Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 68th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Sicily. On July 10, 1943, under orders from GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Fifteenth Army Group, comprised of GEN George Patton's Seventh Army and British GEN Bernard Montgomery's Eighth Army, began the Allied invasion of the island of Sicily, termed Operation Husky. Prior to the ground invasion, brave Allied pilots softened the Axis defenses with heavy aerial bombardment. In the early hours of July 10, Allied ground forces successfully landed on enemy shores with little resistance. Over the next few days Allied forces continued on with much success. On July 11 and 12 enemy forces attempted numerous counterattacks, all of which were repelled by the skill and determination of the American forces. On July 22, an element of GEN Patton's Seventh Army captured the city of Palermo, the news of which so inspired the Italian people that on July 24 and 25 a palace revolt took place toppling the fascist government of Mussolini. On July 31 Italian and German forces, faced with certain defeat, began a tactical withdrawal from Sicily. One of the heroes of the action of July 31 received the Medal of Honor. Near Gagliano, Sicily, SGT Gerry H. Kisters, of Bloomington, IN, and nine other soldiers ``. . . were advancing ahead of the leading elements of U.S. troops to fill a large crater in the only available vehicle route through Gagliano,'' the award citation reads, and ``. . . was taken under fire by 2 enemy machineguns. Sgt. Kisters and the officer, unaided and in the face of intense small arms fire, advanced on the nearest machinegun emplacement and succeeded in capturing the gun and its crew of 4. Although the greater part of the remaining small arms fire was now directed on the captured machinegun position, Sgt. Kisters voluntarily advanced alone toward the second gun emplacement. While creeping forward, he was struck 5 times by enemy bullets, receiving wounds in both legs and his right arm. Despite the wounds, he continued to advance on the enemy, and captured the second machinegun after killing 3 of its crew and forcing the fourth member to flee.'' For his actions under fire Lieutenant Kisters received our Nation's highest military award, the Medal of Honor. Lieutenant Kisters, like so many Hoosiers before and since the Battle of Sicily, demonstrated the stalwart courage and self-sacrifice that is necessary to preserve the freedom and liberty that we all too often take for granted. Lieutenant Kisters, in addition to receiving the Medal of Honor, also received a Distinguished Service Cross and a Bronze Star during WWII, not to mention his Purple Heart, and continues to be remembered and honored in Indiana, where last year July 31 was named Gerry Kisters Day in Bloomington, and in 1945 Monroe County Airport was dedicated as Kisters Field in honor of the Medal of Honor awardee. As we recognize these historical events, I call attention to the 99,500 military personnel who today are on the ground in Afghanistan, with another 31,000 deployed to the region aboard ships at sea, on bases, and air stations in the region supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Mr. President, 48,110 personnel are deployed to Iraq, with another 32,000 deployed to the region aboard ships at sea, on bases, and air stations; 4,469 have been killed in Iraq operations since 2003, and 1,638 have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. These men and women continue to answer the call to serve a cause greater than themselves as those men did in Operation Husky 68 years ago this month. I ask my colleagues here today to join me in humbly honoring Lieutenant Kisters, and all those who have and continue to serve our Nation in uniform, for their inspirational service, selflessness, and sacrifice.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I recognize a fellow Hoosier, Mr. J. Michael Miley, as he nears the end of his term as the 106th chairman of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Mike is an executive with the Gibson Insurance Group in Plymouth, IN, and was installed as the association's chairman last September. Mike began his insurance career in 1973 and joined the Gibson Insurance Group in 1983. His relationship with the IIABA began in 1978, when he became a member of the Marshall-Fulton-Starke Counties Independent Insurance Agents Association, ultimately climbing the ranks to serve as its president. During his affiliation with the Independent Insurance Agents of Indiana, IIAI, Mike served at numerous posts, and was elected to the executive committee of IIAI and served as president in 1995. He was elected Indiana's State national director to the board of IIABA in 1997. Over the years, Mike has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the 1987 Chairman of the Year Award for his work on the New Products and Services Committee, Indiana Agent of the Year Award both in 1989 and 2006, Honorary Commissioner of Insurance in 1990, and in 1991 he was the first recipient of the Harry P. Cooper Public Image Award. On the national level, he has proven his leadership capabilities by serving on the boards of Membership Services, Inc., Agency Administrative Services, Inc., and Trusted Choice, Inc. Mike also held leadership roles as a board member of Big ``I'' Advantage, as chairman of IIAA Agency Administrative Services, Inc., and as a member of the Professional Liability Committee. Mike has also been very active in his community, including work with the United Way of Marshall County. His volunteer efforts with the group include fundraising as well as serving as a board member and president in 1998 and 1999. Mike attended Arizona State University and lives in Plymouth, IN, with his wife Cindy and their two children, Margaret and Matthew. I would like to commend Mike's commitment to his profession, his community, and our State of Indiana, and I wish him and his family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today, with several of my colleagues to recognize the outstanding service and contribution of a fellow Hoosier and life-long public servant, Dave Johnson. Dave first joined my staff in 1987 and he has been a brilliant resource to me over the years since then. Dave is a truly gifted individual. He is knowledgeable about all facets of agricultural and food policy and is able to see all of the potential opportunities and challenges with proposed legislation. Dave is always prepared to interact with a Member on the Senate floor during consideration of agriculture legislation, and equally at ease in dealing with Indiana constituents or farmers from anywhere in the United States. His mark can be found on countless pieces of Senate food and agriculture legislation, ranging from nutrition to biomass to conservation. Dave is always an available and willing resource to members on the Agriculture Committee, or other members from the Senate as a whole who seldom delve into agricultural policy discussions. Dave and I have shared one true passion over our years of service-- nutrition. I have long been an advocate of nutrition programs, and specifically a supporter of the school lunch program. It has been Dave's dedicated counsel and advice that has helped to shape these important programs into what they are today. I remember that on one occasion, while traveling back home in southern Indiana, I learned from my constituents of some of the deficiencies in a local summer children's nutrition program. I shared these concerns with Dave, and within a matter of days Dave responded to my request and had a bill on my desk. That legislation proposed a pilot project, which was approved by Congress, and today has been expanded to a nationwide program. Dave has never been intimidated by the vastness of diversity in agriculture. He has always been able to determine the appropriate solution to a real problem, and then draft the implementing legislation to go along with it. He is never too busy to take the time to mentor young staff members by sharing his vast knowledge and experience, and he is always willing to reach across the aisle to contribute to more effective results for American agriculture. Dave, I don't know how we will write a farm bill without you. You will be sincerely missed.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Acting President pro tempore. Mr. President, our debate today takes place in the context of deep economic uncertainty at home, coupled with extraordinary dangers overseas. Our country is suffering from high unemployment, with 9.1 percent of Americans out of work--many for years. Our national debt stands well above $14 trillion, and our credit rating is in doubt. Gas prices are still near $4 a gallon in many locations. The number of Americans requiring food stamp assistance has reached 45 million. Some businesses are returning to profitability but long-term economic growth is threatened by numerous forces, including the skyrocketing national debt, declining home values, high energy costs, and increased competition for export markets. Overseas, almost 100,000 American military personnel are fighting a difficult war in Afghanistan. More than 1,600 of our troops have been killed in Afghanistan, with roughly 12,000 wounded. Meanwhile, we still have 46,000 troops in Iraq, a deployment that has cost almost 4,500 American lives, with more than 32,000 wounded. Our troops have experienced multiple deployments over the last 8 years that have strained our Armed Forces. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are extremely high, with no resolution to the problem of North Korea's nuclear program. We continue to pursue international support for steps that could prevent Iran's nuclear program from producing a nuclear weapon. We remain concerned about stability in Pakistan and the security of that country's nuclear arsenal. We are attempting to counter terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan, East Africa, Yemen, and many other locations. Into this confluence of economic and national security commitments, the President has involved our Nation in a civil war in Libya. We find ourselves in a situation where Congress is debating vast cuts in domestic programs to make essential progress on the deficit, even as President Obama has initiated an expensive, open-ended military commitment in a country that his Defense Secretary said is not a vital interest. Any Member who has been here to witness the last 10 years should understand that war is an inherently precarious enterprise that is conducive to accidents, unintended consequences, and miscalculations. The last 10 years have also illuminated clearly that initiating wars and killing the enemy is far easier than achieving political stability and reconstructing a country when the fighting is over. This is why going to war should be based on U.S. vital interests. It is also why Congress has an essential role to play in scrutinizing executive branch rationalizations of wars and their ongoing management. This holds true no matter who is President or which war is being fought. The President stated he intervened in Libya in conjunction with the international community to save lives that would have been lost had Qadhafi's forces been left unchecked. But saving lives alone cannot be our standard for using military force. There is no end to the global humanitarian emergencies in which U.S. military and economic power might be devoted. Saying that American military power in Libya is morally justified is not the same as saying it is wise. There are many other questions that must be answered in a disciplined examination of whether to go to war. The administration placed much weight on expressions of approval by the United Nations and the Arab League. It is better to have international support than not when considering war. But neither of those institutions is determinative to an assessment of U.S. vital interests. Even after Qadhafi leaves power, we will be at risk of substantial costs. Already NATO has called for a U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed on the ground in Libya to help secure a transitional government. As the largest contributor to the United Nations, the U.S. probably will bear a significant share of that cost, even if no American troops participate. What follows Qadhafi's regime will be a true nation-building exercise. Despite massive natural resources, Libya was a poor and largely undeveloped country before the first NATO bomb fell. We have been assured that the Libyans will have the financial resources to pay for this reconstruction effort, but we have heard this assurance before. We have had ample experience during the last decade with the difficulties of reconstructing nations in which we have intervened. In justifying our intervention in Libya's civil war, the President has claimed that failure to do so would have emboldened other dictators to resort to violence in the face of popular protests. At a minimum, the unfolding tragedy in Syria is evidence that our intervention in Libya has done little, if anything, to deter such repression. In fact, I think it is more likely that dictators such as Bashar al- Assad have learned the opposite lesson from the Libyan example. That lesson is do not let an opposition force gain control of territory or the West might intervene to protect it from the sky. Is this the thinking behind the Syrian government's brutal military takeover of the cities along its border with Turkey? At the same time, our Libyan involvement has made it more difficult to obtain Security Council action of any sort, even rhetorical, against the Syrian regime. American intervention in Libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in Congress. In the broader strategic context that I have described, a civil war in Libya is not a priority that required American military and economic investments. It is an expensive diversion that leaves the United States and our European allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. President Obama's assertion that he does not need a congressional authorization to wage war in Libya represents a serious setback to the constitutional limits on Presidential war powers. Historians will point out that this is not the first time that a President has gone to war unilaterally. But saying that Presidents have exceeded their constitutional authority before is little comfort. Moreover, the Libya case is the one most likely to be cited the next time President Obama or a future President chooses to take the country to war without congressional approval. Declarations of war are not anachronistic exercises. They force the President to submit his case for war to Congress and the American public. They allow for a robust debate to examine that case, and they help gauge if there is sufficient political support to commit American blood and treasure. And they define the role and strategy of the United States. Neither U.N. Security Council resolutions nor administration briefings are a substitute for a declaration of war or other deliberate authorizations of military operations. Actions leading up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at least acknowledged that congressional authorization was vital to initiating and conducting war. Despite deep flaws in the process of authorizing those wars, there was recogition that both required a deliberate affirmative vote by Congress. During this debate there will be appeals to set aside discussion of war powers issues in favor of expressing support for the military mission underway. We will be asked to send a message to Colonel Qadhafi, notwithstanding our displeasure with President Obama's unilateralism. I understand that one can be for the Libya mission while simultaneously being critical of the President's failure to involve Congress in his decisionaking. But I also believe that it would be difficult to render a judgment on the Libya operation without reference to the process failures that have preceded this debate, for two reasons. First, in the long run, the significance of the war powers precedent created by President Obama's unilateral intervention in Libya and his subsequent rationalization for not needing congressional authority may be far more significant than the short term geopolitical consequences of what happens in Libya. Second, we are debating an authorization that the President has taken no affirmative action to seek, that he asserts is not necessary under the Constitution or the War Powers Act, and that presumably will have little impact on his actions. Even if one believes that the President somehow had the legal authority to initiate and continue U.S. military operations in Libya, it does not mean that going to war without Congress was either wise or helpful to the operation. There was no good reason why President Obama should have failed to seek congressional authorization to go to war in Libya. A few excuses have been offered ranging from an impending congressional recess to the authority provided by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. But these excuses do not justify the President's lack of constitutional discipline. Twelve days before the United States launched hostilities I called for the President to seek a declaration of war before taking military action. The Arab League resolution, which is cited as a key event in calculations on the war, was passed a full week before we started launching cruise missiles. There was time to seek congressional approval, and Congress would have debated a war resolution if the President had presented one. That debate would not have been easy. But Presidents should not be able to avoid constitutional responsibilities merely because engaging the people's representatives is inconvenient or uncertain. If the outcome of a congressional vote on war is in doubt, it is all the more reason why a President should seek a debate. If he does not, he is taking the extraordinary position that his plans for war are too important to be upset by a disapproving vote in Congress. The Founders believed that Presidents alone should not be trusted with war making authority, and they constructed checks against executive unilateralism. James Madison, in a 1797 letter to Thomas Jefferson, stated, ``The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.'' Clearly, there are circumstances under which a President might be justified in employing military force without congressional authorization. But as Senator Jim Webb has pointed out systematically, none of the reasons apply to the Libyan case. Our country was not attacked or threatened with an attack. We weren't obligated under a treaty to defend the Libyan people. We were not rescuing Americans or launching a one-time punitive retaliation. Nor did the operation require surprise that would have made a public debate impractical. In this case, President Obama made a deliberate decision not to seek a congressional authorization of his action, either before it commenced or during the last 3 months. This was a fundamental failure of leadership that placed expedience above constitutional responsibility. Moreover, the highly dubious arguments offered by the Obama administration for not needing congressional approval break new ground in justifying a unilateral Presidential decision to use force. The accrual of even more war making authority in the hands of the Executive is not in our country's best interest, especially at a time when our Nation is deeply in debt and our military is heavily committed overseas. At the outset of the conflict, the President asserted that U.S. military operations in Libya would be ``limited in their nature, duration, and scope.'' Three months later, these assurances ring hollow. American and coalition military activities have expanded to an all but declared campaign to drive Qadhafi from power. The administration is unable to specify any applicable limits to the duration of the operations. And the scope has grown from efforts to protect Libyan civilians under imminent threat to obliterating Libya's military arsenal, command and control structure, and leadership apparatus. Most recently, the administration has sought to avoid its obligations under the War Powers resolution by making the incredible assertion that U.S. military operations in Libya do not constitute hostilities, a view that has been rejected by many supporters of the war. Let us be clear that we are deliberately trying to overthrow the government of Libya with military force. We were instrumental in putting the alliance together, we were the major force behind the U.N. resolution authorizing the war, we set the table for the NATO operation through an intensive bombing campaign to open the war, our planes and drones continue to bomb Libya, and most missions flown by allied pilots are dependent on the intelligence and refueling capabilities that we are providing. The means that we are using to overthrow the Libyan government are limited in the sense that we could be applying more military