Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding the following nominations: Panel I: Stephen Johnson, nominated by the President to be the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Panel II: Luis Luna--nominated by the President to be EPA's Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resource Management; John Paul Woodley, Jr.--nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; Major General Don Riley, United States Army-- nominated by the President to be a Member and President of the Mississippi River Commission; Brigadier General William T. Grisoli, United States Army--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission; D. Michael Rappoport--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation; and Michael Butler--nominated by the President to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-562.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on tactical aviation programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 6, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on military installation programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask Senators to oppose the Biden amendment. I appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve the 27-percent cap, as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25-percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation. In offering this amendment, I am attempting to represent the views of those Senators who believe that forthcoming discussions on U.N. reform should include additional consideration of U.S. financial obligations for peacekeeping. This is a reasonable expectation given the reform context at the United Nations. Since our committee marked up this bill, John Bolton has been announced as the President's nominee to be Ambassador to the U.N., and Secretary General Kofi Annan has put forward a sweeping U.N. reform plan. Clearly, U.N. reform is going to be high on the agenda. The Helms- Biden legislation anticipates that the U.S. share of peacekeeping dues would decline to 25 percent of the world total. This remains a goal of U.S. policy toward the United Nations. I believe we should give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain U.S. goals. It has been suggested that the 27-percent agreement struck subsequent to the Helms-Biden legislation is the best we can do. Many Senators assert this is true, particularly since we are entering a period when substantial reform negotiations will take place at the U.N. But in the coming weeks, Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush to craft the most efficient means possible of reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments. I believe defeating the Biden amendment at this time will facilitate these consultations and strengthen the hand of our negotiators. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I am advised the distinguished Senator from Illinois has a statement he would like to make at this time. I ask the Chair to allocate 5 minutes to the Senator and then to recognize me following that statement.

Mr. LUGAR. I amend my request that after I am recognized, the distinguished Senator from Alabama be recognized.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I ask that the Chair now recognize the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I understand he will discuss amendments but not offer them at this time.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today, the Senate will be considering S. 600, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill on March 3 by a vote of 18-0. This is the third successive year that the Foreign Relations Committee has reported out a comprehensive Foreign Affairs Authorization bill by a unanimous vote. We are pleased to have this opportunity to bring it to the floor for the Senate's consideration. I want to especially thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for their assistance and support in bringing this measure to the floor. This legislation gives voice to Senate views on issues touching every continent--from tbe threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to an increased and focused effort to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. It authorizes the executive branch to take important actions on a wide range of issues. And, it authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, and our Peace Corps volunteers, as well as the programs and policies that they manage on behalf of the United States. These people are our civilian soldiers--they pursue a bold war on terrorism and a noble and far-sighted battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian disasters. Most work in circumstances where the threat level is severe. American diplomats and aid workers frequently have been targets of terrorism while serving overseas. But they understand the importance of representing the United States, and they go anyway. At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted by nuclear proliferation problems in North Korea and Iran that threaten U.S. national security and regional stability. We are continuing efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation throughout the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa, the natural disasters in the Indian Ocean region, and the man-made calamity in Sudan. We are trying to take advantage of openings in the Middle East peace process and spur the advance of democracy in many countries. Emerging powers, including China, India, and Brazil, may soon reconfigure the world economically and politically in ways that we do not yet comprehend. There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems. We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We have to understand that our military and our diplomats are both instruments of U.S. national power that depend on one another. They both help shape the international environment and influence the attitudes of governments and peoples. They both gather information and provide expertise that is vital to the war on terrorism. And they both must be unsurpassed in their capabilities, if the United States is going to survive and prosper. Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost. In considering this legislation today, it is important to remember that since the end of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs Account frequently has suffered from inadequate funding. The American public generally understands that the United States reduced military spending in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union. Few are aware, however, that this peace dividend spending reduction theme was applied even more unsparingly to our foreign affairs programs. In constant dollars, the foreign affairs budget was cut in six consecutive years from 1992 to 1998. This slide occurred even as the United States sustained the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the fifteen emergent states of the former Soviet Union. In constant dollars, the cumulative effect was a 26 percent decrease in our foreign affairs programs. As a percentage of GDP, this six-year slide represented a 36 percent cut in foreign affairs programs. By the beginning of the new millennium, these cuts had taken their toll. The General Accounting Office reported that staffing shortfalls, lack of adequate language skills, and security vulnerabilities plagued many of our diplomatic posts. In 2001 the share of the U.S. budget devoted to the international affairs account stood at a paltry 1.18 percent--barely above its post-World War II low and only about half of its share in the mid-1980s, during the Reagan administration. Under President Bush, funding for the Foreign Affairs Account has increased substantially. The President has requested increases in each of the last four budgets. In this year's budget, the President has requested a 13 percent increase over last year's appropriated amount for the Foreign Affairs Account--the largest percentage increase of any major account in the budget. This is a tangible demonstration of the