Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing replenishment of funds to three of the five multilateral development banks, as requested by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In addition, this legislation includes a long list of reform measures, intended to bring about transparency and accountability at all of the MDBs--the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Bank, the Inter-American Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank, was the first MDB to be established in 1944, followed by the African Development Bank, 1964 and the Asian Development Bank, 1966. The shared original purpose of the three banks was to encourage economic development and reduce poverty in geographic regions impacted by the respective institutions. I support the original operating purpose of the banks. However, I am deeply concerned that massive amounts of funds are not utilized as originally intended, due to diversion of those funds. In 2003, I received information from credible sources within the MDBs alleging corruption on various fronts. As a result, I instructed staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to commence collecting information on the anti-corruption strategies, and successes of each bank. Based on the initial findings, I launched an investigation, reviewing corruption at the banks and their efforts to combat it. To date, I have chaired four hearings and sent letters of inquiry regarding individual projects to the bank presidents. Committee staff have interviewed scores of NGO representatives, bank insiders, academics and others, and have visited problem projects in six countries. Far too often, projects intended to boost economic development are derailed, and the poor suffer, unable to realize projected benefits in quality health care, clean water and education. While the United States is one of dozens of donors, the financial contribution of American taxpayers over the years to these three institutions alone exceeds $30 billion. The Congress has an obligation to our own citizens, as well as the intended beneficiaries of MDB projects, to press for transparency and accountability in the banks' operations. Through adoption of the package of reforms I propose, the United States would set an example for other donor countries, encouraging their officials to also press for transparency and accountability. I am pleased there is good news to report. The World Bank has embarked on an anti-corruption voluntary cooperation initiative, based in part on the Pentagon's anticorruption efforts. In addition, leading government officials from Italy, Spain and other countries have contacted the Committee, asking for more information about our review, and comparing strategies on ways of improving bank transparency. Finally, we have witnessed incremental improvements of greater transparency among the banks as a result of the Committee's ongoing work. However, there is more to accomplish. This substantive package of reforms is based on our findings to date, and the input of many who support the original stated purpose of the multilateral development banks. The Committee's oversight work continues, with the goal of enduring results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing replenishment of funds to three of the five multilateral development banks, as requested by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In addition, this legislation includes a long list of reform measures, intended to bring about transparency and accountability at all of the MDBs--the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Bank, the Inter-American Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank, was the first MDB to be established in 1944, followed by the African Development Bank, 1964 and the Asian Development Bank, 1966. The shared original purpose of the three banks was to encourage economic development and reduce poverty in geographic regions impacted by the respective institutions. I support the original operating purpose of the banks. However, I am deeply concerned that massive amounts of funds are not utilized as originally intended, due to diversion of those funds. In 2003, I received information from credible sources within the MDBs alleging corruption on various fronts. As a result, I instructed staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to commence collecting information on the anti-corruption strategies, and successes of each bank. Based on the initial findings, I launched an investigation, reviewing corruption at the banks and their efforts to combat it. To date, I have chaired four hearings and sent letters of inquiry regarding individual projects to the bank presidents. Committee staff have interviewed scores of NGO representatives, bank insiders, academics and others, and have visited problem projects in six countries. Far too often, projects intended to boost economic development are derailed, and the poor suffer, unable to realize projected benefits in quality health care, clean water and education. While the United States is one of dozens of donors, the financial contribution of American taxpayers over the years to these three institutions alone exceeds $30 billion. The Congress has an obligation to our own citizens, as well as the intended beneficiaries of MDB projects, to press for transparency and accountability in the banks' operations. Through adoption of the package of reforms I propose, the United States would set an example for other donor countries, encouraging their officials to also press for transparency and accountability. I am pleased there is good news to report. The World Bank has embarked on an anti-corruption voluntary cooperation initiative, based in part on the Pentagon's anticorruption efforts. In addition, leading government officials from Italy, Spain and other countries have contacted the Committee, asking for more information about our review, and comparing strategies on ways of improving bank transparency. Finally, we have witnessed incremental improvements of greater transparency among the banks as a result of the Committee's ongoing work. However, there is more to accomplish. This substantive package of reforms is based on our findings to date, and the input of many who support the original stated purpose of the multilateral development banks. The Committee's oversight work continues, with the goal of enduring results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will yield shortly to distinguished colleagues who have sought an opportunity to speak for the first time on the nomination of John Bolton. I had the privilege of addressing the Senate yesterday for over 50 minutes in which I attempted to outline all of the best reasons for John Bolton's confirmation, which I hope will occur today. I believe he will be an outstanding representative of our country, a very able diplomat to the United Nations. During the course of my comments--now reflected, because they were delivered yesterday, in the Congressional Record today--we attempted to go through each of the case histories of interviews completed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in response to the questions or allegations made about the nominee. Affirmatively, I have tried to point out the tens of very able Americans who have endorsed John Bolton, including a large number of former Secretaries of State, Defense, National Security Directors, and, most importantly, people who have worked with him at the United Nations, at USAID. I ask Members to reference the specifics of my speech yesterday, if there are questions with regard to the work done by the able staff on both sides of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to make certain that each of the arguments that has been presented has been met and fairly argued. During the entirety of the debate yesterday, the arguments that were made were not new ones. They may be important ones, and perhaps they will be reargued today. But I ask Members to think constructively now about the President of the United States, his desire for reform of the United Nations, and his desire to have John Bolton there at the United Nations to work in that capacity for reform of an institution that the United States wishes to see much stronger, more able, and certainly a valuable part of American diplomacy and national security policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senate meets today to debate the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In this capacity, he would play an important role in securing greater international support for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. It is my judgment that Secretary Bolton should be confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In recent years, the Foreign Relations Committee has made a special effort to work in a bipartisan manner. For 3 straight years, we have reported out foreign affairs authorization bills by unanimous votes. During the last Congress, we met 247 times, which was 50 percent more frequently than any other committee in the Senate. In almost every case, the subject of the meeting and the selection of witnesses enjoyed bipartisan support. We have undertaken the cooperative path, not because we always agree, but because we know the stakes are high for our country in the international arena. We face severe threats capable of undermining our national security and our economic well-being. We believe we should strive to approach these questions with as much unity as possible. On the John Bolton nomination, our committee could not develop