Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow the majority leader be recognized to speak.

Mr. President, I come to the floor here today to share with my colleagues and my constituents my frustration with the inaction of Congress on its most basic responsibility, to enact bills to make appropriations for the Government for the coming year.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular

Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all

public Money shall be published from time to time.

That is the Constitution of the United States. There is no responsibility more fundamental than the one I

have just read. The American people pay taxes and they expect the Congress to do something with those taxes every year. Part of it they expect to be spent on the operations of Government--for the payments of the Defense Department, for the payments of the Treasury Department, for all things that go on in the Energy Department. All of those functions of Government are put together and handled in appropriations bills that have a committee chairman and a ranking member, and each year, under our system, where it is annual, they are supposed to produce an appropriations bill that goes from House to House and becomes a final product when it has been passed in both Houses and gone to conference between the two Houses and comes out as a final bill, which goes to the President of the United States. That is the format.

There are 13 of those that cause the Government of the United States to function. Can you believe that many publications have scorned Congress? Some have blamed the House of Representatives, some have blamed the Senate, some have blamed the administration for sending an unrealistic budget last February. The blame game doesn't interest this Senator. We all share in this quiet conspiracy to duck fulfilling the most fundamental responsibility that we have and that is to vote on appropriations bills, to confer between the House so they are the same bill, the same package of requirements, requests, expenditures that we ultimately call a bill.

Some media analysts contend that the Senate was afraid to cast votes on appropriations bills, thinking these votes might be used against incumbent Senators in recently held elections. All sorts of reasons emerged that justified laying aside this appropriations bill or that one. Some feared that amendments to the bills might take too long, too much time. Amendments might be painful choices for Senators. Some of the votes might slow down the process and some might show up later in campaign commercials or propaganda.

This Senator has cast more than 12,000 votes, more than almost any other Senator in the Senate history. There are maybe five or six who have cast more. My votes may be characterized by my opponents in a campaign, using commercials and whatever else they would like. They can find almost any vote I have taken over the years I have been here.

I took this job knowing full well I would have to vote to decide, to choose, and that these decisions would absolutely be second-guessed by a whole host of people. So I reject the notion that the Senate saved itself by avoiding so-called hard votes. We had not and we did not take the votes, did we? And look at the results in November. If it were our Republican approach to save ourselves, we lost ourselves.

Now we have the end of a Congress and here sit the appropriations bills unattended, sitting over there on the various clerks' desks. All the work has been done except the final work where they have to come to each House and get approved.

What we will do, for and to the people of the United States, from this day forward is terrible. Since we do not have the bills passed on both sides, we will have a continuing resolution, named for another document where we will pass the Government spending for a period of time and say we will spend, and then we relate it to something. We normally do it for 20 days out of the year. This time we will have a continuing resolution with the bills that have not been passed. That should be used very seldom, this continuing resolution, and it is getting to be like apple pie around here. We use it all the time. Rather than do our work, we do a continuing resolution. We continue it by resolution, equating it most frequently to the work that has been completed by the House, for they have done their work first. Therefore, the Senate has little or no input into what the continuing resolution ultimately says we are going to spend money on.

It used to be that a continuing resolution was not watched very well and it was a way of putting all kinds of things on. That doesn't happen much anymore. So what we are getting out of this as Senators is nothing. We are getting little or no input into the appropriations process. The bills we handle, if we are chairmen or ranking members, are not going to get adopted at any time or even referred to at any time unless we decide, in the next 6 or 7 weeks, to do something together that will change that by reference or by adopting some new bill.

There is much to be done and clearly we are not on the right course at this point. We are not going to pass many of these bills except perhaps a military construction bill, which is no longer a construction bill, but it is a bill for the health and welfare of our soldiers, and for many other things, and it is for building many new things that have to be built here at home for them and, therefore, that Military Construction bill will probably be a must and it will be around, and people will be talking about it and the fact that it has to be done.

From my standpoint, this week, if this 109th Congress slinks into history, as seems to be scheduled, it will have completed work on only two appropriations bills, Defense and Homeland Security, and maybe the one I have just referred to as Military Construction. In place of the completed bills, we will have a continuing resolution through February 15, next year, about the time the President will send us a 2008 final fiscal year budget. We will be getting a new one before we have done anything about the old one. We will be getting a brandnew budget-- imagine--and we will not have done anything about all of those that are sitting on the desks of clerks, waiting to do their part in appropriately spending our money.

Next year, we will look at the remaining 2007 bills, the much anticipated $100 billion Defense supplemental request that we all expect the President to suggest, and all 13 of the 2008 bills.

Does someone think this kind of procedure serves the public interest or some political interest? I believe it serves neither of the two.

For those Senators who are glad to see a continuing resolution because they think it saves money, think again. Not only will this continuing resolution not save money, but it will give reordering of priorities to the 110th Congress. I predict that we will spend more, not less, as a result of the strategy adopted by the Congress this year. The upshot will be that we have both failed to fulfill our constitutional responsibility and have spent more money.

What an outcome.

Who is to blame, then? Not the Senate Appropriations Committee, which reported every single appropriations bill by the end of July, the earliest such bills had been reported in 18 years. Not the subcommittee chairman, of which I am one, who worked to meet the deadlines set by the chairman and ranking member.

Those highly motivated members who wanted a full and open debate on the appropriations bills certainly cannot be blamed, although the outcome of their efforts will probably disappoint them by the middle of next year. Each Senator has the obligation to pursue what he or she believes is the correct policy, using any parliamentary means appropriate. I cannot condemn my colleagues who, for one reason or the other, find the appropriations process objectionable.

Here is what I suggest for the future. Let's vote. Let's report the individual bills, as Chairman Cochran did this year, on time. Then, let's bring the bills up on the floor. If members want to filibuster, that is their privilege. We vote on that. If cloture prevails, we have post cloture debate, and then vote again. Yes, it is time consuming, but it's our job. Let's vote.

Let me close by discussing briefly my own Energy and Water appropriations bill, which has awaited Senate action for almost 5 months now.

It is almost ludicrous that at this time in history, the 109th Congress failed to act on this bill. We read daily about the growing nuclear threat in North Korea; millions of words are written and spoken on the threat of an Iran with a nuclear capability. Six Arab, Sunni nations have now petitioned for a nuclear program through the International Atomic Energy Agency, including Saudi Arabia, contending that they need such programs for domestic energy purposes. Many analysts believe that the Arab nations observe the growing threat of a Shia Iran, with the potential for a nuclear weapon, and want nuclear programs for weapons purposes. We listen to witnesses tell us

of their fears of nuclear terrorism and the failures of the present nonproliferation programs.