President's commitment to diplomatic strength. Congress must now do its part by providing the resources and authorities that the President needs to carry out an effective foreign policy. The bill before us preserves the funding decisions in the President's request. Inevitably, members will have some differences with the specifics of the President's request. But we should recognize that this bill represents a generous attempt to raise the profile and effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy. Those of us who have advocated funding increases for the 150 Account should take ``Yes'' for an answer. Accordingly, I believe that if amendments are offered to increase funding for a particular program, they should include offsets. The bill funds the Millennium Challenge Corporation at the President's requested level of $3 billion. Some have argued that the President should have requested $5 billion--the amount he originally had conceived for the corporation's third year of funding. Others have argued that $3 billion is too much for a new venture that is just getting off the ground, and that some of this money should be shifted to other priorities. My own view is that $3 billion is a reasonable amount, given the scope of the program and its potential for spurring democratic reforms overseas. The credibility of the program, which foreign nations are observing closely, would be strengthened if the Senate endorsed the President's funding request. For these reasons, I will oppose amendments that seek to use MCC funds as an offset for other priorities. This bill contains numerous policy initiatives, most notably the bipartisan Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act, which was developed in the Foreign Relations Committee and included in last year's bill. The bill before the Senate also includes a 10 percent increase in danger pay for State Department employees who serve in dangerous posts overseas, funding for refugee assistance, and provisions designed to improve protections for women, children, and other vulnerable populations in the context of war or disaster. Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility to pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance Act. Several discrete measures, such as the Millennium Challenge Account, the global AIDS bill, the Freedom Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act, have been enacted. But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much of the responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance policy has fallen to the appropriations committees. Appropriators have kept our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they have had to do so without proper authorization. In some years, the Congress did pass a State Department authorization bill, but that bill only authorizes about 35 percent of the Function 150 Account. To fund the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive the legal requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage of an authorization bill. Passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill is good politics, as well as good policy. It is good politics because it underscores the leadership of this Senate at a time when our country is in peril. It is good politics because foreign assistance is an instrument of national power in the war on terrorism. It is good politics because it recognizes that our standard of living, the retirements of our parents, our children's educations, advancements in our health care, and the security of Americans can be undermined by what happens overseas. It recognizes that American prosperity is far more likely to be sustained if we are successful in spreading democracy, stability, and free market principles. I thank the members of my committee for their hard work during the authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle devoted many hours and much thought to constructive approaches to a number of very difficult foreign policy questions. Although this is a new bill developed during the last several months, it reflects much work that has been done by the Committee during the previous Congress. Committee hearings during the last 2 years on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, U.S. policy in the Middle East, developments on the Korean peninsula, relations between India and Pakistan, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, and numerous other topics have been well attended. In fact, no Senate committee held as many hearings or met as often as the Foreign Relations Committee during the last Congress. I especially thank the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, for his support of this process and his leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on the vast majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have disagreed, we have worked hard to bridge our differences and find bipartisan solutions. We have always shared the common goal of bringing good legislation to the floor for the Senate's judgment. It has long been my intent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approach foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit. This legislation reflects the committee's success in that regard. Republicans and Democrats have worked together closely to seek consensus, reason together, make compromises and craft excellent legislation. Our committee is united in the belief that passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill will enhance U.S. national security. I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive contributions of Members at this important time in our Nation's history. 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 send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR. I rise to offer an amendment that strikes section 401, a section which establishes a permanent cap of 27.1 percent on the American share of cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The Helms-Biden legislation passed in 1999 anticipated the U.S. share of peacekeeping dues would decline to 25 percent in total. This remains an important goal of the U.S. policy toward the U.N. This issue has raised strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve a 27.1- percent cap as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25 percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation. We would all like to see American financial responsibilities at the United Nations reduced. We should acknowledge that existing U.S. law sets 25 percent as our target for peacekeeping contributions. I believe we should give the U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain the U.S. goals. Passing a permanent 27.1-percent cap in this bill at this moment might reduce that leverage. In coming weeks Congress will have further opportunities to work with President Bush to craft the most effective means possible of reducing the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments. I believe this is an issue on which further consultation with the executive branch is certainly warranted. This is particularly true at a moment when the Secretary General has recently put forward a substantial United Nations reform plan, and the President's nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is pending before the Senate. After discussions with the majority leader and other Members, I have come to the conclusion that we will facilitate further consultations on the peacekeeping cap with the administration and improve prospects for passage of the underlying legislation if we strike this provision. Consequently, I am hopeful Senators will join me in passing this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his very thoughtful comments about my work in the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank him for offering this amendment. Let me point out, as the Senator from Arizona has already, a number of bills attempting to achieve repeal of Jackson-Vanik have been introduced in both Houses. But they have not come to conclusion, and apparently today that will happen. I am one of the authors of one of those bills, S. 632, which authorizes the extension of permanent normal trade relations treatment with Ukraine. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, unfortunately Ukraine is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. My bill, and I believe Senator McCain's bill, would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. As has been mentioned by the distinguished Senator, that bill has been referred to the Finance Committee, which still has it under consideration. But I would offer this argument. In the post-Cold-War era, Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the requirements for the lifting of Jackson-Vanik and, in addition, has expressed a strong desire to abide by free market principles and good governance. Last November 21, I served as President Bush's personal representative to the runoff election between Prime Minister Yanukovich and Viktor Yushchenko. During that visit, I promoted free and fair election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. Unfortunately, that was not possible at that time. The Government of Ukraine allowed, or aided and abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of that November 21 election. It is clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich did not win that election. In response, however, the people of Ukraine rallied in the streets and squares and demanded justice. After tremendous international pressure and mediation, Ukraine repeated the runoff election. It was held on December 26. A newly named Central Election Commission and a new set of election laws led to a much improved process. International monitors concluded the process was generally free and fair. Viktor Yushchenko was inaugurated as President of, Ukraine, and tomorrow he will address a joint session of our Congress. Extraordinary events have occurred in Ukraine over the last several months since the December 26 election. A free press has revolted against Government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its political footing. A new generation has embraced democracy and openness. A society has rebelled against the illegal activities of its Government. It is in our interest to recognize and to protect these advances in Ukraine. The United States has a long record of cooperation with Ukraine through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program, the United States has assisted Ukraine in eliminating this deadly arsenal and joining the nonproliferation treaty as a nonnuclear state. One of the areas where we can deepen United States-Ukraine relations is bilateral trade. Trade relations between the United States and Ukraine are currently governed by a bilateral trade agreement signed in 1992. There are other economic agreements in place seeking to further facilitate economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine, including a bilateral investment treaty which was signed in 1996 and a taxation treaty signed in the year 2000. In addition, Ukraine commenced negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization in 1993, further demonstrating its commitment to adhere to the free market principles of fair trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of immigration requirements, democratic principles, compliance with threat reduction, and several agreements on economic cooperation, the products of Ukraine should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik. There are areas in which Ukraine needs to continue to improve. These include market access, protection of intellectual property, and reduction of tariffs. The United States must remain committed to assisting Ukraine in pursuing market economic reforms. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic partnership can be made. My colleagues on the Finance Committee have committed to joining me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that the Finance Committee and the full Senate act promptly to bolster this burgeoning democracy to promote stability in this region. I am most hopeful that in the course of the day, we will take favorable action on this amendment. For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise for the point of giving information to all Senators about the legislation we have in front of us. As the Chair has observed, several minutes have passed without activity. We have through staff attempted to notify all Senators who might be anticipating offering amendments or action on this bill. This will be an excellent opportunity to do so prior to the time the two party luncheons are held and a recess for that reason is called. We know that following lunch, there will be two important amendments offered, and we welcome those. I would like to proceed to our debate and votes, with disposition of amendments that are now pending. I simply mention, Mr. President, that I recognize, as does the Chair, many Senators are under some urgent requirements in terms of scheduling in this particular week, as we mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. Some Senators are contemplating potential travel to the funeral of the Pope. Others have other requirements. So it would be my intent, as we conclude these amendments that are available, to move for final passage of the bill, to conclude activity on this bill today and as early today as possible. My understanding is a potential debate on the Social Security issue will ensue at some point this evening after we have concluded activities on the authorization bill. So we might make that more readily available and that time more certain. I mention this because for Senators who do have amendments, even if they are not completely formulated, I request they bring those to the floor so that staff on both sides of the aisle can work through those amendments to find an acceptable form. It would be at least our general view of a liberal policy of adopting amendments that enhance the authorization process and do no violence at least to the foreign policy objectives of the United States. With that in mind, hopefully those listening to the debate will hear our plea, proceed with amendments, and help us with the activities. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments to S. 600 that have the approval of the managers of the bill. The package has bipartisan support. I intend to ask they be agreed to by unanimous consent as soon as the ranking member has joined me in the Senate. I have received word that the presence of the ranking member will not be required. Staff on both sides of the aisle have cleared these amendments; therefore, I ask they be agreed to en bloc by unanimous consent.

Mr. LUGAR. I simply point out these are amendments that followed the consideration of the bill in the Committee on Foreign Relations and were suggested by the administration. They have been carefully considered over the course of several days, and there has been unanimous consent on the list that was agreed to. I encourage Senators who have amendments, once again, to come to the Senate to make their presence known so we can work with them. It would be our hope we could accept most of those amendments or work on modifications so they can be part of the legislation, as has been the case with the package we just agreed to. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a short while, we hope to have a unanimous consent agreement so that Members will have a roadmap for the remainder of the afternoon. That is not at hand for the moment; therefore, I hope the Chair might recognize the distinguished Senator from California, who will offer an amendment. Informally, we have talked in terms of an hour of debate being the limit, 40 minutes for the Senator from California, 20 minutes for me or others I may designate. We will encapsulate, hopefully, a unanimous consent agreement in due course during the course of this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I prefer the Senator send it to the desk and our debate commence. Amendment No. 278

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.