a consensus position. From the start, members had widely divergent views of Secretary Bolton and his suitability for the U.N. ambassadorship. Members formed different opinions about the nominee based on their assessment of the role of the United Nations, their interpretation of Secretary Bolton's statements, their judgments on the testimony of many witnesses, their perspectives on managerial conduct, their philosophy on how much latitude a President should have in nominating subordinates, and many other factors. On top of these different perspectives, allegations were raised about Secretary Bolton that led to an expanded inquiry. Republicans and Democrats differed on some procedural aspects related to this inquiry, as well as on the relevance of some allegations and documents. Despite these substantive disagreements, we were able to work together in an effort that represents one of the most intense and most far-reaching examinations of a nominee in my experience. The Foreign Relations Committee has interviewed 29 witnesses, producing approximately 1,000 pages of transcripts. We have received and reviewed more than 830 pages of documents from the State Department, from USAID, and the CIA regarding the Bolton nomination. We have questioned Secretary Bolton in person for 7 hours, and we have received responses to nearly 100 questions for the record, many containing numerous subparts. The depth and breadth of the 11-week inquiry is particularly notable, given that Secretary Bolton has been confirmed 4 times by the Senate already and that most of us have had personal experiences with him. I thank both Democrat and Republican members of our Foreign Relations Committee for their patience and their perseverance throughout this process. Although we disagree in our conclusions, we share the view that the committee must work together even when we have different perspectives. We also agreed that the nomination has provided an opportunity for debate on larger issues related to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubt Secretary Bolton is extremely well qualified. He has just served 4 years in a key under secretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is being nominated. He has succeeded in several high-profile negotiation settings. He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation's weapons of mass destruction program and the ``10 Plus 10 Over 10'' agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from other G-8 countries to secure former Soviet Union weapons of mass destruction arsenals. These are among the Bush administration's most important and indisputable foreign policy successes. Opponents have argued that Secretary Bolton's personality will prevent him from being effective at the U.N., but his diplomatic successes over the last 4 years belie that expectation. Few in Government have thought more about U.N. reform than has John Bolton. He served 4 years as the Assistant Secretary of State overseeing international organizations under the first President Bush. He has written and commented extensively on that subject. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary Bolton demonstrated an impressive command of issues related to the United Nations. Senator Biden acknowledged to the nominee at his hearing that: There is no question you have extensive experience in UN affairs. Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage recently told reporters: John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's one of the smartest guys in Washington. Secretary Bolton also demonstrated his ability to get things done prior to becoming Under Secretary of State. Perhaps the best example is his initiative to repeal U.N. Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism. In May 1991, as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, John Bolton refused to accept the common wisdom that repealing this infamous resolution was impossible. He and his staff initiated a campaign to change votes in the General Assembly, even though they were advised they would not be successful. Within a few months, they had made substantial progress. By the fall, the State Department put its full weight behind that effort. On December 16, 1991, the U.N. General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution by a vote of 111 to 25. In the private sector, Secretary Bolton made some blunt statements about the United Nations. Many of these statements were made in academic or think-tank settings where debate on these subjects was encouraged. Many of the quotes that have been repeated by opponents came in the context of much larger speeches that were more nuanced. The fact that he has strong views and a long record of commentary on the job that he is about to undertake should not be disqualifying. During our hearing with Secretary Bolton, he spoke of the United Nations important role in international security. He has emphasized that he wants the institution to work well on behalf of international security and the interests of the United States. Beyond qualifications, we should recognize that Secretary Bolton has the confidence of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. The President has made it clear this is not a casual appointment. He wants a specific person to do a specific job. President Bush has a reform agenda in mind at the U.N. This reform agenda is generally supported by the U.N. Secretary General who has put forward a reform plan of his own. The President wants John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out that reform agenda. Kofi Annan has welcomed John Bolton's appointment. I would emphasize that Secretary Bolton is being appointed to a position that is within the chain of command of the President and the Secretary of State. The Ambassador to the United Nations reports directly to the President and to the Secretary of State. In fact, historically this ambassadorship has reflected directly on the President. The ambassador is seen as the President's voice at the U.N. Consequently, there are few positions in Government where the President should have more latitude in choosing his nominee. In my judgment, it would take absolutely extraordinary circumstances for the Senate to tell the President he cannot have his choice to carry out his directives at the U.N., even though the nominee is highly experienced and knowledgeable about U.N. affairs. At times during this process, opponents have suggested that Secretary Bolton sits outside the mainstream in the Bush administration. The problem with this assertion is that President Bush is telling us this is not so. President Bush is telling us Secretary Bolton accurately reflects his views about the U.N. and how that institution should be reformed. President Bush is saying Secretary Bolton is his considered choice to implement his policies and diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations. Some observers who want a different program than the President's may not agree with the President's choice, but the results of the 2004 election give the President the responsibility and the right to nominate like-minded representatives and to define who a like-minded representative is. We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first congressional hearing on the U.N. oil-for-food scandal more than a year ago. Since that time, through the work of Paul Volcker, our own colleague on the committee, Senator Coleman, and many others, we have learned much more about the extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved. This knowledge has supported the case for reform. We know billions of dollars that should have been spent on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the U.N. Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these activities. It also depended on U.N. officials and contractors who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging compromises in pursuit of a compassionate mission. The U.N. reform is not a new issue. The structure and the role of the United Nations have been debated in our country almost continuously since the U.N. was established in 1945. But in 2005 we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the U.N. The revelations of the oil-for-food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions. The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in troubled spots around the world, a diminishment of U.N. credibility because of scandal reduces United States options and increases our own burdens. Secretary Bolton has become closely associated with the U.S. efforts to reform the U.N. If he goes to the U.N. and helps achieve reform, the U.N. will gain in credibility, especially with the American people. If reform moves forward, Secretary Bolton will be in an excellent position to help convince skeptics that reform has occurred and that the United Nations can be an effective partner in achieving global security. If we reject Secretary Bolton, President Bush's hand will be weakened at the U.N. We will recover, but we will have wasted time. And we will have strengthened the position of reform opponents. In the days immediately following Secretary Rice's March 7 announcement of Secretary Bolton's nomination, most Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee expressed their opposition to the nomination on policy grounds. A March 8 Associated Press report states: Almost immediately after Bolton's nomination was announced, Democrats objected. The March 8 edition of the Baltimore Sun said: Reaction from Senate Democrats promised contentious confirmation hearings