying on these activities if we adopt a continuing resolution, as is being proposed, but this particular area of wildfire suppression funding is one that deserves particular attention.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Wayne Sayer, who died suddenly on November 3 of this year.

When I came to the Senate in 1983, Wayne was among the first people I met who was interested in and concerned about the loss of our semiconductor industry to Asia. He was one of the first to recognize the value of a close partnership between government policy and the U.S. high-tech industry. His advice and counsel to members and staff through these early debates until the day he died were invaluable. His contributions to American competitiveness cannot be overstated.

An Air Force veteran, he first worked for Precision Scientific, an instrumentation company. When Precision Scientific was acquired by GCA Corporation, he stayed with the new company and eventually opened GCA's Washington, DC office. At the time of his death, he was the senior government affairs consultant to Applied Materials.

He was a smart, hard-working man with a great sense of humor and style. Those of us who valued his counsel and enjoyed his company over the years will miss his voice of good sense, his skill with policy issues and mostly his friendship. This is a loss, Mr. President, not only to the industry but to the country.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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 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 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

Mr. President, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established on January 19, 1975, to regulate the Nation's civilian nuclear power industry. Since then, 25 men and three women have served as members of that commission. Members are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate for 5-year terms. On November 3, Commissioner Ed McGaffigan, Jr. became the longest serving member of the NRC. Of the 28 men and women who have served as commissioners since 1975, only 6 have been reappointed to a second term. Only one, Ed McGaffigan, has been reappointed to a third term. First appointed by President Clinton in 1996, Ed was reappointed to a second term in 2000, and reappointed by President Bush to a third term in 2005.

The Senate rarely confirms NRC nominations before the date set by law for the term to begin, so none of the six commissioners who have served 2-year terms have served a full 10 years. Until this month, the longest serving NRC commissioner was Kenneth Rogers, who served a week short of 9 years and 11 months. On November 3 of this year, Ed McGaffigan broke that record.

Length of time in office, of course, is not an end in itself. How long a commissioner serves is not as important as how well he or she serves the public interest while on the commission. By this measure, too, Ed McGaffigan stands out.

Congress created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to promote nuclear power but to regulate nuclear power. The commission's job, in the words of the Atomic Energy Act, is to ``promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public.'' Ed has taken those words to heart.

Throughout his time on the commission, Ed has worked to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the NRC's regulatory programs. He has been instrumental in improving the reactor oversight process, focusing it more directly on risks and on activities important to plant safety and, at the same time, making it more transparent and open to the public. Following 9/11, he helped revamp the NRC's security and emergency preparedness programs to strengthen the Nation's nuclear facilities against the possibility of a terrorist attack. He has helped lay the groundwork for licensing the next generation of nuclear powerplants, new uranium enrichment plants, and the nuclear waste depository. He has also taken an active role in managing the generation change confronting the NRC by helping to hire and train a new generation of nuclear regulators to replace the current generation which is now retiring. He is a firm but fair regulator and an effective nuclear safety watchdog.

I take special interest in Ed's achievements on the commission because Ed was one of the first people I hired when I came to the Senate in 1983. He was a legislative assistant. Later he was my legislative director and, finally, my senior policy adviser. He was my right hand on defense and technology policy, on personnel and acquisition reform, on nuclear nonproliferation and export control policy, all of that until he joined the NRC in 1996.

Ed had already established himself as a brilliant physicist and a dedicated public servant before I hired him. He had earned degrees in physics from both Harvard and Cal Tech and in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He had served in the Foreign Service. He had been a science attache at our embassy in Moscow. He held simultaneous senior posts on both the staff of the National Security Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He was, in short, an established expert on science and technology and energy and defense issues when he joined my staff. As a newly elected Senator, I was indeed fortunate to have his counsel at the start of my work here in the Senate. He is an invaluable ally, a tenacious adversary, and a fine human being. I am honored to have his friendship.

It comes as no surprise to me that Ed has served the commission as long or as ably as he has. He has devoted his career to public service. He has served us well with his scientific skill, his expert knowledge, and his sound judgment.

At his third confirmation hearing before the Committee on Environment and Public Works last year, Ed spoke movingly of his Irish immigrant father. He had encouraged Ed to ``dream big dreams'' and taught him, by acting on those dreams, to make them possible. In a lifetime of public service, Ed has dreamed big dreams and the Nation is better for it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.