Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``United States Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact.'' This bill would direct the Secretary of State to work with the Government of Brazil and other foreign governments to develop partnerships that will strengthen diplomatic relations and energy security, including through accelerated development of biofuels production, research and infrastructure. This will help to alleviate poverty, create jobs, and increase income, while improving energy security and protecting the environment..

Earlier this month President Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva agreed in Sao Paulo to cooperate to promote ethanol in the Americas as an alternative to oil. The agreement aims to increase cooperation on biofuels technology and to develop international biofuels standards. President Bush is following up by hosting President da Silva at Camp David this Saturday, March 31.

President Bush intended his trip to rebuild bridges to Latin America. Many Latin Americans are critical, even hostile, over what they see as the administration's neglect of the region. Strained relationships often are repaired in small steps. The ethanol accord promises mutual benefits for the United States and Brazil, Latin America, and potentially, the rest of the world. If executed in a spirit of partnership and funded generously, it could have a significant regional and global impact on the development of ethanol markets, climate change and the ability of many poor countries to endure oil price shocks.

Although the agreement is overall a win-win-win deal for Brazil, the United States and the region, it has been criticized. Some opponents are simply trying to thwart better U.S.-Brazilian cooperation. But others have raised concerns about the dislocations and unintended consequences of promoting biofuel crops.

Only by addressing such worries and quelling the doubts can the Brazil-U.S. pact fully meet its promise to be a launching pad for what I envision as a transformational Americas-wide energy program that will radically improve the hemisphere's strategic and economic posture. Today I introduce the United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact to capitalize on the opportunity it presents to reestablish strong U.S. relations with our neighbors while also building a more secure energy future.

The bill calls on Brazil and the United States to help fund feasibility studies to assess each Latin American country's biofuel needs and biomass production potential, with special attention to food security and the environment. By encouraging cellulosic ethanol that does not rely on grains, it should help assuage fears, shared by American and Latin American livestock producers alike, that excessive reliance on corn for ethanol will further drive up animal feed costs and thus prices of beef, pork and chicken. For Mexico, where skyrocketing tortilla prices have been blamed on the diversion of corn for ethanol, the bill calls for special efforts to find non-corn sources of biofuels.

The legislation envisions a special hemispheric carbon trading system to encourage preservation of tropical rain forests in the face of growing demand for energy crops, and it calls on the regional development banks, as well as U.S. foreign assistance, to support biofuel infrastructure projects.

The bill contains special provisions to help our closest and poorest neighbors in the Caribbean and Central America revive their moribund sugar cane industries so they can produce their own ethanol. Currently nearly all the ethanol they sell is processed product from Brazil.

And while biofuels are a key element of energy security, better utilization of conventional resources also plays a role. The bill seeks ways to help optimize Mexican oil output, which is lagging to the detriment of both countries, and encourages South America to exploit fully its natural gas supplies with new pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities.

Giving the United States easy access to foreign ethanol supplies, even as we increase domestic production, is an essential component to meet President Bush's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels use by 2017, which cannot be met by U.S. corn ethanol alone. U.S. corn ethanol production will peak around 14 billion gallons in 2010, experts estimate. Reducing dependence on oil imported from unstable and often hostile regions is a paramount foreign policy imperative.

The U.S. doesn't tax imported oil, but currently levies a 54-cents- per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol to protect U.S. producers from cheaper Brazilian ethanol. It is clear that this barrier to trade in Americas-grown fuel is inconsistent with our political goals in the region, and with our long-term energy security.

Altering the import tax would affect a number of industries and interests. Therefore, the bill calls for a comprehensive study on the current political and economic impacts of the tariff and the potential costs and benefits of repealing it or modifying it.

In this way, I believe that passage of this bill would encourage Administration officials to rethink old policies in order to improve energy cooperation, and encourage other Governments in the region to do likewise. With this legislation, Congress can demonstrate to citizens of the Americas that the U.S. is ready to embark on an equal partnership for progress.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to ensure the energy security of our country and the region.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``United States Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact.'' This bill would direct the Secretary of State to work with the Government of Brazil and other foreign governments to develop partnerships that will strengthen diplomatic relations and energy security, including through accelerated development of biofuels production, research and infrastructure. This will help to alleviate poverty, create jobs, and increase income, while improving energy security and protecting the environment..

