Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2006. I am pleased that the Majority Leader, Senator Frist, Senator Biden, and Senator Smith have joined me in proposing this important legislation. The goal of this bill is to reaffirm United States support for continued enlargement of NATO to democracies that are able and willing to meet the responsibilities of membership. In particular, the legislation calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, and Macedonia to NATO and authorizes security assistance for these countries in Fiscal Year 2007. Each of these countries has clearly stated its desire to join NATO and is working hard to meet the specified requirements for membership. The bill also affirms that the United States stands ready to consider, and if all applicable criteria are satisfied, to support efforts by Ukraine to join NATO, should Ukraine decide that it wishes to meet the responsibilities of membership in the Alliance. I believe that eventual NATO membership for these four countries would be a success for Europe, NATO, and the United States by continuing to extend the zone of peace and security. Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia have been making progress on reforms through their participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since 2002. Unfortunately, Georgia has not yet been granted a Membership Action Plan but nevertheless has made remarkable progress. This legislation will provide important incentives and assistance to the countries to continue the implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reforms. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been evolving to meet the new security needs of the 21st century. In this era, the threats to NATO members are transnational and far from its geographic borders. There is strong support among members for NATO's operation in Afghanistan, and for its training mission in Iraq. NATO's viability as an effective defense and security alliance depends on flexible, creative leadership, as well as the willingness of members to improve capabilities and address common threats. If NATO is to continue to be the preeminent security Alliance and serve the defense interests of its membership, it must continue to evolve and that evolution must include enlargement. Potential NATO membership motivates emerging democracies to make important advances in areas such as the rule of law and civil society. A closer relationship with NATO will promote these values and contribute to our mutual security. Georgia is a young democracy that has made tremendous progress since the ``Rose Revolution.'' It is situated in a critical geostrategic location and his host to a large portion of the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries important energy resources to the West from Azerbaijan and, in the future, Kazakhstan. Georgia is resisting pressure from breakaway republics backed by Moscow. In the past, border disputes have been identified as reasons a country may not be invited to join NATO. But in this case, Russia's action, not Georgia's, is frustrating Tbilisi's NATO aspirations. Three years ago, the United States Senate unanimously voted to invite seven countries to join NATO. Today, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are making significant contributions to NATO and are among our closest allies in the global war on terrorism. It is time again for the United States to take the lead in urging its allies to bring in new members, and to offer timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, and Macedonia to NATO.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on July 24 the majority leader placed in the Record a list of the Senators who had sought to be cosponsors of S. 3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an updated list of those who wish to be listed as cosponsors be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint statement with Senator Biden, and accompanying materials, regarding the Geneva Protocol III--the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem--be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for three cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office to be printed in the Record. These estimates are for three important bills which the Committee on Foreign Relations has already reported to the Senate. They are S. 2489, S. 3709, and S. 3722. The Standing Rules of the Senate require that committee reports on bills or joint resolutions contain cost estimates for such legislation. When the Committee on Foreign Relations reported these bills earlier this year, the committee had not received the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimates.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I honor and remember Dorothy C. Stratton, founder of the Women's Reserve for the Coast Guard during World War II and a strong proponent of women's education throughout her lifetime. Dr. Stratton became the first full-time Dean of Women at Purdue University in 1933. During her tenure at Purdue, Dr. Stratton saw the enrollment of women students increase from 500 to over 1,400. In addition, a liberal science program for women in the School of Science was inaugurated, three modern residence halls for women were constructed, and an employment placement center for Purdue women was instituted. In 1942, she was commissioned a senior lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. Later in 1942, she transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard where she created and became the first director of the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Coast Guard in World War II. Upon being named director, she was promoted to lieutenant commander in 1942 and advanced to commander in January 1944 and to the grade of captain 1 month later. She was awarded the Legion of Merit medal for her contributions to women in the military upon retirement in 1946. Dr. Stratton then became the first director of personnel at the International Monetary Fund followed by service as executive director of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. She was the United Nations representative of the International Federation of University Women and chairman of the Women's Committee within the President's Commission on Employment of the Handicapped. Please join me in honor and remembrance of Dorothy C. Stratton. I offer my deep condolences to all her family and friends, and to the many who have been inspired and touched by all that she has given.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today at the request of the executive branch and will be seeking unanimous consent to request its passage as soon as possible. The Foreign Affairs Management Authorities Act of 2006 contains provisions requested by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors that will enable the two agencies to carry out their work more efficiently and effectively. Title I of this bill creates a new pay for performance system for Foreign Service officers with the rank of 01 and below and creates a uniform worldwide pay scale. The American Foreign Service Association supports these. I am including a letter from Anthony Holmes, the AFSA President. The Senior Foreign Service already participates in a pay for performance plan as mandated in previously enacted law, Section 412(a)(2) PL108-447, Div. B. The legislation replaces ``within grade increases'' with a requirement that, upon the introduction of the new Foreign Service Schedule in April 2008, any further adjustments in pay are tied to individual performance rather than longevity of service. It directs the Secretary of State to pay to each member of the Service an adjustment taking into account ``individual performance, contribution to the mission of the Department, or both, under a rigorous performance management system that makes meaningful distinctions based on relative performance and that clearly links individual pay and performance under precepts prescribed by the Secretary.'' Each Secretary/head of agency utilizing the Foreign Service personnel system may implement this section in a manner most suitable to the unique circumstances of his or her agency. Poor performers would get no increase in pay. As with the Senior Foreign Service, the pay for performance planned for the Foreign Service would utilize multiple levels of performance distinctions. Performance-based adjustments normally would be made only once in any 12-month period. Title I also provides a number of employee protections. It specifically guarantees a minimum funding pool for performance-based pay adjustments to ensure that, in the aggregate, employees are not disadvantaged by conversion to the new pay system. It authorizes selection boards to rank order employees for the purpose of recommending pay for performance salary adjustments, and requires agencies that use selection boards for pay for performance to follow the selection board rankings in allocating salary increases, except in special circumstances. The legislation does not impact the negotiation of procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees with the employees' representative, the American Foreign Service Association, AFSA. Title I provides transitional authorities to the Secretary of State for use during the interim period before April 2008 when the new Foreign Service Schedule is established. It