For more than two decades now, these subjects have been the focus of much of my work as a Senator. And much of the good work that this Nation has done to address nonproliferation and nuclear terrorism is funded by the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

Yet at this dangerous time, the 109th Congress couldn't find time to take up the Energy and Water appropriations bill. In addition to hundreds of millions, almost billions of dollars for disposing of weapons grade nuclear material, and funding to try to stop nuclear material from shipment to this Nation, the bill funded alternative energy sources. It funds weatherization grants for Americans. It funds a brand new approach to handling nuclear waste here and abroad.

Let me close by discussing several important items in the bill, which languishes.

First, in the area of nuclear nonproliferation, the administration has given careful thought to how to handle the growing Iran and North Korea nuclear threat. Yet under the strategy adopted by this Congress on my bill, the Nonproliferation and International Security Account will be $53 million less than the House passed bill and the Senate committee-reported bill recommend. Think about that, short-changing that nonproliferation account because we were afraid to vote.

Second, and even more serious, one of the largest non-proliferation projects ever will be delayed. The Fissile Materials Disposition program, located in South Carolina, I add for the benefit of those two Senators, is known by the short hand of MOX. That program now has stopped construction, because the House passed bill eliminated all funding. And, since we have no Senate-passed bill, we cannot even negotiate levels on the continuing resolution. Think about this: the United States and Russia have spent the last 10 years negotiating a deal to eliminate 34 tons of plutonium from the nations' stockpiles and now the future of this effort is in limbo because Congress couldn't find the time to do its job.

As chairman of the Energy and Water subcommittee I was excited about the new initiatives proposed by the President including energy independence and to increase funding for science research in the Fiscal Year '07 request.

The Fiscal Year '07 budget took bold steps and made significant investment in nuclear power and alternative energy. Unfortunately, enactment of a CR will delay our investment in to alternative energy and maintain our increasing level of dependence on foreign energy sources.

Building on Energy Policy Act passed in 2005, the President supported increased funding for the research on cellulosic biomass, solar, hydrogen and advanced battery research. The Senate also restored funding geothermal development a renewable resources in the west with great potential.

The Senate Energy and Water bill supported the implementation of a loan guarantee program that was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This is an innovative financial solution, which would not cost the Federal Government a dime in appropriated funding.

The backing by the Federal Government supports the commercial deployment of first-of-a-kind energy production technology. Without the language in the Senate bill, this program will not go forward and our Nation will not get closer to energy independence.

The Senate Energy and Water bill also fully funds the President's request for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. Our future economic growth and security will require our schools to train the next generation of scientists and engineers. We haven't done enough and are losing ground in scientific research. This budget will reverse that trend with investments in basic scientific.

The Senate fully funds the President's request for the Office of Science.

The Senate bill also provides important funding to support the licensing of a new nuclear power reactor that will met our growing energy demand without increasing greenhouse gases.

The bill closes the funding shortfall for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to hire and train additional technical staff that will be needed to review the new license applications being developed by utilities. These priorities will not be recognized with continued delays with a CR.

This year the President outlined his plans for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. This program invests makes a large investment in addressing spent fuel stored at reactors all across the country by recycling. As Yucca Mountain continues to face delays, the Senate bill supports the administration's efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle commercial spent fuel.

I understand the challenges the leadership of Congress faces. Any of us who have served a chairman of the Budget Committee certainly understand the cross-currents in this Chamber. But, putting aside hard choices almost never leads to good results. We should remain in session this month until we fund the 2007 bills. After all, that's our job.

Since it appears there are no Senators wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak on an unrelated subject for 10 minutes.

And that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina be the Senator who follows.

Mr. President, just last week the price of natural gas was at $7.79 per million Btu's. That is nearly double the price it was 2 months ago. In October, natural gas was selling for $4.01 on the spot market. This kind of price instability it brings harms consumers, harms businesses, is devastating to manufacturers, and is a threat to our economy.

On August 1, 71 Senators in this Chamber cast what I consider one of the most important bipartisan votes of the year. We voted for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bill that will open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf

of Mexico for oil and gas exploration. The exploration could bring an estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to market over the next several years.

That oil and that gas will be American. It will be extracted from American territorial waters, will be extracted by American companies and American workers, and will be on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and will also share the royalties with the adjoining States, which has not been done before, sharing in a different way where they get much more of the proceeds.

That is a precedent which we have never accomplished before and which will do us good as we look around our other States to see if we can't do more like this effort.

The support for this bill came from my colleagues from the Northwest, the Southeast, and the Southwest, from the Northeast and the Midwest, from both coasts, from areas in between, and from both parties. We all acted to stem the rising tide of energy prices--something good for our country.

Those who voted for it and helped us with it know that the prices continue to rise for natural gas in our homes and our businesses, and we are awaiting the passage of this bill to stabilize prices for the next few years as this fountain full of natural gas descends upon the United States as a result of this new proposal and proposition in the Gulf of Mexico between our sovereign States and the U.S. Government to proceed with drilling. We cast that vote for families worried about high costs of energy. We cast that vote for American businesses, large and small, which have been hit hard by rising energy costs. We cast that vote for manufacturers who have been forced to shut down hundreds of U.S. plants in the last several years and for millions of American workers who lost their jobs when their plants closed. We heard the stories of all of these in our Energy Committee as we proceeded on this bill.

Occupying the chair is the distinguished new Senator from Florida. He remembers this testimony and these facts, and he anxiously waits, as I do as chairman and he as an active Member, for the House to take up this bill and pass it. They have a few alternatives. They can lose the bill and drop it and let it become dead; yes, indeed. But that seems to me to be the worst option of all. They also can pass it just like we sent it to them, and they will have a completed bill, and nothing further. They can affix it to any bill they choose to pass over there-- the tax extenders--and send it to us, and, of course, if that is the case, we will have to do further work on it as it gets here. But that will be the rule as it applies to a bill which is not exactly the same as the one we sent them.

So we cast our votes, as I said, in the manner I have described.

Natural gas prices climbed 400 percent from 2002 to 2005. In that time, the chemical manufacturing industry alone closed 70 plants in these United States and plans to close 40 more, largely because of skyrocketing prices of natural gas. We joined together, Republicans and Democrats, to tackle that problem, and we passed, by strong bipartisan vote, a bill that is as important a step toward tackling our energy challenges as we have around us anywhere in either body, a small but meaningful step toward reducing our reliance upon foreign oil.

This week I hope, and I am confident, that the House will take up our bill. I anticipate equally strong bipartisan support from the House. This legislation is critically important for our consumers and our economy, for housewives and homes, and as we go down the line, we know natural gas is the life of America, and we will add a very significant inventory to America's large inventory, and it will be American, it will not be imported.

