Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have filed amendment No. 670 to H.R. 1591. This amendment authorizes the Secretary to spend up to $50 million for the establishment and maintenance of a civilian reserve corps to address postconflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The amendment provides the Secretary the flexibility to use a portion of the funding in this act to make an urgent effort to recruit and train more civilians in planning and managing stabilization and reconstruction. The Senate embraced the creation of such a civilian corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last May. The funding in this amendment matches the level provided in the House version of the emergency supplemental. If enacted, this amendment provides the Secretary with access to immediate funding to recruit and send civilians with the appropriate skills to assist in reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to emerging trouble spots around the world. The United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this amendment. They understand that, if we cannot work together better as a government in postconflict and other unstable situations, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. This amendment builds on the planning that has already taken place to develop a civilian reserve and jumpstarts it so that it can be available as soon as possible. Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record at this point a letter from the Secretary of State strongly endorsing the need for the funding contained in this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 6, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace talked about the urgent need for civilian expertise in the Iraq stabilization effort. General Pace also called for more civilian resources for the broader worldwide effort, people who can build judicial and rule of law systems, provide engineering expertise, and bring clean water and electricity to people ``before a country devolves into a state where the terrorists can find a home.'' Passing the amendment will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward now to strengthen our civilian reconstruction capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recommend this amendment to my colleagues and urge its adoption.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, along with Senator Bond and Senator Coleman, I will offer an amendment that addresses an issue about which there has been much news reporting and hearings in both House and Senate subcommittees; namely, the situation facing Iraqi and Afghani interpreters and translators who are bravely working on the front lines with our soldiers and diplomats. Such work is vital to our efforts in these two conflicts, yet it often makes them and their families targets for insurgents. This past week, Mr. George Packer wrote a lengthy piece in the New Yorker on this that I commend to my colleagues. My interest in this issue, like many of my colleagues, began last summer when I received e-mails from a first lieutenant in the Indiana National Guard who had recently returned from a tour in Iraq and from a sergeant in the Army who was at the time serving in a combat support hospital, also in Iraq. Aaron Inkenbrandt wrote: During my year in Iraq, I served as a military Transition team member. As such, I lived exclusively with Iraqi forces and acted as a mentor and advisor to them. My team and I did much to build and train these forces under very difficult circumstances. However, we could not have achieved success without our Iraqi interpreters. I believe that our Nation must reciprocate the loyalty proved by these men by offering to them sanctuary in the United States. Iraqi interpreters are an outstanding group of people. These men not only act as our communicators but also our cultural advisors and our friends. Our interpreters share with us the dangers of combat and the rigors of military life. While interpreters are generally well paid, the risks associated in assisting Coalition forces are extraordinary. Both at work and at home, interpreters fear for their lives. This fear is often so great that they cannot tell even their closest relatives what they do for a living. The insurgency in Iraq has made clear that they will murder any Iraqi caught assisting Coalition Forces. Interpreters are especially prized by insurgents who often pay high bounties for their killings or capture. Iraqis not associated with the insurgency are also hostile toward interpreters. Many Iraqis believe, though wrongly, that interpreters are snitches or traitors. Such hostility makes life very difficult for Iraqi interpreters.'' The withdrawal of Coalition Forces will likely increase rather than decrease the danger posted to interpreters. Without our protection, former interpreters will be left defenseless before their enemies and subject to persecution by their friends. In my opinion, [it] would be immoral and contrary to the precepts of our Constitution to abandon these brave patriots in light of the vast sacrifices that they have made in the cause of freedom. Therefore, I implore you to advocate preferable immigration status to all Iraqi interpreters whose loyalty we reasonably ascertain. The e-mails, and a cable that our then Ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, released regarding the life-threatening conditions our Foreign Service Nationals were facing prompted me to write to the Secretary of State last July about the issue. I encouraged her to develop a policy to address these various situations and suggest legislative language. The United States has experience and tradition in this respect from past wars that provide precedent and guidance. The amendment I am offering today with Senator Bond and Senator Coleman is not a conventional amendment for an emergency supplemental, but because it has a direct impact on the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are hopeful this can be included in the package. By virtue of a provision crafted by former Congressman John Hostettler of Indiana, the 2006 Defense authorization bill established a program to allow 50 Iraqis and Afghans who have worked for the U.S. military as translators for at least 12 months to come to the United States on a special visa. The program has been underway now for just over a year and has been met with success and approval by all of the agencies who work with it. Since instatement, 445 applications have been received. 377 have been approved, 10 denied and 58 are pending. Under the current cap of 50 per year, it will take until 2016 to admit those currently in the queued-- and their families--for entry to the United States. In order to help reduce this wait-time, my colleagues and I have crafted an amendment that expands the program to 300 admissions per year and also makes some other technical changes. We change the language to include interpreters as well as translators--as that is the proper term for those who translate conversation while translators work on documents. We also authorize the U.S. Ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan to nominate non-Department of Defense personnel under this program, and we exempt those admitted under this program, and their families from the numerical cap of immigrants who enter in this same, so-called 4th Preference category. Finally, we wish to sunset the program after 3 years.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I congratulate a legendary Hoosier sports broadcaster, Tom Carnegie, on his retirement. Born Carl Kenagy in Connecticut in 1919, he displayed an enormous passion for sports even as a child. When polio ended Carl's dream of playing professional sports, he refocused his energy on building a career in broadcasting, which he launched in 1942 at WOWO in Fort Wayne, IN. There, at the suggestion of his station manager, Carl adopted the name Tom Carnegie and used it throughout the remainder of his remarkable career. Tom came to Indianapolis in 1945 where he quickly made a name for himself as the most recognizable voice in Indiana sports. In addition to his decades of work in radio, television and print, Tom announced the Indiana State high school basketball championships for 24 years, co-founded the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame in 1962, and was inducted in the Hall of Fame in 1975. Race fans from around the world have come to know Tom as the voice of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. A racing novice at the time, Tom began announcing the Indianapolis 500 in 1946. Over the years, Tom's rich, baritone voice called to millions of fans over the public address system as he announced 61 Indianapolis 500 races, 12 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard races, and 6 United States Grand Prix races. He has also produced two major film documentaries on racing. I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate Tom on a remarkable life of exciting achievements, and to recognize his wife D.J. for the role she has played in his many accomplishments. I am hopeful that each of my colleague will join me in wishing Tom continuing success, good health, and happiness as he enjoys his retirement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish today to share with my colleagues the winners of the 2006-2007 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/ Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest. In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for eighth grade students in my home State. The purpose of this contest is to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. I, along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years. I congratulate Courtney Larson, of Bartholomew County, and Chad VanLiew, of Jackson County, as winners of this year's contest. I ask that the complete text of their respective essays be printed in the Record. Likewise, I would like to include the names of all of the district and county winners of the 2006-2007 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest. The material follows.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, since its inception in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has been a trusted friend of the United States. The original five-member countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, were joined by Brunei Darussalam in 1984. Beginning in the late 1960s, U.S. officials today continue to interact with ASEAN regarding mutual interests in East and Southeast Asia. Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia joined ASEAN after 1994. The level of intersects between ASEAN and the United States is immense, including student exchanges, business and trade, and security cooperation. ASEAN is the third largest export destination of American products. It is important to note that ASEAN is continually changing, with the pursuit of economic integration. As noted by the ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN officials hope to create ``a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is a free flow of goods, services and investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable, economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities in year 2020.'' Last year alone, there were over 500 meetings of ASEAN officials--it is a vibrant regional structure. Committed to promoting regional peace and harmony, there has been no armed confrontation among ASEAN member nations, since ASEAN's beginning. An important part of ASEAN's future security lies in the development of a regional energy security strategy. This endeavor is well underway, and the United States looks forward to future dialogue on ways in which meaningful cooperation can occur. Continued collaboration between ASEAN, the United States and the World Health Organization on addressing major disease challenges, such as Avian influenza is of the essence. All involved must act with vigilance and in a timely way. While ASEAN and the United States have shared appreciation for the challenges of terrorism, our relationship is far more complex. For the benefit of my colleagues, I point to recent remarks conveyed to me by Singapore's esteemed Ambassador-at-Large, Tommy Koh, who wrote ``ASEAN's relationship with the U.S. is its most important relationship. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. However, ASEAN often feels that it has been treated by the U.S. with benign neglect and viewed solely through the prism of terrorism. We hope, on this 30th anniversary year of the U.S.-ASEAN dialogue relationship, that the U.S. will develop a coherent strategy and policy to engage ASEAN, upgrade our priority and make the U.S. the best friend of ASEAN.'' Full implementation of the ASEAN-United States Enhanced Partnership and appointment of the U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs are important steps in growing this important bilateral relationship. I am pleased to introduce this resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the U.S.-ASEAN dialogue. It is a message of reaffirmation and deep appreciation by the United States Senate. We look forward to an even closer future partnership on many fronts, yielding mutual benefit for the people of ASEAN and the United States.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today, International Women's Day, in support of this resolution celebrating some of the progress that we and other nations are making in fostering improvement in the status of women. The resolution commends the Kingdom of Lesotho for enacting the Legal Capacity of Married Persons law which elevates the status of married women and provides them with property rights. Prior to this law, married women in Lesotho were considered legal minors, denying them the right to enter into binding contracts or have standing in civil court. International Women's Day is a day on which we reaffirm the commitment to the struggle by women worldwide for peace, justice, and equality before the law. We also take this opportunity to recognize how far we have come since the first International Women's Day was celebrated in the United States in 1909 when American women were still fighting for the right to vote and a role in the political process. Today we are able to celebrate the many accomplishments by women worldwide in the areas of health, science, education, and politics. In the past year, we have seen the appointment of our first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. President Bush's cabinet now includes a record number of women--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, and Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. Women now comprise a record percentage of the 110th Congress, including 16 senators and 71 representatives. Women are gaining seats in parliaments worldwide. For example, last November Lateefa al-Qauod became the first woman to be elected to Bahrain's parliament and became one of the first women to serve in an elected parliament in the Gulf region. The U.S. is rededicating itself to improving the status of women worldwide. For example, the Millennium Challenge Corporation announced a new policy in December 2006 stating that countries receiving financial assistance would be responsible for extensive planning to ensure that all programs benefit both men and women. This required gender analysis would factor in social, economic, and cultural barriers faced by women and men when engaging in economic activity and would result in better-designed international development projects. The Kingdom of Lesotho is a small country surrounded by South Africa. Lesotho faces serious challenges--50 percent of the population lives below the poverty line and 23 percent of the population is infected with HIV. Given its commitment to good governance and investment in its people, Lesotho has qualified for financial assistance through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). MCC assistance is pending the finalization of Lesotho's Compact which is expected to focus on improving health care and water resource management. The MCC helped catalyze the passage of the Legal Capacity of Married Persons law in Lesotho by stressing that potential MCC financing would be more effective if gender equity were addressed. Subsequently, Lesotho passed the Legal Capacity of Married Persons legislation. Under this new legislation, women are considered equal partners in marriage and are able to enter into binding contracts and have a standing in civil court. We applaud the Kingdom of Lesotho for demonstrating such a commitment to justice, equality, and fighting corruption at every level. The problems faced by women today require a continuation of our commitment to end them. International Women's Day is a day for us to declare our determination to advance the rights of women worldwide, but also to recognize the many accomplishments made by women on a global scale.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the important service of Consul Sergio Aguilera upon his retirement from the Mexican Foreign Service. During his leadership of the Mexican Consulate in Indianapolis, my staff and I have enjoyed working closely with Consul Aguilera to strengthen the political, economic, social, and cultural ties between our two nations. By working closely with the Federal, State, and local governments, as well as schools, businesses, and community organizations, Consul Aguilera has ably represented the people of Mexico and served the needs of the Mexican community in the Midwest. In addition to his official duties, Consul Aguilera has given generously of his time in service to the Indianapolis community through work with the Mexican Scholarship Fund and the Central Indiana Community Foundation. The Indianapolis community will continue to benefit from Consul Aguilera's leadership as he seeks to expand his charitable work in retirement. I am especially pleased that Consul Aguilera and his wife Lori have chosen to remain in Indianapolis as they pursue new and exciting experiences together. I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate Consul Aguilera and wish him good health and success upon his retirement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lincoln, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2007''. This important legislation extends and expands the food bank donation provisions that were included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280). The Pension Protection Act allows farmers and small business owners to receive a tax deduction for donation of food products contributed to food banks, pantries and homeless shelters for 2006 and 2007. The new law permits businesses a deduction from their taxes for a donation equal to either (1) twice cost basis; or (2) the difference of cost basis plus one half the difference between cost basis and fair market value. Food donations of all sizes from all businesses can qualify for this type of donation. The bill that I am introducing today increases the valuation to full market value of the donation and makes this provision a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code. Demand on food banks has been rising, and these tax deductions would be an important step in increasing private donations to the non-profit hunger relief charities playing a critical role in meeting America's nutrition needs. It is estimated that food banks provide meals to more than 23 million Americans and that 13 million children are hungry or at risk of hunger. As I have traveled around Indiana, I have visited many food banks in our State. They have confirmed the results of a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that showed demand for food at food banks has risen one hundred percent. Forty-eight percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance are either children or their parents. The number of elderly persons requesting food assistance has increased by ninety-two percent. The success of welfare reform legislation has moved many recipients off welfare and into jobs. In many States, welfare roles have been reduced by more than half. But we need to recognize that these individuals and their families are living on modest wages. As unemployment rates have risen, as with the fluctuation of the price of gas and heating oil, the demand placed on the food banks and soup kitchens has also increased. Private food banks provide a key safety net against hunger. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans are living on the edge of hunger. USDA statistics show that up to 96 billion pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger. I have been especially impressed by the remarkable work of food banks in Indiana. In many cases, they are partnered with churches and faith- based organizations and are making a tremendous difference in our communities. We should support this private sector activity, which not only feeds people, but also strengthens community bonds and demonstrates the power of faith, charity, and civic involvement. Each citizen can make an important contribution to the fight against hunger at a local level. It is important to make sure that none of us forget those who find themselves having to utilize the services of the food banks. In order to ensure that hunger relief organizations are meeting the greater demand they are seeing, we must make food drives a part of everyday activities. People should get in the habit of buying extra cans or boxes of food on every trip to the grocery store, not just around the holiday season. I am committed to work with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to find an offset to pay for this change to the tax code. I would like to thank them for their past support of this initiative and commend them on their efforts in helping America's charities meet their funding goals, and assist those individuals who take advantage of the services provided by these groups. I believe the enactment of this legislation would be a great incentive in redirecting this food from being discarded to being distributed to hungry families.