Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express solidarity with the people of Romania in the aftermath of the fatal floods that occurred earlier this month. As a consequence of the heavy rainfalls that occurred in Romania from July 1 to July 17, 2005, 24 people are reported to have lost their lives, and some 800 towns and villages suffered damage to road infrastructure, farmlands, and utilities. The United States and Romania have a strong and continuing relationship. In April 2003, the Senate voted unanimously to bring Romania into NATO. It represented a vote of confidence in the Romanian people and I was honored to witness that expression of American support as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Romania's commitment to the Alliance is evident in its active participation in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. I am hopeful that Romania will be invited to join the European Union in the near future. The United States and Romania cooperate closely in a number of areas. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, Romania has been fully supportive of the global war on terrorism. Among other actions, it contributed transport aircraft and more than 400 troops to Afghanistan. In addition, Romania permitted the use of its territory--land, airspace and seaports--for the U.S.-led military action against Iraq, and dispatched non-combat troops to the region. Romania currently has approximately 900 troops in Iraq, and approximately 500 troops in Afghanistan. I commend Romania for its consistent contribution to international peace and stability. Since 1991, it has participated in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Gulf, the former Soviet Union, Africa, and the Balkans. Just yesterday, the Department of State issued a press statement welcoming the decision by the Romanian cabinet to accept approximately 450 Uzbek asylum seekers on a temporary basis as part of the resettlement processing. The asylum seekers had sought initial refuge in the Kyrgyz Republic following the May violence in Uzbekistan. Romania stands as a role model in the international community for those who are committed in words and actions to the United Nation's principles.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I call to the attention of my colleagues the retirement of a pillar of the energy industry for many years in my home State of Indiana, Mr. Gary L. Neale. On June 30, 2005, Mr. Neale stepped down from his post of chief executive officer of NiSource Inc. Prior to bringing his talents and dedicated work ethic to Northwest Indiana, Mr. Neale earned both his B.A. and M.B.A. from the University of Washington. In addition to this impressive education, he also took time to broaden his experiences by serving his country as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Neale remains not only an astute student but also a valued teacher contributing articles to Business Week, Harvard Business Review, and Public Utilities Fortnightly. Supplementing his impressive academic and military careers, Mr. Neale became a consistent force in the energy industry in Indiana and nationally. Before joining NiSource in 1989, Mr. Neale was chairman, president and executive officer of Planmetrics Inc., an energy industry management consulting firm, for 17 years. Additionally, he held management positions at Wells Fargo Bank and Kaiser Industries. Mr. Neale has displayed tremendous leadership in multiple capacities. He has served as chairman of both the American Gas Association and the North American Electric Reliability Council. He was appointed to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Petroleum Council and also the Department's Electricity Advisory Board. Mr. Neale graciously accepted the appointment of the Governor of Indiana to serve on our State's Economic Development Council, Energy Policy Forum and Clean Air Advisory Committee. He headed the Northwest Indiana Americans with Disabilities Act Advisory Board and the Lake Area United Way Campaign. Mr. Neale also sits on the boards of directors of Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited, AEGIS, Modine Manufacturing Company, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, and Valparaiso University. As he begins this new chapter in his life, I simply wanted to highlight a few of Mr. Neale's extensive accomplishments. I am pleased to have this opportunity to join his wife Sandy, two children, five grandchildren, and many friends and colleagues in congratulating him on a fine career.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1406 that authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in the event of an overseas emergency, to transfer $200 million in defense articles, services, training and other support to the State Department to address the crisis. The funding would be used by the Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction at the State Department, a new office that has been created to organize the civilian side of the military/civilian response in post-conflict situations. The authority provided is permissive. It does not require such a transfer. The Secretary of Defense requested the authority contained in this amendment in his submission of legislation to be considered by the Congress. The Department of Defense needs a capable civilian partner that is prepared to go into hostile environments to assist the military in stabilizing a post-conflict situation. It also needs to be able to hand off a stabilized situation to civilian leadership. Without such a capacity, the military ends up performing tasks that civilians could and should be carrying out. As a consequence, the resources of the Armed Services are stretched thin and deployments of military personnel have to be extended beyond expectations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has for some time been deeply involved in building the capacity of the State Department to play a leadership role in this area. Through legislation, hearings, and meetings of a policy advisory group of experts, we have called for the organization of a corps of civilians who are willing and able to undertake difficult missions in wartorn countries. The Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction, led by a Coordinator, Ambassador Carlos Pascual, is now up and running and doing an excellent job. My amendment reflects continued Senate Foreign Relations Committee attention to the issue. On June 16, we held a hearing on stabilization and reconstruction entitled ``Building Peace in a Hostile Environment.'' Ambassador Pascual participated as did two witnesses from the Defense Department, Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and LTG Walter Sharp, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy at the Joint Staff. James Kunder, Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East, testified on behalf of USAID. Both Defense Department witnesses urged the committee to support the transfer authority contained in my amendment. Mr. Henry stated that it is in the Defense Department's interest to help the Stabilization and Reconstruction office ``fill the gap in its ability to deploy in a crisis.'' General Sharp said that General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, supports such a request because it would ``greatly improve Ambassador Pascual's ability to rapidly deploy in a crisis.'' As most Members know, the foreign affairs budget is under considerable pressure. The Senate has just finished debating H.R. 3057, the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The 302(b) allocations for this bill were some $1 billion below the President's request. On the House side, the corresponding amount is some $3 billion below the President's request. When conferenced, the appropriated funding levels for foreign affairs will once again fall short of the amount that the President of the United States says he needs to conduct a strong foreign policy at a time of great complexity and danger. Tight budgets yield painful compromises. During consideration of H.R. 3057, Senators Corzine and DeWine offered an amendment to appropriate $50 million to support African Union peacekeeping efforts in Sudan. They took the funding from the Conflict Response Fund that is to be used in emergencies by the new Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction. The amendment was accepted. That development has made the passage of this amendment to the Department of Defense bill even more crucial. The amendment does not make the transfer of services and other support automatic. Rather, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer the support only if he determines that an emergency exists that requires the immediate provision of such assistance. He must also determine that such assistance is in the national security interests of the United States. The Department of Defense has asked for the authority. It recognizes that coordination between the State Department and USAID during international emergencies can actually save money and lives. It reflects a new kind of cooperation between the military and the civilian component of our Government that a number of Members have spent much time and effort trying to promote. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment. amendment no. 1407 Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 1407 that strikes section 1008 from the bill under consideration. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Defense Department to pay its fair share of the costs of building safer embassies. Section 1008 allows Defense Department participation in the program only to the extent that unreimbursed services provided by State to DOD exceed unreimbursed services provided by DOD to State. It is a complicated formula that, in the end, will probably result in no contributions from the Department of Defense. There is no other agency that has similar legislation. More than 61,000 American Government employees from 30 agencies work at our embassies and consulates. The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, and every other agency that has personnel overseas are contributing to the cost-sharing program. After an interagency negotiation, all executive branch departments, including the Defense Department, agreed to contribute to the cost-sharing program. But section 1008 would essentially vitiate that agreement on the part of the Department of Defense. The Senate has a deep interest in the safety and well-being of our citizens working overseas. Defense Department employees are second in number only to the State Department in many of our embassies. We all know that U.S. facilities are a prime target for terrorists. The 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa made it clear that the threat can erupt in unexpected places. The United States has some 251 embassies and consulates overseas. Many of them do not meet security standards. They are not set far enough back from busily traveled streets, and they are not constructed to minimize damage if attacked. The capital construction program focuses on replacing 150 embassies, prioritized according to a formula that encompasses the threat they face. New embassy compounds are being built on a construction schedule that can be cut almost in half if the cost-sharing program is fully implemented. The cost-sharing program allocates construction expenses among agencies on the basis of future occupancy and the need for space specially designed for security purposes. After the State Department, the military ranks among the top contributors expected to participate in the program. Defense Department nonparticipation would stretch the embassy construction timetable by several years, prolonging the risks to embassy workers from all agencies. President Bush has designed an interagency cost-sharing program with a rapid construction timetable. He understands the risks and is working to address them. The cost-sharing program has been embraced by all Cabinet officers, including Secretary Rumsfeld. We in the Congress should not agree to a measure that will disrupt this timetable. We should not slow a process that directly addresses the threat of terrorism toward embassies, which are the most visible and accessible U.S. targets overseas. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, John Warner, for his very thoughtful comments about the origin of the program and the initial bipartisan breakfast of Senators that in the latter stages of the 1991 session made possible the cooperative threat reduction legislation. I am honored that Senator John Glenn and Annie are likewise witnessing the program today, along with our distinguished colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, who have meant so much to all of us in formulating the defense policy. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Levin, Obama, Lott, Jeffords, Nelson of Florida, Voinovich, Dodd, Leahy, Nelson of Nebraska, Murkowski, Kennedy, Chafee, Collins, Alexander, Allen, Salazar, Hagel, DeWine, Reed, Dorgan, Mikulski, Biden, Stabenow, Bingaman, Akaka, and Lautenberg, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I likewise would like to ask that Senator Feinstein and Senator Enzi be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my amendment is based upon S. 313, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2005, which I first offered in November 2004 and reintroduced this January. It is focused on facilitating implementation of the program and removing some of the self-imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. By self-imposed, I mean restrictions imposed by our Government on our programs which bring about delay, sometimes very severe delay, at a time that we take seriously the war on terrorism, and the need, as a matter of fact, to bring under control materials and weapons of mass destruction as rapidly and as certainly as possible. In essence, I am going to argue in various forms during the next few minutes that the United States of America, contrary to almost all common sense, imposes upon itself the need to examine year by year specifically Russian cooperation, Russian money, whether moneys are fungible; that is, moneys that are spent by the United States to work with Russians to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere, whether we are, in fact, serious about this. If we came to a conclusion that for some reason the Russians had not spent precisely the amount of money that we think they ought to spend, does any Senator believe we at that point should stop taking warheads off of missiles, should stop trying to get control of weapons of mass destruction in the chemical and biological areas? Of course not. We have constructed for 14 years an extraordinary situation in which from time to time Senators, some of whom had come new to the floor, were not here during the end of the Cold War or any of the Cold War for that matter, and said simply: We are suspicious of Russians. We are not sure we ought to be helping them at all. Why should they not destroy 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons? Why should they not pay for it? They made their bed. Let them sleep in it. In essence, if they do not destroy it, that is their problem. Long ago, as Senator Warner pointed out, we found it was our problem. The 13,300 nuclear warheads were aimed at us, sometimes 10 warheads to a missile--multiple reentry vehicles they were called. That is the problem. We thought, as a matter of fact, for our safety, after a half century, it was useful to work with Russians who came to visit with Senator Nunn and with me and who asked for our help. They said: We have a problem in Russia, but you have a problem, too. Those warheads are aimed at your cities and they are still up there on the missiles, and the tactical warheads are still out there, and privateers as the Red Army breaks up could cart them off on flat bed trucks to Iran, Iraq, Libya, wherever there is a market for them. As a matter of fact, the Wall Street Journal helpfully published an article about how one could take a missile out on a flat bed truck. So this was not rocket science. Even at that time people were still putting on stipulations. Why does that matter? It matters because at the beginning of each new budget year the President of the United States and various agencies involved have to go through thousands of bureaucratic hours examining all of the stipulations that have been added by some Member of the House or Senate over the years to try to divine whether there has been proper compliance. At the end of the day, the law now states--and in fairness, the Senate Armed Services Committee has provided--that there will be a permanent waiver authority. After all of these thousands of hours of bureaucratic hassling, the President can finally say: Listen, we are in a war on terror. Let's get on with it. But, apparently, the President would be hard-pressed to do that before going through all the machinations. I am just saying, it is time to take seriously weapons of mass destruction, materials of mass destruction. It is time to get over the thought that somehow or another the Russians may or may not be cooperative because the fact is, it is our program, cooperation with the Russians, that has brought about at this point some remarkable results. Let me recite some of those results. During the last 14 years, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated or destroyed 6,624 nuclear warheads; 580 ICBMs; 477 ICBM silos; 21 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 147 bombers--these were the transcontinental bombers that could have carried nuclear weapons across the oceans to us, and they have been destroyed--789 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 420 submarine missile launchers; 546 submarine launched missiles; 28 nuclear submarines; 194 nuclear test tunnels. Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, who emerged from the former Soviet Union situation as the third, fourth, and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers in the world, all three are now free as a result of the cooperative threat reduction program, the so-called Nunn-Lugar program, of nuclear weapons. This did not happen easily. In each of the years in which these destructive efforts with regard to the former Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles and what have you came about, there had to be competitive bidding conducted by the Department of Defense. In every year, this was delayed because, once again, each of the stipulations added by a Senator or Member of the House had to be examined and had to be met. In some years, in the early parts of the program, waivers were not available; waivers never occurred. The fiscal year ran out and nothing happened in many programs. I find it incomprehensible why, at this particular point in history, after 14 years of this experience, there are still Members who would argue we still should go through the thousands of hours of bureaucratic hassles every year, even if there is a Presidential waiver at the end of the trail that says: Call it off. Let's get on with the war on terror. It seems to be almost a theological bent of some Members, who I suspect have a feeling that anything involving Russians or recipients of weapons of mass destruction or materials requires a whole lot of examination before we take the active steps to work with them to destroy the material. In any event, I commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my friend, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for the important legislative efforts they have made. They have been steadfast in their support of the program throughout the years. They played critical roles in the success of the program. This year they have brought to the floor a bill that contains full funding for Nunn- Lugar programs, some $415 million. They also embraced one of the most important elements of my earlier bill, S. 313, namely the transfer of authority from the President to the Secretary of Defense for approval of Nunn-Lugar projects outside the former Soviet Union. In 2003, Congress authorized the President to use up to $50 million in Nunn-Lugar funds for operations outside the former Soviet Union. The legislation requires the President to certify that the utilization of the Nunn-Lugar funds outside the former Soviet Union will address a dangerous proliferation threat or achieve a longstanding nonproliferation opportunity in a short period of time. President Bush used this authority to authorize the destruction of 16 tons of chemical weapons in Albania. Let me say the Albanian experience is instructive, not only because good results occurred, but the very circumstances require the Senate, it seems to me, to focus on the world in which we live. Word came to officers in the Pentagon, in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, from authorities in Albania last year, 2004, that weapons of mass destruction were in Albania, specifically chemical weapons of mass destruction. This was a surprise to our authorities, quite apart from Members of this body. I was privileged to accompany members of our Armed Forces and members of the Albanian Armed Forces on a trip into the mountains outside of Tirana, the capital city of Albania. Up in the mountains we came upon canisters. We saw a number of them. As a matter of fact, by the time the compilation was completed, 16 tons of chemical weapons, nerve gas, were discovered in Albania. We had a program, because we had adopted it a short time before, in which we knew that $50 million might be allocated outside the former Soviet Union. Obviously we were going to need that program. But the dilemma immediately was that a number of signoffs was required. Members will recall we were in an election year in 2004. We were able to get signatures ultimately from the Secretary of State. It was very difficult for people at the White House to accumulate the papers and requirements for President Bush to sign off, but eventually he did. But nevertheless, it was roughly a 60-day period from time of discovery. In this particular instance, a $20 million program of neutralization will eventually take care of that risk, and it is a very substantial one. But my point is it will not be the last one. I commend the Armed Services Committee for recognizing the need for expedited review and decisionmaking when it comes to these emergency situations. This may be an instance in the war against terror in which we had success, and we had success beyond that. While we were up in the mountains, the Albanian soldiers took us by sheds in which there were 79 Manpad missiles. As part of the good will of that expedition, they agreed to destroy those in September of 2004, and they did so. Furthermore, as another feature, the next day when we were out of the mountains, in the office of the Minister of Defense of Albania, he talked about his plans for a military academy, a modest beginning at least of training of young officers, with one of the skills to be required a facility in the English language. In essence, they wanted to continue talking to us and continue working with us so there would be fewer and fewer surprises. I would contend in the war against terror we are going to have many surprises and we better have very rapid responses. I thank the drafters of the legislation we are considering today for their consideration of this. Let me say the problem of the overall situation in Russia remains as confounding as before. It is a peculiar thought that some of the programs of the Cooperative Reduction Program that occur in the Department of State and Department of Energy do not have these stipulations. They are literally a hangover from the first Nunn-Lugar debates in 1981--people suspicious of Russia, still suspicious of Russia, and believing, because they are exercising their suspicions of the Russians, that somehow this has something to do with destruction of weapons of mass destruction. We have to get over that and that is the purpose of this debate today, to try to get on and try to understand the world in which we live, including Russia. The question finally is, what national security benefit do these so- called certification requirements provide the American people? Do these conditions I would advocate terminating make it easier or harder to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia--or elsewhere, for that matter? Do the conditions make it more likely or less likely that weapons are going to be eliminated? It would be hard to argue logically that putting more and more conditions upon action help us in destroying weapons and materials of mass destruction. They obviously hinder us. In some years they stopped us for months. We did this to ourselves. We continue to do it to ourselves, year after year. Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuch'ye, after imposing all of the other conditions with regard to nuclear weapons in Russia. These conditions include, No. 1, full and accurate Russian declaration on the size of its chemical weapons stockpile. Experts have argued for 14 years over whether Russia has specifically 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons or something more or less, and we will be arguing about it every year so long as we have a stipulation that we have to have this argument. Some will claim that Russia has never made a full declaration of all of it. But, nevertheless, it is not a good reason for stopping the program, because we are dissatisfied with whether the Russians have come clean on every pound--or ton, for that matter--when there are 40,000 metric tons we know of that need to be destroyed. No. 2, every year we have to talk about allocation by Russia of at least $25 million--its equivalent in Russian currency--to chemical weapons elimination. We also argue about whether Russia has developed a practical plan for destroying the stockpile of nerve agents and whether enactment of a law by Russia that provides for elimination of all nerve agents at a single site is valid. We have been arguing about the single site problem for quite a while. We have at this point, I suspect, a general summation that probably chemical weapons will be destroyed at three sites. I simply point these things out because in order each year to start up the program, all of these arguments must go back through the bureaucracy. Somebody must certify that the Russians have, in fact, appropriated $25 million, that they have made a full declaration--40,000 metric tons or more; that we wish they would do it all in one place, and we are still arguing with them over that. In essence, what is the alternative? Let us say that for some reason someone contends at the time Russians have 41,000 tons. Is this a good reason to delay any destruction, any further security in our benefit? Not at all. That is the essence of what we are talking about today-- stipulations that long ago were obsolete, were, if not a figment of someone's imagination on the floor of the Senate, a deliberate, provocative act to get an argument going with the Russians that could never in fact be consummated. I suggest that some have said, well, at worst the certification process is simply an annoyance; that by this time in history we go through the process every year and the predictable arguments are made, the thousands of hours are spent, reports are filed, they are bumped up from one desk to the next, and then ultimately at the end of the trail the President waives the whole business and we get on with the program. While well-intentioned, these conditions, in my judgment, seriously delay and complicate constructive efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction. I get back to this again. If the No. 1 security threat facing our country is weapons of mass destruction, the security of those weapons, the destruction of those weapons, we cannot permit delays in our response. I was interested last year, as I know you were, Mr. President, in