The legislation is critically important. The oil resources in this region are impressive, but vast reserves of natural gas are the real bonanza. We believe there is natural gas in lease sale 181 and lease sale 181 south to heat 6 million homes for 15 years--6 million homes for 15 years. Largely because of these gas services, the Wall Street Journal has called this bill an ``easy victory'' for the U.S. economy. On the other side of the political spectrum, the New York Times wrote: ``This bill meets an immediate need and is a reason to drill in the gulf.'' How can you get more than those two ends of the spectrum agreeing and 71 Senators from both sides of the aisle voting for it?

Now I cry out today to the House: Don't go out of session without passing the bill I have just described to you which awaits action from you. It is simple action: just an ``aye'' vote for a simple majority, and that is it. It will be done. This rather gigantic resource will then become available. It is in America, sitting there waiting for somebody to use it. It will be usable with that vote.

As I just told my colleagues, for purposes of an explanation and elaboration, 6 million homes--6 million homes--will have their gas for their full season for 15 years just from what we are going to do there. What an astounding achievement if we will just complete the work by having a vote in the House.

I was saddened to read that we continue to lose businesses because natural gas prices are too high. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 3.1 million high-wage manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000, largely due to inadequate supplies of natural gas. This week, the House can join us in doing something about that, and I urge they do whichever they see as the best way to pass it. If they think it is best to do it freestanding and send it to us as we sent it to them, I wish them the best. If they choose to put it on the tax bill, I hope it will not just make it more difficult and cause the bill to be lost in the transit to the Senate, which appears simple but becomes cumbersome, at least once it hits the House and hits the Senate. It is nice and easy just coming over as it is walked over, but it is very cumbersome once it gets here. That is what would happen. It would then be discussed and perhaps debated, and it would have to have a vote. That is the second approach and far less desirable.

But the House can see the writing on the wall--do it now or perhaps never do it. What a shame. Do it now and you get the benefits I have indicated or, believe it or not, it could be that you won't get it ever. That is just not a good way to leave for this Christmas, as I see it, and I hope it isn't.

I thank the Senate for permitting me to speak today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense.

The position of Secretary of Defense has always been one of the most important Cabinet positions in our country. Never has that importance been more clear than now, as we must decide on a path forward in the global war on terror, including Iraq.

I share my colleagues' concerns about the deteriorating conditions in Iraq. We must carefully assess the current situation in that country as well as our future involvement in Iraq. I am hopeful that Dr. Gates will help us accomplish these goals. He has experience with the current situation in Iraq as a former member of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. As part of that group, he has traveled to Iraq and met with Iraqi leaders and U.S. military commanders. I am optimistic that he will use this experience and knowledge to help chart a course in Iraq that results in the stabilization of that country.

I also hope that as a former member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, Dr. Gates will carefully review and analyze the Iraq Study Group's report, which was released this morning. I believe that report makes some very good recommendations and can serve as a vehicle for some changes relating to our policy in Iraq. I look forward to discussing those recommendations further in this Chamber.

The report recommends ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.'' Renewed diplomatic and political efforts in the region make sense so that we can work with Iraqis to stabilize their country in the spirit of reconciliation. As the Baker-Hamilton report points out, ``if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America's credibility, interests and values will be protected.'' In my mind, these have always been our goals in Iraq, and I look forward to working with Dr. Gates and my colleagues to accomplish those goals in a responsible way.

There are other recommendations in the report that are equally important. One such recommendation is that ``[t]he primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army . . .'' While I have never supported setting an artificial timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, I believe the Iraqi Government must take responsibility for their country. As such this recommendation regarding our troops' future role in Iraq makes sense, and I will work with Dr. Gates on this recommendation.

One other recommendation that I want to briefly reference is that ``the United States should provide additional political, economic and military support for Afghanistan . . .'' The global war on terror is a multifront war, and we must continue to focus on each of those fronts. I hope Dr. Gates will use his knowledge and experience to help Congress and the President make decisions about the full global war on terror, including operations in Afghanistan. Our work in Afghanistan is important, and I hope Dr. Gates will help us ensure that we do not lose sight of our near- and long-term goals in the overall global war on terror.

Dr. Gates has a long record of service in the area of national security, which I believe will serve him well as Secretary of Defense. He has 26 years of national security experience, including serving as an intelligence adviser to six different Presidents. He has worked at both the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, and the National Security Council, including serving as the Director of the CIA.

Dr. Gates also has a distinguished career in public service. That service began almost 40 years ago when he was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force in 1967. He has received the Presidential Citizens Medal and the National Security Medal, as well as two National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medals and three Distinguished Intelligence Medals.

Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I support the nomination of Dr. Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. I look forward to working with him in the coming years on issues relating to Iraq, the entire global war on terror, and other issues important to our country's defense.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize Major Stephen G. Purdy, Jr., of the U.S. Air Force for the outstanding contributions he rendered this year while serving as a legislative fellow on my staff. Stephen will soon complete his Capitol Hill fellowship, and it is my hope that he has benefited as much from this experience as I have benefited from having him on my staff.

In the course of Stephen's military career, he has served rotations in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, Space and Nuclear Programs. While working at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Stephen was the Atlas V Program chief engineer. Additionally, Stephen has served as the Joint Counterair Acquisition Manager at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, Global Power Directorate. Finally, before joining my office Stephen was posted to the Secretary of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison.

To my great benefit, Stephen joined my office in a year when the Air Force was searching for a new mission for Cannon Air Force base in New Mexico. Cannon was originally targeted for closure on the Department of Defense's, DOD, Base Closure and Realignment, BRAC, list. However, the BRAC Commission ultimately found that the DOD ``substantially deviated'' on several BRAC selection criteria and required that DOD shall seek a new mission for Cannon. Stephen's experience proved critical in our successful efforts to secure a new mission for Cannon. I have no doubt that his tireless work and dedication were important to the Air Force's decision to relocate the Air Force Special Operation Command's 16th Special Operations Wing to Cannon, which has ensured that Cannon will continue to play an important role in securing our Nation.

I must also thank Stephen's family for enduring his many late nights at work. So to Wendy, Stephen's wife, and the Purdy children, Taylor and Holly, I say thank you. And without question, you can be extremely proud of Stephen's dedication to our country.

Finally, Mr. President, I give my heartfelt thanks to Stephen for his service. His can-do attitude and tireless work ethic were infectious. His willingness to tackle issues which were new to him and to embrace the goals I've set for my staff on behalf of both the men and women of the Armed Forces and the citizens of New Mexico were truly commendable. I have no doubt that as Stephen continues his military career he will achieve great things for both the U.S. Air Force and his country, and I wish him the very best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield just for a moment?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator, how long do you think it will take for you to discuss and dispose of your amendment?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Lugar, for arranging for my few remarks before he proceeds.