force to the task, but the goal of the operation is not limited. We are using military force to achieve regime change. Defining these actions as something less than hostilities requires extraordinary legal contortions. Administration analysis focuses on the question of whether U.S. casualties are likely to occur, thereby minimizing other considerations relevant to the use of force. Such an interpretation would deny Congress a say in other questions that are obviously implicated in decisions to go to war, including the war's impact on U.S. strategic interests, on our relations with other countries, and on our ability to meet competing national security priorities. The administration also implies that because allied nations are flying most of the missions over Libya, the U.S. operations are not significant enough to require congressional authorization. This characterization underplays the centrality of the U.S. contribution to the NATO operations in Libya. We are contributing 70 percent of the coalition's intelligence capabilities and the majority of its refueling assets. The fact that we are leaving most of the shooting to other countries does not mean that the United States is not involved in acts of war. If the United States encountered persons performing similar activities in support of al Qaida or Taliban operations, we certainly would deem them to be participating in hostilities against us. This state of affairs is at odds with the President's own pronouncements on war powers during his Presidential candidacy. For example, in December 2007, he responded to a Boston Globe question by saying: ``The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'' American combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and our over-the-horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for Presidents. If we fail to come to grips with this now, I fear that we are setting the stage for Presidents to undertake other humanitarian interventions without congressional approval. The President does not have the authority to substitute his judgment for constitutional process when there is no emergency that threatens the United States and our vital interests. The world is full of examples of local and regional violence, to which the U.S. military could be applied for some altruistic purpose. Under the Constitution, the Congress is vested with the authority to determine which, if any, of these circumstances justify the consequences of American military intervention. The Foreign Relations Committee markup of S.J. Res. 20 significantly improved the resolution in several key respects. First, the committee adopted amendments that Senator Webb and I introduced, establishing legally binding prohibitions on the introduction of American ground troops and contractors into Libya. The original resolution addressed this issue only through nonbinding language that the President could have ignored. Second, the committee adopted an amendment I offered requiring specific reports on the Libya operation from the administration on strict deadlines. These deadlines were strengthened further by an amendment from Senator Bob Corker. The original resolution lacked sufficient provisions for congressional oversight of the operations, their costs, and their potential impact on other U.S. national security objectives. Third, I offered an amendment specifying that the War Powers resolution applies to current U.S. military operations in Libya, and that continuation of those operations requires congressional authorization. This was adopted by acclamation after Members on both sides delivered statements supporting the amendment. In doing so, the committee repudiated the administration's contention that U.S. operations in Libya do not constitute ``hostilities'' and therefore are not subject to the War Powers resolution. Fourth, the committee adopted a sense of the Congress amendment stating that postwar reconstruction costs should be borne primarily by the Libyan people and Arab League nations. Even with the success of these amendments, S.J. Res. 20 remains overly broad, despite its stated purpose of authorizing a limited use of force. Specifically, it contains no meaningful limits on the use of American air assets over Libya. This resolution clearly would give the President the authority to escalate the American role in the bombing campaign. I understand that some Members of the Senate may favor that course. But Members who have concerns about a re-escalation of the U.S. combat role should understand that passage of the resolution not only gives the President that authority, it makes such a re-escalation more likely. The defining limitation in S.J. Res. 20 is U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, which calls on nations to protect Libyan civilians. Effectively, any use of airpower consistent with this U.N. resolution is permitted under S.J. Res. 20. Using resolution 1973 as justification, the President already engaged in an intensive bombing campaign against Libyan targets at the beginning of our intervention. By definition, the administration and our allies would regard S.J. Res. 20 as permitting at least the intensity of American bombing that was undertaken in the first week of the war. Moreover, President Obama publicly has defined the removal of Colonel Qadhafi as in the interest of protecting Libyan civilians. From the administration's point of view, almost any airstrike that degrades Libyan military capabilities or contributes in some way to the potential for the ouster of Qadhafi can be justified as contributing to the protection of civilians. This could include the use of slower fixed wing aircraft flying close air support missions and perhaps helicopters. Passage of this resolution does not guarantee that there will be a full-scale re-escalation, but if President Obama is armed with this resolution and if the Libyan operation drags on, it is almost inevitable that the American role in Libya will expand. We know that some of our allies are running short of munitions. We also know that public opinion in some allied nations may trend against continuing this mission. Our military is the best and most capable in the world. If the President has this broad authorization from Congress in hand, allies will be far more confident that the United States will pick up the slack if they withdraw or limit their participation. In a recent press conference, the President said, ``There's no risks of additional escalation.'' But the only barrier to escalation would be the decision- making of the President himself. I do not believe that our intervention in the Libyan civil war was prudent in the context of U.S. vital interests. I continue to be concerned that the U.S. role in Libya will escalate, that Libya reconstruction burdens could fall on our country, and that the Libyan operation siphons attention and resources away from more important national security priorities. I cannot support the broad mandate that this resolution would give to the President to expand U.S. military activities over Libya. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing adoption of S.J. Res. 20. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand our leader, Senator McConnell, is asking we speak for no more than 10 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 25 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we discuss and debate the future of medical care for all citizens in our Nation, it is appropriate to take a few moments to salute heroes who make a truly life saving difference. June 3, 2011, was a very special day for me and my wife Charlene. We received the joyous news that a great-grandson, Lukas Robert Corwin, had been born in Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, IN. I was privileged to visit Lukas early in the morning on the next day and to congratulate his proud parents, Jonathan and Christie Corwin. At that time, we had been informed that Lukas would require heart surgery in a few weeks and would probably remain in the hospital until the date of surgery. Suddenly, just 2 weeks after his birth, it was apparent that Lukas could barely breathe and that his heart rate had dropped into the 40s. His evening nurse performed oral care. Dr. Turrentine determined that the surgery must occur immediately and we prayed as Jonathan and Christie accompanied Lukas to the surgical area with the support of Ariana, Christie's favorite nurse, Chrissy, Lukas' evening nurse, Andrew, a medical student, Abby, another nurse, and Dr. Turrentine. These remarkable medical heroes for the next few hours performed miraculous procedures that brought the ordeal of Lukas to a very successful conclusion. I salute all of the life saving procedures and the gifted persons who were able to use them so well in truly saving the life of a beautiful little boy. Our prayers are now with Lukas, his parents, grandparents, and the dedicated teams of life saving persons at Riley Hospital.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am pleased to welcome the President of Mongolia, His Excellency Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, a renowned promoter of democracy and a longtime friend of the United States. As a leader of the peaceful democratic revolution in Mongolia in 1990, President Elbegdorj was a pioneer of freedom in Mongolia. His distinguished service to Mongolia includes serving as Prime Minister and Vice Speaker of the Great Hural/Parliament. The United States recognized Mongolia in 1987 and established our first Embassy in Ulaanbaatar in 1988. We have supported Mongolia in its move toward democracy and market-oriented reforms. Our partnership with Mongolia is vibrant and growing with multiple intersects covering trade and economic issues, defense cooperation, and people-to-people programs. Mongolia is also active in regional and global affairs and would be an appropriate host for future multilateral talks related to North Korea and its nuclear weapons program. Since 2003, Mongolian troops have been deployed in support of coalition operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Mongolia has deployed over 3,000 personnel on U.N. peacekeeping missions in approximately 10 countries. I appreciate this opportunity to convey my appreciation for the personal leadership of President Elbegdorj and his important contribution to the growing of Mongolia-U.S. relations.