contains provisions that govern the conversion of employees to the new schedule and it provides for a one-year transition period from the current 14-step system. It also gives the Secretary authority to establish transitional rules that prevent a reduction in a member's rate of pay by reason of conversion to the new system, among other measures that are to be applied to provide for a smooth transition. In a long needed reform, Title I also provides uniform compensation for worldwide service by April 2008. It eliminates the disparity in pay between those serving in Washington, DC, and other domestic posts who receive locality pay increases and those serving overseas who do not. The discrepancy has skewed incentives to serve overseas and is inconsistent with mandatory worldwide and rotational assignment requirements. The Department estimates the cost of its three-stage transition to the new pay system to be $32 million in its 2007 budget, $64 million in 2008, and $32 million in 2009. The legislation provides for pay conversion and establishes temporary rules for the period leading up to April 2008 as the transition takes place. As Secretary Rice works to fill difficult posts around the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as our diplomats come increasingly under fire in tough places, it is common sense to restructure a pay system that, without reform, provides disincentives to serving overseas. The Foreign Service must know that our country stands behind them, appreciates their service, and is grateful for the contributions they make to the security of our country and the well- being of our citizens. Title II contains a number of provisions that are contained in S.600, still being held on the Senate calendar. It also contains provisions that were requested by the executive branch subsequent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of S. 600. The provisions in Title II of this legislation are as follows: Section 201. Education allowances modifies current law to: 1. permit payment of certain fees required by overseas schools for successful completion of a course or grade; 2. allow for travel to the United States for children in kindergarten through 12th grade when schools at post are not adequate; 3. allow for education travel to a school outside the United States for children at the secondary and college level; 4. provide for educational travel at the graduate level for children who are still dependents (students older than 22 would be ineligible for such travel); and 5. allow the option of storing a child's personal effects near the school during their trip to post, rather than transporting the effects back and forth. Section 202. Fraud Prevention and Detection Account broadens the Secretary of State's authority to use a portion of fees collected for H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visas to investigate fraud in other visa categories, including fraud in connection with terrorist activities. Allowing an expanded use of the funds will assist the Department in developing a system that concentrates on H and L visa fraud, but will potentially reduce fraud among all visa classifications and increase the U.S. ability to disrupt terrorist travel. Section 203. Extension of Privileges and Immunities extends diplomatic privileges and immunities to the African Union Mission to the United States and to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See, and to members of both of these missions. Section 204. International Litigation Fund allows the Department to retain awards of costs and attorneys' fees when defending against international claims in addition to amounts currently allowed to be retained when it successfully prosecutes a claim. Section 205. Personal Services Contracting; BBG, the legislation extends for one year a pilot program allowing the BBG to hire 60 U.S. citizens or foreign nationals on contract rather than as full-time government employees. Such authority gives the BBG the flexibility to hire, for the short or medium-term, broadcasters and on-air hosts in difficult languages, some with many dialects. The BBG uses the authority, for example, for surge capacity in Urdu and Arabic. Inspector General, this section also establishes a limited authority for the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to hire personal service contractors (PSCs) to augment its ability to conduct oversight of programs and operations related to Afghanistan and Iraq. No more than 20 PSCs may be hired at any one time and, absent exceptional circumstances, the contract length for each PSC may not exceed two years. The Inspector General anticipates a need for additional staff once the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's (SIGIR's) portfolio is either partially or fully transferred to the State Department. The OIG also expects an increase in short-term staffing needs to carry out oversight responsibilities related to Afghanistan. Section 206. Facilitating Service in Iraq and Afghanistan is a technical correction to an inadvertent drafting error in section 1602(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234). The intent behind section 1602(a) was to provide the Secretary of State with additional authority to waive annuity limitations on reemployed Foreign Service annuitants to support U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As enacted, however, section 1602(a) has the unintended effect of cutting back significantly on the Secretary of State's pre- existing authority to waive Foreign Service annuity limitations in an emergency involving a direct threat to life or property or other unusual circumstances, without regard to geographic location. This technical correction restores the Secretary's pre-existing authority and provides the intended additional authorities with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. Section 207. Discontinuance of Duplicative or Obsolete Reports discontinues a number of reports that have been overtaken by events or contain material that is covered in other executive branch submissions to the Congress. I ask my colleagues to give favorable and speedy consideration to this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today at the request of the executive branch and will be seeking unanimous consent to request its passage as soon as possible. The Foreign Affairs Management Authorities Act of 2006 contains provisions requested by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors that will enable the two agencies to carry out their work more efficiently and effectively. Title I of this bill creates a new pay for performance system for Foreign Service officers with the rank of 01 and below and creates a uniform worldwide pay scale. The American Foreign Service Association supports these. I am including a letter from Anthony Holmes, the AFSA President. The Senior Foreign Service already participates in a pay for performance plan as mandated in previously enacted law, Section 412(a)(2) PL108-447, Div. B. The legislation replaces ``within grade increases'' with a requirement that, upon the introduction of the new Foreign Service Schedule in April 2008, any further adjustments in pay are tied to individual performance rather than longevity of service. It directs the Secretary of State to pay to each member of the Service an adjustment taking into account ``individual performance, contribution to the mission of the Department, or both, under a rigorous performance management system that makes meaningful distinctions based on relative performance and that clearly links individual pay and performance under precepts prescribed by the Secretary.'' Each Secretary/head of agency utilizing the Foreign Service personnel system may implement this section in a manner most suitable to the unique circumstances of his or her agency. Poor performers would get no increase in pay. As with the Senior Foreign Service, the pay for performance planned for the Foreign Service would utilize multiple levels of performance distinctions. Performance-based adjustments normally would be made only once in any 12-month period. Title I also provides a number of employee protections. It specifically guarantees a minimum funding pool for performance-based pay adjustments to ensure that, in the aggregate, employees are not disadvantaged by conversion to the new pay system. It authorizes selection boards to rank order employees for the purpose of recommending pay for performance salary adjustments, and requires agencies that use selection boards for pay for performance to follow the selection board rankings in allocating salary increases, except in special circumstances. The legislation does not impact the negotiation of procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees with the employees' representative, the American Foreign Service Association, AFSA. Title I provides transitional authorities to the Secretary of State for use during the interim period before April 2008 when the new Foreign Service Schedule is established. It contains provisions that govern the conversion of employees to the new schedule and it provides for a one-year transition period from the current 14-step system. It also gives the Secretary authority to establish transitional rules that prevent a reduction in a member's rate of pay by reason of conversion to the new system, among other measures that are to