After committing to a framework 16 months ago, President Bush and India's Prime Minister announced an agreement earlier this year on civil nuclear cooperation between our two countries. I believe they recognize this historic moment in our history, one that requires vision and foresight to anticipate the world as it will be rather than stuck in the past wishing things somehow would be different. Some will argue that we must pursue a better deal approaching perfection, but the deal that has been negotiated is a good one that we must pursue now and begin taking steps to strengthen the nonproliferation regime with India by our side.

Senators Lugar and Biden and the Foreign Relations Committee have done an admirable job of striking a balance that anticipates this future. This strong, bipartisan bill represents a critical step toward strengthening an eroding nonproliferation framework. We only need look at North Korea and Iran for evidence that this erosion is taking place and as a wake-up call that fundamental change is needed. The global community must work together to assure the peaceful pursuit of civilian nuclear waste.

This historic agreement is a critical step that moves the United States and India toward a strategic relationship between our great democracies. Through this relationship, built on strength, we can jointly work toward a vision of a proliferation-free world. I understand that is a vision. It is not real even now. And while things might even look a little worse, the truth is, the relationship we are building with what we are agreeing to here on the floor, when that completes its course and becomes a reality, then that means we are building toward a proliferation-free world.

India is a worthy partner. That was one of the basic questions: Should you enter into this agreement with a partner that has not been part of the ordinary, agreed-upon, acceptable accords and agreements between countries heretofore? I would remind everyone that India is the largest democracy--a population currently over 1 billion and expected to surpass China in the next 50 years. It has a rapidly expanding economy with a growth rate of over 7 percent a year in 2005, a rapidly expanding economy that is the envy of almost all countries that have free and open democracies. This agreement with India brings global transparency to India's entire civilian nuclear program. We forget that India's civilian and military program still remains closed to global scrutiny. Under this agreement, the entire civilian program, 65 percent of all nuclear activity and eventually 90 percent of all nuclear activity, will open to monitoring by the IAEA. Obviously, we ought to start, if that is where we are going to end up, because that is as good as we are going to do. And certainly we ought to be grateful that through the leadership of the President and now the leadership of the Congress, we can get there.

The people are similar to the American people. They desire a better life for themselves and their children. Rapid economic growth that has led to improving their standard of living is projected to result in a doubling of the energy needs of their country in the next 25 years. India must make choices today that drive their energy mix in the future.

Like many countries, they have chosen nuclear power to improve their energy security while reducing reliance on imports. India currently has nine reactors under construction and plans to grow the nuclear share to 25 percent by 2050. That is 100 times the 2002 capacity. Cooperation with India will lead to significant opportunities for U.S. industry to help assure India's energy mix, including nuclear power, is clean, diversified, and proliferation-resistant.

I strongly support an evolving strategic U.S. relationship with India that this agreement promotes. We ought to be proud of it and move with dispatch. It is the world's largest democracy and a worthy partner that we can work with in our pursuit of global security. I have worked with Senator Lugar in the past on nonproliferation measures that required vision and foresight. With India also, we must look to our future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and urge dispatch in consideration of the balance of the subject matter.

I thank Senator Lugar for obtaining time for me on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Senator Lugar.

Mr. President, while the Senator who was talking is still on the floor, let me say if a unanimous consent request is propounded that is consistent with what he has said, I would have to object. I want to make sure everybody knows this.

We have a bill, Energy and Water, authored by this Senator and Senator Reid, soon to be majority leader. It is our bill, Energy and Water. We want to make sure that during these operative days we are going to get some work done and that this bill gets in line to be taken up. We are not asking for any special privileges, but if you are going to propound it the way you have, then I am going to ask that House bill 5427, which is Energy and Water, be put in order behind the Agriculture bill, to be taken up after it. Otherwise, I would object, until we sit down and talk and make sure that H.R. 5427 gets some position in the Senate before we are gone and find no way to take it up. Those in leadership know I have been talking to the leaders and others. So I am not bringing anything up that is brand new. In these times, you don't know what is going to come up. This is the best way to bring it up and nobody can say you didn't bring it up. I am bringing it up to whoever is supposed to have things brought up to them. I hope that is enough. The distinguished leader is here. I wanted to put that in the Record so nobody had a misunderstanding.

Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished leader, if it is being asked of the Senate that we concur by unanimous consent that the arrangement to bring up Agriculture in the method and manner described, if that is going to be a UC, then I have to object because I want to be treated fairly on a comparable bill.

If nothing else other than a simple sentence is added that says when the Agriculture bill is completed that the next bill to be taken up would be H.R. 5427, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, if that is part of the UC, I have no objection.

Mr. President, might I inquire--first, I thank the leader for his words, which appear to be accommodating and perhaps efficient at this moment. I am not sure, but I want to ask another question.

The leader is aware of an Agriculture amendment that has rather broad support that we discussed today in the meetings and other Democrats have discussed with me which has to do with how manure and the like from cows and pigs is defined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. I want to offer that amendment on the Agriculture bill. Nothing is going to preclude that in what we have talked about, is it?

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the December 2005 report from the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's status.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Josh Johnson at (202) 224- 5861 or Steve Waskiewicz at (202) 228-6195.

subcommittee on national parks

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Officer Building in Washington,

I agree.

I thank the Senator from Ohio for this important discussion. I also concur with the assessment of my colleagues, Senator Pryor and Senator Warner. This issue was discussed at length before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The effect of silence on the chemical security language in question is clear. Federal law that is silent in this way can still occupy the field and impliedly preempt any State legislation on the same topic. Further, the precedence for Federal preemption in regulatory matters dealing with security is clear. In the interest of national security, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created to oversee the nuclear facilities. Given the importance of this critical infrastructure and the clear national security concerns, the Federal Government has exclusive regulatory authority. I concur with my colleagues who have noted that in matters of national security the Federal Government should perform its constitutional duty to defend the homeland.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their hard work on the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I also want to congratulate my friend from New Hampshire, Chairman Gregg, for his leadership in putting together a package of funding that will secure our country's ports and borders and strengthen immigration and customs enforcement. During this session of the 109th Congress, we have spent a good deal of time considering measures that would strengthen our borders and reform our immigration system. I believe this spending bill is a testament to the administration and the Senate's commitment to these issues.

In this bill, the conference agreed to provide a total of $34.8 billion to secure our Nation's borders and infrastructure. This marks an overall increase of $2.3 billion over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, including supplemental funding, and includes a $1.8 billion emergency spending provision for border security.