for Bolton when he goes before the Foreign Relations Committee. In several cases, the statements by Democrats were unequivocal in opposition. In several other cases, statements were very negative, leaving open only the smallest of possibilities that the Senator would ultimately support the nominee. In all of these cases, objections were based on Secretary Bolton's supposed attitudes toward the United Nations. Senator Dodd said that Secretary Bolton's ``antipathy to the U.N. will prevent him from effectively discharging his duties as our ambassador.'' Senator Kerry said that the Bolton nomination was ``the most inexplicable appointment the President could make to represent the United States to the world community.'' Senator Boxer said of Secretary Bolton: He's contemptuous of the U.N. By March 31, still almost 2 weeks before the first Bolton hearings, a Los Angeles Times report noted: Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against John R. Bolton when his nomination to be United States ambassador to the United Nations comes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . . . according to Democratic and Republican lawmakers and aides. Senators have the right to oppose a nominee because of his substantive views and his past statements. However, it is important to acknowledge that the ethical inquiry into Secretary Bolton's background has been pressed by Members who had planned to vote against him even before we began interviewing witnesses. They have the right to ask questions, and the committee of jurisdiction has a responsibility to follow up on credible allegations. But we should also understand that at times the inquiry has followed a more prosecutorial path than most nominees have had to endure. Our committee staff has worked long and hard to run down the salvo of allegations that were levied at Secretary Bolton. The end result is that many of the accusations have proven to be groundless or, at worst, overstated. New information has cast others in a different light. There is no doubt that Secretary Bolton has been blunt and combative in defense of his perspectives. Indeed, this is one of the qualities that President Bush and Secretary Rice have cited as a reason for their selection of this nominee. As I have said previously, Secretary Bolton's blunt style alienated some colleagues. Our review showed that on several occasions he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivations of subordinates. A few other times he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internal disputes. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct. The picture is one of an assertive policymaker with an intense commitment to his missions--missions that, in fact, were supported by President Bush. With regard to the most serious charge, that Secretary Bolton sought to improperly manipulate intelligence, the insights we have gained do not support the conclusion. He may have disagreed with intelligence findings, but in the end he always accepted the final judgment of the intelligence community, and he always delivered speeches in their cleared form. During this inquiry, there has been an implication that if the nominee challenged or opposed the conclusions of intelligence analysts, he somehow committed an ethical violation. I think we need to be very precise that arguing in favor of one's own reading of intelligence within the context of an internal policy debate is not wrongdoing. Intelligence reports are not sacrosanct. They involve interpretation. They are intended to stimulate debate. Many Senators participate in classified briefings. The word ``briefing'' is a misnomer because, as Senators, we spend much of the time during briefings questioning the panel. We probe to determine not just what analysts think but why they think it, and often we challenge their conclusions. Earlier this year, for example, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a highly classified briefing on North Korea in which one of our members pointedly disputed the conclusions of the briefer. There was a blunt exchange of views, and no resolution to this disagreement was achieved. I am doubtful that any of us who have attended a good number of intelligence briefings have not done the same thing on occasion. My point is that the act of challenging or disputing intelligence conclusions is not in and of itself wrong. Some have appeared shocked that Secretary Bolton might have challenged intelligence conclusions or advanced alternative interpretations, even though the same thing happens every day in multiple departments and agencies. Congress has the benefit of something called the ``speech and debate clause.'' Article I, section 6 of the Constitution states that Members of Congress ``shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.'' The Founders put this extraordinary provision in the Constitution because they saw the value of debate. The context surrounding arguments within an administration over intelligence is different, but the principle is the same. Policymakers should be free to exert opinions and interpretations during the policymaking process. Clearly, there are lines that should not be crossed. Some may argue that Secretary Bolton crossed these lines. But the proof is in the result. After fighting for his interpretation, Secretary Bolton conformed to the clearance process and gave the speeches as they had been approved. It has been charged that Secretary Bolton sought to retaliate in some way against analysts and others with whom he disagreed. Our inquiry looked into these cases thoroughly, and in each one I believe the allegations are overstated. In the case of Christian Westermann, the INR analyst whom the committee heard about from Carl Ford, the dispute was over a procedural issue, and Mr. Westermann continued in his job. We should recall that the focus of Mr. Ford's complaint was that Mr. Bolton should not have raised his objections directly with Mr. Westermann, not that Mr. Bolton was wrong to raise the issue. Our Democratic colleagues last month made much of the fact that after this incident Secretary Powell had to go all the way down to INR to boost morale. But we heard from Secretary Powell's chief of staff that such visits were not uncommon. It was part of the Secretary's leadership style to visit with staff in the ``bowels of the building,'' including INR. In the case of the NIO for Latin America, e-mails the committee staff has viewed make it clear that Secretary Bolton's primary objection was over disparaging and inaccurate comments the analyst made to Members of Congress about a speech. Secretary Bolton took his complaint to the CIA. Although the NIO has said he feels his career was damaged by Secretary Bolton, his superiors fully backed him at the time, and other witnesses have told the committee that if he did not get the promotions he felt he deserved, it was for other reasons. Again, as far as Secretary Bolton was concerned, the dispute was procedural. There was no attempt to fabricate intelligence. Other allegations related to managerial style show the same pattern upon examination--disagreement over procedure, not policy. In the case of Rexon Ryu, a mid-level civil servant in the non-proliferation bureau under Secretary Bolton, no policy issues were involved at all. Secretary Bolton believed--incorrectly, according to Mr. Ryu's supervisor--that Mr. Ryu had deliberately neglected to share information with Bolton's office. Some months later, Mr. Ryu was up for a job that would have required him to work closely with Secretary Bolton. Secretary Bolton, perhaps regrettably, expressed his opposition to working with Mr. Ryu. Mr. Ryu was given another prized post instead, an assignment to the deputy secretary. The case of the State Department attorney, also raised by the other side, is even more off the mark. This attorney fully supported what Secretary Bolton wanted to do. It was only because of miscommunication that Secretary Bolton thought the attorney had given out wrong information on a case involving sanctions against a Chinese company. The State Department Legal Advisor, Will Taft, told our staff that he quickly straightened things out. The attorney stayed on the case, and he even wrote the affidavit that Secretary Bolton later submitted to court. Staff also looked at a new case that came up. Secretary Bolton's chief of staff, we learned, went to an INR analyst to complain that he had inappropriately attached to a CIA document a cover memo that took exception to some of the CIA's findings regarding China. No action was sought against the analyst and none was taken. The issue was procedural, no intelligence was manipulated, and Secretary Bolton was not even directly involved, because he was out of the country at the time. Secretary Bolton's credibility has also been called into question regarding his testimony before our committee on April 11. Senator Biden questioned whether Mr. Bolton really went to the CIA to learn about the National Intelligence Council. Stuart Cohen, the acting head of the NIC, said that while he could not recall why Secretary Bolton wanted to come, it was ``perfectly reasonable'' to believe that was the reason. In fact, he added, ``I was delighted at the prospect that somebody would come out wanting to know more about the NIC.'' He also said that Secretary Bolton only talked about reassigning, not firing, the NIO just as Mr. Bolton testified. Our investigation has found nothing contrary to Secretary Bolton's claim that his dispute with Mr. Westermann was over procedure, not policy. Former