Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I honor the memory of Arthur Pratt, a friend and distinguished Hoosier who dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate among us. While I am saddened by Arthur passing, I continue to be inspired by his legacy of selfless service. Among his many remarkable endeavors, Arthur will be remembered by many in the Indianapolis community for the work that he did counseling inmates as they worked to address addiction to alcohol and drugs. The program that Arthur created to facilitate these efforts, Life Effectiveness Training, has worked in the Marion County Jail for more than 35 years and has since expanded to other counties across Indiana. On July 14, 2001, I joined Arthur at Christ Church Cathedral to celebrate his important leadership of the Life Effectiveness Training program. Joining Arthur were community leaders who had witnessed the success of Arthur's leadership, including members of the religious community and law enforcement and government officials. It was my great honor to work closely with Arthur to pass the Jail Based Substance Abuse Treatment Act as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act in 2002. This legislation makes available additional resources to programs like Life Effectiveness Training as they work with inmates to address their substance abuse issues. Not only has this approach reduced recidivism by up to 64 percent, but it has given countless Hoosiers a new opportunity to turn away from crime and commit themselves to becoming productive, law-abiding members of the community. While I know that this is a difficult time for Arthur's family and many friends, my thoughts are with his wife Amal and their children and grandchildren as they remember and celebrate his life of service and leadership.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to extend permanent normal trade relations to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. This bill would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Azerbaijan. In the post-Cold-War era, Azerbaijan allows its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate and has demonstrated a commitment to meet these requirements. In addition, Azerbaijan has expressed a strong desire to abide by free market principles and good governance. Since 1992, Azerbaijan has been certified annually as meeting the Jackson- Vanik requirements. This legislation would make this trade relationship permanent and, in doing so, stimulate further market reforms and encourage its continued commitment to safeguarding individual liberties. The U.S. has a long record of cooperation with Azerbaijan through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program the U.S. has assisted Azerbaijan in safely securing dangerous stockpiles of deadly pathogens and infectious diseases and improving its ability to interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. In 2005 the Nunn-Lugar Program in close coordination with Government of Azerbaijan transported 124 samples of 62 unique strains of plague, anthrax, cholera, and other dangerous diseases from Baku to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, DC. These strains were collected over many years from environmental, human, and animal sources in Azerbaijan. The strains will be studied in joint research programs with the U.S. Department of Defense and Azerbaijan medical researchers. Earlier this month I traveled to Azerbaijan and met with President Aliyev and the First Lady of Azerbaijan. We had an interesting discussion on the important role Azerbaijan is playing in energy recovery and transportation. It is a tribute to Azerbaijan that they are using their energy resources to the benefit of global security. Building pipelines and opening energy production to foreign markets requires difficult foreign policy decisionmaking. Azerbaijan is located in a tough neighborhood, and countries there are under tremendous pressure to keep their distance from the U.S. I thanked President Aliyev for taking concrete steps to affirm his country's strategic partnership with the U.S. I discussed at length with the President and members of his Government the possibility of connecting Azerbaijan's energy infrastructure with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. I encouraged continued progress on rapprochement between Governments in Baku and Ashgabat. I heard encouraging statements toward improved relations and cooperation on energy in both Ashgabat and Baku. It is clear that there is willingness for progress. Integrating some oil and gas production in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan would diversify export routes for those countries and import sources for European nations. Successful integration of such trans-Caspian transport routes is a vital contribution to international peace and security. In some countries oil and gas revenues are a curse, leading to corruption and conflict. Two years ago President Aliyev pledged to me that Azerbaijan would follow the Norway model in managing its oil and gas revenues. As reflected by the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan's receipt in 2007 of the United Nations Public Service Award, it is now on a path of transparency and is investing for development today and for future generations. I am hopeful that progress in Azerbaijan will continue and other emerging countries learn from Azerbaijan's example. One of the areas where we can deepen U.S.-Azerbaijan relations is bilateral trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of emigration requirements, compliance with threat reduction and unwavering cooperation in the production and delivery of energy supplies, the products of Azerbaijan should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik. The U.S. must remain committed and engaged in assisting Azerbaijan in pursuing democratic and human rights reforms. The Government in Baku still has important work to do in these critical areas, including in the area of media freedom and freedom of assembly. I discussed the ongoing democratic reforms with President Aliyev during my visit and was assured that they are proceeding. Azerbaijan faces an important Presidential election this October. The support and encouragement of the U.S. and the international community will be key to encouraging the Government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair elections. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic and energy partnership can be made. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that we act promptly to bolster this important relationship and promote stability in this region.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I join my Senate colleagues in expressing our confidence that many wonderful adventures lie before our friend, Trent Lott, and his family, even as we are saddened by his plans to leave the Senate. Tributes to Trent will include praise of his extraordinary leadership abilities, his thoughtfulness for others, his physical strength and endurance during long sessions of work, his even temper and good humor, and even his vocal performance talents. But Senate ``insiders'' will usually turn to the concept of ``Trent the Vote-Counter'' in an attempt to identify how and why our friend succeeded on so many occasions while many colleagues did not fare so well. I would not suggest for a moment that Trent lacked any counting ability, but I would suggest that a search for his crystal ball misses a major point. Trent was successful because he convinced people that they should support him and demonstrate that support by voting for him. Long before he announced his interest in elective office or commenced ``herding cats'' on the House or Senate floors, Trent studied the Congress with the benefit of his able mentors, and he learned the fundamentals of how they had gained election in his home State of Mississippi. Trent learned that long before any vote-counting commenced, the fundamental task was to win hearts, minds, and trust of individual voters, and that requires evaluation of interests, the best arguments delivered in the most appropriate language with the best selection of time and place, and the steady development of trust. We watched Trent win elections in Mississippi, from afar, but we have witnessed his House and Senate leadership races up close. He faced strong and able opposition. He was a graceful winner. He fulfilled all expectations and promises, and we know he will continue to do so. Trent, I thank you for loyal friendship, personal encouragement, and the times we have enjoyed great experiences, together. I pray for your continuing good health and vitality which will make possible the enjoyment of your loving family and your service to others.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to support the President's nomination of Judge John Daniel Tinder to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. I would first like to thank Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, Ranking Member Arlen Specter, the respective Leaders, and Senator Bayh for their important work to facilitate timely consideration of this nomination. Late last year, Circuit Judge Dan Manion informed me of his decision to assume senior status after a distinguished career of public service. Given this upcoming vacancy and the need for continued strong leadership, I was pleased to join with my colleague Evan Bayh in commending John Tinder to President Bush. This selection was a product of a bipartisan process and reflective of the importance of finding highly qualified Federal judges to carry forward the tradition of fair, principled, and collegial leadership. As the Founders observed when our Constitution was drafted, few persons ``will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges,'' and ``the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.'' Judge Tinder embodies the rare combination that the Framers envisioned. I have known John for many years and I have always been impressed with his high energy, resolute integrity, and remarkable dedication to public service. John graduated with honors from Indiana University while earning his Bachelor's degree and then later graduated from Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington. John served in a variety of critical legal roles early in his career which helped to shape his strong litigation background and experience. Among many legal positions, he has served as an assistant United States Attorney, a public defender, chief trial deputy in the county prosecutor's office and as a partner in private practice. Given his broad experience and great abilities, John was a natural selection to serve as United States Attorney for the Southern District. After 3 years of active and distinguished service, John was then tapped again by President Reagan to serve as United States District Court Judge for Southern Indiana where he has served since 1987. In 20 years on the bench, he has presided over more than 200 jury trials in this district. His decisions are well known to be clear, well-reasoned, and thorough while applying appropriate precedents to the facts in each case. He is fully aware of the importance of appellate court decisions and their impact on the trial courts. Throughout John's career, his reputation for personal courtesy, fairness, decency and integrity was equally well-earned and widespread among colleagues and opposing counsel alike and on both sides of the political aisle. The Senate has already unanimously confirmed him twice, and it is not surprising that news of his Circuit Court nomination has been well received by stakeholders in the legal community and the public. I am also pleased that John's experience and professionalism were recognized by the American Bar Association which bestowed their highest rating of ``well qualified'' for his nomination. I would again like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for their important work on this nomination. I believe that Judge Tinder will demonstrate remarkable leadership and will appropriately uphold and defend our laws under the Constitution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a distinguished former member of the Foreign Service, the Honorable Stephen Low, on the occasion of his recent 80th birthday on December 2, 2007. He has rendered many years of service to our Nation, and I am honored to celebrate this milestone and his achievements. Upon receiving his doctorate from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1956, the future Ambassador joined the Department of State as an Intelligence Research Officer in what was then the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs. In the years that followed, Ambassador Low served as the Economic-Labor Officer in Kampala, Uganda; the Chief of Political Section, Dakar, Senegal; the Special Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; and the Counselor for Political Affairs in Brasilia, Brazil. He then returned to Washington where he was named the Director of Brazil Affairs in the early 1970s. During the Ford administration, Stephen Low advised our Nation's policymakers on the National Security Council as the senior staff member for Latin America. He then returned to service abroad, as the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria. Three years later he served as Ambassador to Zambia. Ambassador Low performed these duties admirably, receiving the Department of State Distinguished Honor Award and two Presidential Meritorious Service Awards. In 1982 Ambassador Low became the Director of the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, the Federal Government's primary training institution for officers and support personnel of the U.S. foreign affairs community. His commitment to education has been steadfast ever since. In addition to teaching and administrative posts at the Johns Hopkins University and other schools, Ambassador Low was named President of the Association of Diplomatic Studies and Teaching, an office he held until 1997. Today the Ambassador continues his active career. As President and Founder of the Foreign Affairs Museum Council, Ambassador Low worked with members of Congress and all living former Secretaries of State to improve public understanding of the role of diplomacy and the Foreign Service. As he has stated: Many Americans have little idea what an embassy is, or what an ambassador does. Nor are they aware that our diplomats and other Foreign Service personnel work 24/7 around the world in the interest of the American people. His subsequent advocacy and leadership in the planning of a National Museum of American Diplomacy at the Department of State has helped to ensure that our Nation honors the past achievements and ongoing service of our country's diplomats. I congratulate Ambassador Low on his 80th birthday and his lifetime of achievement. I wish him many more years of good health and active service to our country. I ask that the attached resolution be printed in the Record. The material follows. Congratulating Hon. Stephen Low on a lifetime of service to the cause and promotion of American diplomacy, and on the recent passing of his 80th birthday on December 2, 2007; Whereas throughout his years as a career Foreign Service Officer, Ambassador Low served as the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria and the U.S. Ambassador to Zambia; Whereas while advising the National Security Council, Ambassador Low served as a senior staff member for Latin America; Whereas Ambassador Low has received the Department of State Distinguished Honor Award and two Presidential Meritorious Service Awards; Whereas in his commitment to education, Ambassador Low has served as the Director of the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, President of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, and several teaching posts in the United States and abroad; Whereas Ambassador Low continues to be active in the creation of a museum and center for the study of American diplomacy at the Department of State: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations expresses to Ambassador Low deep appreciation for his service to the Department of State and the United States of America.