This bill specifically sets aside over $8 billion for Customs and Border Protection. I represent a State that is directly impacted by its southern border with Mexico, and I laud the provisions that provide funding for 1,500 new Border Patrol agents. My home State of New Mexico is also home to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and the addition of extra Border Patrol agents prompted the conference to provide $275.25 million for new facilities, salaries, and additional instructors.

The bill also provides a $602.2 million for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to procure and maintain air assets. I thank the chairman for supporting my request for $20 in funding for unmanned aerial vehicles, UAV's, and related support systems. The conference report also provides $232.98 million for a border construction program. Funds from this program will be used to construct and maintain border facilities, and $7.46 million will be used to build vehicle barriers along my State's international border with Mexico. We have heard a great deal from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, ICE, about the need for additional bed space for apprehended illegal immigrants. The committee provides a total of $3.89 billion in funding for ICE, of which $153.4 million is to be used for additional detention bed space.

Mr. President, it is no easy task to prioritize funding of programs related to homeland security. I am proud of Chairman Gregg's leadership in ensuring that our Government has provided the resources and moneys necessary to secure our borders and strengthen our enforcement systems. Under the chairman's leadership, we have increased funding for border security each year, and I am proud that we have done so again this year.

Mr. President, monsoons this summer provided New Mexico with a brief reprieve from drought conditions that have persisted in some areas of New Mexico since 2000. We would be remiss to let our recent good fortune influence our long-term water planning. July and August this year were the wettest July and August in the past 112 years. Clearly, we cannot assume these events will become commonplace. For this reason, we must take steps to ensure we are prepared for future droughts and increasing competition for limited water supplies.

Despite summer rains, many reservoirs are still far below historical averages. According to recent reservoir data, Heron and El Vado Reservoirs on the Chama River are 71 percent and 56 percent of average, respectively; Conchas Reservoir on the Canadian River is 50 percent of average; and Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande is 27 percent of average. Moreover, because storage in Elephant Butte Reservoir has not reached 400,000 acre feet, the Rio Grande Compact imposes restrictions on New Mexico's ability to store water in reservoirs on the Rio Grande and Chama Rivers. As such, recent rains have not contributed significantly to storage on those rivers.

The water crisis we were facing prior to the summer rains led many to question how we will allocate this finite resource among numerous and competing needs. As witnessed on the Klamath River and the Rio Grande in New Mexico, water shortages often result in litigation that pits municipalities, agricultural producers, industry, Indians, and the environmental community against one another. In order to avoid such crises in New Mexico, the United States Congress has appropriated enormous sums in order to ensure that existing uses are not curtailed. However, unless new sources of water are found, future conflict over water is inevitable.

Recent conditions illustrate the need for us to look for ways to supplement flows of the most severely impacted regions in order to stave off the hardships and conflict that result from lean water years. It is my sincere hope that record-breaking rains this summer will not breed complacency. The bill I introduce today would authorize the United States Bureau of Reclamation to investigate ways to increase the flows of the Rio Grande, Pecos and Canadian Rivers, the three rivers that have been most devastated by long-term drought. While little can be done to increase rainfall, it is my belief that this bill will help us begin to better understand ways to increase the flows of these rivers to help mitigate the damaging effects that drought imposes on the municipalities, agricultural producers, industries and endangered species that depend on the water these rivers provide.

I thank Representative Heather Wilson for introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a problem faced by communities in eastern New Mexico illustrative of a greater problem that will ultimately be encountered by all who depend on the Ogallala Aquifer for their water. This includes communities in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming and South Dakota. At one time, the Aquifer contained roughly the same amount of water as Lake Huron. After 65 years of mining, we are now faced with the reality that the water contained in the Ogallala Aquifer has been significantly depleted and continues to be drawn down at an alarming rate.

Many on the periphery of the Aquifer, including much of eastern New Mexico, parts of Kansas and Oklahoma have been forced to drill new wells in order to supplement existing wells that are producing water at a fraction of the volume of several decades ago. This problem is not limited to those communities overlying the Ogallala. Many other regions entirely reliant on groundwater face a similar problem. As is the case with the communities in eastern New Mexico, when the wells run dry, the only alternative for many is to ship water from long distances. In many instances, this is a very expensive proposition that exceeds the capacity of rural communities' ability to pay.

In order to address the want of a sustainable water supply in eastern New Mexico, I introduce today the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Act of 2006. The bill would authorize the United States Bureau of Reclamation to provide financial assistance to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, at a 75 percent Federal cost-share, to construct a pipeline from Ute Reservoir to communities in eastern New Mexico. This project would provide them with a renewable source of water for years to come. Presently, it is unclear how many years the groundwater resources on which they rely will be available.

The communities which make up the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority are due a great deal of credit for initiating engineering studies, project financing studies, and seeking support for the project from local, Federal and State governments. However, it would be misleading to suggest that securing appropriations for this or similar pipelines would be easy or that the funds will be available any time soon. The current budget of the United States Bureau of Reclamation simply cannot accommodate the large sums of money that this or other water supply projects would require. As Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I am acutely aware of this fact and I have made this clear to the communities that would benefit from the pipeline authorized by the bill that I introduce today. However, I remain committed to advocate for the need to dedicate substantially more of the national budget to this and other western water issues with Congress and the Administration. In the interim, it is my hope that we can begin the long and difficult process of moving this bill through the Federal legislature. The members of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority fully appreciate the difficulties that lie ahead.

The problem faced by eastern New Mexico communities will become commonplace as groundwater supplies are exhausted. Approximately half of the population of the United States depends on aquifers for their domestic water needs. In the coming years, the United States Congress will have to provide succor to similar communities who have no alternative than to seek assistance from the Federal Government. Commensurate with this need for assistance, Congress will also have to make budgetary decisions that take into account this widespread problem. We would be remiss in our duties to let these communities simply dryup.

I thank Senator Bingaman, my friend and colleague for the past 23 years and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for co-sponsoring this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, monsoons this summer provided New Mexico with a brief reprieve from drought conditions that have persisted in some areas of New Mexico since 2000. We would be remiss to let our recent good fortune influence our long-term water planning. July and August this year were the wettest July and August in the past 112 years. Clearly, we cannot assume these events will become commonplace. For this reason, we must take steps to ensure we are prepared for future droughts and increasing competition for limited water supplies.

Despite summer rains, many reservoirs are still far below historical averages. According to recent reservoir data, Heron and El Vado Reservoirs on the Chama River are 71 percent and 56 percent of average, respectively; Conchas Reservoir on the Canadian River is 50 percent of average; and Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande is 27 percent of average. Moreover, because storage in Elephant Butte Reservoir has not reached 400,000 acre feet, the Rio Grande Compact imposes restrictions on New Mexico's ability to store water in reservoirs on the Rio Grande and Chama Rivers. As such, recent rains have not contributed significantly to storage on those rivers.