Ambassador to South Korea, Thomas Hubbard, called the committee after Secretary Bolton's testimony about a controversial speech he gave in South Korea. Secretary Bolton testified that Ambassador Hubbard had thanked him for the speech afterwards. The ambassador told us he indeed had thanked Secretary Bolton afterwards, but only for making certain changes in the speech that he had requested. Ambassador Hubbard told our staff that he wanted to correct the record on that point, but he was not accusing Secretary Bolton of being deliberately misleading. That speech was one of several by Secretary Bolton that opponents of the nomination have questioned. Our investigation showed that many of these speeches and congressional testimony were preceded by strong policy debates within the administration. As one witness told our staff, ``That's how good policy is made.'' In each case we found that, in the end, Secretary Bolton delivered a speech that was properly cleared and that expressed official U.S. policy. One of the most sensationalized accusations against Secretary Bolton is that 11 years ago, he chased a woman around a Moscow hotel throwing things at her. This is problematic first because the behavior described seems so out of place. But secondly, because it has been very difficult for our staffs, despite many hours of interviews on this matter, to ascertain just what happened. The woman, Melody Townsel, who lives in Dallas, admits that she is a liberal Democrat who worked for Mothers Opposing Bush in the last election. Ms. Townsel also told our staffs that her original accusation, contained in a letter that was made public, may have been too strong in some places. She said: `` `Chasing' may not be the best word.'' What she meant was that Secretary Bolton would approach her whenever he saw her at the hotel where they were both staying because, as she describes it, she did not want to meet with him over a legal matter. It is important to remember that Secretary Bolton was a private lawyer at that time. He was not representing the U.S. Government. He was working for a company against which Ms. Townsel had made some very serious charges--charges which proved unfounded--that could have cost his company an important USAID contract in the former Soviet Union. Ms. Townsel provided no eyewitnesses to the incidents, which are said to have occurred in public or open areas of the hotel. Moreover, although she claimed this was a highly traumatic encounter and that she told several people about it, staff had difficulty finding others who knew about it. Three people whom Ms. Townsel identified as having heard her complaints at the time of the events told staff that they had no recollection of Ms. Townsel mentioning Mr. Bolton. Her boss, Charles Black, of Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly, who hired her for the post, said she never mentioned it to him. Neither did her immediate supervisor back in Washington. An employee of a sister company who assisted Ms. Townsel in making her charges against the prime contractor on her project and with whom she said she was in close touch at the time, also knows nothing about it. Staffs talked to three representatives of the contractor, a small Virginia firm which has long experience working for USAID overseas. Those officials also heard nothing about this encounter. They said that Secretary Bolton was in Moscow at that time, but he was working as a consultant for a health project they were involved in, not doing legal work for them. We did find one of her friends and co-workers from that time, who was not in Moscow, who recalls talking with her by telephone about it, as well as a subordinate of hers in a later USAID-funded project who recalls her mentioning it. Ultimately, Ms. Townsel went on to another USAID project in the former Soviet Union, and the company she accused of mismanagement was awarded more USAID contracts and continues to be well regarded. The original charge against Secretary Bolton is uncorroborated and overstated. On the basis of what we do know, there is nothing to offset Secretary Bolton's long record of public service in several administrations. It has been charged that collectively the allegations against Secretary Bolton form an unacceptable pattern of behavior. This is an unfortunate argument by opponents because it depends on doubts arising from an intense investigation of accusations, many of which had no substantiation. By its nature, it also discounts the dozens of positive testimonials on Secretary Bolton's behalf from former coworkers who attest to his character and his effectiveness. We need to think clearly about the context of the allegations leveled against Secretary Bolton. First, this has been an extremely public inquiry. By its nature, it has encouraged anyone with a grudge or disagreement with Secretary Bolton, stretching back to 1983, to come forward and tell their story. There have been no thematic limits on the allegations that opponents of the nominee have asked to be investigated. I simply submit that no one working in Washington in high-ranking positions for that long would come out unscathed from such a process. Any assertive policymaker will develop opponents based on stylistic differences, personal disputes, or partisan disagreements. Most Members of the Senate have been in public life for decades. If we were nominated for a similar position of responsibility after our terms in the Senate, how many of us would want the same standard to be applied to our confirmation process? How many of us would want any instance of conflict or anger directed at our staffs or our colleagues to be fair game? Second, as mentioned, the oldest allegation dates back all the way to 1983. Thus, we are subjecting 22 years of Secretary Bolton's career to a microscope. This included service in many Government jobs, as well as time spent in the private sector. Given the length of John Bolton's service in high-ranking positions, it is inevitable he would have a conflict with coworkers of various ranks and political persuasions. He would have had literally thousands of contacts, meetings, and issues to deal with during his career. In this context, the volume of alleged incidents is not that profound. Third, in John Bolton's case, unsubstantiated charges may seem more material than they are because he has a reputation for being an aggressive and blunt negotiator. But this should not be a disqualifying factor, especially for posts that historically have included a number of blunt, plain-spoken individuals, including Jeane Kirkpatrick and our former colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In fact, President Bush has cited John Bolton's direct style as one of the reasons he has picked him for this particular job. It is easy to say any inquiry into any allegation is justified if we are pursuing the truth, but as Senators who are frequently called upon to pass judgment on nominees, we know reality is more complicated than that. We want to ensure that nominees are qualified, skilled, honest, and open. Clearly, we should pursue credible reports of wrongdoing, but in doing so, we should understand that there can be human and organizational costs if the inquiry is not focused and fair. We have all witnessed quality nominees who have had to endure a contentious nomination process that opened them up to any charge leveled from any direction. Both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of employing prosecutorial tactics to oppose nominees with whom they did not agree. Some would say that nominees are fair game. If they accept appointment, they enter the public arena where no quarter will be given. But we need capable people who are willing to serve our Government and the American people. Among all the other qualifications, it seems we have required nominees to subject themselves and their families to partisan scrutiny. This has implications well beyond this current nomination. Our Democratic colleagues have recognized this fact when they have defended Democratic nominees in the past. With respect to one nominee in October 1993, Senator Biden said: The Senate does nothing to fulfill its responsibility to advice and consent on Presidential nominations and does nothing to enhance its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body by entertaining a long and disagreeable litany of past policy disagreements, nor by entertaining anonymous and probably false allegations. With regard to a troubled 1999 nomination, Senator Dodd quite insightfully stated: I am one, Mr. Chairman, who worries deeply about our ability to attract the best our society can produce to serve our country. It is not easy to submit yourselves and your families to the kind of public scrutiny that a nomination of this magnitude involves. We have got to sort out some ways in which we can go through this process without making it so discouraging to people that those who watch the process who think one day they might like to serve their country will be discouraged from doing so in any administration, and I am deeply worried that if we do not get a better handle on this, that will be the net result of what we accomplish. Senator Dodd also provided comments for a March 1, 1997, Washington Post article about the travails of a different nominee. He said: It's getting harder and harder to get good people to serve in government. Advice and consent does not have to be abuse. In an investigation of this type, we constantly have to ask, where do you draw the line? Where does legitimate due diligence turn into partisanship? Where