be applied to provide for a smooth transition. In a long needed reform, Title I also provides uniform compensation for worldwide service by April 2008. It eliminates the disparity in pay between those serving in Washington, DC, and other domestic posts who receive locality pay increases and those serving overseas who do not. The discrepancy has skewed incentives to serve overseas and is inconsistent with mandatory worldwide and rotational assignment requirements. The Department estimates the cost of its three-stage transition to the new pay system to be $32 million in its 2007 budget, $64 million in 2008, and $32 million in 2009. The legislation provides for pay conversion and establishes temporary rules for the period leading up to April 2008 as the transition takes place. As Secretary Rice works to fill difficult posts around the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as our diplomats come increasingly under fire in tough places, it is common sense to restructure a pay system that, without reform, provides disincentives to serving overseas. The Foreign Service must know that our country stands behind them, appreciates their service, and is grateful for the contributions they make to the security of our country and the well- being of our citizens. Title II contains a number of provisions that are contained in S.600, still being held on the Senate calendar. It also contains provisions that were requested by the executive branch subsequent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of S. 600. The provisions in Title II of this legislation are as follows: Section 201. Education allowances modifies current law to: 1. permit payment of certain fees required by overseas schools for successful completion of a course or grade; 2. allow for travel to the United States for children in kindergarten through 12th grade when schools at post are not adequate; 3. allow for education travel to a school outside the United States for children at the secondary and college level; 4. provide for educational travel at the graduate level for children who are still dependents (students older than 22 would be ineligible for such travel); and 5. allow the option of storing a child's personal effects near the school during their trip to post, rather than transporting the effects back and forth. Section 202. Fraud Prevention and Detection Account broadens the Secretary of State's authority to use a portion of fees collected for H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visas to investigate fraud in other visa categories, including fraud in connection with terrorist activities. Allowing an expanded use of the funds will assist the Department in developing a system that concentrates on H and L visa fraud, but will potentially reduce fraud among all visa classifications and increase the U.S. ability to disrupt terrorist travel. Section 203. Extension of Privileges and Immunities extends diplomatic privileges and immunities to the African Union Mission to the United States and to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See, and to members of both of these missions. Section 204. International Litigation Fund allows the Department to retain awards of costs and attorneys' fees when defending against international claims in addition to amounts currently allowed to be retained when it successfully prosecutes a claim. Section 205. Personal Services Contracting; BBG, the legislation extends for one year a pilot program allowing the BBG to hire 60 U.S. citizens or foreign nationals on contract rather than as full-time government employees. Such authority gives the BBG the flexibility to hire, for the short or medium-term, broadcasters and on-air hosts in difficult languages, some with many dialects. The BBG uses the authority, for example, for surge capacity in Urdu and Arabic. Inspector General, this section also establishes a limited authority for the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to hire personal service contractors (PSCs) to augment its ability to conduct oversight of programs and operations related to Afghanistan and Iraq. No more than 20 PSCs may be hired at any one time and, absent exceptional circumstances, the contract length for each PSC may not exceed two years. The Inspector General anticipates a need for additional staff once the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's (SIGIR's) portfolio is either partially or fully transferred to the State Department. The OIG also expects an increase in short-term staffing needs to carry out oversight responsibilities related to Afghanistan. Section 206. Facilitating Service in Iraq and Afghanistan is a technical correction to an inadvertent drafting error in section 1602(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234). The intent behind section 1602(a) was to provide the Secretary of State with additional authority to waive annuity limitations on reemployed Foreign Service annuitants to support U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As enacted, however, section 1602(a) has the unintended effect of cutting back significantly on the Secretary of State's pre- existing authority to waive Foreign Service annuity limitations in an emergency involving a direct threat to life or property or other unusual circumstances, without regard to geographic location. This technical correction restores the Secretary's pre-existing authority and provides the intended additional authorities with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. Section 207. Discontinuance of Duplicative or Obsolete Reports discontinues a number of reports that have been overtaken by events or contain material that is covered in other executive branch submissions to the Congress. I ask my colleagues to give favorable and speedy consideration to this measure. I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to join my many friends from the Hispanic community in Indiana and across the country as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. From September 15 through October 15, all Americans will take time to reflect upon and celebrate the many contributions that Americans of Hispanic and Latino descent have made to our Nation. Millions of Hispanic Americans have worked tirelessly to provide for their families, strengthen their communities, and enrich our national culture. I also wish to recognize the approaching 196th anniversary of Mexican Independence. I am hopeful that, as we commemorate this important milestone, we can also celebrate the remarkable friendship between our two nations as neighbors and partners for peace and justice in the world.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I rise today to request that my remarks, delivered in the keynote address to the Richard G. Lugar-Purdue University Summit on Energy Security, at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, on August 29, 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is a product of a significant amount of consideration and work within our Congress over the last year and a half. The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 has had many iterations since both the Senate and the House introduced legislation by the same name in 2005. Each piece of legislation that has been introduced has contributed to Congress's understanding of this issue and has ensured a more complete and thoughtful response. There is a consensus within Congress that the genocidal policies of the Bashir regime in Sudan must be condemned and opposed. Many Members have introduced bills and resolutions dealing with the crisis, and Members have been vocal about the urgency of this issue through hearings, statements, visits to the region, and other activities. This consensus has been supported by numerous groups and individual Americans who have lent their voices to the effort to prevent genocide and their resources to provide relief to those in the region who are facing violence and bleak circumstances. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to provide a vehicle upon which Members can quickly concur and consolidate their efforts in providing needed authorities for our State Department and targeted sanctions to compel Khartoum to comply with their agreements. Regrettably, the Darfur Peace Agreement appears to be faltering with the ill-advised rejection of the U.N. resolution establishing a U.N. peacekeeping force to transition from the overburdened African Union mission in Sudan. The situation has become insecure for humanitarian operations and as threatening to the people of the region as it has ever been. The United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force for Darfur is a unanimous signal that the international community is committed to seeing no further violence take place in Darfur. Sudan, as a member of the United Nations, must abide by this decision of the international community. Their national and international responsibility is to serve and protect their people, and the suffering and killing in Darfur must end. The gargantuan humanitarian effort to provide basic necessities for more than 2 million displaced persons requires unrestricted access by national and international aid organizations, as well as the U.N.