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the importance of the arguments that have been forwarded by my colleagues, especially those comments most recently by the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and earlier by Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Budget Committee and also a very valued member for a long time of the Agriculture Committee. I think it is important in response, as the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, as he described the situation, that we have to take his common sense that farms that produce much more are likely, under the current farm legislation, to receive more in subsidy and payments of various sorts. There have been certainly comments made on our side of the question that a disproportionate amount of money goes to a very few farmers. Senator Conrad attempted to rebut that by pointing out that these very few farmers may very well produce, in some States, the bulk of all that is produced. So as a matter of common sense, if payments are being made, they would receive a very large share of those payments. Certainly, that logic is impeccable. The point the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment tries to bring to the floor is that leaving aside specific farmers, we are talking about the interests of all the American people, all the taxpayers who make these payments, in fact, to a very few. We are making the point that farmers who do produce a lot of corn or wheat or soybeans or cotton are very likely to be more successful. I pointed out in my opening statement how farms have grown, how successful farmers have purchased the farms of those who were elderly or from the estates or from young people who have moved away from the States or from young people who do not have the wherewithal to buy property. In short, what I describe is the consolidation of agriculture in America, which is a pretty strong trend and which I believe the underlying farm bill we are discussing today would accelerate. I think that would be regrettable. Therefore, the point I am making with our amendment is not to discuss whether, proportionately, subsidies go to those who are most successful and produce the most but, rather, to say we should not have these payments at all. What we should have is a safety net for all farmers, including large and the wealthy as well as those who are not very wealthy and not very large, an underlying safety net of crop insurance based upon each county in America, so it is not a broad-gauge situation, it is a very locally specific situation, taking into consideration presumably the soil, the weather pattern, the history of crops in that particular county in America, or the farmer could choose to take the last 5 years of net farm income and have crop insurance based upon that farm history, a whole farm history, not simply of a specific crop, although the farmer would have the option under our plan of choosing a specific crop. The farmer could choose whole farm income across the board, including a great number of items that are not now covered in these specific crop situations. The bill we are talking about now provides that insurance. It literally pays the premiums for all farmers, so in the event that in any particular area of America, by county, by State or by region, there is difficulty created by the weather or conceivably by world trade distortions, elements that are well beyond the ability of any one individual farmer's management to control, that farmer is going to receive compensation that will keep that farmer in business. Now, furthermore, the farmer would have the option of buying additional crop insurance, as each of us as farmers now do, to cover the other 15 or 20 percent, depending upon the plan chosen, so that, in fact, you could ensure you were going to at least receive the same income as you have received over the last 5 years, on average, or receive at least the computed predictions of what the price ought to be for soybeans or for corn. Let me say, as a practical example, that I take our own experience on the Lugar farm indicative of how this might work. We have had a profit on our farm for the last 50 years. Every year. Now, one reason we have had those profits is because we have had crop insurance and we have bought the highest level of crop insurance that was possible. We paid premiums for it. It was not given to us. We paid money for it. A good many farmers who are neighbors said: I do not want to put that expense into insurance. I will let the Lord provide, sort of hope it will all work out. But it does not always work out, given the weather patterns. On our farm, in this soybean season, we had very adverse weather. We had drought during many of the weeks of the summer coming up toward harvest. Fortunately, it did not injure the crop totally. We had at least a 41-bushel yield, and we could have anticipated normally more like 51, about a 20-percent deficiency. But that is the way things move in this world. We understand that. The antidote has been crop insurance. So if you have a productive farm operation, you are not penalized because of acts of God, literally, through the weather. Now, that is what we are proposing for all farmers in America and covering all the crops that are associated with our amendment. I think this is a very important discrepancy. The distinguished ranking member of the Ag Committee, Senator Chambliss, has described the current three-legged stool proposition I discussed earlier today. Direct payments. Direct payments historically on my farm, once again, we receive now under the bill that is being produced, the underlying bill, direct payments whether we have the same number of acres or even the same crops. It is a historical record from which these payments come. Furthermore, we could, under the so-called marketing loan situation, try to game the system, trying to borrow money from the Federal Government and pay it back in lesser amounts, depending upon the crop moving upward, moving downward. We do not lose. I would say this is not a fair system with regard either to agricultural competition or with regard to the rest of the public. The public, as a whole, wants to make certain farmers stay in business, wants to make certain small farmers have a shot at it, wants to pay at least for the insurance premiums so if there is an adverse situation, it could not be controlled, the income will come in and the farm stays alive. This is what the argument is about. Now, let me simply indicate, as the distinguished ranking member has pointed out, 26 farm groups have endorsed the underlying bill. I have no doubt that is true. I would say there are a good number of agricultural interests deeply involved in this bill, and that has usually been the extent of the argument. Those are the groups that are heard in the hearings, are heard sometimes by Senators. But this time we have had a different situation. I have cited that over 40 major newspapers in the United States of America have taken time in their editorial policies, and furthermore in supporting articles, to point out the deficiencies of farm legislation as it has evolved. But this represents, I would submit, a much larger group than 26 agricultural groups or even members of our committees who believe they are advocates for specific groups in American agriculture. This time a very broad number of Americans have spoken out in a humanitarian way, as people who respect the Federal budget, as people who respect general fairness, in terms of group and Federal support for those situations. I think that is very healthy. I hope that will be reflected in the vote we are about to have. I am convinced a large majority of constituents in every State of our Union would favor the Lugar- Lautenberg FRESH amendment if they had any idea of the argument that is being presented today. Thank goodness through our newspapers and editorials, a lot more people do have such an idea, and they are expressing themselves. Let me make a technical point, and that is that an argument has been made that if we are so reliant, as I have pointed out, on crop insurance, that the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment will hurt crop insurance. I want to recite some specifics about the technicalities of crop insurance. For the moment, crop insurance companies are reimbursed by the Federal Government as a percentage of the cost of the policy. So as commodity prices have increased, so has the reimbursement of private companies, even though the workload has not changed. If, in fact, there is huge demand now for corn, huge demand for soybeans, the prices have gone up, in the case of soybeans, to record levels, exceeded only last in 1973. The compensation to the crop insurance people moves right along with it, without any of the risk involved changing. The GAO described this as ``a kind of windfall.'' Our amendment reduces the reimbursement to a rate that is still well above historical averages and, furthermore, we create a safety net through crop insurance programs dramatically increasing business opportunities for private crop insurance companies. As has been cited by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, many crop insurance policies may not be available in certain counties in his State and in others, but under our amendment, crop insurance is available everywhere, every county, every State. That is a very important consideration in terms of a national safety net as opposed to a crop-specific or State-specific safety net. The GAO has reported crop insurance underwriting profits of $2.8 billion over the last decade, three times the insurance industry average. The amendment I am offering today with Senator Lautenberg also reduces underwriting profits by requiring companies to share 30 percent of their accumulative underwriting gain back with the taxpayers, back with the Federal Government, so there is not an undisguised windfall. We have estimated this will save taxpayers more than $1.4 billion and reduce the outlays in the 10 years this bill covers. I point this out because I think it is important to say our amendment is going to be a remarkable boon for crop insurance. It is going to be virtually universal. A lot of money is going to be made. But before we get into that, we had better change the terms of reference with regard to what taxpayers are paying for and the underwriting risks that are involved. I point out one further argument; that is, that we have been talking about the relative merits of our amendment when it comes to conservation. We have not discussed differences with regard to research. We might have talked more about development in rural areas. I tried to make the point in an earlier statement that only about 14 percent of the people now living in rural America live on farms. Only about 1 out of 750 individuals actually does farm. The need for development in our rural counties is obvious. The population flight from so many counties is very apparent. If we are talking about rural America, we have to be talking about ways in which new jobs will come to counties in America, and that is not going to come through a normal farm bill situation, rewarding specific farmers and specific crops and not all of those. I point out that our amendment tries to focus on rural America, on the opportunities for jobs for people in county seats all over our country. I also point out that we have tried to think through the problems of the young. We have tried to talk about resisting the trend toward consolidation of agriculture by truly providing support for the small farmers who do not receive much support. And, as has been pointed out, they don't produce as much, and they never will under the circumstances currently in American agriculture. We think it is very important that young people coming out of college have this choice and, furthermore, that families who do have a tradition of farming not be entrapped by current circumstances that are driving clearly toward much more concentrated management and ownership of American agriculture. I would say that the reason why a farm such as we have in the Lugar family in Marion County, IN has great hopes for the future is that some great things have occurred in agricultural research. It is a small point in all of this debate, but I touched upon this a moment ago in describing the soybean price. I could have discussed the evolution of prices of corn in the last 3 or 4 years. The fact is corn and soybeans are now being utilized for energy. The demand for these grains for energy is controversial all by itself. There are some outside of this Chamber as well as inside this body who would say there is a danger that food supplies are going to be converted into energy. Some have even theologically said this is not what God suggested. It should not be energy, it should be food. Others have suggested that the price of corn, because it is going up abnormally, some would say, to provide ethanol is driving the rest of American food costs up. Ditto for soybeans. Some even make the case that it is driving world food prices upward, that residents of very poor countries are now forced to pay more for food because of our policies of using food for fuel. I appreciate this is an argument that will go on in many circles well beyond this one for a long time. But I also point out that the President of the United States and the leaders of both of our major political parties have for some time said this Nation is now two-thirds dependent upon foreign oil in terms of our petroleum needs. That percentage is increasing. Those sources of supply are more and more precarious and sometimes very unfriendly. The fact is, despite all of our conservation efforts, we are still using more oil each year. If we do not have a policy that even moves toward a slight bit of energy independence--not total, which I would agree is not within the cards as we now see life in our country--if we don't move at least to eliminate a portion of that vulnerability, we are going to have very severe consequences in terms of our own jobs, our competitive ability in the world, quite apart from the ability to drive our cars and heat our homes. We understand that. I point out that the agricultural research that got ahead of the curve here has made possible huge changes in agricultural income in this year as well as in the last year, and will continue to do so, if we continue our research on cellulosic ethanol, if we continue our research on all of the ways in which agricultural food and fiber might play a role in this and then how we increase the yields. To believe that somehow because we have increased the acreage of corn this year and we are running out of land, that that is the end of the story, is to deny a fact I remember from boyhood onward. My dad was receiving about one-third as much yield out of our cornfields as we are getting now. I have seen that in the last 60 years of time. There are many who would point out that on our farm we could do a whole lot better. I am all ears for that, as are most productive farmers. In short, we are at the threshold of potential for income. Therefore, to have a debate mired in the thought that we must maintain all the subsidies and the programs that as a matter of fact have been so expensive, have brought about concentration, have led even to a loss of jobs in rural America makes no sense at all, in my judgment. We have to talk about the future. I would say furthermore that, speaking about those abroad, 10 bishops from a church in Africa came to visit with me and I suppose with others in this body. They pointed out specifically that the cotton programs we support debilitate their hopes of coming into self-support in many very tough situations in their countries. They suggest, leaving aside the World Trade Organization criticism of the cotton program specifically and perhaps the opportunities Brazil may have to extract $4 billion out of somewhere in our economy that may be hitting other crops under the order they may receive, that we need to have reform, that the specific policies that are now a part of that program for cotton, they could apply it likewise to corn or to beans, are simply not going to work in a world that also has a humanitarian focus on feeding people, on humane results, on foreign policy that has at least some public diplomacy that works. I agree with them. I would say to cotton farmers or to soybean farmers or corn farmers, let's make sure we do have an underlying safety net. Let's make certain there cannot be catastrophe to hit any of our groups. Let's do it by State, by county, by local circumstances, by history. Let's do it right. But it is another thing to demand, as a cotton farmer or a corn farmer or a soybean farmer, payments upfront, regardless of what happens, and likewise the ability to game the Government with regard to these marketing loans. I would say on the face of it, taxpayers generally, persons of humane quality in our country, are not going to like the looks of that kind of program. That has been the nature of our program in the farm bill that we have been experiencing and in the one that is about to continue. I add finally the situation this year in this debate. I agree it is always oversimplified, but let me try to tell it as I saw it. In the House of Representatives, the farm groups, whether it was the 26 Senator Chambliss referenced or others, came in. They saw their Members, and they said: We want every penny, every penny of what we got in the past and more. We want those farm programs and we don't want them touched. However, the Members also began to hear from humanitarian groups, groups that wanted to feed Americans, interested in Food Stamps. Oxfam came in. People in conservation came in in numbers. People in energy research came in. And so pragmatically, the House committee said: Fine, we will do more for each one of you, a whole lot more, as a matter of fact. We are going to add to programs. And they did. So they took the whole block of the farm subsidies as they were and added on all of these additional programs. Then at the end of the trail, they said: We have a pay-go system, and so they added a tax bill offered by Representative Doggett who was outside the farm community but at the same time had an idea over in Finance as to how some money might be raised with regard to certain commercial foreign interests he saw. So you pay for it that way and ship the whole thing along, hoping that many constituencies will be pleased now and that the basic farm subsidies will not be touched, might even be enhanced. In our situation in this body, we had an even more curious situation. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota who spoke earlier was a proponent, along with others, of a disaster relief program, a huge one. That went over to the Finance Committee, had the Finance Committee discussing the farm bill; as a matter of fact, making a huge contribution to the farm bill. That particular disaster relief, as I can best fathom, would be run by some bureaucrats in the Treasury Department, that somehow would be signalled when there is a disaster and would send the money over by electronic means. It is an unusual situation in which we have no idea how much this might cost, and actuarially I think the assumptions are not very sound. But it was an interesting way of meeting at least one particular objective and trying at least to find some other way of paying for it through an unusual clause in tax law. I mention all of this because this kind of legislation is not good, is not necessary. I hope Members will, in fact, know there is a strong alternative--the FRESH Act, the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment--that they will vote for that, and they will make a sizable difference in the history of farm legislation. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, is it appropriate to commence the debate?