does the desire for the truth turn into a competition over who wins and who loses? Not every line of the inquiry is justified by our curiosity or even our suspicions. The Foreign Relations Committee has focused a great deal of energy examining several accusations against the nominee. This may leave some observers with the false impression that John Bolton's service has been dominated by discord and conflict. We need to acknowledge that a great many officials with whom he has worked have endorsed him and many subordinates have attested to his managerial character. I would like to cite just a few of the comments received by the committee in support of Secretary Bolton. Former Secretaries of State James Baker, Larry Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz, former Secretaries of Defense Frank Carlucci and James Schlesinger, former Ambassadors Jeane Kirkpatrick and Max Kampelman, former National Security Adviser Richard Allen, former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Kenneth Adelman, former Assistant Secretary of State David Abshire and former Department of State Counselor Helmut Sonnenfeldt strongly endorsed Secretary Bolton in a letter to the committee. They said: It is a moment when we must have an ambassador in place whose knowledge, experience, dedication and drive will be vital to protecting the American interest in an effective, forward-looking United Nations. . . . Secretary Bolton, like the administration, has his critics of course. Anyone as energetic and effective as John [Bolton] is bound to encounter those who disagree with some or even all of the administration's policies. But the policies for which he is sometimes criticized are those of the President and the Department of State which he has served with loyalty, honor and distinction. Andrew Natsios, the current USAID administrator and M. Peter McPherson, a former USAID administrator, along with 37 officials who worked with John Bolton during his year at USAID wrote: We know John to be a forceful policy advocate who both encourages and learns from rigorous debate. We know him to be a man of balanced judgment. And we know him to have a sense of humor, even about himself. John leads from in front with courage and conviction--especially positive qualities, we believe, for the assignment he is being asked to take on. He is tough but fair. He does not abuse power or people. John is direct, yet thoughtful in his communication. He is highly dedicated, working long hours in a never-ending quest to maximize performance. Yet he does not place undue time demands on his staff, recognizing their family obligations. What he does demand from his staff is personal honesty and intellectual clarity. Another letter from former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Dick Thornburgh; former Governors William Weld and Frank Keating; former counsels to the President C. Boyden Gray and Arthur Culvahouse Jr.; and 39 other distinguished Officials stated: Each of us has worked with Mr. Bolton. We know him to be a man of personal and intellectual integrity, deeply devoted to the service of this country and the promotion of our foreign policy interests as established by this President and Congress. Not one of us has ever witnessed conduct on his part that resembles that which has been alleged. We feel our collective knowledge of him and what he stands for, combined with our own experiences in government and in the private sector, more than counterbalances the credibility of those who have tried to destroy the distinguished achievements of a lifetime. Another letter came from 21 former officials who worked with John Bolton in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. It states: Despite what has been said and written in the last few weeks, John has never sought to damage the United Nations or its mission. Quite the contrary--under John's leadership the organization was properly challenged to fulfill its original charter. John's energy and innovation transformed IO from a State Department backwater into a highly appealing work place in which individuals could effectively articulate and advance U.S. policy and their own careers as well. A letter also arrived from 43 of John Bolton's former colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute. It stated: As we have followed the strange allegations suddenly leveled at Mr. Bolton in recent days and reflected among ourselves on our own experiences with him, we have come to realize how much we learned from him, and how deep and lasting were his contributions. . . . Contrary to the portrayals of his accusers, he combines a temperate disposition, good spirit, and utter honesty with his well- known attributes of exceptional intelligence and intensity of purpose. This is a rare combination and, we would think, highly desirable for an American ambassador to the United Nations. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote in a recent letter to Secretary Bolton: To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression and an unshakeable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international affairs. A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy. Particularly in the case of a great power like America, it is essential that people know where you stand and assume that you mean what you say. With you at the UN, they will do both. Those same qualities are also required for any serious reform at the United Nations itself, without which cooperation between nations to defend and extend liberty will be far more difficult. During consideration of the Bolton nomination, we have spent a good deal of time scrutinizing individual conversations and incidents that happened several years ago. Regardless of how each Senator plans to vote, we should not lose sight of the larger national security issues concerning UN reform and international diplomacy that are central to this nomination. The President has tapped Secretary Bolton to undertake this urgent mission. Secretary Bolton has affirmed his commitment to fostering a strong United Nations. He has expressed his intent to work hard to secure greater international support at the UN for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. He has stated his belief in decisive American leadership at the UN, and underscored that an effective United Nations is very much in the interest of U.S. national security. I believe that the President deserves to have his nominee represent him at the United Nations. I am hopeful that we will vote to send this nominee to the United Nations without further delay and with a maximum amount of enthusiactic support. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. I ask that the time now be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that quorum calls be charged equally against both sides for the duration of the debate on the Bolton nomination.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Gergen, a State Department detailee who is currently serving on the Foreign Relations Committee staff, be given floor privileges during the consideration of the John Bolton nomination.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the centennial anniversary of Lincoln Financial Group. In 1905, Lincoln Financial Group began with one product, one company, four employees and a small rented space above a telegraph office in downtown Fort Wayne, Indiana. Amid the stir of controversy that gripped the big, established insurers at the time, Lincoln's founders envisioned a new insurance enterprise--one based on dependability and honesty. Believing that the name of Abraham Lincoln would powerfully convey this spirit, the founders wrote the 16th President's only surviving son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to ask for permission to use a portrait of his father on the company stationery. Robert Todd Lincoln agreed, and that is how Lincoln's legacy began with a name that reflects its character. Since its founding, Lincoln Financial has consistently leveraged its strong capital foundation to grow. From 1905-1955, Lincoln Life grew to become the ninth largest life insurance company in the United States. Even during the Great Depression, Lincoln acquired three companies. In 1968, Lincoln National Corporation was formed as an Indiana corporation. At the time, it was one of the first holding companies in the insurance industry. In the last decades of the 20th century, Lincoln transformed itself from a life insurance company into a nationally recognized financial services enterprise. The corporation adopted the name Lincoln Financial Group as its marketing name in 1998. In addition to Fort Wayne, Lincoln maintains primary offices in Philadelphia, PA; Hartford, CT; Chicago, IL; Portland, ME; and Barnwood, Gloucester, England. Today, Lincoln is a family of companies working together to provide an array of financial planning, retirement income, life insurance, annuity, mutual fund, and investment management solutions to its clients. As of year-end 2004, Lincoln had consolidated assets of $116 billion and annual consolidated revenues of $5.4 billion in 2004. Lincoln's growth has been spurred by a corporate culture that rewards creativity and believes that success is derived from a diverse and talented workforce. The people of Lincoln have always valued the trust customers place in the company each time they seek financial advice, purchase a Lincoln product or recommend the company to a friend. The company has seven shared values that reflect the principles expressed by its namesake and characterize the quality of