Earlier this month President Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva agreed in Sao Paulo to cooperate to promote ethanol in the Americas as an alternative to oil. The agreement aims to increase cooperation on biofuels technology and to develop international biofuels standards. President Bush is following up by hosting President da Silva at Camp David this Saturday, March 31.

President Bush intended his trip to rebuild bridges to Latin America. Many Latin Americans are critical, even hostile, over what they see as the administration's neglect of the region. Strained relationships often are repaired in small steps. The ethanol accord promises mutual benefits for the United States and Brazil, Latin America, and potentially, the rest of the world. If executed in a spirit of partnership and funded generously, it could have a significant regional and global impact on the development of ethanol markets, climate change and the ability of many poor countries to endure oil price shocks.

Although the agreement is overall a win-win-win deal for Brazil, the United States and the region, it has been criticized. Some opponents are simply trying to thwart better U.S.-Brazilian cooperation. But others have raised concerns about the dislocations and unintended consequences of promoting biofuel crops.

Only by addressing such worries and quelling the doubts can the Brazil-U.S. pact fully meet its promise to be a launching pad for what I envision as a transformational Americas-wide energy program that will radically improve the hemisphere's strategic and economic posture. Today I introduce the United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact to capitalize on the opportunity it presents to reestablish strong U.S. relations with our neighbors while also building a more secure energy future.

The bill calls on Brazil and the United States to help fund feasibility studies to assess each Latin American country's biofuel needs and biomass production potential, with special attention to food security and the environment. By encouraging cellulosic ethanol that does not rely on grains, it should help assuage fears, shared by American and Latin American livestock producers alike, that excessive reliance on corn for ethanol will further drive up animal feed costs and thus prices of beef, pork and chicken. For Mexico, where skyrocketing tortilla prices have been blamed on the diversion of corn for ethanol, the bill calls for special efforts to find non-corn sources of biofuels.

The legislation envisions a special hemispheric carbon trading system to encourage preservation of tropical rain forests in the face of growing demand for energy crops, and it calls on the regional development banks, as well as U.S. foreign assistance, to support biofuel infrastructure projects.

The bill contains special provisions to help our closest and poorest neighbors in the Caribbean and Central America revive their moribund sugar cane industries so they can produce their own ethanol. Currently nearly all the ethanol they sell is processed product from Brazil.

And while biofuels are a key element of energy security, better utilization of conventional resources also plays a role. The bill seeks ways to help optimize Mexican oil output, which is lagging to the detriment of both countries, and encourages South America to exploit fully its natural gas supplies with new pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities.

Giving the United States easy access to foreign ethanol supplies, even as we increase domestic production, is an essential component to meet President Bush's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels use by 2017, which cannot be met by U.S. corn ethanol alone. U.S. corn ethanol production will peak around 14 billion gallons in 2010, experts estimate. Reducing dependence on oil imported from unstable and often hostile regions is a paramount foreign policy imperative.

The U.S. doesn't tax imported oil, but currently levies a 54-cents- per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol to protect U.S. producers from cheaper Brazilian ethanol. It is clear that this barrier to trade in Americas-grown fuel is inconsistent with our political goals in the region, and with our long-term energy security.

Altering the import tax would affect a number of industries and interests. Therefore, the bill calls for a comprehensive study on the current political and economic impacts of the tariff and the potential costs and benefits of repealing it or modifying it.

In this way, I believe that passage of this bill would encourage Administration officials to rethink old policies in order to improve energy cooperation, and encourage other Governments in the region to do likewise. With this legislation, Congress can demonstrate to citizens of the Americas that the U.S. is ready to embark on an equal partnership for progress.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to ensure the energy security of our country and the region.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an updated version of an amendment I filed earlier today to H.R. 1591.

Mr. President, may I raise a question. Will the distinguished Senator be able to respond that I have submitted the amendment, in other words, that I would not have to reappear to resubmit the amendment at that time or is the Senator in a position to give us that assurance?