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Bobby Fong, the outgoing president of Butler University. Since becoming Butler University's 20th president on June 1, 2001, Dr. Fong's leadership and vision have brought financial stability, expanded academic programs, and recordbreaking student enrollment and fundraising. Many are aware of Butler's prowess on the basketball court, which has introduced the Nation to ``The Butler Way.'' Dr. Fong has further enhanced Butler University's role as a cultural and intellectual pillar of the city of Indianapolis and Indiana as a whole. I am proud of the recognition and prestige Dr. Fong and Butler University have brought to our State. Personally, I have enjoyed many meetings with Dr. Fong over the years and appreciate his welcoming me to deliver the commencement address for the Butler College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences in May of 2010. Dr. Fong's enthusiasm and leadership have ensured the success of the annual Dick Lugar Run, Walk, and Health Fair, which has been held on the Butler campus for the last 32 years. I have treasured this partnership with the school, which has served to promote physical fitness and disease prevention. I appreciate this opportunity to recognize Dr. Fong, and I look forward to many more opportunities to work closely with him as he pursues new challenges and opportunities.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will lead to the establishment of the Haitian-American Enterprise Fund. The Haitian-American Enterprise Fund bill authorizes the Administration to allocate, from existing resources, such sums as required to create the Fund. The mission of the Fund will be to help empower Haiti's private sector to create jobs, which will contribute towards achieving long- term social stability and economic growth. Last month, I asked six of the most distinguished directors of the former enterprise funds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to travel to Haiti to evaluate the current status of Haiti's private sector, the scope of U.S. Government efforts targeting sustainable job creation, and the role, if any, an enterprise fund might play there in promoting economic growth. Led by Kim Davis, a founder of the private equity firm Charlesbank Capital Partners, each member of the Delegation has had a very successful private sector career and each traveled to Haiti, at his or her own expense, in order to provide the Congress an experienced perspective as to whether proven economic growth strategies they employed to strengthen other fragile countries might work in Haiti. They were also asked to describe what immediate actions they would recommend, if any, to jump-start Haiti's private sector, with a particular emphasis on entrepreneurship, and other initiatives that could assist Haiti in its necessary transition to a nation with a middle class and a market economy. In a recent letter to me, Haitian President-elect Michel Martelly noted he is fully supportive of efforts to create an enterprise fund for Haiti. Enterprise funds have historically filled important voids in the nascent capital markets of fragile economies. President-elect Martelly has indicated a keen interest in creating an enterprise fund in order to generate lending vehicles for mortgages and agricultural loans--as housing and agricultural production rank among his top priorities. There are many other voids in Haiti's economy that have been identified, which previous enterprise funds have effectively worked to address in other countries. The Delegation's report makes clear that enterprise funds are not silver bullets. However, at a time when we face significant domestic and global economic challenges, the enterprise fund model, if implemented effectively, provides a proven vehicle by which the U.S. Government can leverage the extensive intellectual and financial capital of the American business community in order to help address these challenges in underdeveloped economies such as that of Haiti. As an example, the Polish Fund received a USG grant of $240 million in 1990 and used that to attract more than $2.3 billion to Poland over the next several years. Since Senator Leahy and I introduced legislation authorizing the creation of an enterprise fund for Haiti in April 2010, the Administration has requested that enterprise funds also be created for Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan. Such keen interest in utilizing the enterprise fund model for advancing sustainable economic growth is welcomed. Empowering a group of U.S. citizens who understand democratic capitalism to help translate our foreign assistance strategies into practical actions will complement the important work performed by our capable diplomats and development experts. The May 14, 2011 inauguration of Mr. Martelly as President of Haiti provides an opportunity to start anew. Congress should aide the President-elect in this important effort by honoring his request for the creation of a Haitian-American Enterprise Fund. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will lead to the establishment of the Haitian-American Enterprise Fund. The Haitian-American Enterprise Fund bill authorizes the Administration to allocate, from existing resources, such sums as required to create the Fund. The mission of the Fund will be to help empower Haiti's private sector to create jobs, which will contribute towards achieving long- term social stability and economic growth. Last month, I asked six of the most distinguished directors of the former enterprise funds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to travel to Haiti to evaluate the current status of Haiti's private sector, the scope of U.S. Government efforts targeting sustainable job creation, and the role, if any, an enterprise fund might play there in promoting economic growth. Led by Kim Davis, a founder of the private equity firm Charlesbank Capital Partners, each member of the Delegation has had a very successful private sector career and each traveled to Haiti, at his or her own expense, in order to provide the Congress an experienced perspective as to whether proven economic growth strategies they employed to strengthen other fragile countries might work in Haiti. They were also asked to describe what immediate actions they would recommend, if any, to jump-start Haiti's private sector, with a particular emphasis on entrepreneurship, and other initiatives that could assist Haiti in its necessary transition to a nation with a middle class and a market economy. In a recent letter to me, Haitian President-elect Michel Martelly noted he is fully supportive of efforts to create an enterprise fund for Haiti. Enterprise funds have historically filled important voids in the nascent capital markets of fragile economies. President-elect Martelly has indicated a keen interest in creating an enterprise fund in order to generate lending vehicles for mortgages and agricultural loans--as housing and agricultural production rank among his top priorities. There are many other voids in Haiti's economy that have been identified, which previous enterprise funds have effectively worked to address in other countries. The Delegation's report makes clear that enterprise funds are not silver bullets. However, at a time when we face significant domestic and global economic challenges, the enterprise fund model, if implemented effectively, provides a proven vehicle by which the U.S. Government can leverage the extensive intellectual and financial capital of the American business community in order to help address these challenges in underdeveloped economies such as that of Haiti. As an example, the Polish Fund received a USG grant of $240 million in 1990 and used that to attract more than $2.3 billion to Poland over the next several years. Since Senator Leahy and I introduced legislation authorizing the creation of an enterprise fund for Haiti in April 2010, the Administration has requested that enterprise funds also be created for Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan. Such keen interest in utilizing the enterprise fund model for advancing sustainable economic growth is welcomed. Empowering a group of U.S. citizens who understand democratic capitalism to help translate our foreign assistance strategies into practical actions will complement the important work performed by our capable diplomats and development experts. The May 14, 2011 inauguration of Mr. Martelly as President of Haiti provides an opportunity to start anew. Congress should aide the President-elect in this important effort by honoring his request for the creation of a Haitian-American Enterprise Fund. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish today to take the opportunity to express my congratulations to the winners of the 2010-2011 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest. In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for 8th 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. The theme chosen for this year was ``Agriculture: Then and Now.'' Along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, I am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years. I applaud each of this year's participants on their thoughtful work and wish, especially, to highlight the submissions of the 2010-2011 contest winners Alexis J. Carmony of Falmouth, Indiana, and Collin Bowlin of Jasper, Indiana. I submit for the Record the complete text of Alexis's and Collin's respective essays. I am pleased, also, to include the names of the many district and county winners of the contest. The essays and winners follow. Agriculture: Then and Now (By Alexis J. Carmony) Indiana agriculture is important to me because of the basic values it instills in my life. Agriculture is about hard work, appreciation for life and living things, the importance of our soil and water conservation, perseverance, ability to overcome hardships, and being creative in dealing with factors beyond man's control. Indiana agriculture has an amazing responsibility. Years ago, Indiana farmers were proud to feed their families from the farm; today Indiana farmers are proud to feed the world from their farms. The heart of Indiana agriculture has not changed from decades ago. Past generations had to physically work hard to produce their product, whereas the present generations have to work as hard for the skill it takes to market their product. From the time I went with my great grandfather to feed his cattle and sensed his love for those animals, I was hooked on agriculture. Even when those animals did not cooperate, grandpa still loved them. He has cared for livestock for years, and he enjoys it today as he did years ago. My great grandfather continues to be active in Indiana agriculture today and models what agriculture is all about: hard work, appreciation for livestock and plants, and good stewardship of our earth. In closing, I will leave you with a quote from William Jennings Bryan, ``American Politician and Orator''; 1860- 1925, that summarizes my thoughts on Indiana agriculture. ``Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.'' I believe agriculture was the foundation of our country then and still is today.