its products: integrity; commitment to excellence; responsibility; respect; fairness; diversity; and employee ownership. Lincoln's sense of responsibility shapes not only its business practices, but also its commitment to the communities where it operates. Since its founding, Lincoln has recognized that investing in these communities is fundamental to its success. The company's spirit of philanthropy led to the establishment of the Lincoln Financial Group Foundation in 1962, which further inspired a rich tradition of giving. Today, Lincoln sets aside 2 percent of its pre-tax earnings for philanthropy. Over the past 30 years, the Lincoln Financial Group Foundation has given over $70 million in charitable giving in Indiana. In addition to the company's monetary donations, its employees bring the company's spirit of philanthropy to life every day. Collectively, they donate thousands of hours each year in personal volunteerism and participation in various company-sponsored community activities. To encourage and recognize their efforts, Lincoln provides employees with paid time off to participate in various volunteer projects. The company's Matching Gifts program to colleges and universities also maximizes employee donations. From food drives to donating blood, homebuilding projects to tutoring, Lincoln employees actively make a difference in the communities they call home. As it celebrates its centennial, Lincoln's name gives a distinctive character to its legacy. As the next 100 years begin, there is much to celebrate for the company as it looks to build a future of opportunity, focused on its shared values.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues of the remarkable feat reached by a dedicated group of young women from my home State of Indiana, qualification for the 2005 USA Junior Olympic Girl's Volleyball Championships. The Team Indiana Outlaws, consisting of nine young women well coached by Larry Leonhardt and Erika Dobrota, will represent the State of Indiana and their Team Indiana Volleyball Club in the 13 and Under Division of the 26th Annual USA Junior Olympic Girl's Volleyball Championships held this year in Salt Lake City, Utah. From June 29, 2005 through July 3, 2005, the Team Indiana Outlaws will compete against a number of other national teams who have likewise qualified for this tournament. I commend these nine young women for their hard work and discipline that culminated in their qualification for competition against equally dedicated national opponents. I am additionally pleased that their tutelage came at the hands of two fine Hoosiers, Coaches Leonhardt and Dobrota, who have been mainstays in the Indiana volleyball community for a number of years. I am confident that the Team Indiana Outlaws will not only play with distinguished efforts, but also demonstrate the good sportsmanship that is prevalent in Indiana athletics. The names of the Team Indiana Outlaws are as follows: Coaches: Larry Leonhardt, Erika Dobrota; players: Sammi Deer, Shelby Hiltunen, Megan Neher, Alli Norris, Lauren Rafdal, Emily Reber, Lucy Reser, Kasey Ruppe, and Allison Snyder.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today, on World Intellectual Property Day, I rise in support of a resolution I have submitted recognizing the importance of protecting intellectual property. One of the key benefits of protecting intellectual property is preserving innovation. Only with enforcement of protections will there be incentives for inventors to create and protect their innovations. As the sharing of goods and ideas transcends national boundaries, it is vital that these protections be able to accompany the ideas that they protect globally. Although most of our trading partners have national domestic laws protecting intellectual property piracy and are even parties to agreements which contain intellectual property protections, piracy continues largely due to lack of enforcement. Theft of intellectual property results in competitive disadvantages to U.S. industries and job loss for American workers. Counterfeiting and digital piracy have increased dramatically in recent years. In addition to the direct impact on the sales and profits of the subject industries, there is also significant harm and deception to consumers who believe they are purchasing legal and legitimate goods. Piracy and counterfeiting of copyrighted products in digital and other formats have grown to an enormous scale because these illegal activities offer a high rate of return with minimal risk to the criminal producing element. This element can conduct piracy with little capital investment, and in many countries, little chance of apprehension. Even if apprehended, the penalties may be so minor that they offer no deterrent. There are various agreements between nations implemented at different levels for the protection of intellectual property. One of these is part of the World Trade Organization, WTO, charter, the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS. Key TRIPS provisions require all WTO members to provide certain minimum standards of protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, geographical indicators, and other forms of intellectual property. There is also a requirement to provide effective enforcement of each nation's domestic intellectual property regulations. Also currently in force are two copyright treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which entered into force in 2002. These treaties help raise the minimum standards of intellectual property protection around the world, particularly with respect to internet-based delivery of copyrighted works. As with the TRIPS agreement, enforcement of obligations by member countries remains the issue. This resolution focuses on two nations, China and Russia, with which we have significant trading relationships, yet, are still not offering the necessary enforcement of protections. China has become a leading exporter of counterfeit and pirated goods to the world. It is, therefore, critical that we address the issue of protection and enforcement in China. At the April 2004 meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, JCCT, the Chinese Government indicated that it would undertake a series of actions to significantly reduce infringement throughout the country. Piracy rates in China have remained at extremely high levels for the past decade, despite numerous actions by the Chinese Government such as the seizure and destruction of millions of pirated products, often via highly publicized steamrollings of counterfeited discs. As a fellow member of the WTO, we must ensure that China fulfills its commitments to enforce intellectual property protections under the rules of the WTO. Piracy in Russia continues to be a growing problem. Only a few pirate optical disc factories existed in Russia in the late 1990s. Reports indicate that there are now over 30 such plants producing pirated products in Russia, ruining the Russian market for American right- holders and substantially undermining other markets in Europe as well. The Russian Government has made many promises to solve this problem, but meaningful results have yet to occur. Russia recognizes that its domestic laws and enforcement measures still do not meet TRIPS requirements; however, the required legislation has not been implemented. We should encourage the Government of Russia to act promptly and implement these measures so that it can fully comply with the rules of the WTO. The problem of protecting intellectual property is evident. Going forward, our focus should be on the solutions. What enforcement methods should be utilized that have not been thus far? Should our international agreements and treaties with our trading partners be better utilized to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights laws? Some progress has been made in these areas, yet there is much more ground to cover. I encourage the administration to insure that our trading partners fulfill their commitments and agreements to abide by global intellectual property rules. I ask unanimous consent that relevant material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues a signal anniversary occurring on May 3, 2005, the 25th Anniversary of the Indiana Sports Corporation, ISC. Over the past quarter of a century, the ISC has been a tremendous contributor to the city of Indianapolis, providing economic stimulus, volunteer and community involvement opportunities, and most importantly, working to identify our capital city as a worthy destination for amateur sporting events. I have been pleased to work with the ISC through the Dick Lugar Community Run, Walk and Corporate Challenge, an event I look forward to every year. Since 1979, the ISC has hosted more than 400 national and international sporting events. These events include: NCAA Championships, highlighted with four NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Final Fours, 1980, 1991, 1997, 2000; the 1987 Pan American Games; the 1982 U.S. Olympic Festival, the 2001 World Police and Fire Games; World Championships in track and field, 1987, gymnastics 1991, rowing 1994, basketball 2002 and swimming, 2004. Additionally, they have hosted U.S. Olympic trials and other National Governing Body, NGB, national championships in canoe/kayak, diving, gymnastics, judo, rowing, swimming, synchronized swimming, table tennis, track and field, and volleyball. It is likewise noteworthy that since 1988, the ISC has awarded over $2.5 million to more than 200 youth service organizations across the State of Indiana, and 132 Olympic hopefuls through its CHAMPS and Future Olympians grant programs respectively. I am pleased to join the vast number of individuals who have been touched by the efforts of the Indiana Sports Corporation over the years in congratulating them on this signal anniversary.