-mandated peacekeeping force to ensure their security. This legislation also seeks to help consolidate the difficult road to recovery in southern Sudan in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan. I have included additional authorities for our officials to provide assistance to southern Sudan, as well as Darfur. Such economic and military assistance is necessary and requires close consultation with Congress to ensure assistance is not manipulated or misdirected. The bill also sustains existing sanctions on Sudan in direct response to their violation of agreements they have made. The President will have the authority to waive these restrictions if he determines such action is in our national interest; so the flexibility he requires is there as well. Finally, in further support of peace and to assist U.S. diplomats, targeted sanctions are authorized on individuals whom the President determines are ``complicit in, or responsible for, acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur.'' These sanctions include blocking assets and refusing to grant individuals entry to the United States. Further, this legislation encourages the President to prevent entry at our ports to certain ships in order to deny the Government of Sudan oil revenues and access to deliveries of military equipment. The only exception to such entry should be for those vessels providing assistance in carrying out the elements of the Sudan peace agreements or humanitarian assistance. Shifting circumstances on the ground in Sudan and at the United Nations have complicated our efforts to achieve consensus on legislation that would help our diplomats resolve the Darfur crisis. I believe this legislation can win majority support in the Senate, and I hope it will receive favorable consideration in the House.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is a product of a significant amount of consideration and work within our Congress over the last year and a half. The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 has had many iterations since both the Senate and the House introduced legislation by the same name in 2005. Each piece of legislation that has been introduced has contributed to Congress's understanding of this issue and has ensured a more complete and thoughtful response. There is a consensus within Congress that the genocidal policies of the Bashir regime in Sudan must be condemned and opposed. Many Members have introduced bills and resolutions dealing with the crisis, and Members have been vocal about the urgency of this issue through hearings, statements, visits to the region, and other activities. This consensus has been supported by numerous groups and individual Americans who have lent their voices to the effort to prevent genocide and their resources to provide relief to those in the region who are facing violence and bleak circumstances. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to provide a vehicle upon which Members can quickly concur and consolidate their efforts in providing needed authorities for our State Department and targeted sanctions to compel Khartoum to comply with their agreements. Regrettably, the Darfur Peace Agreement appears to be faltering with the ill-advised rejection of the U.N. resolution establishing a U.N. peacekeeping force to transition from the overburdened African Union mission in Sudan. The situation has become insecure for humanitarian operations and as threatening to the people of the region as it has ever been. The United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force for Darfur is a unanimous signal that the international community is committed to seeing no further violence take place in Darfur. Sudan, as a member of the United Nations, must abide by this decision of the international community. Their national and international responsibility is to serve and protect their people, and the suffering and killing in Darfur must end. The gargantuan humanitarian effort to provide basic necessities for more than 2 million displaced persons requires unrestricted access by national and international aid organizations, as well as the U.N.-mandated peacekeeping force to ensure their security. This legislation also seeks to help consolidate the difficult road to recovery in southern Sudan in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan. I have included additional authorities for our officials to provide assistance to southern Sudan, as well as Darfur. Such economic and military assistance is necessary and requires close consultation with Congress to ensure assistance is not manipulated or misdirected. The bill also sustains existing sanctions on Sudan in direct response to their violation of agreements they have made. The President will have the authority to waive these restrictions if he determines such action is in our national interest; so the flexibility he requires is there as well. Finally, in further support of peace and to assist U.S. diplomats, targeted sanctions are authorized on individuals whom the President determines are ``complicit in, or responsible for, acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur.'' These sanctions include blocking assets and refusing to grant individuals entry to the United States. Further, this legislation encourages the President to prevent entry at our ports to certain ships in order to deny the Government of Sudan oil revenues and access to deliveries of military equipment. The only exception to such entry should be for those vessels providing assistance in carrying out the elements of the Sudan peace agreements or humanitarian assistance. Shifting circumstances on the ground in Sudan and at the United Nations have complicated our efforts to achieve consensus on legislation that would help our diplomats resolve the Darfur crisis. I believe this legislation can win majority support in the Senate, and I hope it will receive favorable consideration in the House.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I congratulate my friend John Parry on his retirement after 16 years as director of athletics at Butler University. Since joining Butler in 1990, John has overseen a remarkable period of growth and success, adding three varsity athletic teams and winning the Horizon League James J. McCafferty Trophy for all-sports excellence for the first time and on five subsequent occasions. During this time, Butler also witnessed extraordinary success in the classroom, leading the Horizon League in the number of student-athletes named to the academic honor roll 9 out of the last 10 years. In 2003 he was recognized as National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics I-AA/I-AAA Athletic Director of the Year for the Central Region. John's leadership has extended beyond Butler University. He is a past president of the Pioneer Football League and past chair of the NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Committee. Especially important in the Indianapolis community, he served as a cochairman of the Local Organizing Committee for the 1997, 2000, and 2006 NCAA Men's Final Four and the 2005 NCAA Women's Final Four. Personally, I have enjoyed working closely with John each year as Butler hosts the annual Dick Lugar Run and Walk. John's enthusiasm has ensured the success of this special tradition as so many from all over central Indiana come together to enjoy a day of competition and fitness. I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate John, and I look forward to many more opportunities to work closely with him as he pursues new challenges and adventures.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on July 24 the majority leader placed a list of the Senators who had sought to be cosponsors of S. 3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that an updated list of those who wish to be listed as cosponsors be printed in the Record at this time. Senators Lugar, Biden, Hagel, Chafee, Allen, Coleman, Voinovich, Alexander, Sununu, Murkowski, Martinez, Dodd, Kerry, Nelson, Obama, Cornyn, Bayh, and Hutchison.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Foreign Service nominations beginning with James C. Charlifue and ending with Barbara Matthews, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16 , 2006. Foreign Service nominations beginning with M. Suzanne Archuleta and ending with John D. Lavelle, Jr., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 12, 2006. * Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate. (Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to honor the memory of a good friend, Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., president and CEO of the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa, who died suddenly on Tuesday here in Washington. Leonard's remarkable achievements have been recognized across America and the world. Throughout his nearly 40-year career, Leonard distinguished himself in many roles. He brought knowledge, commitment, and experience to his work at the State Department, the African Development Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. For many years, he devoted his abundant energy to promoting understanding and opportunities in Africa. It all started, however, as a Peace Corps volunteer in India from 1964-1967. He surprised one of my staff members recently by conversing in fluent Hindi, one of many languages Leonard had taken the time to master. Leonard Robinson was also a visiting professor and lecturer at several universities including Boston University and the University of Virginia, where