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, from 1987 until 2002, I served as either the chairman or ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. The jurisdiction of the committee is quite broad. One important portion of that jurisdiction is food and nutrition programs. During my years of service on the Agriculture Committee, the committee has considered several significant changes in the food and nutrition programs. However, one constant presence throughout all those changes was Joe Richardson of the Congressional Research Service. Now, after 40 years at the Congressional Research Service, Joe has decided to retire. Joe's thorough knowledge of the history and programmatic details of nutrition programs was vitally important in those deliberations. Moreover, his cogent, thoughtful, and nonpartisan analysis was respected on, and sought after by, both sides of the aisle, both chambers of Congress, and within the administrations of both parties. During deliberations on important legislation, Joe's willingness to be available to committee staff on evenings, weekends and holidays was much appreciated. I am pleased to join my colleagues in thanking Joe Richardson for his 40 years of service and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to support the StartUp Visa Act of 2011, as the leading Republican cosponsor, because I believe this legislation will increase the possibility that companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Proctor & Gamble--which were all started completely or in part by immigrant entrepreneurs--will continue to be founded in America. This legislation will help immigrant entrepreneurs like Paroon Chadha, Purdue University alumnus and cofounder of a company that currently employs more than two dozen American-born Hoosiers and continues to grow--as demonstrated by plans to hire four additional staff members in April 2011. Paroon and I believe America remains the best country in the world to do business and that we should continue attracting immigrant entrepreneurs to help drive innovation and job creation here at home. At a time when our country struggles to achieve full economic recovery, foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to establish companies and create jobs in the United States, often with the financial backing of American investors, are instead operating from other countries because they find the process of immigrating to the U.S. too difficult. The logic of our current approach places America at a competitive disadvantage in the global race to attract the very best talent and is counterproductive to our national interest. According to a 2009 survey of American entrepreneurs conducted by the Kauffman Foundation, an overwhelming majority of the participants felt that ``the United States cannot have a sustained economic recovery without another burst of entrepreneurial activity.'' Over the past 15 years, immigrant entrepreneurs have started 25 percent of venture- backed public companies and 40 percent of companies in the high technology sector. A 2007 report commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association noted that the market capitalization of publically traded venture-backed companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs exceeded $500 billion. The StartUp visa represents a commonsense solution to this problem and does not require the creation of new visas. The bill proposes to draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which is a set-aside of visas for immigrants who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Many more visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category than are used, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs will not require additional visas. Better utilizing existing visas, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the United States would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa if a qualified American investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After 2 years, their business must have created five new jobs and raised not less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $500,000 in revenue. Additionally, immigrant entrepreneurs currently residing in the United States on an unexpired H-1B visa or immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the country who have completed a graduate level degree in science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp visa. Eligibility in each of these cases is contingent upon the immigrant entrepreneur demonstrating that they will be self-sufficient and that a qualified U.S. investor will financially back their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $20,000. After 2 years, their business must have created three new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue. Finally, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. who have controlling interest of a company based in a foreign country that has generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than $100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa. At the conclusion of 2 years, this immigrant entrepreneur must have created three new jobs in the U.S. and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue. Immigrant entrepreneurs want to come to America, hire Americans, and create jobs right here for Americans--and we should be helping them come. Senator Kerry and I believe that it is in our national interest to encourage those who can help drive the next generation of innovation to do it here, not someplace else. This plan has the support of investors, immigrants, technology organizations, and taxpayers. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to support the StartUp Visa Act of 2011, as the leading Republican cosponsor, because I believe this legislation will increase the possibility that companies such as Google, Intel, Yahoo and Proctor & Gamble--which were all started completely or in part by immigrant entrepreneurs--will continue to be founded in America. This legislation will help immigrant entrepreneurs like Paroon Chadha, Purdue University alumnus and cofounder of a company that currently employs more than two dozen American-born Hoosiers and continues to grow--as demonstrated by plans to hire four additional staff members in April 2011. Paroon and I believe America remains the best country in the world to do business and that we should continue attracting immigrant entrepreneurs to help drive innovation and job creation here at home. At a time when our country struggles to achieve full economic recovery, foreign-born entrepreneurs who wish to establish companies and create jobs in the United States, often with the financial backing of American investors, are instead operating from other countries because they find the process of immigrating to the U.S. too difficult. The logic of our current approach places America at a competitive disadvantage in the global race to attract the very best talent and is counterproductive to our national interest. According to a 2009 survey of American entrepreneurs conducted by the Kauffman Foundation, an overwhelming majority of the participants felt that ``the United States cannot have a sustained economic recovery without another burst of entrepreneurial activity.'' Over the past 15 years, immigrant entrepreneurs have started 25 percent of venture- backed public companies and 40 percent of companies in the high technology sector. A 2007 report commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association noted that the market capitalization of publically traded venture-backed companies founded by immigrant entrepreneurs exceeded $500 billion. The StartUp visa represents a commonsense solution to this problem and does not require the creation of new visas. The bill proposes to draw from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which is a set-aside of visas for immigrants who invest at least $1 million in the U.S., and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card. In areas where unemployment is high, foreign nationals need only invest $500,000 to obtain residency. Many more visas are annually allocated for the EB-5 category than are used, so the addition of immigrant entrepreneurs will not require additional visas. Better utilizing existing visas, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the United States would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa if a qualified American investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After 2 years, their business must have created five new jobs and raised not less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $500,000 in revenue. Additionally, immigrant entrepreneurs currently residing in the United States on an unexpired H-1B visa or immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the country who have completed a graduate level degree in science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp visa. Eligibility in each of these cases is contingent upon the immigrant entrepreneur demonstrating that they will be self-sufficient and that a qualified U.S. investor will financially back their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $20,000. After 2 years, their business must have created three new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue. Finally, immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. who have controlling interest of a company based in a foreign country that has generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than $100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp visa. At the conclusion of 2 years, this immigrant entrepreneur must have created three new jobs in the U.S. and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue. Immigrant entrepreneurs want to come to America, hire Americans, and create jobs right here for Americans--and we should be helping them come. Senator Kerry and I believe that it is in our national interest to encourage those who can help drive the next generation of innovation to do it here, not someplace else. This plan has the support of investors, immigrants, technology organizations, and taxpayers. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I recognize a remarkable Hoosier, Mrs. Lilly Nutter of Warren, IN, who has worked diligently in her own way to provide a measure of comfort to more than 1,000 servicemembers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. After a career with the Department of Defense that included service in California and at Grissom Air Force Base in my State of Indiana, Mrs. Nutter retired to her husband's hometown of Warren where she is active with the Welcome Wagon, the Chamber of Commerce, the Cancer Society, and the food pantry. However, I especially admire Mrs. Nutter's work on behalf of our servicemembers. In 2003, Mrs. Nutter was contacted by her grandson Kent Dolasky, who was serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Her grandson shared his concern that some of his fellow soldiers did not receive packages from their friends and family during their deployment. Always looking for a new opportunity to help others, Mrs. Nutter got to work collecting candy, toiletries, and other items that would bring a smile to the faces of servicemembers during time away from their loved ones and the comforts of home. Her efforts, however, did not conclude when her grandson and his unit returned home. Since 2003, Mrs. Nutter has worked with her family and friends both in her community and across the country to collect goods that have been assembled into more than 1,000 care packages. I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in thanking Mrs. Nutter for her remarkable work on behalf of our servicemembers and in recognizing her spirit of care and compassion for those who risk their lives defending our Nation abroad.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment, normal trade relations treatment, to the products of Moldova. This legislation would repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moldovan products. Moldova has been in compliance with Jackson-Vanik-related concerns for some time now, and repeal of this legislation will provide an important impetus for improving trade relations between the United States and Moldova, advancing Moldova's Western ambitions, and laying the foundation for closer U.S.-Moldovan political engagement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment, normal trade relations treatment, to the products of Moldova. This legislation would repeal the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moldovan products. Moldova has been in compliance with Jackson-Vanik-related concerns for some time now, and repeal of this legislation will provide an important impetus for improving trade relations between the United States and Moldova, advancing Moldova's Western ambitions, and laying the foundation for closer U.S.-Moldovan political engagement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I introduce the Nunn-Lugar Global Cooperative Threat Reduction Improvement Act of 2011. For many years, I have labored to ensure that the global Nunn-Lugar program has the flexibility it needs. Now that the global Nunn-Lugar program has begun to undertake important biological threat reduction campaigns in Africa and other regions, I believe the need has arisen to reexamine the authorities we have provided to the program to ensure that it can effectively implement projects around the globe. These projects protect the American people from nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation. The record of the global Nunn-Lugar program has been impressive. The results now total: 7,599 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated; 791 intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, destroyed; 498 ICBM silos eliminated; 180 ICBM mobile launchers destroyed; 669 submarine launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, eliminated; 492 SLBM launchers eliminated; 32 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed; 155 bombers eliminated; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, ASMs, destroyed; 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated; and 507 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured. We have also upgraded security at 24 nuclear weapons storage sites; built and equipped 20 biological monitoring stations; and neutralized 1,742 metric tons of Russian and Albanian chemical weapons agent. In addition to authorities to operate worldwide, the global Nunn- Lugar program has been granted much needed flexibility in carrying out its mission. The global Nunn-Lugar program has been granted notwithstanding authority to spend up to 10 percent of annual program funds notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to accept funds from foreign governments and other entities to contribute to activities carried out under the global Nunn-Lugar program. This flexibility came after more than a decade of work to eliminate annual certifications on global Nunn-Lugar assistance that hampered the ability of the United States to use the global Nunn-Lugar program quickly and effectively. The certification and waiver processes consumed hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. I argued that this time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Former Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph noted during his confirmation process that, at the time, more than a dozen individual steps were required in the State Department alone to complete these annual certifications and waivers. After a strong vote in the Senate, Congress eliminated these annual certifications. In 2003, I sought authority to use Nunn-Lugar funds outside states of the former Soviet Union. This was favored by the Bush administration. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, provides that the Secretary of Defense may spend Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for a proliferation threat reduction project or activity outside the states of the former Soviet Union if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines that such projects or activities will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long- standing nonproliferation goals. The law specifies that the Secretary of Defense may not obligate funds for projects or activities until the Secretary of State concurs in a determination regarding these projects and activities and in notifying Congress. The Secretary of State is also involved in subsequent steps before the global Nunn-Lugar program can put boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the State Department has not been efficient in carrying out concurrences required by existing law. It is troubling that, after eliminating the lengthy certification processes of the 1990s, equally burdensome and ultimately un-executable interagency concurrence, determination and notification processes for the global Nunn-Lugar program are limiting accomplishments. The bill I introduce today remedies this situation by providing that the Secretary of Defense be given sole authority regarding global Nunn- Lugar funds--to include making all relevant determinations and notifications to Congress. Originally, this authority had been given to the President. I worked to delegate it to the Secretary of Defense. When it was given by Congress to the Secretary of Defense, State Department officials insisted they had a role in the process. We have now had time to observe how this works in practice, and the result is clear: it does not function in a manner consistent with the intent of law. Congress clearly intended that efficiency and immediacy accompany this authority. I do not believe that reserving this authority to the Secretary of Defense means that the State Department does not play a role in other efforts; however, in the reorganized non-proliferation and arms control bureaus who oversee these matters within the State Department, as well as in its regional bureaus, it is the case that simply adding bureaucratic boxes to check has had little positive result. Too often, bureaucratic politics and inertia have intervened to prevent timely success. We must work to ensure that our implementers have the tools and authorities they need to perform their missions in the Defense Department. It is to this end that I offer this simple bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain on the Armed Services Committee on this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I introduce the Nunn-Lugar Global Cooperative Threat Reduction Improvement Act of 2011. For many years, I have labored to ensure that the global Nunn-Lugar program has the flexibility it needs. Now that the global Nunn-Lugar program has begun to undertake important biological threat reduction campaigns in Africa and other regions, I believe the need has arisen to reexamine the authorities we have provided to the program to ensure that it can effectively implement projects around the globe. These projects protect the American people from nuclear, chemical and biological proliferation. The record of the global Nunn-Lugar program has been impressive. The results now total: 7,599 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated; 791 intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, destroyed; 498 ICBM silos eliminated; 180 ICBM mobile launchers destroyed; 669 submarine launched ballistic missiles, SLBMs, eliminated; 492 SLBM launchers eliminated; 32 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed; 155 bombers eliminated; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles, ASMs, destroyed; 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated; and 507 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured. We have also upgraded security at 24 nuclear weapons storage sites; built and equipped 20 biological monitoring stations; and neutralized 1,742 metric tons of Russian and Albanian chemical weapons agent. In addition to authorities to operate worldwide, the global Nunn- Lugar program has been granted much needed flexibility in carrying out its mission. The global Nunn-Lugar program has been granted notwithstanding authority to spend up to 10 percent of annual program funds notwithstanding any other provision of law. The Secretary of Defense has the authority to accept funds from foreign governments and other entities to contribute to activities carried out under the global Nunn-Lugar program. This flexibility came after more than a decade of work to eliminate annual certifications on global Nunn-Lugar assistance that hampered the ability of the United States to use the global Nunn-Lugar program quickly and effectively. The certification and waiver processes consumed hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. I argued that this time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country. Former Under Secretary of State Bob Joseph noted during his confirmation process that, at the time, more than a dozen individual steps were required in the State Department alone to complete these annual certifications and waivers. After a strong vote in the Senate, Congress eliminated these annual certifications. In 2003, I sought authority to use Nunn-Lugar funds outside states of the former Soviet Union. This was favored by the Bush administration. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, provides that the Secretary of Defense may spend Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for a proliferation threat reduction project or activity outside the states of the former Soviet Union if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines that such projects or activities will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long- standing nonproliferation goals. The law specifies that the Secretary of Defense may not obligate funds for projects or activities until the Secretary of State concurs in a determination regarding these projects and activities and in notifying Congress. The Secretary of State is also involved in subsequent steps before the global Nunn-Lugar program can put boots on the ground. Unfortunately, the State Department has not been efficient in carrying out concurrences required by existing law. It is troubling that, after eliminating the lengthy certification processes of the 1990s, equally burdensome and ultimately un-executable interagency concurrence, determination and notification processes for the global Nunn-Lugar program are limiting accomplishments. The bill I introduce today remedies this situation by providing that the Secretary of Defense be given sole authority regarding global Nunn- Lugar funds--to include making all relevant determinations and notifications to Congress. Originally, this authority had been given to the President. I worked to delegate it to the Secretary of Defense. When it was given by Congress to the Secretary of Defense, State Department officials insisted they had a role in the process. We have now had time to observe how this works in practice, and the result is clear: it does not function in a manner consistent with the intent of law. Congress clearly intended that efficiency and immediacy accompany this authority. I do not believe that reserving this authority to the Secretary of Defense means that the State Department does not play a role in other efforts; however, in the reorganized non-proliferation and arms control bureaus who oversee these matters within the State Department, as well as in its regional bureaus, it is the case that simply adding bureaucratic boxes to check has had little positive result. Too often, bureaucratic politics and inertia have intervened to prevent timely success. We must work to ensure that our implementers have the tools and authorities they need to perform their missions in the Defense Department. It is to this end that I offer this simple bill. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain on the Armed Services Committee on this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have had numerous opportunities to comment on the amazing life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan. He had bold ideas and the courage to see them through. He was the true embodiment of the American success story. I have often referred to the fact that he was charismatic, determined and consistent, and he enjoyed a remarkable batting average of being right. It has always been a point of great pride to me that my voting record was supportive of President Reagan's positions more than any other Member of the Senate. As the Senate commemorates the 100th anniversary of President Reagan's birth, I want to share with my colleagues and the public a speech I wrote when President Reagan was given the Hudson Institute James Doolittle Award. It was November 22, 1991, and it was a tumultuous time for Washington and the world. Yet you could still see the sparkle in the President's eyes and his warmth and good humor. What we did not know was that President Reagan's effort to end the Cold War was quickly coming to fruition. Within days, on December 1, Ukraine would vote to break away from the Soviet Union, and on Christmas Day, Mikhail Gorbachev announced the end of the USSR. During his Presidency, when President Reagan decided to renew arms control negotiations with the Soviets, he had the wisdom and political strength to ask the Senate to form an official observer group so that there would be understanding and support for any treaty coming out of the negotiations. As cochair of the Arms Control Observer Group, I worked closely with Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and began a partnership with him that continued for many years. Subsequently, after the failed coup against Gorbachev in the summer of 1991, we heard from Soviet officials we had met that they were worried about the control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal as political events unfolded. By that November when President Reagan was being honored, Senator Nunn and I succeeded in passage of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. Thanks to his leadership and vision, President Reagan helped build the foundation for the Nunn-Lugar Program. Now thousands of missiles and warheads, any one of which could have destroyed my city of Indianapolis, have been eliminated. The success of the Nunn-Lugar Program is a clear derivative of President Reagan's legacy. Thank you, President Reagan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the speech I wrote in honor of President Reagan when he received the Hudson Institute James Doolittle Award.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I join with the sentiments just expressed by the chairman. I very much appreciate the statements made by Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, who has worked diligently throughout the hearings, the markup, and this debate. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment that they have offered, 4904, as modified.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to seize the moment, along with my distinguished chairman, because we are indebted to all the great people he has enumerated, to embellish his congratulations by mentioning that we are grateful, first of all, that the President invited Senator Kerry and me to be part of conversations on two occasions during the negotiation of the treaty. That, we thought, was very valuable and gave us some insight as to where the negotiators were headed and to offer what counsel we could about those issues we felt were important and those issues we were certain all Senators would feel were important as we sought ratification of the New START treaty. Likewise, those conversations were carried on rigorously by the Vice President, our former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, who has worked with Senator Kerry and with me over the course of three decades or so of active participation and several arms control treaties. Vice President Biden has a very good idea of how the ratification process works and what counsel he can give, not only to us but to all Members and colleagues with whom he has worked so well in the past. I am especially pleased, likewise, that Rose Gottemoeller, who headed the negotiation team, has been very available to Senators throughout the time of the negotiation abroad and during her trips to Washington and certainly throughout the hearings the Foreign Relations Committee held. We are indebted, in fact, to all the witnesses who came before our committee in the 16 hearings that have often been enumerated in conversation on the floor. The witnesses were generous with their time, very forthcoming with their testimony and followup questions the Senators had. Because of that testimony, there is a very solid block of support for the treaty based upon these distinguished Americans who have had enormous experience, not only with arms control treaties but the actual implementation of these with the former Soviet Union--and now with Russia--in the past. I am indebted, as John Kerry is, to Ken Myers, Tom Moore and Mike Mattler of our staff and to Marik String and Corey Gill. I cite these five members of a very devoted staff who have devoted extraordinary talents and time and devotion to the treaty formulation and to the counsel they have given me, for which I am very much indebted. Finally, I thank all the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their diligence and attendance at hearings and their questioning of each other, as well as the witnesses and the discussions we have had both in informal and formal sessions. We have had a difference of opinions. Our views were not unanimous in the 14-to-4 vote by which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent this New START treaty to the floor. But I respect deeply each of those views, and I respect the ways in which members of the committee have participated during this very important debate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the Senate approaches a point of decision on the New START treaty, I would like to offer a few concluding thoughts. My attitudes towards the enterprise of arms control have been affected by the time I have spent during the last two decades visiting remote areas of Russia in an effort to bolster Nunn-Lugar dismantlement operations. When one sees Russian SS-18 ballistic missiles being cut up at Surovatikha, or when one witnesses the dismantlement of a Typhoon ballistic missile submarine at the SevMash facility on the approaches to the Barents Sea, one gets a clear picture of the enormity of the problem that confronted us during the Cold War. With all the destructive power that was created during that era amidst intense suspicion and enmity between the United States and the former Soviet Union, we were extraordinarily fortunate to have avoided a mishap that could have destroyed American civilization. During the last two decades, we have circumscribed the nuclear problem, but we have not eliminated it. Our cities remain vulnerable to