The water crisis we were facing prior to the summer rains led many to question how we will allocate this finite resource among numerous and competing needs. As witnessed on the Klamath River and the Rio Grande in New Mexico, water shortages often result in litigation that pits municipalities, agricultural producers, industry, Indians, and the environmental community against one another. In order to avoid such crises in New Mexico, the United States Congress has appropriated enormous sums in order to ensure that existing uses are not curtailed. However, unless new sources of water are found, future conflict over water is inevitable.

Recent conditions illustrate the need for us to look for ways to supplement flows of the most severely impacted regions in order to stave off the hardships and conflict that result from lean water years. It is my sincere hope that record-breaking rains this summer will not breed complacency. The bill I introduce today would authorize the United States Bureau of Reclamation to investigate ways to increase the flows of the Rio Grande, Pecos and Canadian Rivers, the three rivers that have been most devastated by long-term drought. While little can be done to increase rainfall, it is my belief that this bill will help us begin to better understand ways to increase the flows of these rivers to help mitigate the damaging effects that drought imposes on the municipalities, agricultural producers, industries and endangered species that depend on the water these rivers provide.

I thank Representative Heather Wilson for introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a problem faced by communities in eastern New Mexico illustrative of a greater problem that will ultimately be encountered by all who depend on the Ogallala Aquifer for their water. This includes communities in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming and South Dakota. At one time, the Aquifer contained roughly the same amount of water as Lake Huron. After 65 years of mining, we are now faced with the reality that the water contained in the Ogallala Aquifer has been significantly depleted and continues to be drawn down at an alarming rate.

Many on the periphery of the Aquifer, including much of eastern New Mexico, parts of Kansas and Oklahoma have been forced to drill new wells in order to supplement existing wells that are producing water at a fraction of the volume of several decades ago. This problem is not limited to those communities overlying the Ogallala. Many other regions entirely reliant on groundwater face a similar problem. As is the case with the communities in eastern New Mexico, when the wells run dry, the only alternative for many is to ship water from long distances. In many instances, this is a very expensive proposition that exceeds the capacity of rural communities' ability to pay.

In order to address the want of a sustainable water supply in eastern New Mexico, I introduce today the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Act of 2006. The bill would authorize the United States Bureau of Reclamation to provide financial assistance to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, at a 75 percent Federal cost-share, to construct a pipeline from Ute Reservoir to communities in eastern New Mexico. This project would provide them with a renewable source of water for years to come. Presently, it is unclear how many years the groundwater resources on which they rely will be available.

The communities which make up the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority are due a great deal of credit for initiating engineering studies, project financing studies, and seeking support for the project from local, Federal and State governments. However, it would be misleading to suggest that securing appropriations for this or similar pipelines would be easy or that the funds will be available any time soon. The current budget of the United States Bureau of Reclamation simply cannot accommodate the large sums of money that this or other water supply projects would require. As Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I am acutely aware of this fact and I have made this clear to the communities that would benefit from the pipeline authorized by the bill that I introduce today. However, I remain committed to advocate for the need to dedicate substantially more of the national budget to this and other western water issues with Congress and the Administration. In the interim, it is my hope that we can begin the long and difficult process of moving this bill through the Federal legislature. The members of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority fully appreciate the difficulties that lie ahead.

The problem faced by eastern New Mexico communities will become commonplace as groundwater supplies are exhausted. Approximately half of the population of the United States depends on aquifers for their domestic water needs. In the coming years, the United States Congress will have to provide succor to similar communities who have no alternative than to seek assistance from the Federal Government. Commensurate with this need for assistance, Congress will also have to make budgetary decisions that take into account this widespread problem. We would be remiss in our duties to let these communities simply dryup.

I thank Senator Bingaman, my friend and colleague for the past 23 years and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for co-sponsoring this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit an important resolution designating October 8 through the 14 as National Hispanic Media Week. I am joined by Senators Bingaman, Salazar, Martinez, and Nelson of Florida in the introduction of this resolution.

This is the second year in which the Senate has designated a week to honor the Hispanic media of America. An institution that can trace its origins to almost four hundred years ago, America's Hispanic journalists and publishers have worked tirelessly to promote the free and deliberative exchange of ideas. The Hispanic media has played an important role in protecting cherished freedoms and rights. They have also worked to preserve our freedom of speech and have encouraged the growth of civic engagement in our nation's Hispanic community.

Since its early days, the Hispanic media has grown to serve a population exceeding 20 million people. In my home State of New Mexico, approximately 42 percent of the population is Hispanic. I know that many of these individuals turn to Hispanic media for news and other important information. As such, I am honored to be able to support a group that is important to so many people in my home State and in our great nation.

This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and states across the Nation to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in promptly passing this Resolution designating October 8 through October 14 as National Hispanic Media Week.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Dodd to submit a resolution designating the week of October 15 through the 21 as the 2006 National Character Counts Week.

Our character is the foundation of who we are as people and how we are perceived by the world. Everyday our character and ethics are tested through the decisions we make and the behavior we exhibit. The National Character Counts program focuses on ``Six Pillars of Character'' which are promoted through school and community based character education programs across the country. The six pillars are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship.

I have supported Character Counts throughout the years because I believe this program reaches out to all youth and adults, as the Character Counts Coalition states, no matter the individual's race, creed, politics, gender, and wealth. In my home state of New Mexico, we have run many successful Character Counts programs throughout the years. While many schools initiate Character Counts programs there are also many other organizations that develop character based programming. I would like to take the time to recognize some of the successful programming we have had in New Mexico for 2006.

Mesa Elementary School in Clovis, NM is the definition of a school that embraces character education programming. Everyday school begins with a Character Song and Pledge and every month they organize a Character Counts assembly to recognize and reflect upon the ``Six Pillars of Character.'' In Gallup, the Gallup High School National Honor Society is distributing Character Counts posters to all faculty and staff and volunteering for a Youth Leadership Weekend. In Las Cruces, the City of Las Cruces Recreation Section organized the K-8th basketball leagues to participate in sportsmanship games and the halftime show will spotlight Pursuing Victory with Honor. Lastly, the New Mexico Women's Correctional Facility is gearing up to commence a Character Counts based series in their new character education programming. All of these organizations and schools as well as the many others not mentioned here, are to be commended for their hard work in developing these programs and spreading the message that character truly does count.