he was the university's first diplomat-in-residence. Through his membership on a variety of commissions and councils, including the Council on Foreign Relations, he gave clear voice to important issues, and others responded in kind. He had the ability to bring together broad coalitions of partners, including businesses, NGOs, academics, and civil society groups, who otherwise might not have recognized their mutual interests. He influenced numerous individuals in America and around the world to see the potential of Africa. Leonard Robinson's work on African affairs was always based on the conviction that it was important to correct the frequently negative perceptions about Africa that inhibited genuine interaction with that continent. His tireless efforts to educate all Americans on the rich history and diversity of Africa and its people culminated in the establishment of the Africa Society, of which he was a founder, president, and CEO. There will be a memorial service in honor of Leonard Robinson at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday August 15, 2006, at the Washington National Cathedral where his friends and colleagues will recognize his accomplishments and celebrate his legacy. I will continue to support his most recent effort in dialog on Capitol Hill, where Congressman Donald Payne and I have cochaired the Conversation and Dinner with African Ambassadors Series. My sympathy is with Leonard's family and many friends, especially his two daughters Rani and Kemberley, his mother Winnie, and his brother Michael. This exemplary statesman was a great representative of his country and a standard bearer for the advancement of Africa, and he added something very noble to Washington discourse. We will miss his wisdom and grace.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. I was a member of the Indianapolis School Board and mayor of Indianapolis during the civil rights movement, and I witnessed firsthand the critical importance of promoting justice and understanding in our communities. Following the tragic death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., while I was serving as mayor, so many of my friends and neighbors in Indianapolis came together in peace and reconciliation, and I am grateful that our city served as a model to so many other cities that were unfortunately stricken with violence and division. It is in the spirit of justice, harmony, and compassion that we must join together to pass this important legislation. This is a signal moment for the Senate, and I am pleased that President Bush will sign this bill into law as the 41st anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act approaches on August 6.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. At a time when commerce routinely crosses national borders, the United States should be positioned to compete in all arenas. Bilateral free trade agreements facilitate this goal. The FTA with Oman is significant for many reasons. Foremost, it encourages trade and economic cooperation with a friend and partner in the Middle East. FTAs are vital tools in providing new opportunities for our domestic companies as well as shaping our international business and foreign policy. Cooperation on the commercial front enhances our ability to work with nations in other matters, including security and intelligence. FTAs promote trade and growth which in turn support overall government stability and cooperation in this region. Continued cross- border trade ties will ensure the emergence of new capital markets and provide U.S. firms with new business partners. This agreement with Oman is also a further step in the direction of the goal to have a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013. Oman acceded to the World Trade Organization in 2000, and entered into a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, TIFA, with the U.S. in July 2004. The TIFA provided a foundation upon which the U.S. and Oman were able to begin discussing areas of increased cooperation in trade that could be achieved. Subsequently, this FTA was signed in October 2005 and sent to Congress on June 26 under Trade Promotion Authority timelines. This agreement will provide for greater market access in services, consistent legal protections for investors, effective enforcement of labor and environmental laws, and protection of intellectual property. There has been some debate over strengthening of labor laws in Oman. The government there passed significant labor reforms in 2003 and has made a commitment to implement further reforms by October of this year. Additionally, the Omani government has committed to increased protections for intellectual property. It has indicated that existing intellectual property protection laws will be enforced and enhanced civil and criminal penalties will be instituted for violators of these protections. Further, in addition to commitments not to relax environmental standards in order to attract investment, there was a separate agreement signed establishing a Joint Forum on Environmental Cooperation, through which ongoing assessments of environmental issues will be addressed. In 2004, U.S. goods exports to Oman totaled $330 million, and two-way trade was $748 million. Of these amounts, U.S. agriculture comprised $20 million. The stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Oman in 2003 was $358 million. Enactment of this agreement will further expand the market for U.S. exports which currently include machinery, automobiles, medical instruments, and agricultural products such as vegetable oils, sugars, sweeteners, and beverage bases. In addition to greater market access for agriculture and consumer goods, this agreement will also specifically create greater opportunities for service industries such as banking, insurance and securities. FTAs provide benefits that enable American companies and workers to compete effectively around the world. I encourage my colleagues to support the U.S.-Oman FTA.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate an important milestone in the life of my fellow Hoosier, former classmate, and close friend, Max Schumacher. On July 15, I will have the opportunity to join Max's family and many friends in Indianapolis at Victory Field to celebrate his 50 years of important leadership with the Indianapolis Indians baseball team. Since I came to know Max while we were both students at Shortridge High School, I have always been impressed by his commitment to leadership and public service. During our time at Shortridge, I admired his remarkable athletic and journalistic abilities. Max went on to study at Butler University where he was a member of the baseball team and editor of the school's newspaper, The Collegian. After receiving a bachelor of science degree in journalism in 1954, Max joined the U.S. Army, where he served until 1956. Butler recently recognized his accomplishments when he was inducted into the Athletic Hall of Fame. For the past 50 years, Max has worked in several different capacities within the Indians organization, including ticket manager, publicity director, general manager, and now president and chairman of the board. His leadership has helped the Indians achieve 31 consecutive years of profits and business success. In 1988 Max received the John H. Johnson President's Award to recognize him as the individual who ``best exemplifies the standards of a complete baseball franchise.'' Another milestone of Max's leadership of the Indians was the opening of Victory Field 10 years ago. Fans from across the country have marveled at this beautifully modern facility, which has been recognized as one of the premier baseball stadiums in the country. Victory Field has been an important addition to downtown Indianapolis, enabling families to enjoy memorable experiences together in such a welcoming atmosphere. Max's leadership in the Indianapolis community goes far beyond his work with the Indians. Max has served as president of the Indianapolis Downtown Kiwanis Club, the Indianapolis Kiwanis Foundation board of directors, the board of directors of the Boys and Girls Club of Indianapolis, and is a member of the board of directors of the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce. As a recognition of this service, Governor Bowen named Max a ``Sagamore of the Wabash'' in 1980, and he was designated a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels. I also congratulate Max's wife Judy and their three children, who have been such an integral part of the Indians family for these many years. I was honored to be an usher in the wedding ceremony when Judy and Max were married, and Max was an usher when Charlene and I were married. I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate my friend Max Schumacher, and I look forward to many more adventures with him, his family and friends, and the entire Indians organization as we cheer the Indians on to victory.