Mr. President, I have already submitted the amendment, and I am submitting an updated version of the amendment.

Yes, and I am attempting to file the amendment. It was requested I appear in person to do so.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I have filed amendment No. 670 to H.R. 1591. This amendment authorizes the Secretary to spend up to $50 million for the establishment and maintenance of a civilian reserve corps to address postconflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The amendment provides the Secretary the flexibility to use a portion of the funding in this act to make an urgent effort to recruit and train more civilians in planning and managing stabilization and reconstruction.

The Senate embraced the creation of such a civilian corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last May. The funding in this amendment matches the level provided in the House version of the emergency supplemental.

If enacted, this amendment provides the Secretary with access to immediate funding to recruit and send civilians with the appropriate skills to assist in reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to emerging trouble spots around the world. The United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure.

Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this amendment. They understand that, if we cannot work together better as a government in postconflict and other unstable situations, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. This amendment builds on the planning that has already taken place to develop a civilian reserve and jumpstarts it so that it can be available as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Secretary of State strongly endorsing the need for the funding contained in this amendment.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 6, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace talked about the urgent need for civilian expertise in the Iraq stabilization effort. General Pace also called for more civilian resources for the broader worldwide effort, people who can build judicial and rule of law systems, provide engineering expertise, and bring clean water and electricity to people ``before a country devolves into a state where the terrorists can find a home.''

Passing the amendment will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward now to strengthen our civilian reconstruction capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I recommend this amendment to my colleagues and urge its adoption.

Mr. President, along with Senator Bond and Senator Coleman, I will offer an amendment that addresses an issue about which there has been much news reporting and hearings in both House and Senate subcommittees; namely, the situation facing Iraqi and Afghani interpreters and translators who are bravely working on the front lines with our soldiers and diplomats. Such work is vital to our efforts in these two conflicts, yet it often makes them and their families targets for insurgents. This past week, Mr. George Packer wrote a lengthy piece in

the New Yorker on this that I commend to my colleagues.

My interest in this issue, like many of my colleagues, began last summer when I received e-mails from a first lieutenant in the Indiana National Guard who had recently returned from a tour in Iraq and from a sergeant in the Army who was at the time serving in a combat support hospital, also in Iraq.

Aaron Inkenbrandt wrote:

During my year in Iraq, I served as a military Transition

team member. As such, I lived exclusively with Iraqi forces

and acted as a mentor and advisor to them. My team and I did

much to build and train these forces under very difficult

circumstances. However, we could not have achieved success

without our Iraqi interpreters. I believe that our Nation

must reciprocate the loyalty proved by these men by offering

to them sanctuary in the United States.

Iraqi interpreters are an outstanding group of people.

These men not only act as our communicators but also our

cultural advisors and our friends. Our interpreters share

with us the dangers of combat and the rigors of military

life. While interpreters are generally well paid, the risks

associated in assisting Coalition forces are extraordinary.

Both at work and at home, interpreters fear for their lives.

This fear is often so great that they cannot tell even their

closest relatives what they do for a living.

The insurgency in Iraq has made clear that they will murder

any Iraqi caught assisting Coalition Forces. Interpreters are

especially prized by insurgents who often pay high bounties

for their killings or capture. Iraqis not associated with the

insurgency are also hostile toward interpreters. Many Iraqis

believe, though wrongly, that interpreters are snitches or

traitors. Such hostility makes life very difficult for Iraqi

interpreters.''

The withdrawal of Coalition Forces will likely increase

rather than decrease the danger posted to interpreters.

Without our protection, former interpreters will be left

defenseless before their enemies and subject to persecution

by their friends. In my opinion, [it] would be immoral and

contrary to the precepts of our Constitution to abandon these

brave patriots in light of the vast sacrifices that they have

made in the cause of freedom. Therefore, I implore you to

advocate preferable immigration status to all Iraqi

interpreters whose loyalty we reasonably ascertain.

The e-mails, and a cable that our then Ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, released regarding the life-threatening conditions our Foreign Service Nationals were facing prompted me to write to the Secretary of State last July about the issue. I encouraged her to develop a policy to address these various situations and suggest legislative language. The United States has experience and tradition in this respect from past wars that provide precedent and guidance.