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator Tom Harkin, the distinguished chairman of our committee, and the ranking Republican leader, Saxby Chambliss, for their leadership. It is not an easy task to be chairman or ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee during the farm bill. Having served in both capacities, I know well of the challenges that both have faced in putting together a bill. Let me point out, as I have during the debate in committee, some achievements have occurred. Both the chairman and ranking member have outlined a number of these in the areas of conservation, rural development, research, nutrition, and energy. I am also pleased by the effort to provide interested farmers with the revenue-based program which should be an improvement over the status quo. However, the farm bill before us does not provide meaningful reform. Our current farm policies, sold to the American public as a safety net, actually hurt the family farmer. In the name of maintaining the family farm and preserving rural communities, today's farm programs have benefited a select few, while leaving the majority of farmers without support or a safety net. Let me review the history of these farm bills. The genesis of our current farm policy began during the Great Depression as an effort to help alleviate poverty among farmers and rural communities. At that time, one in four Americans lived on a farm and the rural economy's vitality was largely dependent upon farmers. Farm programs were instituted that stifled agricultural productivity in order to raise commodity prices through a federally administered supply-and-demand program. Supply-control programs cost U.S. taxpayers handsomely in higher food costs and job loss, and now about half of the Nation's farmers are essentially prevented from growing other crops, such as fruits and vegetables. To date, this same antiquated idea is promoted even though farm income is higher on average than other industries. Times have changed dramatically since then. Today, 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm, and only 1 in 750 lives on a full-time commercial farm. Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources-- 90 percent. In response to these ongoing changes, in 1996, Congress finally recognized farmers, not the Government, could best ascertain what crops are profitable and granted roughly half our farmers flexibility in planting choices, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, and began to transition away from federally controlled agriculture programs. But in 2002, Congress and the Bush administration reversed these reforms and created the so-called three-legged stool which, in addition to other farm programs, has helped to place us in violation of our WTO commitments. The Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill before us today perpetuates and even expands these defective policies without regard for the fact that the majority of farmers do not have a safety net. The first leg of this so-called three-legged stool is direct payment subsidies to specific farmers who grow certain crops. Direct payments are fixed annual taxpayer-funded subsidies that are based on a farm's historic production and a federally set payment rate. For the five major subsidized crops, the average payment rate is roughly $15 per acre for wheat, $24 per acre for corn, $33 per acre for cotton, $11 per acre for soybeans, and $94 per acre for rice. These subsidies were originally called transition payments. They were meant to be a temporary bridge from supply management-based subsidies to free market-based agriculture. They were never intended to be a continuing entitlement. Direct payment policies are particularly irresponsible because the taxpayer-funded subsidies go out to farmers regardless of whether cash is flowing in or out of their farms or whether they farm at all. Although many subsidized farmers are projected to receive record crop prices and earn record farm incomes over the next 5 years, the Senate farm bill, as agreed to by the Senate Agriculture Committee, doles out up to $26 billion in direct payments from taxpayers, much of which will go to some of the largest and wealthiest farming operations in America. In fact, over 50 percent of these subsidies will continue to go to farmers in seven States, for a grand total of $13.1 billion. Some may find these statistics surprising, but this is simply a continuation of ``business as usual'' when it comes to farm subsidies. Keep in mind, in the years 2000 to 2005, the farm sector received $112 billion in taxpayer subsidies, but only 43 percent of all farms received payments. This is because the majority of the payments go to just five row crops--corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. The largest 8 percent of these farms receives 58 percent of these payments. In fact, the top 1 percent of the highest earning farmers claimed 17 percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. Smaller farms that qualify in the current system and that could benefit from additional support did not do as well. Two-thirds of recipient farms received less than $10,000, accounting for only 7 percent of their gross cash farm income. Minority farmers fared even worse, with only 8 percent of minority farmers even receiving Federal farm subsidies. Furthermore, half of the Federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005 went to only 19 congressional districts out of 435. Each one of these statistics illustrates that our direct payment system is inequitable and in conflict with claims we hear on the Senate floor that our current farm policies are a safety net for the family farmer. The second leg of the stool is ``countercyclical payments,'' or having the taxpayer pay farmers when prices fall below a congressionally set price. The third leg is a marketing loan program that allows farmers to put their crops up as collateral to receive operating capital. However, provisions allow farmers to go ahead and sell the crop and repay the Government at a lower rate, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference. Because these two programs do not appropriately correspond with market forces, they have the effect of creating artificial markets for crops, even when markets do not exist. Yet neither program provides any help to farmers when they arguably need it most--during disasters, such as drought. Of greater concern, these programs have been ruled to violate our trade agreements. But this new farm bill actually increases target prices for at least five crops, loan rates for seven crops, and adds a number of new subsidized crops. Now, some Senators may wonder why we should be concerned that we are in violation of our World Trade Organization--or WTO--commitments. They might think this situation is simply limited to agriculture, or specific crops, with little impact on our overall economy. Others might even suggest we are better off building more barriers to trade; that this farm bill is about American farmers and not farmers in Brazil or elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line, they will see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. And failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that legally can be redirected at any U.S. industry. In fact, as is happening now, Brazil will soon have the authority to retaliate in kind against United States products, whether they be agricultural products or intellectual property, due to our unwillingness to fix our farm policies. It is unclear if Brazil will follow through with these threats, but what is clear is that the WTO has repeatedly found the United States cotton program to be in violation of our commitments. As a result, a host of challenges to other agricultural commodities has ensued, including a case brought forth by Brazil and Canada in November that targets all of our commodity programs. Upon the initial findings of the WTO, Congress did repeal some cotton-related programs found to violate these agreements, namely, the so-called Step 2 Program, which was a program that used taxpayer money to pay companies to use U.S. cotton. However, the farm bill we are currently considering makes virtually no attempt to bring the rest of the cotton program into compliance. The administration earlier this year put forth a number of policy changes that they argued would have fixed our trade problems with the WTO, including a revenue-based countercyclical program, marketing loans that respond to market prices, and eliminating planting restrictions for fruits and vegetables. None of these proposals were incorporated into either the House bill or the Senate farm bill before us today. In fact, this farm bill significantly increases the likelihood that other programs will be further challenged by the World Trade Organization. Specifically, the WTO found that countercyclical payments and marketing loans are trade distorting, and the direct payments argued to be trade neutral are a trade violation as long as planting restrictions are retained. Astonishingly, the farm bill increases payments made under these trade-distorting programs almost across the board, further exacerbating our trade situation. In the midst of all of this, the chief economist for the Department of Agriculture projects that exports of agricultural products for this year are likely to reach $79 billion, nearly 30 percent of all farm cash receipts in 2007. Nearly 40 percent of soybeans, half of our wheat, and over 90 percent of our cotton produced in the United States this year will be exported. Clearly, trade and our trading partners are important to American farmers now and will continue to be in the future. U.S. action to comply with WTO rulings against cotton subsidies as well as U.S. policy regarding subsidies in general will be closely monitored by the world's exporters. Should the WTO determine that other United States farm subsidy programs, as challenged by Brazil and Canada, do not comply with WTO rules, the potential for retaliation by other countries is immeasurable. The farm bill before us today establishes a new permanent disaster trust fund at the Department of the Treasury to provide an additional $5 billion in spending for commodity crop farmers. Our amendment does not touch this provision nor any of the other provisions related to the Finance Committee package. Of this $5 billion, it is estimated that nearly half of the money will be given to farmers in counties designated as disaster counties by the President and the other half will go to crop insurance companies as a subsidy to administer higher levels of crop insurance coverage. The idea of a permanent disaster program may have merit, especially when you consider that Congress has passed legislation to fund ad hoc disaster payment assistance nearly every year for the last 20 years, but we should ask ourselves, if the current expensive farm bill is failing to provide a safety net to farmers when these devastating events do happen, then what is the purpose of the farm bill? Why do we need a new program administered by a separate Federal agency to fulfill what most Americans believe is the core purpose of the legislation before us? We should fix the root problem, namely that the current subsidy system does not work and wastes taxpayer dollars. If you are now a farmland owner in America, it is highly probable your land will increase in value. Why? Because a land-owning farmer or agricultural business can count upon receiving substantially more money through subsidies. As a result, you are able to leverage your land and crops to expand. If you are one of hundreds of thousands of farmers in this country who rents land as opposed to owning land, you face a very tough set of circumstances. Your rents are likely to go up each year as the value of the land goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer who hopes someday to own land, then your prospects diminish year by year. As a result, there are young members of farm families who are hopeful that with the reduction or repeal of Federal estate taxes that they might inherit the land. Other young people who are interested in farming are simply out of luck, as it is too difficult to get into the business. As a result, it is predictable that the average age of farmers in this country will continue to increase, as it has been increasing in recent decades. Consider the fact that 6 percent of farmers are younger than 35, while 26 percent are over 65 years of age. Furthermore, elderly farmers who may be land rich but cash poor will be more inclined to sell their farms as their retirement nest egg. The most likely buyer of that farm is an owner of a larger farm who is in a position to expand, thanks to Government subsidies. In spite of all the rhetoric and all of the attempts to talk about perpetuating the small family farm or even the medium-sized farm, the facts are that consolidation is increasing, and this bill will perpetuate that cycle. I want to emphasize this point because it reflects the inequity of this entire bill. Our farm policies transfer a great deal of money from ordinary taxpayers to a few farmers. If this transfer from the many to the few produced a stable farm economy, with prospects for greater trade success, perhaps one could argue this approach is more justified. Further, these policies could be justified if they truly did support the lower to middle-class farmer and reduce the number of farm consolidations. I am arguing that our policies promote the exact opposite. For all of these reasons, Senator Frank Lautenberg and I, along with Senators Hatch, Reed, Menendez, Cardin, Collins, Domenici, McCain, and Whitehouse are introducing an amendment today that would provide a true safety net for all farmers regardless of what they grow or where they live. For the first time, each farmer would receive, at no cost, either expanded county-based crop insurance policies that would cover 85 percent of expected crop revenue, or 80 percent of a farm's 5-year average adjusted gross revenue. These subsidized insurance tools already exist, but our reforms would make them more effective and universally used while controlling administrative costs. Farmers would be able to purchase insurance to cover the remainder of their revenue and yields. The 85 percent county level-based policy simply looks at the expected revenue annually in each county in the United States for crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, but it can be expanded under this bill to any commodity so long as adequate market information is available to satisfy actuarial concerns. The USDA uses prices from the futures market in late February and multiplies them by past county average crop yields collected by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, which keeps detailed data on virtually every agricultural product produced in the United States. This creates a target price that adjusts either up or down each year to market conditions and yield trends. Farmers receive a safety net payment when the actual county revenue for a crop they are growing falls below 85 percent of the target revenue. This program ensures that the only incentive to grow a crop is the market, not federally set prices under the farm policies before the Senate today. For example, in Marion County, IN, where my farm is located, expected yields for corn in 2006 were 146 bushels an acre; the future price for corn in late February 2006 was $2.59 a bushel. So target revenue for corn was $378 an acre. After the harvest, USDA found that actual corn yields in Marion County were 140 bushels an acre and that harvest prices were $3.03 a bushel, producing average revenue of $424 an acre. Actual revenue exceeded target revenue so that no additional subsidies were paid to corn farmers in Marion County in 2006. By contrast, corn farmers in Baca County, CO, experienced poor weather. Expected yields were 161 bushels an acre and the future price for corn was $2.59 a bushel, so expected revenue was $418 an acre. After the harvest, USDA found that actual yields were much lower at 116 bushels an acre and even though the harvest prices of $3.03 a bushel were higher than expected, the actual average revenue was $350 an acre. Since actual revenue was 83 percent of target revenue, corn farmers in Baca County would have received $5.30 per acre under the safety net, or the difference between actual revenue in that county and the 85 percent guarantee. The other choice would allow farmers to protect against adverse change in their own historic average revenues. This program looks at the whole farm, recognizing the same risks exist for an apple orchard as the soybean field on the same farm. A farm's 5-year average adjusted revenue is calculated using annual tax forms. The adjusted revenue is essentially a farm's overall revenue minus expenses as indicated on their tax forms. When a farm's adjusted revenue falls below 80 percent of that 5-year average, a safety-net payment makes up the difference. This program is currently operating as a pilot program in a number of States but has been limited to the amount of revenue that can be covered for some agricultural products such as livestock and forest products. Our bill expands the program nationwide and allows the USDA to include more agricultural products. It also requires the USDA to minimize double payments under situations where farmers may also have products covered by remaining farm support programs, namely the sugar program and the Milk Income Loss Program. In addition, this bill creates optional risk management accounts that would be available to every farmer and rancher and would work in concert with crop and revenue insurance. Producers who are eligible for direct payments would receive transition payments, phased out over the next 5 years, which would be deposited into their accounts. They would then be eligible to withdraw from their available balance to supplement their income in years when their gross revenue falls below 95 percent of their rolling 5-year average gross revenue. They could invest in a rural enterprise, purchase additional revenue or crop insurance, or upon retirement, utilize it as a farmer retirement account. These accounts provide farmers who are generally asset rich and cash poor greater incentive to save for the future, and will help maintain family farms by providing retirement benefits without forcing a liquidation of farm assets. The FRESH Act amendment is important because savings from these reforms will allow us to provide an additional $6.1 billion more than the