During the week of October 15, I hope everyone takes the time to participate in a Character Counts event in their local area. I know in New Mexico we will be having some special celebrations. On October 16 in Carlsbad, New Mexico there will be the 10th Anniversary Character Counts Celebration including a student-designed Character Counts billboard unveiling at a celebratory dinner; October 17, the Las Cruces Public Schools will have ``Go for the Gold'' Character Counts awards; October 19, the Albuquerque Public Schools will have a Character Counts annual awards breakfast, and Chavez County will have a Character Counts Celebration Night; and on October 20, the YMCA of Central New Mexico will have a Youth Achiever Awards ceremony.

I believe this program is making a difference in my home state and across the country. I want to encourage more people to become involved with the Character Counts program, but most of all I hope individuals will take the time to reflect on what the ``Six Pillars of Character'' mean to them.

I hope all of my colleagues will support this effort.

Mr. President, I will speak on this vital subject. I rise to speak in support of the Military Commission Act of 2006.

First off, we must all ask ourselves a very simple question: Do we believe the United States must have a terrorist attack prevention program?

I submit that the answer is a clear and resounding yes. I believe the American people expect us to have a strong terrorist attack prevention program and that they believe if we don't, we are derelict in our duty. They know that we are at risk, that this is a war, and that there are many people out there who are waiting to do damage and harm to our people. To have anything less than a terrorist prevention program, which is the best we can put together, is shameful. I cannot support any legislation that would prevent the CIA from protecting America and its citizens.

The legislation before us allows the Federal Government to continue using one of the most valuable tools we have in our war on terror--the CIA terrorist interrogation program.

The global war on terror is a new type of war against a new type of enemy, and we must use every tool at our disposal to fight that war-- not just some tools, but all of them. These tools include interrogation programs that help us prevent new terrorist attacks.

The CIA interrogation program is such a program. It is helping us deny terrorists the opportunity to attack America. It has allowed us to foil at least eight terrorist plots, including plans to attack west coast targets with airplanes, blow up tall buildings across our Nation, use commercial airliners to attack Heathrow Airport and bomb our U.S. Marine base in Africa.

Mr. President, clearly, this program is valuable. Clearly, this program is necessary in the global war on terror. We must take legislative action that will allow the program to continue. The CIA must be allowed to continue going after those who have information about planned terrorist attacks against our Nation and our friends. The CIA must be allowed to go after those who are in combat with us.

I applaud the White House, the Senate leadership, and the Armed Services Committee for working together to craft a bill that, No. 1, authorizes military tribunals and establishes the trial and evidentiary rules for such tribunals; and No. 2, clarifies the standards the CIA must comply with in conducting terrorist interrogations. We must keep the bill in its current form, fending off amendments that would put the CIA's program in jeopardy.

Regarding the Byrd sunset amendment, we don't know when the global war on terror will end, so we cannot arbitrarily tie one hand behind the CIA's back by suddenly terminating the interrogation program with a sunset provision.

We have already voted on the habeas corpus amendment, and I am glad we did not add habeas provisions to this bill. We cannot give terrorists the right to bring a habeas corpus petition that seeks release from prison on the grounds of unlawful imprisonment, as the Specter amendment would. Such legislation will clog our already overburdened courts.

Additionally, such petitions are often frivolous and disrupt operations at Guantanamo Bay. Examples of the frivolous petitions that have been filed include an al-Qaida terrorist complaining

about base security procedures, speed of mail delivery, and medical treatment; as well as a detainee asking that normal security policies be set aside so that he could be shown DVDs that are alleged to be family videos. Such petitions are not necessary.

The underlying bill allows appeals of judgments rendered by military commissions to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals--a very significant court. These are appeals of judgments rendered by the military commissions. That is a totally appropriate way to do it. When I finally understood that, I could not believe that some would come to the floor and argue as they did. My colleagues have said we are abandoning habeas corpus; we have never done anything like this before. They act as if we have decided to be totally unjust and unfair when, as a matter of fact, this is about as fair a treatment as you could give terrorist suspects and still have an orderly process. I think we have done the right thing. Giving terrorist suspects access to the court known as the second highest court in America provides an adequate opportunity for review of detainees' cases.

I laud the occupant of the chair for explaining this matter early on to many of us who did not understand the issue, and it has become clear to many of us that we have done the right thing in terms of the habeas corpus rule that we have adopted. It will be upheld, in my opinion, after I have read some other cases, by the courts.

Mr. President, my primary standard in determining whether to support this legislation is whether the legislation will allow the CIA interrogation program to continue. The answer to that question must be yes. If the answer to that question is no, then we are foolhardy, at a minimum, and totally stupid at a maximum, if we decide that the kinds of enemies we have will not be subject to the CIA terrorist interrogation program we have now. The program must continue.

The administration has informed me that this bill, in its current form, will allow the CIA terrorist interrogation program to continue. I sought that information as a critical piece of information before I started looking at all of the amendments to see where we were. Therefore, this bill must pass, and it must pass in its current form.

We must remember that we are dealing with terrorists, not white- collar criminals. We are not even dealing with the types of prisoners of war there were in the Second World War, some of whom, from the German area, might have been severely abusing the rights of prisoners- of-war. But we still did not in any way have the situation we have now with reference to prisoners of war in the Second World War.

We must remember that we are dealing with terrorists who know no limits, follow no rules, have no orderliness about them. They are just going to do what we let them do. We must give our best--the CIA--the tools they need to do their job to fight this war on terror against these terrorists.

It is my privilege to be on the side of this bill. I believe the American people will be on the side of this bill. Some thought early that it was the wrong thing to do. Just as it happens with many bills, we got off on the wrong foot. But we are back straight, with both feet on the right path, and we must pass the bill as is.

I wonder if those who want to destroy this bill or make it ineffective would really ask the American people in honesty and sincerity, do they want the CIA program to continue or are they really trying to say we should not allow the program? If my colleagues are on the side of the latter, they ought to tell us and tell the American people. Then we would understand whom they are for and there would be no question in the American people's minds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I note the arrival on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. The legislation that I will be talking about is of significant interest to the Senator from Nevada. But it will take many months on the floor of the Senate before we finish.

Today my fellow Senators I am introducing legislation that I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program back on track.

As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree, starting back to the late 1950's when the National Academy of Sciences reported to the Atomic Energy Commission suggesting that burying radioactive high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration.

In the 1980s, when Congress decided to pursue a geologic repository, we were quite optimistic--so optimistic that we told the Department of Energy--DOE--to enter into contracts with utilities that promised that we would begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998. Well, obviously that didn't happen. What did happen was that the courts found that the government is liable for its failure to meet its contractual obligation.

While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic repository for nuclear waste a reality. In 2002, the President and Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--NRC. That decision has been made.

With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the NRC to evaluate the scientific data and determine whether the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent nuclear fuel management strategy for

this country. Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill introduced today will do that.