The amendment I am offering today with Senator Bond and Senator Coleman is not a conventional amendment for an emergency supplemental, but because it has a direct impact on the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are hopeful this can be included in the package.

By virtue of a provision crafted by former Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana, the 2006 Defense authorization bill established a program to allow 50 Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for the U.S. military as translators for at least 12 months to come to the United States on a special visa. The program has been underway now for just over a year and has been met with success and approval by all of the agencies who work with it.

Since instatement, 445 applications have been received. 377 have been approved, 10 denied and 58 are pending. Under the current cap of 50 per year, it will take until 2016 to admit those currently in the queued-- and their families--for entry to the United States.

In order to help reduce this wait-time, my colleagues and I have crafted an amendment that expands the program to 300 admissions per year and also makes some other technical changes. We change the language to include interpreters as well as translators--as that is the proper term for those who translate conversation while translators work on documents. We also authorize the U.S. Ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan to nominate non-Department of Defense personnel under this program, and we exempt those admitted under this program, and their families from the numerical cap of immigrants who enter in this same, so-called 4th Preference category. Finally, we wish to sunset the program after 3 years.

Mr. President, today I congratulate a legendary Hoosier sports broadcaster, Tom Carnegie, on his retirement.

Born Carl Kenagy in Connecticut in 1919, he displayed an enormous passion for sports even as a child. When polio ended Carl's dream of playing professional sports, he refocused his energy on building a career in broadcasting, which he launched in 1942 at WOWO in Fort Wayne, IN. There, at the suggestion of his station manager, Carl adopted the name Tom Carnegie and used it throughout the remainder of his remarkable career.

Tom came to Indianapolis in 1945 where he quickly made a name for himself as the most recognizable voice in Indiana sports. In addition to his decades of work in radio, television and print, Tom announced the Indiana State high school basketball championships for 24 years, co-founded the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame in 1962, and was inducted in the Hall of Fame in 1975.

Race fans from around the world have come to know Tom as the voice of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. A racing novice at the time, Tom began announcing the Indianapolis 500 in 1946. Over the years, Tom's rich, baritone voice called to millions of fans over the public address system as he announced 61 Indianapolis 500 races, 12 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard races, and 6 United States Grand Prix races. He has also produced two major film documentaries on racing.

I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate Tom on a remarkable life of exciting achievements, and to recognize his wife D.J. for the role she has played in his many accomplishments. I am hopeful that each of my colleague will join me in wishing Tom continuing success, good health, and happiness as he enjoys his retirement.

Mr. President, I wish today to share with my colleagues the winners of the 2006-2007 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/ Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for eighth grade students in my home State. The purpose of this contest is to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. I, along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years.

I congratulate Courtney Larson, of Bartholomew County, and Chad VanLiew, of Jackson County, as winners of this year's contest. I ask that the complete text of their respective essays be printed in the Record. Likewise, I would like to include the names of all of the district and county winners of the 2006-2007 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

The material follows.

Mr. President, since its inception in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has been a trusted friend of the United States. The original five-member countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, were joined by Brunei Darussalam in 1984. Beginning in the late 1960s, U.S. officials today continue to interact with ASEAN regarding mutual interests in East and Southeast Asia. Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia joined ASEAN after 1994.

The level of intersects between ASEAN and the United States is immense, including student exchanges, business and trade, and security cooperation. ASEAN is the third largest export destination of American products.

It is important to note that ASEAN is continually changing, with the pursuit of economic integration. As noted by the ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN officials hope to create ``a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is a free flow of goods, services and investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable, economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities in year 2020.'' Last year alone, there were over 500 meetings of ASEAN officials--it is a vibrant regional structure.

Committed to promoting regional peace and harmony, there has been no armed confrontation among ASEAN member nations, since ASEAN's beginning. An important part of ASEAN's future security lies in the development of a regional energy security strategy. This endeavor is well underway, and the United States looks forward to future dialogue on ways in which meaningful cooperation can occur.