underlying bill in new investments to assist farmers with conservation practices, encourage rural development, develop renewable energy, expand access to healthy foods for children and consumers, and assist more hungry Americans. Our amendment provides an additional $1 billion for important environmental and conservation programs. I am pleased that we were able to expand and improve USDA's voluntary conservation incentives programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners who offer to take steps to prevent soil erosion and improve water quality, air quality and wildlife habitat. Since 2003, roughly two-thirds of farmers seeking assistance through USDA conservation programs have been rejected due to insufficient funding. Most of these conservation programs are cost-share programs. That means that farmers are offering to put their own money into environmental improvements from which the public benefits. We are missing an opportunity to utilize private dollars to produce environmental benefits such as cleaner water and cleaner air when we underfund cost-share conservation programs. One of the most popular of these programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, has had an application backlog that has averaged $1.6 billion a year over the past 4 years. Yet the farm bill before us provides no increase in funding for this popular conservation program. The current farm bill also provides no increase in funding for the Farmland Protection Program. This program is critical because in many areas our working farms and ranches are under tremendous development pressures. From 1992 to 1997, this country lost more than 6 million acres of agricultural land--an area the size of Maryland--to development. And yet this bill doesn't provide the funding needed to assist State and local governments and private land trusts in the important work they do to conserve our Nation's farmland. Increasing funding for the farm bill's conservation programs also provides another way to make our farm policies more equitable. All producers can be eligible to participate in conservation programs, regardless of what they grow or where they grow it. By contrast, only producers of a handful of commodity crops can participate in commodity programs. While discussion of commodity policy dominates much of the farm bill debate and discretionary funding, production agriculture remains a comparatively small and shrinking part of the rural economy. Farm employment has fallen from just over 14 percent of total employment in 1969 to 6 percent in 2005. The number of counties with farm employment accounting for 20 percent or more of total employment has shrunk dramatically from 1,148 in 1969 to 348 in 2005. Furthermore, only 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm today, and nearly 90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources. Despite this fundamental shift, the 2002 farm bill committed 69 percent of total spending to commodity payments, plus another 13 percent to conservation payments. In all, four-fifths of total funding went to a select few farmers, while only 0.7 percent went to rural development initiatives aimed at boosting rural economies. We now have evidence which suggests that direct payments to farmers have little positive impact on rural economies. A recent study revealed that most payment-dependent counties did not even match the national average in terms of job growth from 1992 to 2002. In fact, many experienced losses during that time. Furthermore, most of these payment-dependent counties experienced population losses during that same 10-year period. Such job and population loss figures suggest that our current system of support for rural communities, which relies on subsidies like direct payments, does not work. I am also pleased that the amendment we are offering expands agricultural markets and decreases oil dependency by dramatically increasing research and development efforts for cellulosic ethanol and other renewable fuels, and expanding clean renewable energy opportunities to all of our rural areas. This is an area of considerable interest to the chairman who has been a stalwart supporter. Today's growth in ethanol production is creating jobs and bringing new sources of revenue into our communities. Because of our energy demands, we are witness to a palpable sense of optimism in rural communities for economic growth in areas that have stagnated under the current farm bill. Failure to give clear and strong Government commitment in the farm bill to developing biofuels from diverse feedstocks has unnecessarily confined new markets to midwestern States rich in corn. Spreading the economic benefits of biofuels nationwide will require breakthroughs in technologies and agricultural techniques to make more fuels from farm, municipal, and industrial wastes available from coast to coast. Strong support in the farm bill will help galvanize private investment and bring jobs across the country. Yet the opportunity before us involves more than economic growth. Dramatic advancements in biofuels will help build a more secure and self-reliant America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Global competition for oil continues to grow as demand soars and oil-rich States tighten their control over supplies. Already, we have witnessed Russia cut its exports to selected countries for political gain, and the Governments of Iran and Venezuela have threatened to do the same. Each year, Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil. Some of that money enriches authoritarian governments that suppress their own people and work against the United States. Meanwhile, oil infrastructure is being targeted by terrorists. In today's tight oil market even a small disruption in oil supplies could cause shortages and send prices much higher than the $90-plus per barrel prices Americans have paid in recent weeks. Biofuels will not make America completely independent of energy imports, but they can strengthen our leverage over oil-rich regimes hostile to the United States, give greater freedom to our policy options in the Middle East, help protect our economy, and foster rural development. Reaping the economic and energy security benefits of biofuels and other rural, renewable energy requires breakthroughs in research and incentives for infrastructure development. Our amendment provides an additional half billion dollars to transform renewable energy's opportunity into reality. During the markup in the Agriculture Committee, I offered an amendment to increase nutrition funding in the farm bill by about $1.6 billion through cuts to direct payments. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated 17-4. However, the amendment sparked constructive, bipartisan debate on the importance of strong funding for the nutrition programs that provide a safety net for people across our country who are on the cusp of poverty. I am thankful to Senators Harkin and Chambliss for taking that discussion seriously, and as a result, using the savings generated from a committee change to the underlying bill to provide additional funding for the nutrition title of this farm bill. But even as I applaud the efforts of Agriculture Committee members for their attention to nutrition programs, I have serious concerns that the nutrition program in this bill is essentially only authorized for 5 years. At the end of the 5 years, funding for nutrition programs drops dramatically. In 2012, we would then be faced with having to manipulate the budget to find additional funding for these programs or vulnerable Americans would lose this much-needed assistance. This is because the agriculture bill before us is ``front-loading'' spending during the first 5 years and then virtually zeroing out nutrition spending for years 6 through 10 so that the bill will come out budget neutral, on paper, but will cost taxpayers handsomely in reality. This is just one of many budgetary tricks performed so that the scoring works out favorably without regard to the practical application of such maneuvers. In our amendment, nutrition programs would not end. In fact, we increase funding for these important programs by $2 billion over the underlying farm bill and make these funding increases permanent. We cannot and should not build a safety net with holes. This leads me to another benefit of our reform proposal. Our amendment provides critical funding for each of these priorities and yet pays for itself from the existing agricultural budget passed by Congress without employing deceptive budgetary maneuvers. In fact, our bill will save taxpayers $4 billion. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the underlying bill, and if you take a thorough look, you realize just how precarious that bill's budget situation truly is. In fact, the Bush administration's Statement of Administrative Policy highlighted a number of budget gimmicks used to make the farm bill pay-go compliant, at least on paper. The FRESH Act amendment is fully paid for, fiscally responsible and provides a framework for growth for farmers and rural communities. Furthermore, the long-term budgetary savings from our proposal will allow for us to make considerable investments in key priority areas. There is an inappropriate political assumption that agriculture policy is impenetrable for consumers, taxpayers, the poor, and the vast majority of Americans who are being asked to pay for subsidies, while getting little in return. Even if only a small number of farmers in a State raise a program crop or one of the protected specialty crops like milk, sugar, or peanuts, their focused advocacy somehow has more political influence than the broader well-being of consumers and taxpayers. In short, those who benefit from current agriculture programs are virtually the only participants in the debate. This fact is probably best illustrated by the fact that one of the most contentious debates on this bill has been whether farmers with income of over $1 million, after farm expenses have been paid, should continue to receive subsidies. I have even seen media reports that indicate that if a payment limitation amendment were passed, the farm bill could be filibustered. Keep in mind that the median household income for Americans for 2006 was $48,200 and the average income of a food stamp recipient is less than $10,000. There is also an ongoing reluctance to consider change. Members will say, ``Farming is conservative by nature. You can't demand too much change.'' In 2002, I offered a similar type of reform proposal and opponents argued that the proposal was ``too new, too radical, and required too much change.'' You will hear that same baseless argument today. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, when is the time for reform? When will we fix this broken system? When will we act on the clear evidence before us? As Senators, we clearly must understand our responsibility. Whether we understand all the complexities of our current farm programs, we know where the money goes. The bulk of the money in the underlying farm bill goes to a very few farmers, a very few. That has been clear throughout. This is not a great humanitarian effort. This does not save the family farmer, the low-income farmer, or even the middle-income farmer. This bill is about making choices. And it is incredible to me that with all of the budgetary pressures that we are facing to fund critical needs such as providing better health insurance coverage for Americans, protecting Social Security and pension savings, improving education, increasing border security, and providing our men and women in the Armed Forces with appropriate pay and equipment that we would consider a bill which enriches so few individuals. I believe that this year's farm bill debate is a good time to begin changing these dynamics. This year an unconventional alliance of conservation, humanitarian, business and taxpayer advocate groups has entered the fray with success in framing the issue and building support for the FRESH Act. They represent the broadest ever political support for change. Newspapers in at least 41 States have written editorials in support of changing our farm programs to a fair, trade compliant and fiscally responsible system. I have distributed these articles to my colleagues. Perhaps more importantly, there has never been a better time for farmers to change. Thanks to strong foreign and domestic demand for energy crops, net farm income is forecast to be $87 billion, up $28 billion from 2006 and $30 billion above the average for the previous 10 years and setting a new record for new farm income. As a result, average farm household income is projected to be almost $87,000 in 2007, up 8 percent from 2006, 15 percent above the 5-year average between 2002 and 2006, and well above median U.S. household income. Farm revenue may be high today but this will not always be the case. It is critical that we have an appropriate safety net in place to assist these farmers during times of need. Agriculture policy is too important for rural America and the economic and budgetary health of our country to continue the current misguided path. Our amendment provides a much more equitable approach, produces higher net farm income for farmers, increases farm exports, avoids stimulating overproduction, and gives more emphasis to environmental, nutritional, energy security and research concerns. More importantly, this proposal will protect the family farmer through a strong safety net and encourage rural development in a fiscally responsible and trade compliant manner. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Montana. Amendment No. 3666 to Amendment No. 3500

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk concerning the upcoming elections in the Republic of Georgia. I am pleased that Senators Biden and Dodd have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. Our goal is to express our strong hopes that the Republic of Georgia will return to the democratic path and embrace a free and fair election process. The United States was founded on the principles of personal rights and liberties, and we must champion a respect for democracy and human rights. This must include U.S. efforts to expand initiatives that promote freedom of the press and freedom of the media worldwide, which I believe underpin a nation's ability to respect human rights and practice democratic governance. The international community has monitored closely developments over the last several weeks and months in the Republic of Georgia. I have visited Georgia on several occasions and consider myself a strong friend of the Georgian people. In 2003 the population of Georgia rose up to overthrow their government. The Rose Revolution, as it was called, was truly an inspirational moment for supporters of democracy and freedom around the world. President Bush has rightly called Georgia and the government of President Saakashvilli ``a beacon for democracy.'' The Georgian President and a strong cabinet of reform-minded leaders have implemented an aggressive reform agenda with the goal of joining the European Union and the NATO Alliance. This independent course was a brave effort to emerge from the authoritarian shadows of the Soviet Union and reduce its dependency on Russia. In addition to political reforms, Georgia has enjoyed remarkable economic progress. This year the country's economy is estimated to grow at a rate of 9 percent and continues to be an international leader in its economic reform efforts. Unfortunately, this impressive record has been threatened by recent events that could undermine the progress that has been achieved in Georgia. I was dismayed to learn of the imposition of emergency rule and the government's action to assert control over private media companies. While the threats to Georgia are clear and extremely dangerous, the suspension of basic freedoms was a significant step backward on Tbilisi' s path toward a market oriented, democratic country. It is important that the United States express our concerns about activities that may undermine the strong record that has been built by Georgia. I was relieved to learn that emergency rule was ended on November 17 and that restrictions on private media will be lifted this week. I applaud the efforts by the Department of State to send a strong, clear and unequivocal message to the government in Tbilisi. The Republic of Georgia must return to the path of democracy. President Saakashvili has an opportunity to take important steps in this direction by ensuring that all political parties have equal opportunity and access to media coverage and that the election process is free and fair. I recommend that the Government of Georgia reject the strategies of some countries, including most recently Russia, to frustrate and interfere with international election monitors, particularly those from the OSCE. Instead, Georgia should take additional steps to ensure that the OSCE and other constructive organizations who want to observe the elections can participate fully and as quickly as possible. It is my goal that this resolution will serve as encouragement to President Saakashvili and his government to embrace democracy and ensure that the upcoming elections are the freest and fairest in Georgian history.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to two Hoosiers who have touched the Indianapolis community and the world through their tireless leadership and commitment to the positive effect that education can have on both individuals and the communities in which they live. Over the years I have admired Father Boniface Hardin and Sister Jane Schilling for their dedication to both their religious calling as well as the more temporal needs of our communities as they worked to fight racial injustice and poverty through education and empowerment. In 1977, Father Hardin and Sister Jane founded Martin University, an institution dedicated to serving low-income, minority, and adult learners, while at the same time welcoming students of all backgrounds. In the ensuing 30 years, Martin University has changed the lives of thousands of students. It has grown from a converted church and school to a beautiful campus in the Martindale-Brightwood neighborhood of Indianapolis that serves as a tremendous resource to both faculty and students as well as the surrounding community. As Father Hardin and Sister Jane step down as president and vice president of Martin University, I am hopeful that you will join me, the board of trustees, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and friends of the university in congratulating them on their many years of service to the people of Indianapolis. I wish them both every continuing success as they pursue new and exciting opportunities to offer important service to many more of the people they have dedicated their lives to helping.