a very vigorous debate between President George Bush and our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. But one thing on which the President and Senator Kerry agreed was that the No. 1 national threat was what we are talking about today: weapons of mass destruction, proliferation of those into the hands of terrorists. They agreed this is the essence of what all of our defense business is about, ultimately. All I am suggesting is, given the urgency of this, the illogic of delaying, deliberately delaying on our part, bureaucratically, year after year, even if finally, as I say, at the end of the day we give the President the right to waive the whole thing and say, enough of this, get on with it--we must finally come to grips, and this amendment does, and that is what the argument is about today-- to eliminate these barriers that are self-imposed and that I believe are destructive to our national security. Let me make a point. In 2002--to get the facts--the Bush administration withheld certification for Russia because of the concerns about chemical and biological weapons arenas. President Bush recognized the predicament. The President said, How can we get out of this predicament? And he requested waiver authority for the congressionally imposed conditions. While awaiting a temporary waiver to be authorized in law, the new Nunn-Lugar projects were stalled, and no new contracts could be finalized from April 16, 2002, to August 9, 2002. This delay--and this is just 3 years ago--caused numerous disarmament projects in Russia to be put on hold, including, specifically, installation of security enhancements at 10 nuclear weapons storage sites, initiation of the dismantlement of two strategic missile submarines, 30 submarine launched ballistic missiles, and initiation of the dismantlement of the SS-24 rail mobile and the SS-25 road mobile ICBMs and launchers--all of these deliberately delayed by us. We did this ourselves. This is what these restrictions are about. Clearly, these projects were in our national security interest at the beginning of April and August when we finally got on with it. But they were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and the bureaucratic redtape that we have continually perpetrated year after year after year. The second period of delays began when the fiscal year started, October 1, 2002--back into it all over again--with the expiration of the temporary waiver that lasted only until September 30, 2002. Again, U.S. national security suffered with the postponement of critical dismantlement of security activities for some 6 additional weeks until the Congress acted. Unfortunately, the events of 2002, although they are fairly recent, are reminiscent of what occurred in the years prior to that. They are the rule. In some years, as a matter of fact, Nunn-Lugar funds were not available for expenditure until more than half of the fiscal year had passed and weapons of mass destruction slated for dismantlement awaited the U.S. bureaucratic process. This means the program during those times was denied funds for large portions of the year. The bureaucracy continued to generate reams of paper and yet ultimately produced an outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national security interest of our country to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere. Let me say, finally, Mr. President, this certification consumes not only hundreds of man-hours in the Defense Department but in the State Department, in the intelligence community, and the energy community. Obviously the time could better be spent tackling the problems of proliferation where, in fact, the materials are--where are the Albanias of the future; identifying the next A.Q. Kahn in Pakistan and that network, locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, as many of us have attempted to do. Mr. President, let me add as a personal thought, it is apparent, I suspect, with the urgency with which I approach this that I take it seriously, and I do, and I think a majority of Senators do. I plan to visit Russia again in August, as I have each year for the last 14. I plan to visit Ukraine. I hope to go to Azerbaijan. I hope to go to other countries that I think might develop during those trips. It has been my experience that while in Russia, Russians came to me and asked would I like to visit Sevmash, Sevmash being where the Typhoon submarines are. No American has been invited to Sevmash. There have been no invitations to anyone to destroy six Typhoon submarines. I said: Of course, I would like to go to Sevmash. And I did go to Sevmash. Russians took pictures of submarines, including one of me standing in front of a large Typhoon, and in due course they sent the pictures to me. I must say, this was the best view that our authorities had had of a Typhoon in some time. Now, the fact is, it is cooperative threat reduction. There was no particular reason for the Typhoons to come into play at that particular moment, nor for other submarine programs on other occasions. But the nature of the dialog, in fact, if there is engagement, has been to bring about revelations and finally additional cooperation. I make that point because the gist of all these controls is a supposition that the Russians will be uncooperative, that they will hide what they have, and in some cases they have. On another occasion, I tried to get into a bioweapons situation and was denied that access. They told us the Air Force plane could take off, but it would not be able to land. In due course they changed their minds but not totally, and I took this up with the Defense Minister in Moscow. He admitted bureaucracy in Russia sometimes creates problems for him and for Russians who want to be cooperative. I mention these situations anecdotally because as far as I am concerned there is a hands-on operation. This is something personal. I have been there, I have seen, I have worked, and this is why, perhaps, I become so infuriated with people who are determined, bureaucratically, to block it, year after year to delay it, until finally out of exasperation, we have adopted waivers so that somehow we can get on with our own national security. But this is the debate today. Those who want to get rid of the bureaucracy and the stipulations will vote in favor of the Lugar amendment, and those who want to keep all of this can vote against it, and we will have an up-or-down vote because this is a critical national security objective. I cannot put it more directly or more simply. The delays have given on occasion, if there were those in Russia who wished to hide whatever they have, an opportunity simply to blame the United States for slow program implementation as we took the spotlight off of failure on the other side with our friends in Russia. Therefore, Mr. President, I am hopeful that this amendment will have very strong support. I am grateful for Senators who have, in fact, cosponsored the amendment as well as the original bill. I would conclude by indicating that during my talk today, Senators Rockefeller, McCain, Bennett, Lautenberg, Murray, and Schumer have all asked to be added as cosponsors. I thank each of these Senators for their cosponsorship. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Secretary Rice, and this follows direct questioning of the Secretary during her confirmation about her support of this very objective we are talking about today. And she does support what I want to do.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas has yielded to me a minute of time, and I deeply appreciate that, so that I have an opportunity to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senators Conrad, Boxer, and Durbin. Earlier, I mentioned the letters from Secretary Rice and, likewise, one from the 9/11 Commission, in which the Commission summarized that we believe that S. 313--the genesis of my amendment--is an important step forward in protecting the United States in catastrophic circumstances. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me take a moment to thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his very strong words and, likewise, to echo his commendation of you, as I do at this moment in this debate. Very clearly, each one of us has attempted to do our best in this area. I am proud to have pictures of all of us in my office, standing in front of missiles and explosives and all the elements that have marked 14 remarkable years. This entire program is counterintuitive. Those who looked at the half century that preceded 1991, the breakup of the former Soviet Union, would say: Here we are, two superpowers. A number of estimates were wrong on all sides about the economy of Russia, maybe the economy of our country or the relative strengths we had at that time. It was not until several years later that we knew there were 13,300 warheads on those missiles. We had estimates of that, but we now know that. We know exactly how many have been taken off and how many are still to be taken off, and how many missiles remain as vehicles, and how many submarines remain. This is remarkable. This is a degree of cooperation that is very substantial. There are some elements that we still do not know. I would claim that our Russian friends have been in denial on a good number of the biological programs, while they would say they were not weapons programs. They were something else dealing with livestock or other elements. We have had differences, and I would say there are still four situations in Russia in which none of us have had access. Therefore, those who argue that there is no good reason to raise questions of the Russians argue well. But my logic at the end of the day, even if the Russians have not been forthcoming on these four biological situations on which I have sought access, physically asked to go and may some day be admitted, if for some reason they may find it useful to admit me, that is not a good reason to delay for one week or one month or any time the movement of the moneys, the programs, the contractors, the American spirit that is working with a number of Russians in this window of history that was miraculously opened. I hope it will be open for a long time. I hope the cooperation with Russia will continue so that we do have, together, access, and so do other partners in the G8, in the so-called ``10 plus 10 over 10'' program. It is because we will need more time. We need to make certain that we do not make mistakes, certainly the ones we can avoid. I am suggesting today that we can avoid mistakes--and by eliminating these conditions, we will at least remove one of them--and that we have then an opportunity to continue to be forthcoming with the Russians in asking them to work with us in their own interest. Finally, when I was in vaults in which there are nuclear warheads lying almost akin to bodies in a morgue, I noted little tablets at the top of these which had Russian inscriptions. I asked: What is on those? They said: This tells when the weapon was built. It gives a service record. These weapons are not inert sporting guns' ammunition sitting on a shelf. They require servicing. There is a chemical mixture going on there that, without proper care, can lead to dire results. We don't know, nor do the Russians, what the results are. Therefore, down on the tab there is an estimate of the efficacy of the weapon; that is, how long the warhead probably would work if it were taken out of the vault and put back on a missile. Then you have even a stranger estimate, and that is when it might become dangerous; that is an event, a nuclear event in Russia with dastardly results for Russians. This is one reason why this is not totally counterintuitive. If you still have thousands of these weapons in warhead form, you want to make certain you have a partner who has some money and some expertise, and you try to make sure you use that money on the oldest ones first before you work out what is going to happen historically, something none of us have thus far had the horror to find out. This is serious business. We all take it that way. I appreciate the spirit of the debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Finally, I will submit additional letters that have come from other officials of our Government, from the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond directly. I do oppose the conditions. The purpose of my amendment is to eliminate the conditions. The reason I want to eliminate the conditions, and the Senator from Arizona has simply illustrated that in his recitation of them--for example, No. 5, complying with all relevant arms control agreements. That is a work of art every year for people to fathom whether the Russians have complied with every one of those agreements. The question is, What if we decide they have not? Is this, then, the reason we stop destroying Russian warheads, missiles, submarines? Just stop cold because we say the Russians, in our judgment--and there is usually a debate among those in the Pentagon about this--have not got it quite right? Even more, No. 6, observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities, I am not certain that almost any Senate or administration official has ever come to a conclusion that the Russians have been observing all internationally recognized human rights for 14 years. Yet someone is still arguing we ought to leave that on the statute books as a reason the bureaucrats in our country ponder about the human rights conditions in Russia for as many weeks and so forth until the President says: We have had enough, I waive it, let's get on. To suggest that it is extreme to leave these situations on the books, it seems to me, is not at all logical given our own activity and the fact that we are fighting a war on terror. This is not simply a grant of inconsequential effort with regard to our security, it is the whole ball game. Or condition No. 4, facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction carried out under the program. As a rule, we have had pretty good fortune with the CTR people following through precisely what has occurred but not in all instances. If you go to Russia and you visit with our people on the ground, they will give you instances immediately in which they are having trouble with Russian friends who do not want to let them see what has occurred. Then we all argue, as military and civilians, with our Russian friends that we really do need to see these situations. We are on the ground and we have tried to work it out. But back here, to make an evaluation that we have not seen all of it and therefore we stop the music makes no sense at all at this point in history. On the conditions on the chemical business, they were not at all helpful, to say the least. It is an ongoing process of getting something done still, trying to get the international community's money into it, trying to get the Russians over the threshold as the Duma. This is hard work but back here not so hard to say we want to evaluate, Are the Russians making a substantial investment? Well, what is substantial? Sometimes people have put a figure on it--$25 million, I mentioned in my speech. That was another stipulation. An allocation of $25 million, someone came up with here. I am not sure how we know; we are not able to audit the books. We can make some judgments as to whether a substantial effort is being made, but let's take the other case: The Russians make no attempt. They say, We are bankrupt, and they were in the early years of the program. Is that a reason why we do nothing, then? Do we just stop the music and say, You are not making a reasonable allocation? The old argument used to be called fungibility, the thought that somehow if U.S. taxpayer money got into Russia and we worked to destroy nuclear warheads, take them off the missile and so forth, the Russians would not have to spend money doing that and therefore they would spend it on something else of a nefarious nature. I am not sure that many persons in the Russian military ever were excited about taking the warheads off of the missiles, about destroying the missiles, about destroying all the submarines, destroying the transcontinental bombers. I don't think there was a wave of enthusiasm, people in the streets demanding that their government do these things. The fact is that cooperative threat reduction, as the Russian generals told Sam Nunn, is something that is our problem, but it is your problem because you folks in the United States have the contractors, you have the money, you have the organization. These are not funds donated in a United Way project to Russia. They are funds largely spent with American contractors, American experts, American people who take their time and at some risk to themselves have gone to Russia, and now to other places, to dismantle dangerous weapons and try to corral dangerous material in the benefit of all of us. Because in another forum we would be having the speech: What happens if al-Qaida gets their hands on even a few pounds of fissionable material? What would have happened if even a small weapon had been on a plane that went into the World Trade Center? Then we have briefings from experts that show concentric circles of death and destruction, of hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their lives. That is the issue. Anyone who is delaying this has to give some better reason for it than at some point a Member of the House or Senate thought it might be a good idea to ask the Russians what they are doing. Of course, that is a good idea. Those of us who have been visiting with the Russians ask it all the time and, as a matter of fact, have a very tough-minded attitude, which they appreciate because they have the same feeling for us. But I am saying we have come to a time in which we have to understand it is not useful to require that before Nunn-Lugar funds are spent each year there be a symposium on how human rights are going in Russia and, therefore, at the end of the day the President waives it and says: OK, not so good, but, after all, American security is still what I am after as Commander in Chief. Let me reiterate. I think it is important to clean the books, to get on with a program in which we understand, as Americans, we want to work with Russians to destroy weapons of mass destruction every year without delay. If the $415 million that is in this bill is appropriated, ultimately--and I hope it will be--we want to be able to spend that from October 1 onward. As has been pointed out, the waiver authority, even as it is, dies September 30. What happens if for some reason there is a conference hassle on the Department of Defense appropriations bill apart from the authorization bill? Certainly that happens in the body, and with the other body, from time to time. And when it has happened before, the music stopped. We did it to ourselves. We cannot afford to continue doing that. Mr. President, I yield time to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is on either side to be utilized?