Continued collaboration between ASEAN, the United States and the World Health Organization on addressing major disease challenges, such as Avian influenza is of the essence. All involved must act with vigilance and in a timely way.

While ASEAN and the United States have shared appreciation for the challenges of terrorism, our relationship is far more complex. For the benefit of my colleagues, I point to recent remarks conveyed to me by Singapore's esteemed Ambassador-at-Large, Tommy Koh, who wrote ``ASEAN's relationship with the U.S. is its most important relationship. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. However, ASEAN often feels that it has been treated by the U.S. with benign neglect and viewed solely through the prism of terrorism. We hope, on this 30th anniversary year of the U.S.-ASEAN dialogue relationship, that the U.S. will develop a coherent strategy and policy to engage ASEAN, upgrade our priority and make the U.S. the best friend of ASEAN.''

Full implementation of the ASEAN-United States Enhanced Partnership and appointment of the U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs are important steps in growing this important bilateral relationship.

I am pleased to introduce this resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the U.S.-ASEAN dialogue. It is a message of reaffirmation and deep appreciation by the United States Senate. We look forward to an even closer future partnership on many fronts, yielding mutual benefit for the people of ASEAN and the United States.

Madam President, I rise today, International Women's Day, in support of this resolution celebrating some of the progress that we and other nations are making in fostering improvement in the status of women. The resolution commends the Kingdom of Lesotho for enacting the Legal Capacity of Married Persons law which elevates the status of married women and provides them with property rights. Prior to this law, married women in Lesotho were considered legal minors, denying them the right to enter into binding contracts or have standing in civil court.

International Women's Day is a day on which we reaffirm the commitment to the struggle by women worldwide for peace, justice, and equality before the law. We also take this opportunity to recognize how far we have come since the first International Women's Day was celebrated in the United States in 1909 when American women were still fighting for the right to vote and a role in the political process.

Today we are able to celebrate the many accomplishments by women worldwide in the areas of health, science, education, and politics. In the past year, we have seen the appointment of our first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. President Bush's cabinet now includes a record number of women--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, and Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Women now comprise a record percentage of the 110th Congress, including 16 senators and 71 representatives. Women are gaining seats in parliaments worldwide. For example, last November Lateefa al-Qauod became the first woman to be elected to Bahrain's parliament and became one of the first women to serve in an elected parliament in the Gulf region.

The U.S. is rededicating itself to improving the status of women worldwide. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation announced a new policy in December 2006 stating that countries receiving financial assistance would be responsible for extensive planning to ensure that all programs benefit both men and women. This required gender analysis would factor in social, economic, and cultural barriers faced by women and men when engaging in economic activity and would result in better-designed international development projects.

The Kingdom of Lesotho is a small country surrounded by South Africa. Lesotho faces serious challenges--50 percent of the population lives below the poverty line and 23 percent of the population is infected with HIV. Given its commitment to good governance and investment in its people, Lesotho has qualified for financial assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). MCC assistance is pending the finalization of Lesotho's Compact which is expected to focus on improving health care and water resource management.

The MCC helped catalyze the passage of the Legal Capacity of Married Persons law in Lesotho by stressing that potential MCC financing would be more effective if gender equity were addressed. Subsequently, Lesotho passed the Legal Capacity of Married Persons legislation. Under this new legislation, women are considered equal partners in marriage and are able to enter into binding contracts and have a standing in civil court. We applaud the Kingdom of Lesotho for demonstrating such a commitment to justice, equality, and fighting corruption at every level.

The problems faced by women today require a continuation of our commitment to end them. International Women's Day is a day for us to declare our determination to advance the rights of women worldwide, but also to recognize the many accomplishments made by women on a global scale.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the important service of Consul Sergio Aguilera upon his retirement from the Mexican Foreign Service.

During his leadership of the Mexican Consulate in Indianapolis, my staff and I have enjoyed working closely with Consul Aguilera to strengthen the political, economic, social, and cultural ties between our two nations. By working closely with the Federal, State, and local governments, as well as schools, businesses, and community organizations, Consul Aguilera has ably represented the people of Mexico and served the needs of the Mexican community in the Midwest.