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the awarding of the first endowed professorship in the field of nonproliferation studies to my friend, Dr. William Potter. Bill has served as director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. In that post he has made valuable contributions to U.S. policy through detailed analysis of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, comprehensive program- matic reviews of efforts to address the threat, and training of arms control and nonproliferation experts. Bill Potter has an unequaled research and academic record in the field of nonproliferation. He has served as a consultant to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the RAND Corporation. In addition, he has served for a number of years on the United Nations Secretary General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Research. He has written or edited 14 books and contributed to more than 90 books or journals. He has also made Monterey's quarterly publication, ``The Nonproliferation Review,'' the leading journal in the field of nonproliferation. I am honored that Monterey Institute has named Dr. Potter's new position the ``Nunn-Lugar chair of nonproliferation studies.'' In 1991, Sam Nunn and I believed that our Government had to act to address the threats posed by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As political and military leaders inched away from Cold War standoffs, the weapons they had developed to threaten and deter each other remained capable of killing the entire American population and rendering our country a wasteland. Sam and I worked closely with experts and friends like Bill Potter. Together we understood that a unilateral effort would not succeed and challenged the United States and our former enemies to work together. The United States needed a diplomatic strategy and a programmatic response to the threat. The Nunn-Lugar program was our answer. The program succeeded in convincing Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to remove all nuclear weapons from their territories. In addition, it became the primary tool through which the United States continues to work with Russia to destroy its massive nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capacity. I could relate many stories and experiences I have enjoyed with Bill Potter. His patient diplomacy and leadership have made important contributions to U.S. national security and international peace. The education, policy information, and policy expertise he will provide through his new position to the students at the Monterey Institute will continue the grand tradition he has established there and ensure that his talents and dedication are continued in a fine academic tradition. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was and remains the No. 1 national security threat facing the United States and the international community. We still have a lot of work to do to address the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I congratulate the university and Dr. Potter on this important announcement and look forward to continuing my close relationship with Bill and his colleagues at Monterey as we work together to address the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am grateful for this opportunity to join my many friends across the United States, Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, and El Salvador in celebrating the seventh annual Binational Health Week. Since its inception in 2001, Binational Health Week has afforded us an opportunity to reflect upon and celebrate the many successful efforts made here in the United States in cooperation with Mexican, Canadian, Guatemalan, and Salvadorian consulates and health care providers to promote healthy lifestyles and well-being amongst migrant populations that might otherwise lack access to important health care services. Binational Health Week originated as an effort by Mexico's Secretary of Health to direct health care services to the underserved migrant populations living and working in the United States. The network of Mexican consulates throughout the country has partnered with U.S. Federal, State, and local agencies, Mexico's Secretariats of Health and Foreign Affairs, as well as private companies and foundations. These growing partnerships and the information they provide have reached an estimated 238,000 people across the United States and Canada. We must continue to work together at the Federal, State, and community levels with our friends throughout the world to encourage individuals and families to practice healthy lifestyles. I wish all those celebrating Binational Health Week every continuing success as they pursue new and exciting opportunities to promote health and well- being in our communities.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, on September 30, the people of Ukraine will return to the ballot box to vote in critical parliamentary elections. I rise today to express my hope that Ukraine preserves and extends the tremendous accomplishments they have achieved in establishing a stable and representative government. I was privileged to represent our country as President Bush's personal representative for the November 21, 2004, presidential runoff election in Ukraine. I was not an advocate of either candidate in the election. My focus was to stress free and fair election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. The 2004 campaign for president in Ukraine had been marked by widespread political intimidation and failure to give equal coverage to candidates in the media. Physical intimidation of voters and illegal use of governmental administrative and legal authorities had been evident and persistent. Unfortunately the situation worsened on the day of the runoff election. The government of then-President Kuchma allowed, or aided and abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of the election. It was clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich, a position that he again holds today, did not win the 2004 election despite erroneous election announcements and calls of congratulations from Moscow. I joined thousands of election observers who were sent by the United States and European states through organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations. Most importantly, more than 10,000 Ukrainian citizens were organized by the Committee of Voters of Ukraine to carefully observe individual polling stations. These observers outlined an extensive list of serious procedural violations. Even in the face of these attempts to end any hope of a free and fair election, I was inspired by the courage of so many citizens of Ukraine demonstrating their passion for free expression and for a truly democratic Ukraine. As corrupt authorities tried to disrupt, frighten, and intimidate citizens, brave Ukrainians pushed back by continuing to do their best to keep the election on track and to prevent chaos. The day after the runoff election, I told the international and local press and the people of Ukraine through a live television broadcast in Kyiv that President Kuchma had the responsibility and the opportunity to produce an outcome that was fair and responsible. I pointed out that he would enhance his legacy by prompt and decisive action that maximized worldwide confidence in the presidency of Ukraine and the extraordinary potential of that country. That day, the people of Ukraine demanded change and the Orange Revolution was born. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians rallied and marched in Kyiv and other cities around the country. There commitment to democracy was heard loud and clear. The Central Election Commission that oversaw the flawed runoff election was fired. A new commission was appointed and a new election law was agreed to by all parties in an effort to eliminate fraud. While the Orange Revolution had a few more twists and turns to navigate, on December 26, 2004, Ukraine's maturing democracy held free and fair elections. For the first time, Ukraine enjoyed the fruits of a true democratic process and elected a representative government. The people of Ukraine built upon their 2004 achievement by holding free and fair parliamentary elections in 2006. What made this accomplishment even more notable was that the 2006 results favored the party that had been voted out of office in 2004, a testament to the fairness of the process. Now it is time for the Government of Ukraine to preserve and extend the impressive gains and to provide a stable and representative government by holding another free and fair parliamentary election. The people of Ukraine deserve a representative government that will work together to improve the quality of life in that country. In the years since the Orange Revolution, Ukraine has enjoyed a strong commitment to human rights and the rule of law, a growing free press, and a rapidly improving independent judiciary. Free and fair elections on September 30 will mark another important step in the right direction. I encourage the Ukrainian people to continue their march to true freedom and democracy. A democratic Ukraine is in the national security interests of all parties. The candidates and leaders of Ukraine must replicate their efforts of 2004 and 2006 and conduct these elections consistent with the standards established by the OSCE. A fraudulent and illegal election would be a major defeat for democracy and leave Ukraine crippled. The new parliament would lack legitimacy with the Ukrainian people and the international community. Free and fair elections are the first step, but they are not the last. The elected leaders of Ukraine must overcome their past differences and govern together. In recent years, opportunities have been lost because of the failure of governmental leaders to unite and constructively work across party and ideological lines. A government that is committed to working together to improve the lives of the people, despite ideological differences will assist the people of Ukraine in reaching their full potential.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the degradation of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and welcoming cooperation between the peoples of Israel, Jordan and Palestine. The Jordan River and the Dead Sea are bodies of water of exceptional historic, religious, cultural, economic, and environmental importance for the Middle East and the world. However, both the Jordan River and Dead Sea face serious problems. The governments of Israel and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Authority, have worked together in an unusual and welcome spirit of cooperation to address many of the water challenges confronting the region. The Senate applauds this cooperation and urges Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority to continue to work in a spirit of cooperation as they address the degradation of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Furthermore, the Senate hopes this cooperation might serve as a model for Israel and the Palestinian Authority as they prepare to meet in Washington this fall to seek a durable solution to the Arab-Israeli crisis.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the degradation of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and welcoming cooperation between the peoples of Israel, Jordan and Palestine. The Jordan River and the Dead Sea are bodies of water of exceptional historic, religious, cultural, economic and environmental importance for the Middle East and the world. However, both the Jordan River and the Dead Sea face serious problems. The governments of Israel and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Authority, have worked together in an unusual and welcome spirit of cooperation to address many of the water challenges confronting the region. The Senate applauds this cooperation and urges Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority to continue to work in a spirit of cooperation as it addresses the degradation of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, and hopes this cooperation might serve as a model for Israel and the Palestinian Authority as they prepare to meet in Washington this fall to seek a durable solution to the Arab-Israeli crisis.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for raising the question. As a courtesy to my distinguished colleagues, I will be pleased to yield for the time requirements they have and then I will proceed after they have concluded.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss S. 1966, a bill that I introduced last month to reauthorize the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003--known as the Leadership Act. Under the Leadership Act, the American people have catalyzed the world's response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is not often that we have an opportunity to save lives on such a massive scale. Yet every American can be proud that we have seized this opportunity. My message to Senators today is a simple one: let's agree that we should sustain this success, and let's move now to pass a reauthorization bill. I believe that Congress should reauthorize the Leadership Act this year, rather than wait until it expires in September 2008. Partner governments and implementing organizations in the field have indicated that, without early reauthorization of the Leadership Act, they may not expand their programs in 2008 to meet the goals that we set for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief also known as PEPFAR. These goals include providing treatment for 2 million people, preventing 7 million new infections, and caring for 10 million AIDS victims, including orphans and vulnerable children. Many partners in the fight against HIV/AIDS want to expand their programs. But to do so, they need assurances of a continued U.S. commitment beyond 2008. We may promise that a reauthorization of an undetermined funding level will happen eventually--but partners need to make plans now if they are to maximize their efforts. Today, they have only a Presidential proposal, not an enacted reauthorization bill. This is an important matter of perception, similar to consumer confidence. It may be intangible, but it will profoundly affect the behavior of individuals, groups, and governments engaged in the fight against HIV/ AIDS. I recently received a letter from the Ministers of Health of the 12 African focus countries receiving PEPFAR assistance. They wrote: Without an early and clear signal of the continuity of PEPFAR's support, we are concerned that partners might not move as quickly as possible to fill the resource gap that might be created. Therefore, services will not reach all those who need them. . . . The momentum will be much greater in 2008 if we know what to expect after 2008. I realize that a PEPFAR reauthorization bill will face a crowded Senate calendar this year. But maintaining the momentum of PEPFAR during 2008 is a matter of life or death for many. Part of the original motivation behind PEPFAR was to use American leadership to leverage other resources in the global community and the private sector. The continuity of our efforts to combat this disease and the impact of our resources on the commitments of the rest of the world will be maximized if we act now. Although the Leadership Act is an extensive piece of legislation, I believe that Congress can reach an agreement expeditiously on its reauthorization. Most of its provisions are sound and do not require alteration. In fact, the act has provided for substantial flexibility of implementation that has been one of the keys to success of the PEPFAR program. The authorities in the original bill are expansive, and they are enabling the program to succeed in diverse nations, each with its own unique set of cultural, economic, and public health circumstances. In developing S. 1966, I have consulted extensively with American officials who are implementing PEPFAR. Most believe that preserving the existing provisions of the Leadership Act would give them the best chance at continued success. Adding new restrictions to the law can limit the flexibility of those charged with implementation in 2009 and beyond. We don't know who that will be, and more importantly, we don't know what the challenges of 2013 will be--though we can probably say with confidence that the landscape will be very different then than it is today. This is not to say that Senators may not have good ideas for improvement that should be adopted. But new provisions must not unduly limit the flexibility of the program, and Congress should avoid descending into time-consuming quarrels over provisions that are unnecessary or that have little to do with the core mission of the bill. As Senators study the record of PEPFAR to date, I believe they will find that the vast majority of the authorities needed for the next phase of our effort already are in the existing legislation. I would like to outline how the existing legislation is dealing successfully with several specific areas of concern. The first is Strengthening Health Systems. Some have expressed the view that additional authorities are needed to improve health systems in target countries. I agree that this area is a vital one if hard-hit nations are to have truly sustainable programs. Yet the current Leadership Act already contains ample authorities to help build health systems, and the United States is making extensive use of those authorities. To date, the emergency plan has supported nearly 1.7 million training and retraining encounters for health care workers