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I submit a Senate resolution to celebrate the decision made by Kazakhstan to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state. Ten years ago this month Kazakhstan sent the last Soviet nuclear warhead on its territory to Russia. With the Review Conference on the NPT in New York starting next week, it is an especially important time to note the progress made toward the NPT's goals, with U.S. assistance, in Kazakhstan. More than a decade ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Kazakhstan became the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. But instead of enlarging the nuclear club, Kazakhstan joined Ukraine and Belarus in turning away from weapons of mass destruction. Courageous leaders chose instead to embrace the NPT in removing all nuclear arms from Kazakhstan. The world cheered when Kazakhstan formally acceded to the NPT. I am proud of the role the United States played in Kazakhstan's decision and of our role in facilitating the removal of thousands of nuclear warheads and the elimination of hundreds of SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles, silos, and command centers. The addition of three more nuclear-armed states would have been a devastating setback for the NPT. It is particularly important that the Senate draw attention to Kazakhstan's wise and brave choice, as it stands in stark contrast to events in India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. In 1998, the world was shocked by the testing of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. In January 2003, the durability of the NPT was shaken by North Korea's purported withdrawal. We have watched for the past two years as the IAEA deliberated over Iran's numerous safeguards violations amid Tehran's threats of withdrawal from the NPT should the body seek to enforce the treaty's provisions. With these events in mind, we should remember Kazakhstan. Instead of violating international norms and retaining nuclear weapons, Kazakh leaders made the right choice. When searching for success stories, the international community can turn to Kazakhstan. The Nunn-Lugar Program also assisted Kazakhstan in eliminating the former Soviet nuclear weapons testing complex at the Degelen Mountain Test Tunnel Complex and at Balapan. In close cooperation with Kazakh partners, the Nunn-Lugar program systematically dismantled the complex and sealed nearly 200 nuclear test tunnels and shafts. These facilities will never again contribute to the weapons systems that threatened the world during the Cold War. The United States, Kazakhstan, and the international community still have much work to do and these efforts will require compromise and sacrifice. The last ten years have shown that nothing is impossible. Both sides have set aside past differences to accomplish this cooperation. Let us continue to approach these challenges with creativity, a willingness to cooperate, and a commitment to the NPT.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the North American Cooperative Security Act, NACSA. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico by providing a framework for better management, communication and coordination between the Governments of North America. To advance these goals, this bill would: Improve procedures for exchanging relevant security information with Mexico and Canada; improve our military-to- military relations with Mexico; improve the security of Mexico's southern border; establish a database to track the movement of members of Central American gangs between the United States, Mexico, and Central American countries; require U.S. government agencies to develop a strategy for achieving an agreement with the Mexican government on joint measures to impede the ability of third country nationals from using Mexico as a transit corridor for unauthorized entry into the United States. Our Nation is inextricably intertwined with Mexico and Canada historically, culturally, and commercially. The flow of goods and people across our borders helps drive our economy and strengthen our culture. The Department of Transportation reports that goods worth more than $633 billion crossed our land borders in 2004. According to the Census Bureau more than 26 million of the 39 million individuals of Hispanic-origin who are legal residents in the United States are of Mexican background. But our land borders also serve as a conduit for illegal immigration, drugs, and other illicit items. Given the threat of international terrorism, there is great concern that our land borders could also serve as a channel for international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The threat of terrorist penetration is particularly acute along our southern border. In 2004, fewer than 10,000 inividuals were apprehended entering the U.S. illegally through our 5,000 mile land border with Canada. This compared with the more than 1.1 million that were apprehended while trying to cross our 2,000 mile border with Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security reports that about 996,000 of these individuals were Mexicans crossing the border for economic or family reasons. The Homeland Security Department refers to the rest as ``other than Mexicans,''--or ``OTMs.'' Of the approximately 100,000 OTMs apprehended, 3,000 to 4,000 were from so-called ``countries of interest'' like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have produced or been associated with terrorist cells. A few of the individuals who have been apprehended at our southern border were known to have connections to terrorists or were entering the U.S. under highly suspicious circumstances. For example, one Lebanese national, who had paid a smuggler to transport him across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001, was recently convicted of holding a fundraiser in his Michigan home for the Hizbollah terrorist group. Last July, a Pakistani woman swam across the Rio Grande River from Mexico to Texas. She was detained when she tried to board a plane to New York with $6,000 in cash and a severely altered South African passport. Her husband's name was found to be on a terrorism watch list. She was convicted on immigration charges and deported in December 2004. Since September 11, 2001, progress has been made in deterring cross- border threats, while maintaining the efficient movement of people and cargo across North America. The United States signed ``Smart Border'' agreements with Canada and Mexico, in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. These agreements seek to improve pre-screening of immigrants, refugees, and cargo. They include new documentation requirements and provisions for adding inspectors and updating border security technologies. We also have established Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to coordinate law enforcement efforts with Canada. Additional initiatives are included in the Presidents' Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Agreement announced on March 23, 2005, at the North American Summit meeting in Texas. But, additional work lies ahead. We must sustain attention and accountability at home for enhancing our Continental security, and continue to press our neighbors for improved cooperation in combating security threats. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the North American Cooperative Security Act, NACSA. The purpose of this bill is to enhance the mutual security and safety of the United States, Canada, and Mexico by providing a framework for better management, communication and coordination between the Governments of North America. To advance these goals, this bill would: Improve procedures for exchanging relevant security information with Mexico and Canada; improve our military-to- military relations with Mexico; improve the security of Mexico's southern border; establish a database to track the movement of members of Central American gangs between the United States, Mexico, and Central American countries; require U.S. government agencies to develop a strategy for achieving an agreement with the Mexican government on joint measures to impede the ability of third country nationals from using Mexico as a transit corridor for unauthorized entry into the United States. Our Nation is inextricably intertwined with Mexico and Canada historically, culturally, and commercially. The flow of goods and people across our borders helps drive our economy and strengthen our culture. The Department of Transportation reports that goods worth more than $633 billion crossed our land borders in 2004. According to the Census Bureau more than 26 million of the 39 million individuals of Hispanic-origin who are legal residents in the United States are of Mexican background. But our land borders also serve as a conduit for illegal immigration, drugs, and other illicit items. Given the threat of international terrorism, there is great concern that our land borders could also serve as a channel for international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The threat of terrorist penetration is particularly acute along our southern border. In 2004, fewer than 10,000 inividuals were apprehended entering the U.S. illegally through our 5,000 mile land border with Canada. This compared with the more than 1.1 million that were apprehended while trying to cross our 2,000 mile border with Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security reports that about 996,000 of these individuals were Mexicans crossing the border for economic or family reasons. The Homeland Security Department refers to the rest as ``other than Mexicans,''--or ``OTMs.'' Of the approximately 100,000 OTMs apprehended, 3,000 to 4,000 were from so-called ``countries of interest'' like Somalia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, which have produced or been associated with terrorist cells. A few of the individuals who have been apprehended at our southern border were known to have connections to terrorists or were entering the U.S. under highly suspicious circumstances. For example, one Lebanese national, who had paid a smuggler to transport him across the U.S.