In addition to his official duties, Consul Aguilera has given generously of his time in service to the Indianapolis community through work with the Mexican Scholarship Fund and the Central Indiana Community Foundation. The Indianapolis community will continue to benefit from Consul Aguilera's leadership as he seeks to expand his charitable work in retirement.

I am especially pleased that Consul Aguilera and his wife Lori have chosen to remain in Indianapolis as they pursue new and exciting experiences together.

I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate Consul Aguilera and wish him good health and success upon his retirement.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lincoln, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2007''. This important legislation extends and expands the food bank donation provisions that were included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280). The Pension Protection Act allows farmers and small business owners to receive a tax deduction for donation of food products contributed to food banks, pantries and homeless shelters for 2006 and 2007.

The new law permits businesses a deduction from their taxes for a donation equal to either (1) twice cost basis; or (2) the difference of cost basis plus one half the difference between cost basis and fair market value. Food donations of all sizes from all businesses can qualify for this type of donation. The bill that I am introducing today increases the valuation to full market value of the donation and makes this provision a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code.

Demand on food banks has been rising, and these tax deductions would be an important step in increasing private donations to the non-profit hunger relief charities playing a critical role in meeting America's nutrition needs. It is estimated that food banks provide meals to more than 23 million Americans and that 13 million children are hungry or at risk of hunger.

As I have traveled around Indiana, I have visited many food banks in our State. They have confirmed the results of a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that showed demand for food at food banks has risen one hundred percent. Forty-eight percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance are either children or their parents. The number of elderly persons requesting food assistance has increased by ninety-two percent. The success of welfare reform legislation has moved many recipients off welfare and into jobs. In many States, welfare roles have been reduced by more than half. But we need to recognize that these individuals and their families are living on modest wages. As unemployment rates have risen, as with the fluctuation of the price of gas and heating oil, the demand placed on the food banks and soup kitchens has also increased.

Private food banks provide a key safety net against hunger. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans are living on the edge of hunger. USDA statistics show that up to 96 billion pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger.

I have been especially impressed by the remarkable work of food banks in Indiana. In many cases, they are partnered with churches and faith- based organizations and are making a tremendous difference in our communities. We should support this private sector activity, which not only feeds people, but also strengthens community bonds and demonstrates the power of faith, charity, and civic involvement.

Each citizen can make an important contribution to the fight against hunger at a local level. It is important to make sure that none of us forget those who find themselves having to utilize the services of the food banks. In order to ensure that hunger relief organizations are meeting the greater demand they are seeing, we must make food drives a part of everyday activities. People should get in the habit of buying extra cans or boxes of food on every trip to the grocery store, not just around the holiday season.

I am committed to work with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to find an offset to pay for this change to the tax code. I would like to thank them for their past support of this initiative and commend them on their efforts in helping America's charities meet their funding goals, and assist those individuals who take advantage of the services provided by these groups.

I believe the enactment of this legislation would be a great incentive in redirecting this food from being discarded to being distributed to hungry families.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lincoln, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2007''. This important legislation extends and expands the food bank donation provisions that were included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280). The Pension Protection Act allows farmers and small business owners to receive a tax deduction for donation of food products contributed to food banks, pantries and homeless shelters for 2006 and 2007.

The new law permits businesses a deduction from their taxes for a donation equal to either (1) twice cost basis; or (2) the difference of cost basis plus one half the difference between cost basis and fair market value. Food donations of all sizes from all businesses can qualify for this type of donation. The bill that I am introducing today increases the valuation to full market value of the donation and makes this provision a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code.

Demand on food banks has been rising, and these tax deductions would be an important step in increasing private donations to the non-profit hunger relief charities playing a critical role in meeting America's nutrition needs. It is estimated that food banks provide meals to more than 23 million Americans and that 13 million children are hungry or at risk of hunger.

As I have traveled around Indiana, I have visited many food banks in our State. They have confirmed the results of a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that showed demand for food at food banks has risen one hundred percent. Forty-eight percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance are either children or their parents. The number of elderly persons requesting food assistance has increased by ninety-two percent. The success of welfare reform legislation has moved many recipients off welfare and into jobs. In many States, welfare roles have been reduced by more than half. But we need to recognize that these individuals and their families are living on modest wages. As unemployment rates have risen, as with the fluctuation of the price of gas and heating oil, the demand placed on the food banks and soup kitchens has also increased.