accident, miscalculation, and proliferation stemming from the Russian nuclear arsenal. And we still must pay very close attention to the disposition of Russian nuclear forces. Visiting dismantlement operations in Russia also underscores that arms control is a technically challenging endeavor. In these debates we generally focus on the balance of nuclear forces, deterrence theories, diplomatic maneuvers, and other aspects of high statecraft. But arms control is also a ``nuts and bolts'' enterprise involving thousands of American and Russian technicians, officials, and military personnel. Verification and dismantlement activities require tremendous cooperation on mundane engineering challenges, equipment and supply logistics, and legal frameworks that allow these activities to proceed. Ironically the exacting nature of arms verification and elimination may be a blessing. The challenges of this work and the amount of information that both sides are required to exchange have improved transparency and forced our countries to build productive partnerships over time. The Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on June 24 in which Defense Department officials in charge of verification and dismantlement activities in the former Soviet Union testified. These officials oversee dismantlement work in Russia that occurs every day. Their agencies oversaw verification under START I before the treaty expired on December 5, 2009. They would oversee the verification work required under the New START treaty. They described in detail how verification operations are conducted and gave Senators a picture of how the United States and Russia cooperate on technically challenging nonproliferation goals. Only five members of the committee attended that hearing. I wish that every Senator could have attended, because the presentation underscored how much the START process links our two defense establishments and how critical the START framework is to nonproliferation activities. Mr. President, there is a maxim that has been popularized in American cinema, variants of which have sometimes been attributed to early political philosophers such as Sun Tsu or Machiavelli. It is ``Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.'' I am not suggesting that Russia is an enemy. Our relationship with that country is far more complex. It is a relationship that is both wary and hopeful. We admire the Russian people and their cultural and scientific achievements, while lamenting continuing restrictions on their civil and political liberties. We recognize the potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation based on deep commonalities in our history and geography, even as we are frustrated that Cold War sensibilities are difficult to dislodge. Although we can and must make situational judgments to engage Russia, such engagement is no guarantee that we will experience a convergence of perceived interests or the elimination of friction. But one does not have to abandon one's skepticism of the Russian Government or dismiss contentious foreign policy disagreements with Moscow to invest in the practical enterprise of nuclear verification and transparency. In fact, it is precisely the friction in our broader relationship that makes this treaty so important. It would be an incredible strategic blunder to sever our START relationship with Russia when that country still possesses thousands of nuclear weapons. We would be distancing ourselves from a historic rival in the area where our national security is most affected and where cooperation already has delivered successes. When it comes to our nuclear arsenals we want to keep Russia close. There are enough centripetal forces at work without abandoning a START process that has prevented surprises and miscalculations for 15 years. The New START agreement came about because the United States and Russia, despite differences on many geopolitical issues, do have coincident interests on specific matters of nuclear security. We share an interest in limiting competition on expensive weapons systems that do little to enhance the productivity of our respective societies. We share an interest in achieving predictability with regard to each other's nuclear forces so we are not left guessing about equal potential vulnerabilities. We share an interest in cooperating broadly on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. And we share an interest in maintaining lines of communication between our political and military establishments that are based on the original START agreement. Over the last 7 months the Senate has performed due diligence on the New START treaty. Most importantly, we have gathered and probed military opinion about what the treaty would mean for our national defense. We have heard from the top military leadership, as well as the commanders who oversee our nuclear weapons and our missile defense. We have heard from former Secretaries of Defense and STRATCOM commanders who have confirmed the judgment of current military leaders. Their answers have demonstrated a carefully-reasoned military consensus in favor of ratifying the treaty. Rejection of such a consensus on a treaty that affects fundamental questions of nuclear deterrence would be an extraordinary action for the Senate to take. Moreover, the treaty review process has produced a much stronger American political consensus in favor of modernization of our nuclear forces and implementation of our miile defense plans. This includes explicit commitments by the President and congressional appropriators. In the absence of the New START treaty, I believe this consensus would be more difficult to maintain. We have the chance today not only to approve the New START treaty, but also to solidify our domestic determination to achieve these national security goals. I began the Senate debate on this treaty last week by citing a long list of the national security threats that currently occupy our nation and our military. Our troops are heavily engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are fighting a global terrorist threat. And we are seeking to resolve the dangerous circumstances surrounding nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea. We are attempting to address these and many other national security questions at a time of growing resource constraints reflected in a $14 trillion debt. In this context the U.S. Senate has a chance today to constrain expensive arms competition with Russia. We have chance to guarantee transparency and confidence-building procedures that contribute to our fundamental national security. We have a chance to frustrate rogue nations who would prefer as much distance as possible between the United States and Russia on nuclear questions. And we have a chance to strike a blow against nuclear proliferation that deeply threatens American citizens and our interests in the world. I am hopeful that the Senate will embrace this opportunity to bolster U.S. national security by voting to approve the New START treaty. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment speaks to concerns about rail mobile missiles. First, I would emphasize it is important to note that neither side currently deploys rail mobile systems. The Nunn-Lugar program destroyed the last SS-24 rail mobile system in 2008. They are all gone. Destroyed. The New START treaty is specifically drafted so that if Russia were to revive its rail mobile program, it would count under New START's central limits. This is underscored in our resolution of ratification through an understanding that if such systems are ever deployed by Russia, they will count as deployed ICBMs under New START, and that such railcars on BMs. I submit that the amendment is unneeded. But more seriously, if in fact it were to be adopted, it would require renegotiation of the treaty. For that reason, as well as others I have stated as succinctly as possible, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to add parenthetically a footnote to the chairman's presentation. As has been mentioned frequently during this debate, for a variety of reasons, the Russians reduced the number of ICBMs below the totals that were required by the former treaty. Some Senators, in fact, have said the New START treaty, by imposing these limits of 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers, inhibits only the United States because, according to those who have argued this, Russia has already fallen below these limits. Let me add, as a point of personal recollection, one of the reasons the Russians are below some of the standards that have been suggested is, as they thought more and more about the rail mobile situation, they decided this was either useless, expensive, or so vulnerable to potential attack that it was not worth maintaining. As a result, as has been suggested, as it turned out, using the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the United States and Russia, quite outside of the last treaty, decided we would proceed under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to simply destroy all the rest of the rail, which we did. Just for the sake of exhibit, I have a piece of one of the last rails to be destroyed. It was presented to us by the Russians with a proper inscription on the back of it, recognizing their appreciation to the United States for this destruction. Therefore, logically, to argue that we are back into a predicament of the Russians wanting to build rails again and launch missiles and what have you from them negates the history of cooperation, conversations that may have occurred well beyond the treaty but that have come from the fact that there were Americans working with Russians who were not involved necessarily in specifics of the treaty but, in fact, were able to effect results that were well beyond what the treaty mandated. I mention this, again, to indicate that I believe the amendment is unnecessary. But worse still, adoption of it would, in fact, eliminate our consideration today. We would go home. It is finished. I certainly encourage Senators, recognizing that the Russians don't want the rails, have actually worked in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program with Americans to get rid of all of it, plus everything associated with them, that as a commonsense situation that seems to be fairly well under control. Even then, the statements we have adopted as a part of the treaty take care at least of the counting situation if, for any reason, such an emergence should occur again on the rails.