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am submitting an amendment today that addresses the issue of military assistance to foreign countries. Senators Warner and Levin have tried to be responsive to an administration request for increased funding and flexibility in providing assistance to countries that are partners with us in the war against terrorism. I applaud their efforts and will enumerate the problems that I do not have with the overarching purpose of section 1206. I agree that there should be a new program that specifically addresses the shortcomings that many of our partners in the war against terror face in tracking and finding terrorists on their soil or in nearby seas. I understand that current security assistance programs, the Foreign Military Financing program, for example, require a long lead time, sometimes 2\1/2\ to 3 years from request to delivery of equipment. There are urgent cases now where we need to respond more quickly than we currently can. Nor do I object to providing significant funding for the program. The request of the administration for $750 million does not seem exorbitant given the threats that we are trying to address. Nonetheless, I respect the opinion of my fellow authorizers on the Armed Services Committee that there is only $400 million that can be devoted to the problem at this time from the Defense budget. While on the ground floor of organizing such a new activity, however, my concern is that we get the decisionmaking mechanism right. We must make certain that the recipients chosen, the design of the programs, and implementation are in the best foreign policy interests of the United States. We are in this war on terror for the longterm. This is an important program that will go through many changes. Recipient countries will change. Areas of the globe where it must focus may change. The propensity of subsequent administrations may change as they have to make their own hard choices. We need to get the basics right now so that we are not faced with a situation some years down the road where we have Cabinet Secretaries at odds, struggling with decisions on which countries should receive the aid, when it should be delivered, and how it should be implemented. Those are decisions that we must insist be overseen by the Secretary of State on behalf of the President. Foreign policy must drive foreign assistance decisions. We cannot have military aid decisions drive foreign policy. This amendment provides the funding that the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized for the new program while safeguarding the primacy of the State Department in guiding and overseeing the program. My amendment this year builds on an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe last year on the same subject. That amendment passed the Senate unanimously when it was accepted by Senators Warner and Levin as the proper way to proceed. It, unfortunately, emerged from conference altered to authorize a Department of Defense program that is ``jointly formulated'' with the Secretary of State and requiring the Secretary of Defense to ``coordinate'' with the Secretary of State in program implementation. My amendment is more explicit. While the Inhofe amendment allowed a direct transfer of funds from the Defense Department to the State Department, this amendment explicitly creates a new counterterrorism train-and-equip account that is designed for use by the Department of Defense but is under the authority of the State Department. The Department of Defense would be authorized to contribute to and withdraw from the fund and would implement the train-and-equip programs funded by the account. Proceeding this way would clarify lines of authority and would safeguard the Secretary of State's role as the President's chief foreign policy advisor and manager of bilateral relationships. My amendment retains an important interagency study due at the end of this year on the issue of military assistance that was contained in last year's section 1206. The Department of State is now better organized to manage the new account established in this amendment. We can expect decisions to be made quickly and efficiently. Randy Tobias is now double-hatted. He has been named as the Secretary's foreign assistance advisor in addition to his role as the Administrator of USAID. Under his overall guidance, the Department can perform the necessary coordination both with Ambassadors in the field and with regional bureaus to ensure that such a program would be a constructive addition to the bilateral relationship with the recipient country and would contribute to regional stability. These are judgments that our Government must make about every foreign assistance program and the President is best advised on these matters by the Secretary of State. I hope that my fellow Senators will take a serious look at this proposal and join me in offering it as an amendment to the bill. While the current language of section 1206 requires Secretary of State and ambassadorial involvement, it is difficult to legislate cooperation between agencies. A blurring of roles is inevitable if section 1206 stands unamended, at a time when foreign policy needs to be coherent, persuasive, and successful in the war against terror. Amendment No. 4252

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend the appreciation of the Senate to a dedicated public servant at the Congressional Research Service, CRS, of the Library of Congress. Larry Q. Nowels is retiring from CRS after more than 30 years of service to the Congress. This length of public service is not only a credit to Mr. Nowels but also a demonstration of the dedication that the staff of the Congressional Research Service brings in its support of our work in Congress. Mr. Nowels first joined CRS in 1973 as an information resources assistant, while simultaneously pursuing an advanced degree in international relations at American University. His primary responsibility at CRS was to help in the management of the Foreign Affairs Division library, a task for which he was well prepared, having worked throughout his high school years as a library page in Claremont, CA. In a very short time he was promoted to division librarian, then to technical information specialist, to foreign affairs analyst, and finally to foreign affairs specialist. He served as section head of the International Organizations, Development, and Security Section of the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division from 1985 to 1997, and for a period in 1992, served as acting assistant chief of the division. Mr. Nowels' first research assignment at CRS was to assist senior staff in monitoring reporting requirements in the foreign affairs field, a joint committee project begun in 1975 for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and House Committee on International Relations. For the next 30 years, Mr. Nowels would assist Congress in tracking, moderating, and understanding the use of reporting requirements in fulfilling its oversight responsibility. In that first year, Mr. Nowels was also involved in the preparation of three other contributions by CRS to the congressional committees dedicated to foreign relations: the Committee on Foreign Relations' biennial Legislative History; the Committee on International Relations' annual Congress and Foreign Policy; and the annual Legislation on Foreign Relations, a joint committee project begun by the 88th Congress and continued to this day as a joint effort of the Congressional Research Service, Committee on Foreign Relations, and Committee on International Relations. Mr. Nowels remained intimately involved with each of these projects for many years and also provided mentorship to a notable succession of CRS staff. During his career, Mr. Nowels wrote nearly 500 memoranda and reports for Members of Congress and congressional committees, organized numerous seminars, provided many briefings to Members and congressional staff, accompanied congressional delegations abroad, and testified before congressional committees, primarily on issues related to foreign assistance. Over the years, he introduced congressional staff persons, both new to Washington and those most senior, to the appropriations process through courses in the Graduate Legislative Institute and briefed newly elected Members of Congress at biennial Williamsburg seminars. He provided groundbreaking analysis to the Congress on U.S. aid to Communist nations, implications of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction on foreign policy, debt forgiveness including heavily indebted poorest country--HIPC-- Initiatives, post-Cold War aid, Israeli loan guarantees, numerous congressional-executive efforts at foreign aid reform, international family planning programs, third-country foreign aid programs, establishment of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and multiyear foreign policy budget trends. Mr. Nowels attended the National War College at the National Defense University in 1986-1987, where he won an award for his writing. On several occasions he was detailed to committees to serve alongside committee staff. In recent years, he traveled extensively on behalf of the Department of State's Speakers Program to speak to foreign officials, academics, and journalists on the U.S. Congress and U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Nowels' exemplary contribution and service has been recognized by the Congressional Research Service with numerous special service awards, performance awards, and outstanding performance evaluations. His sustained excellence was acknowledged and honored by the Library of Congress with a Meritorious Service Award in 1992. Larry Nowels is a fine example of those many dedicated staff of the Congressional Research Service who help inform Congress as it deliberates important public policy issues. His gracious demeanor and considerable expertise on U.S. foreign aid and U.S. foreign policy made him an invaluable asset to Congress for many years. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our deep appreciation to Larry for his service and wish him the very best in future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this legislation is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. Since that time, the legislation has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the committee unanimously both as a freestanding bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now as a free-standing bill. 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. Over the years, our Government has cobbled together plans, people, and projects to respond to post-conflict situations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. In my judgment, our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deal quickly and efficiently with complex emergencies. In turn, our lack of preparation for immediate stabilization contingencies has made our subsequent reconstruction efforts more difficult and expensive. This legislation builds on 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 civilian response corps with both Active-Duty and Reserve components and provides the office flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build that 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 come a long way in recognizing the role it could and should be playing. It established the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization in July of 2004. Under the leadership of Carlos Pascual, the office conducted a government- wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks in post-conflict zones. It has undertaken the planning necessary to recruit, train, and organize a Reserve corps of civilians for rapid deployment. It also is formulating interagency contingency plans--informed by our past experiences--for countries and regions of the world where the next crisis could suddenly arise. In December 2005, the President signed a directive putting the Secretary of State in charge of interagency stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Last month, Secretary Rice promised to dedicate 15 of the 100 new positions she is requesting for fiscal year 2007 to the Reconstruction and Stabilization Office. This will increase staff to about 95 individuals, with seconded personnel and contractors included in that count. Despite this good progress, significant gaps in our capabilities remain. Our legislation calls for a 250-person Active-Duty corps, in addition to the Reserves, made up of both State Department and OSAID employees. Such a corps could be rapidly deployed with the military for both initial assessments and operational purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. This Active-Duty corps would be able to do a wide range of civilian jobs that are needed in a post-conflict or otherwise hostile environment. Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than the 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. This legislation also calls on the heads of other executive branch agencies to establish personnel exchange programs designed to enhance stabilization and reconstruction capacity. The Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services--indeed virtually all the civilian agencies--can make unique contributions to the overall effort. Once the Department embraced the concept of organizing and leading the civilian effort, the main roadblock became resources. So far, only about $21 million has been provided for the operations of the office, despite administration requests for substantially more funding. For 2007, the administration has requested a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration would like to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Reserve component 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 corps, including training, equipment, and travel. So far, the office has heroically stretched dollars by recruiting personnel on detail from other agencies, taking advantage of DOD-funded training, and getting the State Department to pay for the overhead of new office space from other sources. But such a hand-to-mouth existence has obvious disadvantages. Detailed personnel rarely stay long, and institutional memory becomes short. Relying on DOD funds puts the office in the passenger seat when it should have the resources to pursue uniquely civilian- oriented goals. In addition, the crisis response fund outlined in our legislation has not been appropriated. On the Senate side, we were able to secure $20 million for the fund in the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire amount, however, was eliminated in the conference committee with the House. One stopgap measure that the Congress did pass in fiscal year 2006 was the authority to transfer up to $100 million from the Pentagon to the State Department for boosting the civilian response to particular trouble spots. However, this money will not provide the resources necessary over the long term to improve the State Department's capacity to be a capable partner in responding to complex emergencies. The foreign affairs budget is always a tougher sell to Congress than the military budget. President Bush has attempted to reverse the downward spiral in overall foreign affairs spending that took place in the 1990s. In that decade, both the executive and legislative branches rushed to cash in on the peace dividend. But President Bush has consistently requested increases for the 150 Account in his budgets. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested a 10.3-percent increase over the CBO-determined baseline of fiscal year 2006. But, if previous years are any example, the amount appropriated will fall far short of the amount requested. Last year, the President's annual request for foreign affairs was cut by $2.1 billion. The Congress cut the fiscal 2005 annual request by a similar amount. According to a Congressional Research Service report that I requested, Congress has provided $5.8 billion less than the President has requested for foreign affairs in regular and supplemental spending bills since September 11, 2001. Today, when we are in the midst of a global struggle of information and ideas: when anti-Western riots can be set off by the publication of a cartoon; when we are in the midst of a crisis with Iran that will decide whether the nonproliferation regime of the last half century will be abandoned; when we have entered our fourth year of attempting to stabilize Iraq; and when years of effort to move the Arab-Israeli peace process are at risk--even then, we are unable to muster the necessary support for the President's budget in foreign affairs. As all this suggests, 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 think this through and 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 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. I urge its passage.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this legislation is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. Since that time, the legislation has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the committee unanimously both as a freestanding bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now as a free-standing bill. 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. Over the years, our Government has cobbled together plans, people, and projects to respond to post-conflict situations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. In my judgment, our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deal quickly and efficiently with complex emergencies. In turn, our lack of preparation for immediate stabilization contingencies has made our subsequent reconstruction efforts more difficult and expensive. This legislation builds on 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 civilian response corps with both Active-Duty and Reserve components and provides the office flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build that 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 come a long way in recognizing the role it could and should be playing. It established the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization in July of 2004. Under the leadership of Carlos Pascual, the office conducted a government- wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks in post-conflict zones. It has undertaken the planning necessary to recruit, train, and organize a Reserve corps of civilians for rapid deployment. It also is formulating interagency contingency plans--informed by our past experiences--for countries and regions of the world where the next crisis could suddenly arise. In December 2005, the President signed a directive putting the Secretary of State in charge of interagency stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Last month, Secretary Rice promised to dedicate 15 of the 100 new positions she is requesting for fiscal year 2007 to the Reconstruction and Stabilization Office. This will increase staff to about 95 individuals, with seconded personnel and contractors included in that count. Despite this good progress, significant gaps in our capabilities remain. Our legislation calls for a 250-person Active-Duty corps, in addition to the Reserves, made up of both State Department and OSAID employees. Such a corps could be rapidly deployed with the military for both initial assessments and operational purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. This Active-Duty corps would be able to do a wide range of civilian jobs that are needed in a post-conflict or otherwise hostile environment. Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than the 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. This legislation also calls on the heads of other executive branch agencies to establish personnel exchange programs designed to enhance stabilization and reconstruction capacity. The Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services--indeed virtually all the civilian agencies--can make unique contributions to the overall effort. Once the Department embraced the concept of organizing and leading the civilian effort, the main roadblock became resources. So far, only about $21 million has been provided for the operations of the office, despite administration requests for substantially more funding. For 2007, the administration has requested a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration would like to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Reserve component 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 corps, including training, equipment, and travel. So far, the office has heroically stretched dollars by recruiting personnel on detail from other agencies, taking advantage of DOD-funded training, and getting the State Department to pay for the overhead of new office space from other sources. But such a hand-to-mouth existence has obvious disadvantages. Detailed personnel rarely stay long, and institutional memory becomes short. Relying on DOD funds puts the office in the passenger seat when it should have the resources to pursue uniquely civilian- oriented goals. In addition, the crisis response fund outlined in our legislation has not been appropriated. On the Senate side, we were able to secure $20 million for the fund in the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire amount, however, was eliminated in the conference committee with the House. One stopgap measure that the Congress did pass in fiscal year 2006 was the authority to transfer up to $100 million from the Pentagon to the State Department for boosting the civilian response to particular trouble spots. However, this money will not provide the resources necessary over the long term to improve the State Department's capacity to be a capable partner in responding to complex emergencies. The foreign affairs budget is always a tougher sell to Congress than the military budget. President Bush has attempted to reverse the downward spiral in overall foreign affairs spending that took place in the 1990s. In that decade, both the executive and legislative branches rushed to cash in on the peace dividend. But President Bush has consistently requested increases for the 150 Account in his budgets. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested a 10.3-percent increase over the CBO-determined baseline of fiscal year 2006. But, if previous years are any example, the amount appropriated will fall far short of the amount requested. Last year, the President's annual request for foreign affairs was cut by $2.1 billion. The Congress cut the fiscal 2005 annual request by a similar amount. According to a Congressional Research Service report that I requested, Congress has provided $5.8 billion less than the President has requested for foreign affairs in regular and supplemental spending bills since September 11, 2001. Today, when we are in the midst of a global struggle of information and ideas: when anti-Western riots can be set off by the publication of a cartoon; when we are in the midst of a crisis with Iran that will decide whether the nonproliferation regime of the last half century will be abandoned; when we have entered our fourth year of attempting to stabilize Iraq; and when years of effort to move the Arab-Israeli peace process are at risk--even then, we are unable to muster the necessary support for the President's budget in foreign affairs. As all this suggests, 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 think this through and 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 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. I urge its passage.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3171, the United States Direct Investment Act of 2006, introduced by Senator Bingaman and myself. At a time when commerce routinely crosses national borders, the U.S. should be positioned to compete in all arenas. That means not only strengthening the ability of American business to invest and sell their products in foreign markets, but equally important, attracting foreign companies to the American market. Other nations actively recruit and provide incentives for global companies to set up operations and create new jobs within their borders. We must do the same. To this end, we propose to establish a framework within the Department of Commerce to specifically study how we can better encourage global companies to invest and set up businesses on our shores. It is essential as well, that we determine where this investment is needed. There are certain communities in the U.S. that are in extreme need of an infusion of economic growth and the opportunity to take part in the global economy. The U.S. has a talented and skilled workforce. We need to lead foreign companies and entrepreneurs to the cities and towns where they can find the resources they require. If this information is readily available, and if we provide incentives for companies to come, we will significantly increase the amount of foreign investment coming into our country. In 2005, foreign companies accounted for $129 billion worth of investments in the United States. This money translates into jobs and prosperity for Americans. The best way to ensure that this valuable investment is spread more widely throughout the 50 States is by conducting the sort of analysis proposed in this bill. We should keep track of both the quantity of investment attracted to each particular state and region, and as well as the types of investment foreigners make, particularly in the high technology industry. We should conduct an analysis of the industries that are investing in the U.S. compared to the industries that are going to other countries. We also need to assess which policies and programs have had the most success in attracting foreign investment. It is particularly important to attract research and development and high technology industries. These have a multiplier effect that helps increase the overall competitiveness of the American economy. We should create incentives for high technology companies to develop and invest in a U.S. presence and workforce. Another key feature of the bill is consultations with local and regional authorities, as well as Congress. The administration should determine the needs of particular localities and what the federal government can do to assist local efforts in attracting foreign investment. Congress should also be consulted so that information can be relayed regarding regions of the country that are suffering from a lack of high wage jobs. Global business ties are vital tools in shaping our international business and foreign policy. Cooperation on the commercial front enhances our ability to work with nations on other matters, including security and intelligence. This bill offers a positive solution to the concerns over domestic job growth by seeking to ensure that globalization is a two-way street with more investment traffic flowing in our direction.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Munster High School's We the People class on being awarded the Central States Region Award at the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national competition held April 29-May 1 in Washington, DC. I am pleased that the members of the Munster High School We the People class were among the 1,200 students from across the country that participated in this important event specifically designed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I join family, friends, and the entire Munster High School community in recognizing the hard work and dedication of the following members of the Munster High School We the People class: Sara Brown, Sara Farooq, Scott Goodwin, Lauren Hudak, Hannah Huebner, Casey Jedrzejczak, Alexis Jeter, Joseph Kasenga, Emily Lyness, Shobha Pai, Samantha Skrobot, and Matt Westerlund. I also wish to commend Michael Gordon, the teacher of the class, who committed his time and talent to prepare the students for the national competition. The success of the Indiana We the People program is also attributed to the hard work of Erin Braun and others at the Indiana Bar Association, as well as Stan Harris and Cathy Bomberger. The We the People national competition is a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students are able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education through congressional appropriations. I am proud to note that between 2002 and 2005, Indiana had 147,497 students participate in the programs offered through the Center for Civic Education, with 7,074,896 participating nationally.