Private food banks provide a key safety net against hunger. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans are living on the edge of hunger. USDA statistics show that up to 96 billion pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger.

I have been especially impressed by the remarkable work of food banks in Indiana. In many cases, they are partnered with churches and faith- based organizations and are making a tremendous difference in our communities. We should support this private sector activity, which not only feeds people, but also strengthens community bonds and demonstrates the power of faith, charity, and civic involvement.

Each citizen can make an important contribution to the fight against hunger at a local level. It is important to make sure that none of us forget those who find themselves having to utilize the services of the food banks. In order to ensure that hunger relief organizations are meeting the greater demand they are seeing, we must make food drives a part of everyday activities. People should get in the habit of buying extra cans or boxes of food on every trip to the grocery store, not just around the holiday season.

I am committed to work with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to find an offset to pay for this change to the tax code. I would like to thank them for their past support of this initiative and commend them on their efforts in helping America's charities meet their funding goals, and assist those individuals who take advantage of the services provided by these groups.

I believe the enactment of this legislation would be a great incentive in redirecting this food from being discarded to being distributed to hungry families.

Mr. President, this legislation authorizes the creation of a civilian readiness corps to address post-conflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The Senate already embraced the creation of such a corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last June. Unfortunately, that bill, introduced by Senator Biden and me and co- sponsored by Senators Hagel, Alexander and Warner languished in the House of Representatives. We have hopes that the 110th Congress will now bring this idea to fruition.

In his State of the Union address last month, the President endorsed the need for such a corps:

``A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when American needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.'' President Bush, January 23, 2007, State of the Union speech, Washington, DC.

The legislation I am introducing today is an updated version of S. 3322. It is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. The concept has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the Committee unanimously both as a free-standing bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now again as a free-standing bill and send it to the House with our unanimous approval.

International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons.

In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our Committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions.

Those who were once unconvinced of the need for such a corps have only to look at our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand its value.

This legislation continues to build on the original legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal response capability with both active and standby components, as well as a civilian reserve that draws upon the talent and willingness to serve that resides among our people. It provides flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build the corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office.

The State Department has made progress through the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization that was established in July of 2004. The Office has already done a great deal of the preliminary work needed to build an effective corps. But now it is time for the Office to recruit, train, and organize the corps so that we have deployable units.

We need to have a 250-person active duty component made up of State Department and USAID employees. We need a 2,000 person standby component drawn from both State and USAID, but also from other Federal agencies that have employees who are willing to volunteer and have the necessary skill sets. And we need to begin building a civilian reserve, recruiting at least 500 highly skilled persons and eventually many more.

The 250-person active duty personnel should include people with skills that are more technical than the broader diplomatic requirements--civil engineering, police expertise, agricultural knowledge, health, education, and political organization. They should have experience in difficult situations overseas and be trained and available for rapid deployment with the military for both initial assessments and programming purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, probably well in advance of the establishment of an embassy.

Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than a typical army company. But it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain active duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed.

Congress must now be willing to provide the funding to make this corps a reality. This legislation authorizes a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration is authorized to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the active duty component, including training, equipment, and travel.

We have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation once again will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. We hope that our friends in the House of Representatives, several of whom are considering introducing their own legislation, will move forward with the Senate in this endeavor. I urge adoption of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, this legislation authorizes the creation of a civilian readiness corps to address post-conflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The Senate already embraced the creation of such a corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last June. Unfortunately, that bill, introduced by Senator Biden and me and co- sponsored by Senators Hagel, Alexander and Warner languished in the House of Representatives. We have hopes that the 110th Congress will now bring this idea to fruition.

In his State of the Union address last month, the President endorsed the need for such a corps:

``A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when American needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.'' President Bush, January 23, 2007, State of the Union speech, Washington, DC.