and more than 25,000 service sites. In fiscal year 2007, PEPFAR estimates it will have invested nearly $640 million in network development, human resources, and local organizational capacity and training. A recent study of PEPFAR treatment sites in four countries--Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Vietnam--found that PEPFAR supported 92 percent of the investments in health infrastructure designed to provide comprehensive HIV treatment and associated care, including facility construction, lab equipment, and training. In these countries, PEPFAR also supported 57 percent of personnel costs and 92 percent of training costs. In a separate study focused on Rwanda that examined 22 non-HIV/AIDS health indicators, 17 showed significant improvements as PEPFAR scaled up. Improvements in family planning and infant care, among other achievements, were deemed to have stemmed from ongoing HIV/AIDS programs. According to the chairman of the Institute of Medicine Committee, which recently completed a congressionally mandated study of the emergency plan: PEPFAR is contributing to make health systems stronger . . . doing good to the health systems overall. In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we have paid particular attention to the devastating toll of HIV/AIDS on females. Women, and young girls in particular, are especially vulnerable to HIV and AIDS due to a combination of biological, cultural, economic, social, and legal factors. The Leadership Act's authorities in this area are robust. The emergency plan is already leading the world in incorporating gender considerations across its prevention, treatment, and care programs and addressing gender issues that contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. For example, in 2006, a total of $442 million supported more than 830 interventions that included one or more of the five priority gender strategies identified in the Leadership Act. These strategies include increasing gender equity in HIV/AIDS services, reducing violence and coercion, addressing male norms and behaviors, increasing women's legal protections, and increasing women's access to income and productive resources. In Namibia, PEPFAR supports the Village Health Fund Project, a micro- credit program that provides vulnerable populations, such as widows and grandmothers who care for orphaned grandchildren, with start-up capital for income-generating projects. In South Africa, PEPFAR supports a project that seeks to have men take more responsibility for preventing HIV infection and gender-based violence. Another issue of special concern is food and nutrition. In 2004, I chaired a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee on this subject that underscored how HIV/AIDS and hunger exacerbate each other in many African nations. The AIDS crisis has led to a food crisis for both its victims and their communities. It is no coincidence that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is highest in countries where food is most scarce. PEPFAR has adopted guidance providing for the inclusion of nutritional assessment and counseling in care and treatment programs. It has also facilitated food support for targeted populations and assistance to long-term food security for orphans and vulnerable children. PEPFAR seeks to build on the comparative advantages of its partners in addressing food needs. These include USAID, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the United Nations World Food Program. These partners provide more direct support in food commodities and food security with a focus on overall communities. The PEPFAR approach of targeting individuals complements these efforts. In Kenya, for example, PEPFAR is supporting a ``food by prescription'' approach and is working with the Kenyan government, the World Food Program and others to ensure that broader communities, as well as individuals who may fall outside of PEPFAR guidelines for support, are reached. In Haiti, PEPFAR works with partner organizations to support orphans and vulnerable children using a community-based approach. Children participate in a school nutrition program using USAID-title II resources. This program is also committed to developing sustainable sources of food. Thus, the program aggressively supports community gardens for children's consumption and for generating revenue through the marketing of vegetables. On education, too, the Leadership Act's existing authorities are being put to productive use. In 2006, approximately $100 million in PEPFAR funding went toward programs that address barriers to school attendance for orphans and vulnerable children. This figure is expected to increase to $127 million in 2007. As it does with its nutrition programs, PEPFAR seeks to leverage its resources by ``wrapping around'' other programs that promote access to education, such as the President's African Education Initiative, or AEI. For example, in Zambia, PEPFAR and AEI fund a scholarship program that helps nearly 4,000 orphans who have lost one or both parents to AIDS or who are HIV-positive stay in grades 10 through 12. Similar partnerships exist in Uganda, where PEPFAR and AEI are working together to strengthen life-skills and prevention curricula in schools. This program targets 4 million children and 5,000 teachers. Also in Uganda, through the AIDS Support Organization, PEPFAR helps almost 1,000 children by providing school fees and supplies for both primary and secondary school. The emergency plan has dedicated nearly $191.5 million to pediatric treatment, prevention, and care during the last 2 years. The program has made steady progress, increasing the share of those receiving PEPFAR-supported treatment who are children from 3 percent in 2004 to 9 percent in 2006. The intent is to increase this figure to 15 percent. PEPFAR has focused much effort on early identification of HIV- positive children. In many countries, an HIV test is used that cannot identify children as positive until they are 18 months old. Recognizing that 50 percent of HIV-positive children will die by age two if untreated, PEPFAR is working hard to introduce new diagnostic technology that can discern the HIV status of children at a much younger age. Along with supporting treatment for children who are already infected, PEPFAR is devoting resources to ensuring that fewer children are infected in the first place. To date, PEPFAR has dedicated more than $453 million to the prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs. In Botswana, Guyana, Namibia, Rwanda, and South Africa the percentage of pregnant women receiving mother-to-child transmission prevention services now exceeds 50 percent--the goal of the President's International Initiative to Prevent Mother and Child HIV. In the past few years, nearly all of the focus countries have adopted ``opt-out'' testing where pregnant women are given an HIV test during routine antenatal care unless they refuse the test. Under the highly successful national program in Botswana, where approximately 14,000 HIV-infected women give birth annually, the country has increased the proportion of pregnant women being tested for HIV from 49 percent in 2002 to 96 percent in 2006. The number of infant infections has declined by approximately 80 percent, to a national transmission rate of less than four percent. Although the authorities in the Leadership Act allow for an expansive array of activities, I am suggesting a few basic changes in this reauthorization. First, my proposal would increase to $30 billion the authorization for the years 2009 through 2013--a doubling of the initial U.S. commitment. Senators may wish to revisit this proposed funding level, and I look forward to that discussion. I believe we need to keep the bill as free of funding directives as possible to ensure maximum flexibility for implementation. This was recommended by the Institute of Medicine. I am proposing that only two funding directives be included--one modified from its current form, the other maintained as it is. The first modification would seek to address the abstinence directive in current law. The administration has interpreted and implemented this provision so as to include both abstinence and faithfulness programs, the `AB' of `ABC,' which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and consistent use of Condoms. The ABC paradigm for prevention was developed in Africa by Africans, to address the wide range of risks faced by people within their nations. Recent evidence from a growing number of African countries shows a correlation between declining HIV prevalence and the adoption of all three of the ABC behaviors. PEPFAR implements a program that teaches young children to respect themselves and others. Part of that respect is to refrain from sexual activity and to be faithful to a single partner. As children grow older, they learn about other ways to protect themselves so that they have the information and tools they need to live healthy lives. These are not revolutionary concepts. Rather they are commonsense approaches to public health based on broad experience garnered from many cases and studies. The problem with this directive, however, is that it has applied to all prevention funding--not just to funding for prevention of sexual transmission. This has had the effect of squeezing funding for prevention activities that have nothing to do with sexual prevention-- such as prevention of mother-to-child transmission and blood transfusion safety. The language I propose would address this by applying the directive only to funding for prevention of sexual transmission, rather than to prevention funding as a whole. This will enable greater flexibility. At the same time, the language would ensure the continuation of funding for abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of comprehensive, evidence-based ABC activities. Rather than maintaining the existing directive of 33 percent of all prevention funding, the proposal would require that 50 percent of the sexual prevention subset of prevention activities be spent to support abstinence and faithfulness. It also acknowledges that different strategies are needed depending on the facts of the epidemic in each country--something PEPFAR is already doing. I think this compromise approach is one that can win support from across the political spectrum and provide increased flexibility while ensuring continued support for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention. I look forward to working on this with my colleagues. The one directive in the Leadership Act that I believe must be maintained holds that 10 percent of funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children. There were few programs focused on the needs of these children before the Leadership Act, and we remain in the early stages of the effort to serve them. Before the advent of PEPFAR, neither the United States, nor anyone else, had much experience in programs to support children infected with, or affected by, HIV/AIDS. After several years of effort, we have made some progress, but our programs are not yet as firmly established as they can be. This year PEFPAR invited proposals for orphans programs from the field--but the number of proposals that came back was far less than the available funding. This indicates that we still have much work to do in this area, and maintaining this directive will help to ensure that we do it. The AIDS orphans crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. The American people strongly back this effort, and the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure that we remain attentive to those who need our support the most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005, a bill I drafted, which was cosponsored by 11 Senators. That bill was signed into law on November 8, 2005. My bill also includes some new language regarding the Global Fund, an organization that enjoys wide support in Congress. The Global Fund is a critically important partner in our fight against HIV/AIDS. In addition to our contributions, we are active on its board, and U.S. personnel provide the Global Fund with extensive technical assistance. The Global Fund is an avenue for the rest of the world to make contributions to antidisease initiatives. The United States is the largest supporter of the Global Fund, having provided more than $2 billion so far. The American people have contributed approximately one-third of all moneys received by the fund. The fund is subject to pressures from many donors, and it is widely acknowledged that it would benefit from greater transparency and accountability. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2003 through 2006, I oversaw the passage of legislation that strengthened the transparency and accountability of international organizations that receive U.S. funding, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. My proposed language would establish similar benchmarks for U.S. funding for the Global Fund. I address such benchmarks at some length in my proposed legislation--not because of concerns over specific Global Fund activities--but rather to ensure sound practices and give members confidence that U.S. contributions are being monitored carefully. Most of these benchmarks are based on provisions contained in past appropriations bills, and I do not believe they will be controversial. S. 1966 would maintain the limitation in the existing Leadership Act that U.S. contributions to the Global Fund may not exceed 33 percent of its funding from all sources. This limitation has proven to be a valuable tool for increasing contributions to the fund from other funding sources, including other governments, and I believe there is wide agreement that this provision should be maintained. Lastly, let me turn from the details of the proposed legislation to add some perspective to this reauthorization effort. The U.S. National Intelligence Council and innumerable top officials, including President Bush, have stated that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a threat to national and international security. The pandemic is rending the socio-economic fabric of communities, nations, and an entire continent, creating a potential breeding ground for instability and terrorism. Communities are being hobbled by the disability and loss of consumers and workers at the peak of their productive, reproductive, and care-giving years. In the most heavily affected areas, communities are losing a whole generation of parents, teachers, laborers, health care workers, peacekeepers, and police. United Nations projections indicate that by 2020, HIV/AIDS will have depressed GDP by more than 20 percent in the hardest-hit countries. The World Bank recently warned that, while the global economy is expected to more than double over the next 25 years, Africa is at risk of being ``left behind.'' Many children who have lost parents to HIV/AIDS are left entirely on their own, leading to an epidemic of orphan-headed households. When they drop out of school to fend for themselves and their siblings, they lose the potential for economic empowerment that an education can provide. Alone and desperate, they sometimes resort to transactional sex or prostitution to survive, and risk becoming infected with HIV themselves. I believe that in addition to our own national security concerns, we have a humanitarian duty to take action. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence for most individuals in the developing world who contracted the disease. Now there is hope. We should never forget that behind each number is a person--a life the United States can touch or even save. At the time the Leadership Act was announced, only 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Through March of this year, the act has supported treatment for more than 1.1 million men, women, and children in 15 PEPFAR focus countries. During the first three and a half years of the act, U.S. bilateral programs have supported services for more than 6 million pregnancies. In more than 533,000 of those pregnancies, the women were found to be HIV-positive and received antiretroviral drugs, preventing an estimated 101,000 infant infections through March 2007. Before the advent of PEPFAR, there was little concerted effort to meet the needs of those orphaned by AIDS, or of other children made vulnerable by it. We have now supported care for more than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children, as well as 2.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, through September 2006. Effective prevention, treatment, and care depend to a large extent on people knowing their HIV status, so they can take the necessary steps to stay healthy. The United States has supported 18.7 million HIV counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children. Our financial investment in this fight has been critical to our success, and thanks in large part to the flexibility of the Leadership Act, we have been able to obligate more than 94 percent of its available $12.3 billion appropriated through this fiscal year. PEPFAR, led by its coordinator, Ambassador Mark Dybul, has utilized the existing Leadership Act authorities well and has listened to the Congress and many other stakeholders. We should maintain the flexibility to respond to the changing dynamics of the epidemic, rather than locking in particular approaches that might be appropriate for 2007, but that might prove problematic for future years. As the Institute of Medicine said, the Global Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' We should pass a bill now that allows PEPFAR to expand and evolve its program implementation utilizing the experience of these past 3\1/2\ years. I believe that we will save more lives and prevent more infections if we reauthorize this remarkable program this year. I ask my colleagues to work with me to achieve a truly bipartisan triumph of which we can all be proud. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to share the news of the birth of Charles McDonald ``Mac'' Lugar on September 5, 2007, at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC. Mac was a healthy 8 pounds 6 ounces at birth. His parents are David Riley Lugar, son of Richard and Charlene Lugar, and his wife Katherine Graham Lugar, daughter of Lawrence and Jane Graham. Mac was born at 4:50 p.m. and in the next few hours was joined in the hospital delivery room by Jane Graham, Richard and Charlene Lugar. We shared together a wonderful experience. On the next day, Mac met his sisters, Elizabeth Merrell Lugar, who was born at Sibley Memorial Hospital on May 25, 2004, and Katherine Riley Lugar, born on December 28, 2005, at Sibley Memorial Hospital. Mac and his sisters are now safe and healthy with their parents in their McLean, VA, residence. Katherine and David were married on June 3, 2000, in St. David's Episcopal Church in Austin, TX. Katherine, a graduate of the University of Colorado, is senior vice president of government affairs for the Retail Industry Leaders Association. David Lugar, who came with us to Washington, along with his three brothers, 30 years ago, graduated from Langley High School in McLean, VA, and Indiana University. He is a partner of Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Both Katherine and David are well known to many of our colleagues and their staff members. We know that you will understand our excitement and our joy that they and we have been given this divine blessing and responsibility for a glorious new chapter in our lives.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, known as the Leadership Act, the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease. Five years ago, there was little hope in Africa and the developing world of an effective response to HIV/AIDS. Tragically, many of the nations hardest hit by this disease are among those with the fewest resources to draw on for a response. There appeared to be little basis for hope. Today, the pandemic continues. Yet there has been a change, and the American people have led that change. The original Leadership Act authorized $15 billion in appropriations over 5 years. And in a significant departure from earlier approaches to development, it linked that funding to accountability for goals: support for treatment of 2 million people, prevention of 7 million new infections, care for 10 million people, including orphans and vulnerable children. As many Senators will recall, when this legislation was first enacted in 2003, it was done with a certain amount of haste and after a request from the President for quick action. The G-8 summit was fast approaching, but even more importantly, rapid Senate action meant that the program could be established quickly, so that money could start to flow quickly to the fight. Given this, the Senate acted swiftly, passing the bill almost without amendment. Now we are approaching the expiration of that 5-year authorization at the end of fiscal year 2008. Whatever our misgivings about the Leadership Act as we enacted it in 2003, at this point we need to judge it by the results it has enabled us to deliver. Those results are simply remarkable. At the time the Leadership Act was announced, only 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Yet through March of this year, the act has supported treatment for over 1.1 million men, women and children, over a million of them are in Africa, in those 15 countries where AIDS was on the verge of wiping out whole generations. In addition to these focus countries, we are working with one hundred other countries as well touching millions of other lives. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Now there is hope. During the first 3\1/2\ years of the act, U.S. bilateral programs have supported services for pregnant women to avoid transmission of HIV to their babies during more than 6 million pregnancies. In over 533,000 of those pregnancies, the women were found to be HIV-positive and received antiretroviral prophylaxis, preventing an estimated 101,000 infant infections through March 2007. Before the advent of the Leadership Act, there was little concerted effort to meet the needs of those orphaned by AIDS, or of other children made vulnerable by it. We have now supported care for more than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children, as well as 2.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, through September 2006. Effective prevention, treatment and care all depend to a large extent on people knowing their HIV status, so they can take the necessary steps to stay healthy. The U.S. has supported 18.7 million HIV counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children. Across the act's programs, the majority of services have been provided to women and girls, and a growing number of services are reaching children. Our financial investment in this fight has been critical to our success, and thanks in large part to the flexibility of the Leadership Act, we have been able to obligate over 94 percent of its available $12.3 billion appropriated through this fiscal year. In addition to support for the U.S. bilateral programs, the Leadership Act has also authorized support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund provides an important avenue for the rest of the world to substantially increase its commitment, as we have done. The U.S. is the largest supporter of the Global Fund, having provided some $2 billion so far. It is important for the American people to understand and for the rest of the world to remember, that the American people are responsible for approximately \1/3\ of all the funding received by the fund. As we survey the results achieved by this legislation, it is apparent that our efforts have been exceptionally successful. But to build on that success, we must reauthorize the legislation for another 5 years. As we consider how to accomplish that reauthorization task, it is important to note that the vast majority of the authorities needed for the next phase of our effort are already contained in the current Leadership Act. The necessity for new authorities is in the eye of the beholder. Many Senators may wish to enhance issues such as TB/HIV, gender, nutrition, human capacity, infrastructure and health systems, and education. But the current law already articulates and authorizes activities in these very same areas, as evidenced by the many activities in these areas that the act has undertaken under existing authorities. In this case, I believe we should follow the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' We have a good, if not perfect, law that is succeeding. In lieu of drafting an entirely new bill, today I introduce a reauthorization which preserves the bulk of the authorities that have enabled the program succeed and makes only minor modifications. The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator has interpreted the existing authorities well and has listened to the Congress and many stakeholders. As the Institute of Medicine recently said, the Global Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' The Coordinator is the first to admit, as he has before Congressional committees, that we can do better in every area of implementation. But new authorities are not needed; these are issues of implementation. In short, rather than absorbing the time of Congress, the coordinator, as well as stakeholders in drafting an entirely new bill, we should empower them to continue the work they are doing to improve upon program implementation utilizing the experience of these past 3\1/2\ years. Let me highlight the basic changes I am suggesting to the existing legislation. First, it would increase to $30 billion the authorization for the next five fiscal years 2009-2013, a doubling of the initial commitment. I recognize that Senators may wish to revisit that funding level, and I trust that there will be opportunities for them to do so, in committee and on the floor. Second, as the Institute of Medicine and others have argued, I believe we need to keep the bill as free of funding directives as possible in order to ensure maximum flexibility for implementation. I am proposing that only two funding directives be included, one modified from its current form, the other maintained as is. The first modification would seek to address the abstinence directive in current law. The current Leadership Act requires that 33 percent of all prevention funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. The problem with this directive is that some countries need to focus their efforts not on abstinence per se but on, for example, mother-to- child transmission, an activity which is considered to be nonsexual transmission of HIV/AIDS. The original directive thus forced theses countries to either spend money in areas where they did not necessarily need to spend it or to divert funds from areas where they truly needed to. The administration had interpreted and implemented this provision so as to include both abstinence and faithfulness programs, the `AB' of `ABC,' which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and consistent use of condoms. The directive has been helpful in ensuring an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to prevention. The ABC paradigm for prevention was developed in Africa by Africans, in order to address the wide range of risks faced by people within their nations, particularly in the context of generalized epidemics where HIV is widespread throughout the population. Recent evidence from a growing number of African countries shows a correlation between the adoption of all three of the ABC behaviors, and a clear association with declining HIV prevalence. Before the creation of the U.S. Global Aids Coordinator, the U.S. Government had relatively little experience implementing behavior change programs for global HIV/AIDS that included the whole array of ABC behavior change. This was the rationale for the directive, and I believe it has served a useful purpose. However, I agree with many others that we can improve upon it as we look to the future. The language I propose would provide that 50 percent of funding for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV, a sub-set all prevention funding, be dedicated to abstinence and faithfulness. This will enable greater flexibility to countries whose situation mirrors the one just described. At the same time, the language would ensure the continuation of funding for abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of comprehensive, evidence-based ABC activities. I think this compromise approach is the right one that can win support from across the political spectrum and provide increased flexibility while ensuring continued support for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention. There are a number of other directives in the current law that need no longer be maintained and the new bill does not contain them. The one other directive that I believe must be maintained is that 10 percent of funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children, or ``OVCs''. As I have noted, there were few programs focused on the needs of these children before the Leadership Act of 2005 and we remain in the early stages of the essential effort to serve them. This is one of the aspects of our effort that is most strongly supported by the American people, the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure that this effort remains focused on those who need our support the most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005, a bill I drafted, one cosponsored by eleven of my Senate colleagues, and which the Congress passed in October 2005. Finally, let me describe some new language proposed for the inclusion regarding the Global Fund, an organization that enjoys wide support here in Congress. The Global Fund is a critically important partner of the U.S. in our fight against HIV/AIDS. Our contributions are not only financial, we are also active on its board, and our U.S. personnel overseas provide the technical assistance needed for the Global Fund's grants to work. However, the fund is subject to pressures from many donors and in many directions. It has become clear that it would benefit from greater transparency and accountability. In keeping with my concerns with transparency and accountability of international organizations that receive U.S. funding, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, my proposed language would establish similar benchmarks for U.S. funding for the Global Fund. I don't believe any of these proposed benchmarks will be controversial, but if Senators have concerns about any of them, I look forward to working with them to address them. It is also worth noting that the bill would maintain the limitation in the existing Leadership Act that U.S. contributions to the fund may never exceed 33 percent of its funding from all sources. This limitation has proven to be a valuable tool for increasing contributions to the fund from other funding sources, such as other governments, and I believe there is wide agreement that this provision should be maintained as we move forward. In closing, let me turn to the issue of legislative timing. It is critical to the contents of my approach to reauthorization. It is critically important to reauthorize this bill during 2007, as opposed to awaiting its expiration September 2008. The US Global Aids Coordinator depends on his implementing partners, including host governments and nongovernmental organizations, including faith- and community-based organizations, to scale up programs rapidly to reach as many people as possible. They have been a critical part of programs success to date. But HIV and AIDS are different from many diseases: once HIV-positive persons are provided treatment or orphans enrolled in care programs, their treatment and care become ongoing commitments for program partners. Thus, for partners to continue to scale up programs in 2008, they need assurances of a continued U.S. commitment beyond 2008. These partners recognize that at this point, they have only a Presidential proposal, not actual reauthorization. In fact, some of my staff on the Foreign Relations Committee have recently returned from countries receiving our assistance and verified this concern. Various ministries of health are refusing to expand the number of patients currently receiving antiretroviral medication for fear that they will not receive enough money in the years to come to purchase next year's doses for these new patients. Without reauthorization in 2007, partners have indicated that they will be unable to scale up programs in 2008, and as my staff have confirmed, there is already evidence that some have begun to slow enrollment in programs. Without continued rapid scale-up this year and next, we may not achieve the ambitious goals for the first phase of PEFPAR, treatment for 2 million, prevention of 7 million new infections, care for 10 million, including orphans and vulnerable children. However, time will be needed to develop sustainable programs with commitments from our partner countries as we move into the next 5- year commitment from the American people. Thus it is essential that we act before we go out of session this year. I recognize that we face a crowded calendar. But we can do it if we will take the most direct path to passage, a clean bill. This body can be proud of its contribution to the remarkable turnaround on the issue of global HIV/AIDS, from concern to action. We have represented well the compassion and generosity of the American people and the demand for accountability by the American taxpayer. I call on my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill to reauthorize the Leadership Act in 2007, and to extend the authorities that have enabled the American people to make such a difference in the lives of others. I have no pride of authorship. But we need to start the reauthorization process now. I welcome the involvement and inputs of my colleagues. We should let the mark-up and amendment process work. Secondly, I would welcome the assistance of other Committees and their memberships. Thirdly, I look for strong support and guidance from the NGO and faith-based communities. These organizations will be key to the reauthorization effort. We will require the constructive engagement of the administration in this reauthorization effort. If we pull together and display the spirit of compromise necessary for good legislation, we can complete the job in 2007. 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 legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, known as the Leadership Act, the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease. Five years ago, there was little hope in Africa and the developing world of an effective response to HIV/AIDS. Tragically, many of the nations hardest hit by this disease are among those with the fewest resources to draw on for a response. There appeared to be little basis for hope. Today, the pandemic continues. Yet there has been a change, and the American people have led that change. The original Leadership Act authorized $15 billion in appropriations over 5 years. And in a significant departure from earlier approaches to development, it linked that funding to accountability for goals: support for treatment of 2 million people, prevention of 7 million new infections, care for 10 million people, including orphans and vulnerable children. As many Senators will recall, when this legislation was first enacted in 2003, it was done with a certain amount of haste and after a request from the President for quick action. The G-8 summit was fast approaching, but even more importantly, rapid Senate action meant that the program could be established quickly, so that money could start to flow quickly to the fight. Given this, the Senate acted swiftly, passing the bill almost without amendment. Now we are approaching the expiration of that 5-year authorization at the end of fiscal year 2008. Whatever our misgivings about the Leadership Act as we enacted it in 2003, at this point we need to judge it by the results it has enabled us to deliver. Those results are simply remarkable. At the time the Leadership Act was announced, only 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Yet through March of this year, the act has supported treatment for over 1.1 million men, women and children, over a million of them are in Africa, in those 15 countries where AIDS was on the verge of wiping out whole generations. In addition to these focus countries, we are working with one hundred other countries as well touching millions of other lives. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Now there is hope. During the first 3\1/2\ years of the act, U.S. bilateral programs have supported services for pregnant women to avoid transmission of HIV to their babies during more than 6 million pregnancies. In over 533,000 of those pregnancies, the women were found to be HIV-positive and received antiretroviral prophylaxis, preventing an estimated 101,000 infant infections through March 2007. Before the advent of the Leadership Act, there was little concerted effort to meet the needs of those orphaned by AIDS, or of other children made vulnerable by it. We have now supported care for more than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children, as well as 2.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, through September 2006. Effective prevention, treatment and care all depend to a large extent on people knowing their HIV status, so they can take the necessary steps to stay healthy. The U.S. has supported 18.7 million HIV counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children. Across the act's programs, the majority of services have been provided to women and girls, and a growing number of services are reaching children. Our financial investment in this fight has been critical to our success, and thanks in large part to the flexibility of the Leadership Act, we have been able to obligate over 94 percent of its available $12.3 billion appropriated through this fiscal year. In addition to support for the U.S. bilateral programs, the Leadership Act has also authorized support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund provides an important avenue for the rest of the world to substantially increase its commitment, as we have done. The U.S. is the largest supporter of the Global Fund, having provided some $2 billion so far. It is important for the American people to understand and for the rest of the world to remember, that the American people are responsible for approximately \1/3\ of all the funding received by the fund. As we survey the results achieved by this legislation, it is apparent that our efforts have been exceptionally successful. But to build on that success, we must reauthorize the legislation for another 5 years. As we consider how to accomplish that reauthorization task, it is important to note that the vast majority of the authorities needed for the next phase of our effort are already contained in the current Leadership Act. The necessity for new authorities is in the eye of the beholder. Many Senators may wish to enhance issues such as TB/HIV, gender, nutrition, human capacity, infrastructure and health systems, and education. But the current law already articulates and authorizes activities in these very same areas, as evidenced by the many activities in these areas that the act has undertaken under existing authorities. In this case, I believe we should follow the old adage, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' We have a good, if not perfect, law that is succeeding. In lieu of drafting an entirely new bill, today I introduce a reauthorization which preserves the bulk of the authorities that have enabled the program succeed and makes only minor modifications. The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator has interpreted the existing authorities well and has listened to the Congress and many stakeholders. As the Institute of Medicine recently said, the Global Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' The Coordinator is the first to admit, as he has before Congressional committees, that we can do better in every area of implementation. But new authorities are not needed; these are issues of implementation. In short, rather than absorbing the time of Congress, the coordinator, as well as stakeholders in drafting an entirely new bill, we should empower them to continue the work they are doing to improve upon program implementation utilizing the experience of these past 3\1/2\ years. Let me highlight the basic changes I am suggesting to the existing legislation. First, it would increase to $30 billion the authorization for the next five fiscal years 2009-2013, a doubling of the initial commitment. I recognize that Senators may wish to revisit that funding level, and I trust that there will be opportunities for them to do so, in committee and on the floor. Second, as the Institute of Medicine and others have argued, I believe we need to keep the bill as free of funding directives as possible in order to ensure maximum flexibility for implementation. I am proposing that only two funding directives be included, one modified from its current form, the other maintained as is. The first modification would seek to address the abstinence directive in current law. The current Leadership Act requires that 33 percent of all prevention funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. The problem with this directive is that some countries need to focus their efforts not on abstinence per se but on, for example, mother-to- child transmission, an activity which is considered to be nonsexual transmission of HIV/AIDS. The original directive thus forced theses countries to either spend money in areas where they did not necessarily need to spend it or to divert funds from areas where they truly needed to. The administration had interpreted and implemented this provision so as to include both abstinence and faithfulness programs, the `AB' of `ABC,' which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and consistent use of condoms. The directive has been helpful in ensuring an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to prevention. The ABC paradigm for prevention was developed in Africa by Africans, in order to address the wide range of risks faced by people within their nations, particularly in the context of generalized epidemics where HIV is widespread throughout the population. Recent evidence from a growing number of African countries shows a correlation between the adoption of all three of the ABC behaviors, and a clear association with declining HIV prevalence. Before the creation of the U.S. Global Aids Coordinator, the U.S. Government had relatively little experience implementing behavior change programs for global HIV/AIDS that included the whole array of ABC behavior change. This was the rationale for the directive, and I believe it has served a useful purpose. However, I agree with many others that we can improve upon it as we look to the future. The language I propose would provide that 50 percent of funding for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV, a sub-set all prevention funding, be dedicated to abstinence and faithfulness. This will enable greater flexibility to countries whose situation mirrors the one just described. At the same time, the language would ensure the continuation of funding for abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of comprehensive, evidence-based ABC activities. I think this compromise approach is the right one that can win support from across the political spectrum and provide increased flexibility while ensuring continued support for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention. There are a number of other directives in the current law that need no longer be maintained and the new bill does not contain them. The one other directive that I believe must be maintained is that 10 percent of funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children, or ``OVCs''. As I have noted, there were few programs focused on the needs of these children before the Leadership Act of 2005 and we remain in the early stages of the essential effort to serve them. This is one of the aspects of our effort that is most strongly supported by the American people, the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure that this effort remains focused on those who need our support the most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005, a bill I drafted, one cosponsored by eleven of my Senate colleagues, and which the Congress passed in October 2005. Finally, let me describe some new language proposed for the inclusion regarding the Global Fund, an organization that enjoys wide support here in Congress. The Global Fund is a critically important partner of the U.S. in our fight against HIV/AIDS. Our contributions are not only financial, we are also active on its board, and our U.S. personnel overseas provide the technical assistance needed for the Global Fund's grants to work. However, the fund is subject to pressures from many donors and in many directions. It has become clear that it would benefit from greater transparency and accountability. In keeping with my concerns with transparency and accountability of international organizations that receive U.S. funding, including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, my proposed language would establish similar benchmarks for U.S. funding for the Global Fund. I don't believe any of these proposed benchmarks will be controversial, but if Senators have concerns about any of them, I look forward to working with them to address them. It is also worth noting that the bill would maintain the limitation in the existing Leadership Act that U.S. contributions to the fund may never exceed 33 percent of its funding from all sources. This limitation has proven to be a valuable tool for increasing contributions to the fund from other funding sources, such as other governments, and I believe there is wide agreement that this provision should be maintained as we move forward. In closing, let me turn to the issue of legislative timing. It is critical to the contents of my approach to reauthorization. It is critically important to reauthorize this bill during 2007, as opposed to awaiting its expiration September 2008. The US Global Aids Coordinator depends on his implementing partners, including host governments and nongovernmental organizations, including faith- and community-based organizations, to scale up programs rapidly to reach as many people as possible. They have been a critical part of programs success to date. But HIV and AIDS are different from many diseases: once HIV-positive persons are provided treatment or orphans enrolled in care programs, their treatment and care become ongoing commitments for program partners. Thus, for partners to continue to scale up programs in 2008, they need assurances of a continued U.S. commitment beyond 2008. These partners recognize that at this point, they have only a Presidential proposal, not actual reauthorization. In fact, some of my staff on the Foreign Relations Committee have recently returned from countries receiving our assistance and verified this concern. Various ministries of health are refusing to expand the number of patients currently receiving antiretroviral medication for fear that they will not receive enough money in the years to come to purchase next year's doses for these new patients. Without reauthorization in 2007, partners have indicated that they will be unable to scale up programs in 2008, and as my staff have confirmed, there is already evidence that some have begun to slow enrollment in programs. Without continued rapid scale-up this year and next, we may not achieve the ambitious goals for the first phase of PEFPAR, treatment for 2 million, prevention of 7 million new infections, care for 10 million, including orphans and vulnerable children. However, time will be needed to develop sustainable programs with commitments from our partner countries as we move into the next 5- year commitment from the American people. Thus it is essential that we act before we go out of session this year. I recognize that we face a crowded calendar. But we can do it if we will take the most direct path to passage, a clean bill. This body can be proud of its contribution to the remarkable turnaround on the issue of global HIV/AIDS, from concern to action. We have represented well the compassion and generosity of the American people and the demand for accountability by the American taxpayer. I call on my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill to reauthorize the Leadership Act in 2007, and to extend the authorities that have enabled the American people to make such a difference in the lives of others. I have no pride of authorship. But we need to start the reauthorization process now. I welcome the involvement and inputs of my colleagues. We should let the mark-up and amendment process work. Secondly, I would welcome the assistance of other Committees and their memberships. Thirdly, I look for strong support and guidance from the NGO and faith-based communities. These organizations will be key to the reauthorization effort. We will require the constructive engagement of the administration in this reauthorization effort. If we pull together and display the spirit of compromise necessary for good legislation, we can complete the job in 2007. 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 a resolution commemorating the 125th anniversary of the 1882 Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the Kingdom of Chosun, Korea, and the United States Treaty provisions covered the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives, care for U.S. ships in distress or needing fuel, and protection for American citizens. The treaty also allowed that Koreans could work in the United States. As President Reagan noted on the 100th anniversary of the treaty signing, ``This Treaty marked a chapter in the history of northeast Asia and was the auspicious beginning of an enduring partnership between the United States and Korea.'' Initial efforts in 1880 by U.S. Commodore Robert W. Shufeldt to negotiate a treaty of friendship and commerce with Korea were unsuccessful. However, in an interesting similarity to current events, Chinese officials assisted in this endeavor. Viceroy Li Hongzhang, a leading Chinese figure, invited Commodore Shufeldt to visit China so that discussions could be held regarding the U.S. efforts for a treaty with Korea. In May of 1882, in part due to Chinese assistance, agreement was reached. Commodore Shufeldt and Minister Sin Hon among others, participated in the treaty ceremony in Inchon. After it arrived in the United States, the treaty was ratified the following January. The Republic of Korea-United States partnership covers economic, educational, security, and other fronts. Nearly 40,000 American citizens gave their lives during the Korean War with the hope that the Republic of Korea would remain free and independent. The U.S. Department of Defense reports that over 8,000 American personnel remain missing from their service in that war, with nearly 200 of those from my home State of Indiana. Today, approximately 2 million Korean-Americans contribute to the fabric of life in the United States, and serve as an important link, on a personal basis, with the Republic of Korea. I am pleased to introduce this resolution with deep appreciation for this important bilateral relationship.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to support the President's nomination of Joseph S. Van Bokkelen to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Indiana. I would first like to thank Senate Judiciary chairman, Pat Leahy; ranking member, Arlen Specter; and the respective leaders for their important work to facilitate timely consideration of this nomination. In July of last year, Judge Rudy Lozano informed me of his decision to assume senior status after a distinguished career of public service. He was a remarkable leader on the Federal bench, and I applaud his leadership to Indiana and to the legal community. Given this upcoming vacancy and the need for strong leadership, I was pleased to commend to President Bush Joe Van Bokkelen to serve on the Federal court in the Northern District of Indiana. I have known Joe for many years, and I have always been impressed with his high energy, resolute integrity, and remarkable dedication to public service. Joe Van Bokkelen attended Indiana University where he received both his undergraduate and law degrees. He then served in the Indiana Attorney General's Office followed by his first experience in the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District. After many years of private practice, Joe assumed his current position of United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana on September 21, 2001. His performance in this position has been nothing short of remarkable. He has undertaken the most aggressive public corruption initiative in the history of the office. Since 2002, over 30 public officials have been indicted and convicted. Joe has also used his office to target the use and possession of illegal firearms, combat gang activity, implement drug demand reduction programs, and cultivate community partnerships. Likewise, Joe has demonstrated leadership in the Justice Department where he serves on several of the Attorney General's advisory committees, including Violent and Organized Crime, White Collar Crime, Sentencing Guidelines, and the Regional Information Sharing Working Group. Newspapers across northern Indiana contain articles and editorials applauding his determination to bring about effective law enforcement. The Northwest Indiana Times recently commented that Joe Van Bokkelen ``has an excellent track record for the five years he has led the U.S. Attorney's office in Northern Indiana.'' Joe has received a number of high performance ratings, including the A.V. rating from Martindale-Hubbell and the highest judicial rating from the American Bar Association. Outside of his public service, Joe is involved with a number of community activities and civic organizations. I would again like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for their leadership in facilitating consideration of Joe Van Bokkelen's nomination to serve as a Federal judge. I believe that he will demonstrate remarkable leadership to northern Indiana and will appropriately uphold and defend our laws under the Constitution.