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Landrieu, Sununu, Bayh, Smith, and Carper be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Norm Coleman in introducing the United Nations Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005. United Nations reform is not a new issue. The structure and role of the United Nations have been debated in our country almost continuously since the U.N. was established in 1945. But in 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the UN. The revelations of the Oil-For-Food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the UN. We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first Congressional hearing on the UN's Oil-for-Food scandal a year ago last April. Since that time, through the work of Paul Volcker, Senator Coleman, and many others, we have learned much more about the extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved. Senator Coleman's hard work as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has provided the Senate with extensive knowledge of what went wrong in the Oil-for-Food Program. We have combined efforts to offer the Senate a top-down/bottom-up comprehensive look at what needs to be reformed if the United Nations is going to be a highly effective institution in this century. I would like to thank staff on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who have collaborated for many hours during the past several weeks as we have finalized this bill. We know that billions of dollars that should have been spent on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the UN Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these activities. It also depended on UN officials and contractors who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging compromises in pursuit of a compassionate mission. The diminishment of UN credibility from corruption in the Oil-for- Food Program and other scandals is harmful to U.S. foreign policy and to efforts aimed at coordinating a stronger global response to terrorism. The capabilities possessed by the United Nations depend heavily on maintaining the credibility associated with countries acting together in a well-established forum with well-established rules. Profiteering, mismanagement, and bureaucratic stonewalling squander this precious resource. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in trouble spots around the world, a diminishment of UN credibility reduces U.S. options and increases our own burdens. The UN's ability to organize burden sharing and take over missions best handled by the international community is critical to the long- term success of U.S. foreign policy. As such, the United States must help achieve effective reform at the UN. Our legislation contains a comprehensive list of reforms that the United States must pursue at the United Nations. Some were espoused in the Gingrich-Mitchell UN reform study. Others have been proposed by our colleague on the House side, Henry Hyde, and have already been adopted by the House of Representatives. Others have emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's and the Permanent Subcommittee of Investigation's examination of sound management, personnel and oversight practices that can prevent past failures from reoccurring. The legislation includes a new UN procurement system that embodies the high standards required in modern governments and private sector companies, including relevant standards contained in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It calls for a new Management Performance Board to hold senior UN officials accountable and a Sanctions Management Office to assist the Security Council in managing, monitoring, and overseeing UN sanctions programs. It calls for strengthened financial disclosure requirements for UN personnel and the creation of an Office of Ethics to monitor the disclosure policy and enforce a code of ethics. On the UN budget, it supports sunset provisions for all new programs mandated by the General Assembly and cost-cutting measures such as greater use of the internet for public information, expanding outsourcing of translation, and reducing the frequency of conferences and international meetings. It promotes whistle-blower protections for UN employees and strengthens the UN inspector general function carried out by the Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS). And it calls for the creation of a new Independent Oversight Board to ensure the integrity and fiscal independence of the OIOS. The legislation also calls for reforms in the two functions, peacekeeping and humans rights protection, where the United Nations will need to be stronger and more effective over the next several decades if it is to make a major contribution to international peace and security. This legislation would provide President Bush with Congressional support and flexibility as he moves to generate reforms at the UN. The bill establishes a comprehensive agenda for creating the kind of United Nations the American people can support. It does not impose an artificial formula or rigid checklist of items that narrows our definition of success. Nor does it require mandated cuts in UN dues. Instead, the underlying premise of this legislation is that we want to give a President who knows how to achieve reform and is firmly committed to doing so the tools he needs to achieve our national objectives. We see President Bush's pledge to seek reform reinforced by his deeds, including his nomination of a reform-minded expert on UN affairs to be our ambassador at the United Nations and now his subsequent nomination of a trusted White House aide to be the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the State Department. The drive for reform at the UN is not going to occur in a national security vacuum. We will continue to have national security interests that are affected by UN agencies and UN deliberations. Without narrowing the President's options, this legislation gives him the leverage he needs. If he believes that, despite our best efforts, the other member states of the UN do not share our views on the urgency for reform, this bill grants the President full authority to withhold 50 percent of our UN dues until reforms are implemented. But it allows the President to make tactical judgments in the national security interest about how to apply leverage and about what methods to use in pursuing reform. Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions. Other member nations have ideas for reform as well. The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. And this legislation provides the right balance, outlining the kinds of reforms that will make the United Nations an accountable, transparent, and well-managed international organization, while giving the President the authority to withhold contributions if reform efforts fall short. I thank Senator Coleman for the expertise and leadership he has provided in crafting this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Norm Coleman in introducing the United Nations Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act of 2005. United Nations reform is not a new issue. The structure and role of the United Nations have been debated in our country almost continuously since the U.N. was established in 1945. But in 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the UN. The revelations of the Oil-For-Food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the UN. We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first Congressional hearing on the UN's Oil-for-Food scandal a year ago last April. Since that time, through the work of Paul Volcker, Senator Coleman, and many others, we have learned much more about the extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved. Senator Coleman's hard work as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has provided the Senate with extensive knowledge of what went wrong in the Oil-for-Food Program. We have combined efforts to offer the Senate a top-down/bottom-up comprehensive look at what needs to be reformed if the United Nations is going to be a highly effective institution in this century. I would like to thank staff on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who have collaborated for many hours during the past several weeks as we have finalized this bill. We know that billions of dollars that should have been spent on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the UN Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these activities. It also depended on UN officials and contractors who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging compromises in pursuit of a compassionate mission. The diminishment of UN credibility from corruption in the Oil-for- Food Program and other scandals is harmful to U.S. foreign policy and to efforts aimed at coordinating a stronger global response to terrorism. The capabilities possessed by the United Nations depend heavily on maintaining the credibility associated with countries acting together in a well-established forum with well-established rules. Profiteering, mismanagement, and bureaucratic stonewalling squander this precious resource. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in trouble spots around the world, a diminishment of UN credibility reduces U.S. options and increases our own burdens. The UN's ability to organize burden sharing and take over missions best handled by the international community is critical to the long- term success of U.S. foreign policy. As such, the United States must help achieve effective reform at the UN. Our legislation contains a comprehensive list of reforms that the United States must pursue at the United Nations. Some were espoused in the Gingrich-Mitchell UN reform study. Others have been proposed by our colleague on the House side, Henry Hyde, and have already been adopted by the House of Representatives. Others have emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's and the Permanent Subcommittee of Investigation's examination of sound management, personnel and oversight practices that can prevent past failures from reoccurring. The legislation includes a new UN procurement system that embodies the high standards required in modern governments and private sector companies, including relevant standards contained in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It calls for a new Management Performance Board to hold senior UN officials accountable and a Sanctions Management Office to assist the Security Council in managing, monitoring, and overseeing UN sanctions programs. It calls for strengthened financial disclosure requirements for UN personnel and the creation of an Office of Ethics to monitor the disclosure policy and enforce a code of ethics. On the UN budget, it supports sunset provisions for all new programs mandated by the General Assembly and cost-cutting measures such as greater use of the internet for public information, expanding outsourcing of translation, and reducing the frequency of conferences and international meetings. It promotes whistle-blower protections for UN employees and strengthens the UN inspector general function carried out by the Office of International Oversight Services (OIOS). And it calls for the creation of a new Independent Oversight Board to ensure the integrity and fiscal independence of the OIOS. The legislation also calls for reforms in the two functions, peacekeeping and humans rights protection, where the United Nations will need to be stronger and more effective over the next several decades if it is to make a major contribution to international peace and security. This legislation would provide President Bush with Congressional support and flexibility as he moves to generate reforms at the UN. The bill establishes a comprehensive agenda for creating the kind of United Nations the American people can support. It does not impose an artificial formula or rigid checklist of items that narrows our definition of success. Nor does it require mandated cuts in UN dues. Instead, the underlying premise of this legislation is that we want to give a President who knows how to achieve reform and is firmly committed to doing so the tools he needs to achieve our national objectives. We see President Bush's pledge to seek reform reinforced by his deeds, including his nomination of a reform-minded expert on UN affairs to be our ambassador at the United Nations and now his subsequent nomination of a trusted White House aide to be the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the State Department. The drive for reform at the UN is not going to occur in a national security vacuum. We will continue to have national security interests that are affected by UN agencies and UN deliberations. Without narrowing the President's options, this legislation gives him the leverage he needs. If he believes that, despite our best efforts, the other member states of the UN do not share our views on the urgency for reform, this bill grants the President full authority to withhold 50 percent of our UN dues until reforms are implemented. But it allows the President to make tactical judgments in the national security interest about how to apply leverage and about what methods to use in pursuing reform. Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions. Other member nations have ideas for reform as well. The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. And this legislation provides the right balance, outlining the kinds of reforms that will make the United Nations an accountable, transparent, and well-managed international organization, while giving the President the authority to withhold contributions if reform efforts fall short. I thank Senator Coleman for the expertise and leadership he has provided in crafting this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to give it their full support.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I recently had the honor of meeting with Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Dr. Wangari Maathai of Kenya. Dr. Maathai began a program of planting trees in 1976. She developed it into a grassroots organization that emphasized tree planting by women and children in order to conserve the environment and improve their quality of life. This program, which became known as the Green Belt Movement, has assisted women in planting more than 20 million trees throughout the world. Dr. Maathai is internationally recognized for a lifelong dedication to democracy, human rights and environmental conservation. She has addressed the U.N. on several occasions and spoke on behalf of women at special sessions of the General Assembly for the 5-year review of the earth summit. Earlier this year, Dr. Maathai gave an address inaugurating the World Food Law Institute's ``Distinguished Lecture Series.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of her remarks be printed in the Record for the benefit of my colleagues.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that calls on the administration to assess the progress of poverty reduction efforts around the world since September 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by more than 180 nations, including the United States. Each of these nations signed an agreement to work toward defined objectives, called the Millennium Development Goals, which include the commitments to: build a global partnership for development; eradicate extreme poverty by halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day and the number who suffer hunger; achieve universal primary education for boys and girls alike; reduce by two-thirds the under-5 child mortality rate; halt and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major disease; promote gender equality, reduce maternal mortality by two-thirds; and ensure environmental sustainability. This bill also highlights the important research and recommendations of the Report of the Commission for Africa that was commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparation for the July 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. The report, entitled ``Our Common Interest,'' is an excellent study of past development efforts and current opportunities to respond to the challenges of extreme poverty in Africa. Three important international forums will occur this year that will help define the world's response to extreme poverty; the group of Eight highly industrialized countries will meet in July at Gleneagles, Scotland and will address the challenges and opportunities of the African continent; The United Nations Summit to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals will occur in September. It will provide an opportunity to measure global coherence and commitment to specific objectives in eradicating extreme poverty by 2015; and the The Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization will meet in Hong Kong in December. Progress toward a genuinely equitable trade round in Hong Kong could provide a significant boost to global international development. This bill asks that the Secretary of State produce a report on the commitments made by the United States and the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the decisions made in regard to these goals in the three upcoming summits. It asks that the report assess the prospects of achieving these goals by 2015 and to review policies that maintain continued United States leadership in reducing poverty worldwide. The report would be due 60 days after the completion of the WTO summit December 13-18, 2005. The purpose of this report is to encourage a discussion of the goals themselves and the practical challenges with which each of these goals must contend. This discussion should take place within and among donor and developing governments, on a continuing basis. The upcoming summits are an important opportunity to continue that discussion as well as to make concrete efforts, and if necessary adjustments, to achieving such goals. Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States has taken steps to invest in development in a more comprehensive manner. President Bush made an historic commitment to address the threat and impact of HIV-AIDS on the countries most affected by this pandemic. The United States also established a bold new development initiative that closely parallels important elements of the MDGs and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa report. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has begun to deliver billions in assistance to developing nations that are committed to investing in their own people, to ruling justly, and to encouraging economic freedom. In addition, the United States removed barriers to trade with eligible African countries through the successful Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. There are many other significant efforts by the United States to address the challenges to poor countries face, from technical assistance to bilateral and multi-lateral debt relief, from peacekeeper training and equipping to capacity building and emergency assistance. Whether bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, the international community should capitalize on a coordinated strategy that reinforces the prospect of a more peaceful and stable world. The commitment of the United States to the moral and humanitarian goal of reducing the inequities seen across the developing world is a key factor in achieving greater security at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, our nation has been engaged in a debate over how to apply national power and resources most effectively to realize the maximum degree of security. Throughout this process, I have been making the point that we are not placing sufficient weight on the diplomatic and economic tools of national power. Even as we seek to capture key terrorists and destroy terrorist units, we must be working to perfect a longer term strategy that reshapes the world in ways that are not conducive to terrorist recruitment and influence. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory. We must commit ourselves to the painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year. As we undertake this mission, we must be persistent in our advocacy among our fellow nations to encourage a global partnership and commitment to eradicating poverty. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that calls on the administration to assess the progress of poverty reduction efforts around the world since September 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by more than 180 nations, including the United States. Each of these nations signed an agreement to work toward defined objectives, called the Millennium Development Goals, which include the commitments to: build a global partnership for development; eradicate extreme poverty by halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day and the number who suffer hunger; achieve universal primary education for boys and girls alike; reduce by two-thirds the under-5 child mortality rate; halt and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major disease; promote gender equality, reduce maternal mortality by two-thirds; and ensure environmental sustainability. This bill also highlights the important research and recommendations of the Report of the Commission for Africa that was commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparation for the July 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. The report, entitled ``Our Common Interest,'' is an excellent study of past development efforts and current opportunities to respond to the challenges of extreme poverty in Africa. Three important international forums will occur this year that will help define the world's response to extreme poverty; the group of Eight highly industrialized countries will meet in July at Gleneagles, Scotland and will address the challenges and opportunities of the African continent; The United Nations Summit to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals will occur in September. It will provide an opportunity to measure global coherence and commitment to specific objectives in eradicating extreme poverty by 2015; and the The Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization will meet in Hong Kong in December. Progress toward a genuinely equitable trade round in Hong Kong could provide a significant boost to global international development. This bill asks that the Secretary of State produce a report on the commitments made by the United States and the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the decisions made in regard to these goals in the three upcoming summits. It asks that the report assess the prospects of achieving these goals by 2015 and to review policies that maintain continued United States leadership in reducing poverty worldwide. The report would be due 60 days after the completion of the WTO summit December 13-18, 2005. The purpose of this report is to encourage a discussion of the goals themselves and the practical challenges with which each of these goals must contend. This discussion should take place within and among donor and developing governments, on a continuing basis. The upcoming summits are an important opportunity to continue that discussion as well as to make concrete efforts, and if necessary adjustments, to achieving such goals. Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States has taken steps to invest in development in a more comprehensive manner. President Bush made an historic commitment to address the threat and impact of HIV-AIDS on the countries most affected by this pandemic. The United States also established a bold new development initiative that closely parallels important elements of the MDGs and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa report. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has begun to deliver billions in assistance to developing nations that are committed to investing in their own people, to ruling justly, and to encouraging economic freedom. In addition, the United States removed barriers to trade with eligible African countries through the successful Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. There are many other significant efforts by the United States to address the challenges to poor countries face, from technical assistance to bilateral and multi-lateral debt relief, from peacekeeper training and equipping to capacity building and emergency assistance. Whether bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, the international community should capitalize on a coordinated strategy that reinforces the prospect of a more peaceful and stable world. The commitment of the United States to the moral and humanitarian goal of reducing the inequities seen across the developing world is a key factor in achieving greater security at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, our nation has been engaged in a debate over how to apply national power and resources most effectively to realize the maximum degree of security. Throughout this process, I have been making the point that we are not placing sufficient weight on the diplomatic and economic tools of national power. Even as we seek to capture key terrorists and destroy terrorist units, we must be working to perfect a longer term strategy that reshapes the world in ways that are not conducive to terrorist recruitment and influence. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory. We must commit ourselves to the painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year. As we undertake this mission, we must be persistent in our advocacy among our fellow nations to encourage a global partnership and commitment to eradicating poverty. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the retirement of a fixture of Clay city schools for the past 41 years and faithful friend, Mr. Paul Sinders. Paul Sinders began his career as an educator in the fall of 1964 at the Clay City Elementary School. He taught fifth grade and moved to Clay City Jr./Sr. High School the following year. This marked the beginning of a remarkable career in which Paul served the Clay community school system in countless capacities. He taught science, math, and health to the junior high students before moving on to instruct health, physical education, and driver education classes in the high school. Additionally, he took time to coach the boys freshman and junior varsity basketball teams, and represented the school as athletic director and guidance director. In 1977, Paul took the reigns as principal of Clay City Jr./Sr. High School. For the past 28 years Paul has worked extremely long hours overseeing the operations of Clay City High School. In 1992, he was selected as the Principal of the Year in the IASP District 8. In addition, he served as president of the Indiana Association of School Principals of District 8 in 1994-1995. Currently, Paul is on the board of directors for the Clay County Community Foundation and the Wabash Valley Youth for Christ. He is on the advisory board for the Clay City Center for Family Medicine and is a Support Committee Member for the Clay City Area Youth for Christ. He is a member of the Indiana Association of School Principals and Phi Delta Kappa. Throughout his illustrious career, Paul has been blessed with the consistent support of his wife, Shari, and his children: Annette Ream, Chip Sinders, Natalie Wolfe, Bethany Stoelting, and Justin Sinders. I join his family, friends, and colleagues now in adding my blessing as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.