This bill will remove legal barriers that will allow DOE to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository licensing decision.

The bill I will introduce today authorizes the DOE to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the Nevada Test Site, a license condition of the NRC.

This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain. The capacity of the mountain will be determined by scientific and technical analysis.

The DOE may also begin construction of needed infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.

This legislation will begin to consolidate the defense waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a surface storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface storage facilities from the NRC, the department may begin moving defense fuel and waste to the Nevada Test Site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense activities that kept us safe during the Cold War will be consolidated and secure at the site.

Only after the NRC issues a construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the department begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site.

This bill will withdraw the land for the rail route for Yucca, a vital transportation component. There is a provision that also provides that appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund will not count against the allocations for discretionary spending. The DOE will have access to the full funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund, monies collected from our constituents, to complete this project.

This bill compliments the short, medium, and long term components of the nuclear fuel cycle that I began to talk about this past summer. The thinking of how to handle nuclear spent fuel in the late 1970s and early 1980s and the way we approached its management is changing, we need to acknowledge that change.

In the short term, according to DOE's most optimistic schedule, the NRC's construction permit will not be issued until 2011. The Consolidated and Preparation ``CAP'' proposal in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill begins to enable DOE to fulfill its contractual liability for spent fuel storage before DOE can move spent fuel to Yucca Mountain by providing new authorities for DOE to accept and store civilian spent nuclear fuel within the states in which it was generated.

In the mid term, this legislation lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--GNEP--by providing that before spent fuel is shipped to Nevada, the Secretary of Energy determines if it can be recycled within a reasonable amount of time. Current plans for GNEP do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel that has already been generated. This proposal will avoid moving waste to Nevada that should be shipped instead to a GNEP facility.

In the long term, this measure provides DOE with the authorities needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project, and to begin long term emplacement, while the GNEP program will reduce the volume of material to be emplaced in the mountain, eliminating the need for a second repository program.

The three pieces of the fuel cycle that I have discussed today-- interim storage, GNEP and Yucca Mountain--will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors.

We can solve this problem and I hope we can move forward together.

I send to the desk a bill which does all of the things that I have just spoken to. I am sure many Senators and their staffs will be interested. This will certainly not proceed in any hurry; it will take a while. But I intend to move it as best I can. There will be opportunities to stop the movement at every opportunity. I am just hopeful that we will carry all the way through, as we have in the past, and go to conference and take something to the President and see where we are.

I thank the Senator. It is a pleasure working with him.

When I have legislation such as the legislation I just described, which is very difficult, and I know we are going to come to spots in the Senate, stopovers where we will have to vote because it is good for the country, I am counting in the column that if I have done my work, will this Senator vote for it, the Senator's name. I believe if we do our work and get our votes properly and line up what we propose, a Senator such as Senator Lott will not be running around asking people what is going on in his State.

This matter deserves his attention, as it deserves my attention. I believe we will get that.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I note the arrival on the floor of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. The legislation that I will be talking about is of significant interest to the Senator from Nevada. But it will take many months on the floor of the Senate before we finish.

Today my fellow Senators I am introducing legislation that I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program back on track.

As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree, starting back to the late 1950's when the National Academy of Sciences reported to the Atomic Energy Commission suggesting that burying radioactive high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration.

In the 1980s, when Congress decided to pursue a geologic repository, we were quite optimistic--so optimistic that we told the Department of Energy--DOE--to enter into contracts with utilities that promised that we would begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998. Well, obviously that didn't happen. What did happen was that the courts found that the government is liable for its failure to meet its contractual obligation.

While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic repository for nuclear waste a reality. In 2002, the President and Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--NRC. That decision has been made.

With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the NRC to evaluate the scientific data and determine whether the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent nuclear fuel management strategy for

this country. Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill introduced today will do that.

This bill will remove legal barriers that will allow DOE to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository licensing decision.

The bill I will introduce today authorizes the DOE to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the Nevada Test Site, a license condition of the NRC.

This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain. The capacity of the mountain will be determined by scientific and technical analysis.

The DOE may also begin construction of needed infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.

This legislation will begin to consolidate the defense waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a surface storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface storage facilities from the NRC, the department may begin moving defense fuel and waste to the Nevada Test Site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense activities that kept us safe during the Cold War will be consolidated and secure at the site.

Only after the NRC issues a construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the department begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site.

This bill will withdraw the land for the rail route for Yucca, a vital transportation component. There is a provision that also provides that appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund will not count against the allocations for discretionary spending. The DOE will have access to the full funds in the Nuclear Waste Fund, monies collected from our constituents, to complete this project.

This bill compliments the short, medium, and long term components of the nuclear fuel cycle that I began to talk about this past summer. The thinking of how to handle nuclear spent fuel in the late 1970s and early 1980s and the way we approached its management is changing, we need to acknowledge that change.

In the short term, according to DOE's most optimistic schedule, the NRC's construction permit will not be issued until 2011. The Consolidated and Preparation ``CAP'' proposal in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill begins to enable DOE to fulfill its contractual liability for spent fuel storage before DOE can move spent fuel to Yucca Mountain by providing new authorities for DOE to accept and store civilian spent nuclear fuel within the states in which it was generated.

In the mid term, this legislation lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--GNEP--by providing that before spent fuel is shipped to Nevada, the Secretary of Energy determines if it can be recycled within a reasonable amount of time. Current plans for GNEP do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel that has already been generated. This proposal will avoid moving waste to Nevada that should be shipped instead to a GNEP facility.

In the long term, this measure provides DOE with the authorities needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project, and to begin long term emplacement, while the GNEP program will reduce the volume of material to be emplaced in the mountain, eliminating the need for a second repository program.

The three pieces of the fuel cycle that I have discussed today-- interim storage, GNEP and Yucca Mountain--will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors.

We can solve this problem and I hope we can move forward together.

I send to the desk a bill which does all of the things that I have just spoken to. I am sure many Senators and their staffs will be interested. This will certainly not proceed in any hurry; it will take a while. But I intend to move it as best I can. There will be opportunities to stop the movement at every opportunity. I am just hopeful that we will carry all the way through, as we have in the past, and go to conference and take something to the President and see where we are.

I thank the Senator. It is a pleasure working with him.

When I have legislation such as the legislation I just described, which is very difficult, and I know we are going to come to spots in the Senate, stopovers where we will have to vote because it is good for the country, I am counting in the column that if I have done my work, will this Senator vote for it, the Senator's name. I believe if we do our work and get our votes properly and line up what we propose, a Senator such as Senator Lott will not be running around asking people what is going on in his State.

This matter deserves his attention, as it deserves my attention. I believe we will get that.

I thank the Senator.