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lincoln, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Extension Act of 2007''. This important legislation extends and expands the food bank donation provisions that were included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280). The Pension Protection Act allows farmers and small business owners to receive a tax deduction for donation of food products contributed to food banks, pantries and homeless shelters for 2006 and 2007. The new law permits businesses a deduction from their taxes for a donation equal to either (1) twice cost basis; or (2) the difference of cost basis plus one half the difference between cost basis and fair market value. Food donations of all sizes from all businesses can qualify for this type of donation. The bill that I am introducing today increases the valuation to full market value of the donation and makes this provision a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code. Demand on food banks has been rising, and these tax deductions would be an important step in increasing private donations to the non-profit hunger relief charities playing a critical role in meeting America's nutrition needs. It is estimated that food banks provide meals to more than 23 million Americans and that 13 million children are hungry or at risk of hunger. As I have traveled around Indiana, I have visited many food banks in our State. They have confirmed the results of a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that showed demand for food at food banks has risen one hundred percent. Forty-eight percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance are either children or their parents. The number of elderly persons requesting food assistance has increased by ninety-two percent. The success of welfare reform legislation has moved many recipients off welfare and into jobs. In many States, welfare roles have been reduced by more than half. But we need to recognize that these individuals and their families are living on modest wages. As unemployment rates have risen, as with the fluctuation of the price of gas and heating oil, the demand placed on the food banks and soup kitchens has also increased. Private food banks provide a key safety net against hunger. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans are living on the edge of hunger. USDA statistics show that up to 96 billion pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger. I have been especially impressed by the remarkable work of food banks in Indiana. In many cases, they are partnered with churches and faith- based organizations and are making a tremendous difference in our communities. We should support this private sector activity, which not only feeds people, but also strengthens community bonds and demonstrates the power of faith, charity, and civic involvement. Each citizen can make an important contribution to the fight against hunger at a local level. It is important to make sure that none of us forget those who find themselves having to utilize the services of the food banks. In order to ensure that hunger relief organizations are meeting the greater demand they are seeing, we must make food drives a part of everyday activities. People should get in the habit of buying extra cans or boxes of food on every trip to the grocery store, not just around the holiday season. I am committed to work with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to find an offset to pay for this change to the tax code. I would like to thank them for their past support of this initiative and commend them on their efforts in helping America's charities meet their funding goals, and assist those individuals who take advantage of the services provided by these groups. I believe the enactment of this legislation would be a great incentive in redirecting this food from being discarded to being distributed to hungry families.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this legislation authorizes the creation of a civilian readiness corps to address post-conflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The Senate already embraced the creation of such a corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last June. Unfortunately, that bill, introduced by Senator Biden and me and co- sponsored by Senators Hagel, Alexander and Warner languished in the House of Representatives. We have hopes that the 110th Congress will now bring this idea to fruition. In his State of the Union address last month, the President endorsed the need for such a corps: ``A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when American needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.'' President Bush, January 23, 2007, State of the Union speech, Washington, DC. The legislation I am introducing today is an updated version of S. 3322. It is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. The concept has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the Committee unanimously both as a free-standing bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now again as a free-standing bill and send it to the House with our unanimous approval. International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons. In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our Committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions. Those who were once unconvinced of the need for such a corps have only to look at our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand its value. This legislation continues to build on the original legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal response capability with both active and standby components, as well as a civilian reserve that draws upon the talent and willingness to serve that resides among our people. It provides flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build the corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office. The State Department has made progress through the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization that was established in July of 2004. The Office has already done a great deal of the preliminary work needed to build an effective corps. But now it is time for the Office to recruit, train, and organize the corps so that we have deployable units. We need to have a 250-person active duty component made up of State Department and USAID employees. We need a 2,000 person standby component drawn from both State and USAID, but also from other Federal agencies that have employees who are willing to volunteer and have the necessary skill sets. And we need to begin building a civilian reserve, recruiting at least 500 highly skilled persons and eventually many more. The 250-person active duty personnel should include people with skills that are more technical than the broader diplomatic requirements--civil engineering, police expertise, agricultural knowledge, health, education, and political organization. They should have experience in difficult situations overseas and be trained and available for rapid deployment with the military for both initial assessments and programming purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, probably well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than a typical army company. But it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain active duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed. Congress must now be willing to provide the funding to make this corps a reality. This legislation authorizes a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration is authorized to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the active duty component, including training, equipment, and travel. We have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation once again will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. We hope that our friends in the House of Representatives, several of whom are considering introducing their own legislation, will move forward with the Senate in this endeavor. I urge adoption of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this legislation authorizes the creation of a civilian readiness corps to address post-conflict situations and other emergencies overseas. The Senate already embraced the creation of such a corps when it unanimously passed S. 3322 last June. Unfortunately, that bill, introduced by Senator Biden and me and co- sponsored by Senators Hagel, Alexander and Warner languished in the House of Representatives. We have hopes that the 110th Congress will now bring this idea to fruition. In his State of the Union address last month, the President endorsed the need for such a corps: ``A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when American needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.'' President Bush, January 23, 2007, State of the Union speech, Washington, DC. The legislation I am introducing today is an updated version of S. 3322. It is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. The concept has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the Committee unanimously both as a free-standing bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now again as a free-standing bill and send it to the House with our unanimous approval. International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons. In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our Committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions. Those who were once unconvinced of the need for such a corps have only to look at our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand its value. This legislation continues to build on the original legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a federal response capability with both active and standby components, as well as a civilian reserve that draws upon the talent and willingness to serve that resides among our people. It provides flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build the corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office. The State Department has made progress through the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization that was established in July of 2004. The Office has already done a great deal of the preliminary work needed to build an effective corps. But now it is time for the Office to recruit, train, and organize the corps so that we have deployable units. We need to have a 250-person active duty component made up of State Department and USAID employees. We need a 2,000 person standby component drawn from both State and USAID, but also from other Federal agencies that have employees who are willing to volunteer and have the necessary skill sets. And we need to begin building a civilian reserve, recruiting at least 500 highly skilled persons and eventually many more. The 250-person active duty personnel should include people with skills that are more technical than the broader diplomatic requirements--civil engineering, police expertise, agricultural knowledge, health, education, and political organization. They should have experience in difficult situations overseas and be trained and available for rapid deployment with the military for both initial assessments and programming purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, probably well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than a typical army company. But it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain active duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed. Congress must now be willing to provide the funding to make this corps a reality. This legislation authorizes a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration is authorized to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the active duty component, including training, equipment, and travel. We have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation once again will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. We hope that our friends in the House of Representatives, several of whom are considering introducing their own legislation, will move forward with the Senate in this endeavor. I urge adoption of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007. This legislation seeks to accelerate the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that are major killers of people living in developing countries. HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis are devastating sub-Saharan Africa where, combined, they claim as many as 5 million lives a year. Yet there are no vaccines for these diseases. Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures of the 20th century. With U.S. leadership, the global community has eradicated smallpox, and we are close to eradicating polio. Vaccines for diseases such as measles and tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood mortality worldwide. These public health victories benefit every country. Vaccines for diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for other, less well-known diseases would save millions of lives. Partnerships between governments, private foundations, and businesses have made significant strides toward the development of vaccines, but much more needs to be done. One of the biggest challenges is that drug companies do not have a strong financial incentive to invest in the development of vaccines for these diseases because there is no reliable market for them. In other words, vaccine manufacturers are reluctant to commit the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to create a new vaccine with no obvious way to recoup their investment. What is needed is the promise of market demand to encourage industry to develop the vaccines for these diseases. Five countries--Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia, and Canada--along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed such a market solution. On February 9, 2007, in Rome, they pledged $1.5 billion for an initiative called an Advance Market Commitment, AMC, aimed at encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines for diseases caused by the pneumococcus bacterium, such as pneumonia and meningitis. These diseases claim the lives of an estimated 1 million children per year, most of whom live in the developing world. Through this AMC, these countries and the Gates Foundation have pledged to purchase pneumococcal vaccines that will work in poor countries. Although a vaccine for pneumococcal disease exists in the United States and other developed countries, this version is not effective against the strains prevalent in developing countries. By committing to purchase large quantities of a successful vaccine beforehand, the Advance Market Commitment aims to bridge the gap between the vaccine makers' research costs and the future sales needed to cover the costs of their investment. Experts are hopeful that this initiative could accelerate by a decade the widespread use of a pneumococcal vaccine specific to the developing world and could prevent the deaths of an estimated 5.4 million children by 2030. In 2005, the United States, at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, agreed to encourage the development of vaccines for diseases affecting the developing world and endorsed the Advance Market Commitment concept. I believe that, with continued strong U.S. leadership, we can save many more lives in this new century. Because of the promise that vaccines hold, I am introducing the ``Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007.'' My bill would authorize the United States to contribute to the Advance Market Commitment for pneumococcal vaccines. Equally important, it would require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy and make a commitment to speed development, testing, and distribution of life-saving vaccines for other diseases, including AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, through innovative financial incentives like the AMC. I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007. This legislation seeks to accelerate the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that are major killers of people living in developing countries. HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis are devastating sub-Saharan Africa where, combined, they claim as many as 5 million lives a year. Yet there are no vaccines for these diseases. Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures of the 20th century. With U.S. leadership, the global community has eradicated smallpox, and we are close to eradicating polio. Vaccines for diseases such as measles and tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood mortality worldwide. These public health victories benefit every country. Vaccines for diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for other, less well-known diseases would save millions of lives. Partnerships between governments, private foundations, and businesses have made significant strides toward the development of vaccines, but much more needs to be done. One of the biggest challenges is that drug companies do not have a strong financial incentive to invest in the development of vaccines for these diseases because there is no reliable market for them. In other words, vaccine manufacturers are reluctant to commit the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to create a new vaccine with no obvious way to recoup their investment. What is needed is the promise of market demand to encourage industry to develop the vaccines for these diseases. Five countries--Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia, and Canada--along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed such a market solution. On February 9, 2007, in Rome, they pledged $1.5 billion for an initiative called an Advance Market Commitment, AMC, aimed at encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines for diseases caused by the pneumococcus bacterium, such as pneumonia and meningitis. These diseases claim the lives of an estimated 1 million children per year, most of whom live in the developing world. Through this AMC, these countries and the Gates Foundation have pledged to purchase pneumococcal vaccines that will work in poor countries. Although a vaccine for pneumococcal disease exists in the United States and other developed countries, this version is not effective against the strains prevalent in developing countries. By committing to purchase large quantities of a successful vaccine beforehand, the Advance Market Commitment aims to bridge the gap between the vaccine makers' research costs and the future sales needed to cover the costs of their investment. Experts are hopeful that this initiative could accelerate by a decade the widespread use of a pneumococcal vaccine specific to the developing world and could prevent the deaths of an estimated 5.4 million children by 2030. In 2005, the United States, at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, agreed to encourage the development of vaccines for diseases affecting the developing world and endorsed the Advance Market Commitment concept. I believe that, with continued strong U.S. leadership, we can save many more lives in this new century. Because of the promise that vaccines hold, I am introducing the ``Vaccines for the Future Act of 2007.'' My bill would authorize the United States to contribute to the Advance Market Commitment for pneumococcal vaccines. Equally important, it would require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy and make a commitment to speed development, testing, and distribution of life-saving vaccines for other diseases, including AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, through innovative financial incentives like the AMC. I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Bayh in submitting a resolution congratulating the Indianapolis Colts on their historic season, culminating Sunday in a thrilling victory over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI. Like so many of my fellow Hoosiers, I have enjoyed cheering on the Colts since the Irsay family brought them to Indianapolis almost a quarter of a century ago. Over the years Colts owner and CEO Jim Irsay and president Bill Polian have brought together a remarkable group of dedicated professionals such as Tony Dungy and players who through their hard work and dedication to community service are a credit to the Colts organization, the City of Indianapolis, and the State of Indiana. Special recognition should be given to Tony Dungy as the first head coach of African-American descent to lead his team to victory in the Super Bowl. I have enjoyed following Coach Dungy remarkable leadership and appreciate the example he sets for all Hoosiers. I am hopeful that each of my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Bayh and me in congratulating the Colts on this signal achievement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007''. Last year this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to act prior to adjournment last year. I was pleased that thirteen of my colleagues, including Senators Biden, Chambliss, Coleman, Dodd, Hagel, Hutchison, Martinez, McCain, Smith, and Sununu, joined me in proposing this important legislation. The goal of this bill is to reaffirm United States support for continued enlargement of NATO to democracies that are able and willing to meet the responsibilities of membership. In particular, the legislation calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO and authorizes security assistance for these countries in Fiscal Year 2008. Each of these countries has clearly stated its desire to join NATO and is working hard to meet the specified requirements for membership. I believe that eventual NATO membership for these five countries would be a success for Europe, NATO, and the United States by continuing to extend the zone of peace and security. Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia have been making progress on reforms through their participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since 2002. Unfortunately, Georgia and Ukraine have not yet been granted a Membership Action Plan but nevertheless have made remarkable progress. This legislation will provide important incentives and assistance to the countries to continue the implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reforms. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been evolving to meet the new security needs of the 21st century. In this era, the threats to NATO members are transnational and far from its geographic borders. There is strong support among members for NATO's operation in Afghanistan, and for its training mission in Iraq. NATO's viability as an effective defense and security alliance depends on flexible, creative leadership, as well as the willingness of members to improve capabilities and address common threats. If NATO is to continue to be the preeminent security Alliance and serve the defense interests of its membership, it must continue to evolve and that evolution must include enlargement. Potential NATO membership motivates emerging democracies to make important advances in areas such as the rule of law and civil society. A closer relationship with NATO will promote these values and contribute to our mutual security. Georgia is a young democracy that has made tremendous progress since the ``Rose Revolution.'' It is situated in a critical geo-strategic location and is host to a large portion of the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries important energy resources to the West from Azerbaijan and, in the future, Kazakhstan. Georgia is resisting pressure from breakaway republics backed by Moscow. In the past, border disputes have been identified as reasons a country may not be invited to join NATO. But in this case, Russia's action, not Georgia's, are frustrating Tbilisi's NATO aspirations. Three years ago, the United States Senate unanimously voted to invite seven countries to join NATO. Today, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are making significant contributions to NATO and are among our closest allies in the global war on terrorism. It is time again for the United States to take the lead in urging its allies to bring in new members, and to offer timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007''. Last year this legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to act prior to adjournment last year. I was pleased that thirteen of my colleagues, including Senators Biden, Chambliss, Coleman, Dodd, Hagel, Hutchison, Martinez, McCain, Smith, and Sununu, joined me in proposing this important legislation. The goal of this bill is to reaffirm United States support for continued enlargement of NATO to democracies that are able and willing to meet the responsibilities of membership. In particular, the legislation calls for the timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO and authorizes security assistance for these countries in Fiscal Year 2008. Each of these countries has clearly stated its desire to join NATO and is working hard to meet the specified requirements for membership. I believe that eventual NATO membership for these five countries would be a success for Europe, NATO, and the United States by continuing to extend the zone of peace and security. Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia have been making progress on reforms through their participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since 2002. Unfortunately, Georgia and Ukraine have not yet been granted a Membership Action Plan but nevertheless have made remarkable progress. This legislation will provide important incentives and assistance to the countries to continue the implementation of democratic, defense, and economic reforms. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been evolving to meet the new security needs of the 21st century. In this era, the threats to NATO members are transnational and far from its geographic borders. There is strong support among members for NATO's operation in Afghanistan, and for its training mission in Iraq. NATO's viability as an effective defense and security alliance depends on flexible, creative leadership, as well as the willingness of members to improve capabilities and address common threats. If NATO is to continue to be the preeminent security Alliance and serve the defense interests of its membership, it must continue to evolve and that evolution must include enlargement. Potential NATO membership motivates emerging democracies to make important advances in areas such as the rule of law and civil society. A closer relationship with NATO will promote these values and contribute to our mutual security. Georgia is a young democracy that has made tremendous progress since the ``Rose Revolution.'' It is situated in a critical geo-strategic location and is host to a large portion of the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries important energy resources to the West from Azerbaijan and, in the future, Kazakhstan. Georgia is resisting pressure from breakaway republics backed by Moscow. In the past, border disputes have been identified as reasons a country may not be invited to join NATO. But in this case, Russia's action, not Georgia's, are frustrating Tbilisi's NATO aspirations. Three years ago, the United States Senate unanimously voted to invite seven countries to join NATO. Today, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are making significant contributions to NATO and are among our closest allies in the global war on terrorism. It is time again for the United States to take the lead in urging its allies to bring in new members, and to offer timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine to NATO.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation urging the Administration to develop a United States-Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Program. I am pleased that my colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pete Visclosky, has agreed to again introduce this important legislation in the House of Representatives. I appreciate his strong leadership in our continued joint efforts in this and many other areas. The purpose of this exchange program is to demonstrate to the youth of the United States and Poland the benefits of friendly cooperation between the U.S. and Poland based on common political and cultural values. I have long been an active supporter of the Congress-Bundestag Exchange program and am hopeful that this new endeavor will make similarly important lasting contributions to the U.S.-Polish relationship. As a Rhodes Scholar, I had the opportunity to discover international education at Pembroke College--my first trip outside of the United States. The parameters of my imagination expanded enormously during this time, as I gained a sense of how large the world was, how many talented people there were, and how many opportunities one could embrace. Student exchange programs do more than benefit individual scholars and advance human knowledge. Such programs expand ties between nations, improve international commerce, encourage cooperative solutions to global problems, prevent war, and give participants a chance to develop a sense of global service and responsibility. Funding a great foreign exchange program is a sign of both national pride and national humility. Implicit in such a program is the view that people from other nations view one's country and educational system as a beacon of knowledge--as a place where international scholars would want to study and live. But it is also an admission that a nation does not have all the answers--that our national understanding of the world is incomplete. It is an admission that we are just a part of a much larger world that has intellectual, scientific, and moral wisdom that we need to learn. The United States and Poland have enjoyed close bilateral relations since the end of the Cold War. Most recently, Poland has been a strong supporter of efforts led by the United States to combat global terrorism, and has contributed troops to and led coalitions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Poland also cooperates closely with the United States on such issues as democratization, human rights, regional cooperation in Eastern Europe, and reform of the United Nations. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), Poland has demonstrated its commitment to democratic values and is a role model in its region. I believe that it is important to invest in the youth of the United States and Poland in order to strengthen long-lasting ties between both societies. After receiving for many years international and U.S. financial assistance, Poland is now determined to invest its own resources toward funding a U.S.-Poland exchange program. To this end the Polish Foreign Minister unambiguously stated that Poland welcomed the opportunity to be an equal partner in funding important efforts. Last year the Senate approved a similar version of this legislation by unanimous consent. I ask my colleagues to again support this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation urging the Administration to develop a United States-Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Program. I am pleased that my colleague from Indiana, Congressman Pete Visclosky, has agreed to again introduce this important legislation in the House of Representatives. I appreciate his strong leadership in our continued joint efforts in this and many other areas. The purpose of this exchange program is to demonstrate to the youth of the United States and Poland the benefits of friendly cooperation between the U.S. and Poland based on common political and cultural values. I have long been an active supporter of the Congress-Bundestag Exchange program and am hopeful that this new endeavor will make similarly important lasting contributions to the U.S.-Polish relationship. As a Rhodes Scholar, I had the opportunity to discover international education at Pembroke College--my first trip outside of the United States. The parameters of my imagination expanded enormously during this time, as I gained a sense of how large the world was, how many talented people there were, and how many opportunities one could embrace. Student exchange programs do more than benefit individual scholars and advance human knowledge. Such programs expand ties between nations, improve international commerce, encourage cooperative solutions to global problems, prevent war, and give participants a chance to develop a sense of global service and responsibility. Funding a great foreign exchange program is a sign of both national pride and national humility. Implicit in such a program is the view that people from other nations view one's country and educational system as a beacon of knowledge--as a place where international scholars would want to study and live. But it is also an admission that a nation does not have all the answers--that our national understanding of the world is incomplete. It is an admission that we are just a part of a much larger world that has intellectual, scientific, and moral wisdom that we need to learn. The United States and Poland have enjoyed close bilateral relations since the end of the Cold War. Most recently, Poland has been a strong supporter of efforts led by the United States to combat global terrorism, and has contributed troops to and led coalitions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Poland also cooperates closely with the United States on such issues as democratization, human rights, regional cooperation in Eastern Europe, and reform of the United Nations. As a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), Poland has demonstrated its commitment to democratic values and is a role model in its region. I believe that it is important to invest in the youth of the United States and Poland in order to strengthen long-lasting ties between both societies. After receiving for many years international and U.S. financial assistance, Poland is now determined to invest its own resources toward funding a U.S.-Poland exchange program. To this end the Polish Foreign Minister unambiguously stated that Poland welcomed the opportunity to be an equal partner in funding important efforts. Last year the Senate approved a similar version of this legislation by unanimous consent. I ask my colleagues to again support this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation is based on a bill I first offered in 2005. It is focused on facilitating implementation of the Nunn-Lugar program and removing some of the self- imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, the Senate approved this legislation in the form of an amendment I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 19. Last year, the Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, these provisions were not included in either conference agreement. While well-intentioned, the congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar have inhibited the amount of work that can be done to eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Each year, a six month, thirteen step certification and waiver process must be completed before appropriated funds can be obligated to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. This annual process wastes money and valuable time--time lost in the fight against proliferation. In the field, it can prevent the availability of funds already authorized and appropriated by Congress for the Nunn-Lugar Program, thus delaying critical dismantlement work. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated for destroyed: 6, 934 nuclear warheads; 637 ICBMs; 485 ICBM silos; 81 ICBM mobile missile lauchers; 155 bombers; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 436 submarine missile launchers; 601 submarine launched missiles; 30 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels. Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan emerged from the Soviet Union as the 3rd, 4th, and 8th largest nuclear weapons powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. The Nunn-Lugar Program currently has a permanent waiver authority, to be used on an annual basis, for the congressionally-imposed certifications on the Nunn-Lugar program. While the waiver permits the program to continue its important work, the waiver does not solve the underlying problem. In 1991, concerns surrounding Russian commitments to nonproliferation led the original Nunn-Lugar legislation to require President to certify annually that each recipient is ``committed to'' meeting six conditions: 1. Making a substantial investment in dismantling or destroying such weapons; 2. forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; 3. forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons; 4. facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under the program; 5. complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and 6. observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. At the time, these conditions were important to defining the U.S. strategic relationship with each Nunn-Lugar recipient. The question we must answer today is, what national security benefit do the certification requirements provide the American people? Do the conditions make it easier or harder to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia or elsewhere? Do the conditions make it more likely or less likely that weapons are eliminated? Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuchye. These conditions include: 1. Full and accurate Russian declaration on the size of its chemical weapons stockpile; 2. allocation by Russia of at least $25,000,000 to chemical weapons elimination; 3. development by Russia of a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; 4. enactment of a law by Russia that provides for the elimination of all nerve agents at a single site; 5. an agreement by Russia to destroy or convert its chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and Novocheboksark; and 6. a demonstrated commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the facility. Some will suggest that the certification process is, at most, an annoyance, but not a serious programmatic threat. I disagree. While well intentioned, these conditions delay and complicate efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction. If the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing our country, we cannot permit any delays in our response. The Bush Administration withheld Russia's certification in 2002 because of concerns in the chemical and biological weapon arenas. President Bush recognized the predicament and requested waiver authority for the Congressionally-imposed conditions. While awaiting temporary waiver to be authorized in law, new Nunn-Lugar projects were stalled and no new contracts were finalized between April 16 to August 9, 2002. This delay caused numerous disarmament projects in Russia to be put on hold, including: 1. Installation of security enhancements at ten nuclear weapons storage sites; 2. initiation of the dismantlement of two strategic missile submarines and thirty submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and 3. initiation of the dismantlement of SS-24 rail-mobile and SS-25 road-mobile ICBMs and launchers. Clearly, these projects were in the national security interest of the United States, but they were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and bureaucratic red tape. A second period of delay began on October 1, 2002, with the expiration of a temporary waiver. Again, U.S. national security suffered with the postponement of critical dismantlement and security activities for some six weeks until Congress acted. The events of 2002 are not the exceptions: They are the rule. In some years, Nunn-Lugar funds are not available for expenditure until more than half of the fiscal year has passed, and weapons of mass destruction slated for dismantlement await the U.S. bureaucratic process. This means that the program is denied access to these funds for large portions of the fiscal year in which they were intended to be spent while critical nonproliferation projects are put on hold. The bureaucracy generates reams of paper and yet ultimately produces an outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere. The certification and waiver processes consume hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. This time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Instead of interdicting WMD shipments, identifying the next AQ Khan, or locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, our nonproliferation experts spend their time compiling reports and assembling certification or waiver determinations. Even more frustrating is the fact that the majority of these reports are repetitive, in that the Department of State already reports on most of these issues in other formats. Some will argue that the certification process provides the Administration with leverage on Russian behavior. I disagree. I do not believe any of the certification subjects are a good reason to stop the destruction and safeguarding of weapons of mass destruction. I would argue just the opposite; these are reasons for us to accelerate our efforts and become more vigilant in our approach. These programmatic delays have given Russia, and others, cover to hide behind, pointing the finger of blame on the United States for slow program implementation and taking the spotlight off their failure to provide access and transparency. While we call on President Putin to speed up dismantlement and open more sites for security upgrades, congressionally-imposed conditions and funding delays are used as arguments against accelerating Nunn-Lugar projects. I have concluded that despite the best intentions of Congress, the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program have outlasted their utility. While the goals of the conditions are pure, they simply do not belong on nonproliferation programs. I would point out that the equally important nonproliferation programs at the Departments of Energy and State do not have these conditions. They do not suffer from the annual certification and waiver process. Why should the Nunn-Lugar program, focused on the dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, be singled out for this treatment or need for leverage. I am pleased that a number of administration officials and groups have endorsed the elimination of the certification and waiver process. The 9/11 Commission Report weighed in with an important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' More recently, the follow-on 9/11 Public Discourse Project wrote that the elimination of the certification requirements ``is an important step forward in protecting the United States against catastrophic attack.'' Secretary Rice has testified that the Administration strongly supports my efforts pointing out that ``flexibility in being able to administer the program would be most welcome.'' Bob Joseph, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also expressed his support saying pointedly to me that ``the fact that there are 13 steps that can take . . . six months or longer to get through certainly . . . underlines the rationale for [this legislation] . . . Whatever we can do, Senator, to improve the efficiency of the process, to reduce the time lines involved, and to provide greater flexibility for action, I would be in favor of.'' Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.) and Stanley Weiss, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, respectively, of the Business Executives for National Security, wrote to the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate expressing support for the elimination of the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program. They wrote in part: ``Even though conditions can be waived, doing so diverts time and effort that could otherwise be used to meet proliferation challenges. Relying on waivers also preserves the risk that funding delays could threaten existing projects and investments.'' In sum, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing the United States today. The Nunn-Lugar program is making tremendous contributions to the elimination of potentially vulnerable stockpiles. While the Congress' intentions in imposing annual certification requirements were pure, the process has evolved into a bureaucratic quagmire in to which months of work by numerous departments, agencies and bureaus are sunk. The Administration toils to produce a forgone conclusion; namely, that it is in U.S. interests to eliminate and secure weapons and materials of mass destruction. The funds for these operations are delayed while threats remain unaddressed. This is red-tape that we can do without. The only practical effect is unnecessary delays to our response to the number one national security threat facing the United States.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation is based on a bill I first offered in 2005. It is focused on facilitating implementation of the Nunn-Lugar program and removing some of the self- imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, the Senate approved this legislation in the form of an amendment I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 19. Last year, the Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, these provisions were not included in either conference agreement. While well-intentioned, the congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar have inhibited the amount of work that can be done to eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Each year, a six month, thirteen step certification and waiver process must be completed before appropriated funds can be obligated to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. This annual process wastes money and valuable time--time lost in the fight against proliferation. In the field, it can prevent the availability of funds already authorized and appropriated by Congress for the Nunn-Lugar Program, thus delaying critical dismantlement work. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated for destroyed: 6, 934 nuclear warheads; 637 ICBMs; 485 ICBM silos; 81 ICBM mobile missile lauchers; 155 bombers; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 436 submarine missile launchers; 601 submarine launched missiles; 30 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels. Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan emerged from the Soviet Union as the 3rd, 4th, and 8th largest nuclear weapons powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. The Nunn-Lugar Program currently has a permanent waiver authority, to be used on an annual basis, for the congressionally-imposed certifications on the Nunn-Lugar program. While the waiver permits the program to continue its important work, the waiver does not solve the underlying problem. In 1991, concerns surrounding Russian commitments to nonproliferation led the original Nunn-Lugar legislation to require President to certify annually that each recipient is ``committed to'' meeting six conditions: 1. Making a substantial investment in dismantling or destroying such weapons; 2. forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; 3. forgoing any use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons; 4. facilitating United States verification of weapons destruction carried out under the program; 5. complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and 6. observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. At the time, these conditions were important to defining the U.S. strategic relationship with each Nunn-Lugar recipient. The question we must answer today is, what national security benefit do the certification requirements provide the American people? Do the conditions make it easier or harder to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia or elsewhere? Do the conditions make it more likely or less likely that weapons are eliminated? Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuchye. These conditions include: 1. Full and accurate Russian declaration on the size of its chemical weapons stockpile; 2. allocation by Russia of at least $25,000,000 to chemical weapons elimination; 3. development by Russia of a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; 4. enactment of a law by Russia that provides for the elimination of all nerve agents at a single site; 5. an agreement by Russia to destroy or convert its chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and Novocheboksark; and 6. a demonstrated commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the facility. Some will suggest that the certification process is, at most, an annoyance, but not a serious programmatic threat. I disagree. While well intentioned, these conditions delay and complicate efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction. If the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing our country, we cannot permit any delays in our response. The Bush Administration withheld Russia's certification in 2002 because of concerns in the chemical and biological weapon arenas. President Bush recognized the predicament and requested waiver authority for the Congressionally-imposed conditions. While awaiting temporary waiver to be authorized in law, new Nunn-Lugar projects were stalled and no new contracts were finalized between April 16 to August 9, 2002. This delay caused numerous disarmament projects in Russia to be put on hold, including: 1. Installation of security enhancements at ten nuclear weapons storage sites; 2. initiation of the dismantlement of two strategic missile submarines and thirty submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and 3. initiation of the dismantlement of SS-24 rail-mobile and SS-25 road-mobile ICBMs and launchers. Clearly, these projects were in the national security interest of the United States, but they were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and bureaucratic red tape. A second period of delay began on October 1, 2002, with the expiration of a temporary waiver. Again, U.S. national security suffered with the postponement of critical dismantlement and security activities for some six weeks until Congress acted. The events of 2002 are not the exceptions: They are the rule. In some years, Nunn-Lugar funds are not available for expenditure until more than half of the fiscal year has passed, and weapons of mass destruction slated for dismantlement await the U.S. bureaucratic process. This means that the program is denied access to these funds for large portions of the fiscal year in which they were intended to be spent while critical nonproliferation projects are put on hold. The bureaucracy generates reams of paper and yet ultimately produces an outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere. The certification and waiver processes consume hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. This time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Instead of interdicting WMD shipments, identifying the next AQ Khan, or locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, our nonproliferation experts spend their time compiling reports and assembling certification or waiver determinations. Even more frustrating is the fact that the majority of these reports are repetitive, in that the Department of State already reports on most of these issues in other formats. Some will argue that the certification process provides the Administration with leverage on Russian behavior. I disagree. I do not believe any of the certification subjects are a good reason to stop the destruction and safeguarding of weapons of mass destruction. I would argue just the opposite; these are reasons for us to accelerate our efforts and become more vigilant in our approach. These programmatic delays have given Russia, and others, cover to hide behind, pointing the finger of blame on the United States for slow program implementation and taking the spotlight off their failure to provide access and transparency. While we call on President Putin to speed up dismantlement and open more sites for security upgrades, congressionally-imposed conditions and funding delays are used as arguments against accelerating Nunn-Lugar projects. I have concluded that despite the best intentions of Congress, the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program have outlasted their utility. While the goals of the conditions are pure, they simply do not belong on nonproliferation programs. I would point out that the equally important nonproliferation programs at the Departments of Energy and State do not have these conditions. They do not suffer from the annual certification and waiver process. Why should the Nunn-Lugar program, focused on the dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, be singled out for this treatment or need for leverage. I am pleased that a number of administration officials and groups have endorsed the elimination of the certification and waiver process. The 9/11 Commission Report weighed in with an important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' More recently, the follow-on 9/11 Public Discourse Project wrote that the elimination of the certification requirements ``is an important step forward in protecting the United States against catastrophic attack.'' Secretary Rice has testified that the Administration strongly supports my efforts pointing out that ``flexibility in being able to administer the program would be most welcome.'' Bob Joseph, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also expressed his support saying pointedly to me that ``the fact that there are 13 steps that can take . . . six months or longer to get through certainly . . . underlines the rationale for [this legislation] . . . Whatever we can do, Senator, to improve the efficiency of the process, to reduce the time lines involved, and to provide greater flexibility for action, I would be in favor of.'' Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.) and Stanley Weiss, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, respectively, of the Business Executives for National Security, wrote to the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate expressing support for the elimination of the certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program. They wrote in part: ``Even though conditions can be waived, doing so diverts time and effort that could otherwise be used to meet proliferation challenges. Relying on waivers also preserves the risk that funding delays could threaten existing projects and investments.'' In sum, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing the United States today. The Nunn-Lugar program is making tremendous contributions to the elimination of potentially vulnerable stockpiles. While the Congress' intentions in imposing annual certification requirements were pure, the process has evolved into a bureaucratic quagmire in to which months of work by numerous departments, agencies and bureaus are sunk. The Administration toils to produce a forgone conclusion; namely, that it is in U.S. interests to eliminate and secure weapons and materials of mass destruction. The funds for these operations are delayed while threats remain unaddressed. This is red-tape that we can do without. The only practical effect is unnecessary delays to our response to the number one national security threat facing the United States.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to make an important note regarding a provision in the conference agreement on H.R. 5682, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. The conferees on this legislation believe that one of the most important aspects of renewed nuclear cooperation with India will be the new safeguards agreement it enters into with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, that would apply to its expanded list of declared civilian nuclear sites, facilities, and locations. The administration's original legislation concerning India, which I introduced as S. 2429 on March 16, 2006, stated with regard to this matter that the President had to determine that ``an agreement has entered into force between India and the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards in accordance with IAEA practices to India's civil nuclear facilities.'' As a part of the committee's consideration of the administration's proposal, I asked a number of questions for the record regarding this new safeguards agreement. Secretary Rice stated in response to a question asked in April of this year regarding India's new safeguards agreement that: This Initiative will only allow for nuclear cooperation to proceed with civil facilities and programs that are safeguarded by the IAEA. The Government of India has agreed that these safeguards will be in place in perpetuity. Under the Initiative, India has committed to place all its current and future civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, including monitoring and inspections. These procedures are designed to detect--and thereby prevent--the diversion to military use of any nuclear materials, technologies, or equipment provided to India's civil nuclear facilities. India has also committed to sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol, which provides for even broader IAEA access to facilities and information regarding nuclear related activities. In March of this year, Senator Biden asked Under Secretaries Robert Joseph and Nicholas Burns how they interpreted certain Indian statements regarding their new safeguards agreement, specifically India's contention that it will be ``India-specific.'' They stated: ``It will be incumbent on India to clarify what it means by `India-specific' safeguards in the context of its negotiations with the IAEA. In our view, the safeguards agreement for India will be unique to India because India presents a unique set of circumstances. India has agreed to place all its civil nuclear facilities under safeguards in a phased manner, along with future civil facilities, but India is not an NPT party and will have non-civil facilities and material outside of safeguards. However, there is an accepted IAEA framework for safeguards (INFCIRC/66) that pre-dates the NPT and is suited to safeguarding material in a non-NPT party without full-scope safeguards. In its separation plan, India has committed to safeguards in perpetuity.'' In November 2005, I asked Under Secretary Joseph what kinds of safeguards will be applied to India's declared civil sites, facilities, and locations. He responded that: ``Safeguards agreements are modeled after INFCIRC/153 (the NPT safeguards agreement) or INFCIRC/66 (the Agency's safeguards system predating the NPT). India will not likely sign a safeguards agreement based strictly on INFCIRC/153, as this would require safeguards on India's nuclear weapons program. NPT-acknowledged nuclear weapon states have