The legislation I am introducing today is an updated version of S. 3322. It is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. The concept has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the Committee unanimously both as a free-standing bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now again as a free-standing bill and send it to the House with our unanimous approval.

International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons.

In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our Committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions.

Those who were once unconvinced of the need for such a corps have only to look at our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand its value.

This legislation continues to build on the original legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal response capability with both active and standby components, as well as a civilian reserve that draws upon the talent and willingness to serve that resides among our people. It provides flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build the corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office.

The State Department has made progress through the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization that was established in July of 2004. The Office has already done a great deal of the preliminary work needed to build an effective corps. But now it is time for the Office to recruit, train, and organize the corps so that we have deployable units.

We need to have a 250-person active duty component made up of State Department and USAID employees. We need a 2,000 person standby component drawn from both State and USAID, but also from other Federal agencies that have employees who are willing to volunteer and have the necessary skill sets. And we need to begin building a civilian reserve, recruiting at least 500 highly skilled persons and eventually many more.

The 250-person active duty personnel should include people with skills that are more technical than the broader diplomatic requirements--civil engineering, police expertise, agricultural knowledge, health, education, and political organization. They should have experience in difficult situations overseas and be trained and available for rapid deployment with the military for both initial assessments and programming purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, probably well in advance of the establishment of an embassy.

Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than a typical army company. But it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain active duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed.

Congress must now be willing to provide the funding to make this corps a reality. This legislation authorizes a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration is authorized to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the active duty component, including training, equipment, and travel.

We have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation once again will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. We hope that our friends in the House of Representatives, several of whom are considering introducing their own legislation, will move forward with the Senate in this endeavor. I urge adoption of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007.

This legislation seeks to accelerate the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that are major killers of people living in developing countries. HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis are devastating sub-Saharan Africa where, combined, they claim as many as 5 million lives a year. Yet there are no vaccines for these diseases.

Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures of the 20th century. With U.S. leadership, the global community has eradicated smallpox, and we are close to eradicating polio. Vaccines for diseases such as measles and tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood mortality worldwide. These public health victories benefit every country.

Vaccines for diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for other, less well-known diseases would save millions of lives. Partnerships between governments, private foundations, and businesses have made significant strides toward the development of vaccines, but much more needs to be done.

One of the biggest challenges is that drug companies do not have a strong financial incentive to invest in the development of vaccines for these diseases because there is no reliable market for them. In other words, vaccine manufacturers are reluctant to commit the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to create a new vaccine with no obvious way to recoup their investment. What is needed is the promise of market demand to encourage industry to develop the vaccines for these diseases.

Five countries--Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia, and Canada--along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed such a market solution. On February 9, 2007, in Rome, they pledged $1.5 billion for an initiative called an Advance Market Commitment, AMC, aimed at encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines for diseases caused by the pneumococcus bacterium, such as pneumonia and meningitis. These diseases claim the lives of an estimated 1 million children per year, most of whom live in the developing world. Through this AMC, these countries and the Gates Foundation have pledged to purchase pneumococcal vaccines that will work in poor countries.

Although a vaccine for pneumococcal disease exists in the United States and other developed countries, this version is not effective against the strains prevalent in developing countries. By committing to purchase large quantities of a successful vaccine beforehand, the Advance Market Commitment aims to bridge the gap between the vaccine makers' research costs and the future sales needed to cover the costs of their investment. Experts are hopeful that this initiative could accelerate by a decade the widespread use of a pneumococcal vaccine specific to the developing world and could prevent the deaths of an estimated 5.4 million children by 2030.

In 2005, the United States, at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, agreed to encourage the development of vaccines for diseases affecting the developing world and endorsed the Advance Market Commitment concept. I believe that, with continued strong U.S. leadership, we can save many more lives in this new century. Because of the promise that vaccines hold, I am introducing the ``Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007.'' My bill would authorize the United States to contribute to the Advance Market Commitment for pneumococcal vaccines. Equally important, it would require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy and make a commitment to speed development, testing, and distribution of life-saving vaccines for other diseases, including AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, through innovative financial incentives like the AMC.

I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this legislation.

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