-Mexican border in 2001, was recently convicted of holding a fundraiser in his Michigan home for the Hizbollah terrorist group. Last July, a Pakistani woman swam across the Rio Grande River from Mexico to Texas. She was detained when she tried to board a plane to New York with $6,000 in cash and a severely altered South African passport. Her husband's name was found to be on a terrorism watch list. She was convicted on immigration charges and deported in December 2004. Since September 11, 2001, progress has been made in deterring cross- border threats, while maintaining the efficient movement of people and cargo across North America. The United States signed ``Smart Border'' agreements with Canada and Mexico, in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. These agreements seek to improve pre-screening of immigrants, refugees, and cargo. They include new documentation requirements and provisions for adding inspectors and updating border security technologies. We also have established Integrated Border Enforcement Teams to coordinate law enforcement efforts with Canada. Additional initiatives are included in the Presidents' Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Agreement announced on March 23, 2005, at the North American Summit meeting in Texas. But, additional work lies ahead. We must sustain attention and accountability at home for enhancing our Continental security, and continue to press our neighbors for improved cooperation in combating security threats. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues the appointment of Heather Bolejack to the position of executive director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, CJI. I am pleased that Governor Mitch Daniels has nominated her to this important position, and I am confident that she will serve my home State of Indiana with distinction. A product of Indianapolis, Heather graduated with high honors including being named a Fund for Hoosier Excellence Lugar Scholar, an honor bestowed upon the top minority students in Indiana. Heather attended Butler University and graduated with a degree in Spanish and journalism. She then went on to earn a law degree from the Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, where she received the Zazas Award, a full academic merit based scholarship. Heather served as General Corporate Council for McFadden Solutions Group, a law clerk and associate for Bingham McHale, and since 2004 has worked as a litigation associate at Ice Miller, an Indianapolis law firm, where she concentrated on practicing in the areas of drug and medical devices, as well as insurance coverage. I am pleased that she is not only a member of the 2004-2005 Richard G. Lugar Excellence in Public Service Class, but also a board member of the Fund for Hoosier Excellence. I am proud that Heather has taken this opportunity to heed the call of public service in this tremendously significant capacity. I join her family, friends, and colleagues in acknowledging this noteworthy achievement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I inform my colleagues of the retirement of a remarkable figure in my home State of Indiana, Robert H. McKinney. Bob McKinney has been a friend of mine since my days as Mayor of Indianapolis. During that time he was critical to the passage of Uni- Gov, the massive restructuring of the boundaries and governmental structure of the City of Indianapolis. His bipartisan support of this shared vision was instrumental in allowing for the progress and prosperity of Indianapolis. Bob's commitment to public service began at an early age. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy Bob, served for 3 years in the Pacific Theater. Additionally, he served two more years in the Pacific during the Korean War. He is a fine product of both the Naval Justice School and the Indiana University School of Law. Bob also holds Honorary Doctorates of Law from Marian College and Butler University. Supplementing his impressive academic and military careers, Bob remains a consistent voice in public service throughout the State of Indiana and nationally. From 1989 to 1998 he was a trustee of Indiana University, including a term as President of the Board from 1993-1994. He was Chairman of the Board of Advisors of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis and was formerly a director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Marian College. Additionally, as a trustee of the Hudson Institute, the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, the Indiana University Foundation, and the Sierra Club Foundation, Bob continues to encourage sound public policy. During the administration of President Carter, he served as Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation, and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. Currently, he is a member of the Presidential Advisory Board for Cuba. Bob has likewise achieved numerous successes in the private sector. After cofounding one of the largest law firms in Indianapolis, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Bob served as Chairman of The Somerset Group, Inc., a publicly traded financial services company. In 2000, The Somerset Group merged into the First Indiana Corporation, a publicly traded bank holding company that operates First Indiana Bank, the largest bank based in Indianapolis. Now, Bob is preparing to turn those duties over to his able daughter, Marni McKinney. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to call to the attention of my colleagues the extraordinary accomplishments of Bob McKinney. I admire his idealism and sustained energy and I join his wife, Arlene, his five children and five grandchildren, in wishing him every continuing success as he enters this new chapter of his life.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this resolution urges the United States to increase its efforts to ensure democratic reform in the Kyrgyz Republic. The Kyrgyz Republic has held two rounds of parliamentary elections, the first on February 27 the second on March 13. While both election rounds showed progress toward the goal of a free, fair, and transparent election process, the elections fell short of the Kyrgyz Republic's Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's OSCE and international commitments to fully meet the accepted criteria for democratic elections. Violations included instances of vote buying, questionable disqualification of candidates and interference with the media. Inspired by the recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, the people of the Kyrgyz Republic rose against their corrupt government to demand respect for their democratic rights. Nationwide demonstrations sparked by the flawed parliamentary elections led to the departure of President Askar Akayev on March 22. The opposition moved quickly to consolidate control and established an interim government. On April 4, President Akayev officially resigned. But the situation remains fluid. The outcome in the Kyrgyz Republic is critically important for its future, and for people living in the Central Asia region, who hope for a democratic future. The United States and the Kyrgyz Republic have formed a close relationship since it declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States has provided humanitarian assistance, nonlethal military assistance, and assistance to support economic and political reforms. The Kyrgyz Republic also hosts a U.S. military base that provides crucial support to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. However, while the Kyrgyz Republic has advanced quickly in the area of democratic reform since 1991, it has experienced setbacks in recent years. I urge the United States in my resolution to continue its strong support for democratic reform in the Kyrgyz Republic, including respect for the rule of law and human rights. I also call upon the interim government in the Kyrgyz Republic to move swiftly toward democratic government ratified by the Kyrgyz people by holding free, fair, and transparent presidential elections on July 10, and by ensuring that the new parliament represents the choice of the Kyrgyz people. The United States must provide strong leadership in countries where democracy is still taking root. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 266

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, there has been a good debate on this amendment. It is an important amendment. I just wanted to make the point, however, that we have reached a point in our bill where we are going to have to move expeditiously; therefore, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield to the distinguished Senator.