so- called `voluntary' safeguards agreements that draw on INFCIRC/153 language, but do not obligate the IAEA to actually apply safeguards and do allow for the removal of facilities or material from safeguards. We heard from other states at the recent NSG meeting that they would not support a ``voluntary offer'' arrangement as, in their view, it would be tantamount to granting de facto nuclear weapon state status to India. We have similarly indicated to India that we would not view such an arrangement as defensible from a nonproliferation standpoint. We therefore believe that the logical approach to formulating a safeguards agreement for India is to use INFCIRC/66, which is currently used at India's four safeguarded reactors. For the most part, INFCIRC/66 and INFCIRC/153 agreements result in very similar technical measures actually applied at nuclear facilities.'' In view of these responses, and since S. 2429 contained similar language, the Senate's India bill, S. 3709, specified with regard to India's safeguards agreement, and the determination the President had to make regarding it, that ``an agreement between India and the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA standards, principles, and practices to civil nuclear facilities, programs, and materials . . . has entered into force and the text of such agreement has been made available to the appropriate congressional committees.'' The conference agreement before us today does not include the language from the S. 3709 regarding this element of the Presidential determination required to use the waiver authority we grant. Rather, the conference agreement provides in section 104(b)(2) that ``India and the IAEA have concluded all legal steps required prior to signature by the parties of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA standards, principles, and practices, (including IAEA Board of Governors Document GOV/1621 (1973)) to India's civil nuclear facilities, materials, and programs . . . including materials used in or produced through the use of India's civil nuclear facilities.'' The conferees were assured by administration officials that the language referring to ``all legal steps'' includes approval by the IAEA Board of Governors. The conferees understand that safeguards agreements are signed after Board of Governors' approval, but that entry into force can take additional time. Since Board of Governors' approval would mean that the text of the safeguards agreement would be final, and it is unlikely that either the IAEA or India would sign an agreement that is not final, conferees agreed to this language. The conferees' intent was to secure as final a text as possible for congressional review since the text of the new Indian safeguards agreement would be submitted to Congress as a part of the Presidential determination and waiver authority contained in section 104 of this conference agreement. It is the view of the conferees that this language means that Congress will receive the final text of such an agreement as a part of the President's determination. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate passes H.R. 5682, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. This agreement is the most important strategic diplomatic initiative undertaken by President Bush. By concluding this pact and the far- reaching set of cooperative agreements that accompany it, the President has embraced a long-term outlook that seeks to enhance the core strength of our foreign policy in a way that will give us new diplomatic options and improve global stability. The Committee on Foreign Relations undertook an extensive review of this agreement. We held 4 public hearings with testimony from 17 witnesses, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. We received a classified briefing from Under Secretaries of State Nick Burns and Bob Joseph. Numerous briefings were held for staff with experts from the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and the National Security Council. I submitted more than 170 written questions for the record to the Department of State on details of the agreement and posted the answers on my web site. The agreement allows India to receive nuclear fuel, technology, and reactors from the United States--benefits that were previously denied to India because of its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, (NPT). This pact can be a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation, and our legislation further strengthens this situation. The conference agreement before us is an important step toward implementing the nuclear agreement with India, but we should understand that it is not the final step. This legislation sets the rules for subsequent Congressional consideration of a so-called 123 agreement between the United States and India. A 123 agreement is the term for an agreement for civil nuclear cooperation arranged pursuant to the conditions outlined in section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. I am pleased to note that the conference agreement does not restrict nor does it predetermine congressional action on the forthcoming 123 agreement. Unlike the administration's original legislative proposal, this bill preserves congressional prerogatives with regard to consideration of a future 123 agreement. Under the administration's original proposal, the 123 agreement would have entered into force 90 days after submission unless both Houses of Congress voted against it and with majorities that could overcome a likely Presidential veto. I am pleased the administration changed course on this matter and agreed to submit the 123 agreement with India to Congress under existing procedures in the Atomic Energy Act. This means that both the House and the Senate must cast a positive vote of support before the 123 agreement can enter into force. In my view, this better protects Congress's role in the process and ensures congressional views will be taken into consideration. In addition, it does not limit our actions to a single ``no'' vote, which could have severe consequences for United States-India relations. It would be particularly risky if that were the only course available to Congress, no matter what its concerns may be. Title II of this conference agreement contains legislation on the U.S. Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency AEA. President Bush called on the Senate to ratify this important agreement on February 11, 2004, and the Senate did so on March 31, 2004. This conference agreement contains important implementing provisions for our Additional Protocol that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has been working on for more than 2 years. This legislative measure is critical because our Additional Protocol is not a self-executing agreement, and passage of implementing legislation completes Congressional action and permits the agreement to come into force. Our action today will allow the President to complete U.S. ratification and make this Nation a party to this important IAEA safeguards measure. U.S. ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol will give Secretary Rice and our representative to the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, an important diplomatic tool in the battle against proliferation as we maintain our longstanding leadership and support for the IAEA safeguards system. Our Additional Protocol is one part of that support, just like our annual voluntary contributions to the IAEA, and they involve significant congressional oversight and involvement. Approval of this legislation today is good news because it shows that Congress supports the critical nonproliferation work of the IAEA. I thank Senator Biden for his close cooperation on developing this conference agreement. I thank our House colleagues, Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, for their close cooperation and hard work. Together, we have constructed a law that allows the United States to seize an important strategic opportunity while ensuring a strong congressional oversight role, reinforcing U.S. nonproliferation efforts and maintaining our responsibilities under the NPT. I also want to thank all members of the Foreign Relations Committee for their support.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks, delivered in a keynote address at the German Marshall Fund conference on Monday, November 27, in Riga, Latvia, in advance of the NATO Summit, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I honor the life and work of a fellow Hoosier, Dr. Lynton Keith Caldwell, of Bloomigton, IN. I ask that the following tribute, attributed to Wendy Read Wertz of Bloomington, Indiana, be printed in the Record. The tribute follows: Dr. Lynton Keith Caldwell, 92, regarded as one of the twentieth century's most distinguished scholars in the fields of environmental policy, law, science and administration, and a principal architect of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, died on August 15, 2006, at his home in Bloomington, Indiana. At the time of his death Dr. Caldwell was Arthur F. Bentley Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Today, Dr. Caldwell is frequently referred to as the ``father of NEPA'' and the ``inventor'' of the Environmental Impact Statement. Importantly, as he frequently reminded people later, NEPA did much more than simply mandate paperwork. True to its title, Congress established this nation's environmental policies in Section 101(a) of the Act, declaring that, ``it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.'' And the reach of those policies goes beyond the federal government to touch every American. Indeed, in the law, ``The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment'' (Section 101(c)). Dr. Caldwell lived a full life, making contributions on many levels. He earned his undergraduate degree in English at the University of Chicago in 1934, his Masters degree at Harvard in History and Government in 1938, and his doctorate degree in Political Science at the University of Chicago in 1943 where his special focus was on public administration. In 1977 he was awarded an honorary LLD from Western Michigan University. From 1944 until 1962 Dr. Caldwell's career was focused on public administration. U.N. appointments took him to Columbia, the Philippines and Turkey where he served in Ankara as the U.N. Co-Director of the Public Administration Institute for Turkey and the Middle East. He became a Professor of Government at Indiana University in 1956 where he served as Director of the Institute of Training for Public Service and Coordinator of the Indonesian and Thailand Public Administration programs. Further assignments in a consulting or lecturing capacity took him to Japan, Pakistan, India, Europe and Australia. In his private capacity, however, Dr. Caldwell was deeply committed to conservation issues. A lover of nature from childhood, he became a knowledgeable botanist and bird watcher. He helped to found the South Bend branch of the Audubon Society, assisted in the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and was a founding member of both the first local chapter of The Nature Conservancy in New York and of the Indiana chapter. He served on the Board of Governors of the Nature Conservancy from 1959-1965. Dr. Caldwell will undoubtedly be missed by the many, many former students, colleagues and professionals in this country and around the world who benefited from his insights and teachings. His dignity, knowledge and personal compassion for the people and world around him served this nation well.