Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Souder, in introducing this measure. This legislation is based on a bill that was introduced in the last legislative session. I believe that this legislation is very important to encouraging health promotion in our country. The United States has invested a tremendous number of resources in providing our children with the ability to promote fitness through sports. In every town in America, you will find boys and girls playing America's most popular sports: baseball, soccer, football, and, of course, basketball. A recent study by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association showed that in 2000 at least 36 million American children played on at least one team sport. Of those 36 million, 26 million children between the ages of 6 and 17, played on an organized team in an organized league. A study by Statistical Research, Inc. for the Amateur Athletic Foundation and ESPN found that 94 percent American children play some sport during the year. The ability for children to participate in sporting events provides our society many benefits that government cannot provide. Studies have shown that these benefits include betterment to a child's health, academic performance, social development and safety. The most obvious benefit of organized sports is physical fitness. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has identified physical activity such as sports as a key factor in the maintenance of a healthy body. Lack of physical activity, along with unhealthy eating habits, has been identified as the leading cause of obesity in children. The center notes: ``Physical activity provides numerous mental and physical benefits to health, including reduction in the risk of premature mortality, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and cancers.'' A Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research study indicated, ``Low fitness outranks fatness as a risk factor for mortality.'' By encouraging our children to participate in organized sports, we increase physical fitness and fight obesity. A second benefit in the participation of organized sports is an increase in academic performance. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has highlighted ``a recent large-scale analysis reported by the California Department of Education [has shown] that the level of physical fitness attained by students was directly related to their performance on standardized achievement measures.'' When we encourage our children to participate in organized sports, we increase the ability for them to achieve academically. A third benefit for young people who participate in organized sports is that they learn positive social development. Organized sports teach values of teamwork, fair play, and friendly competition. Success in organized sports is also a vital self-esteem builder in many children. These three benefits have been widely discussed on the floor of the Senate and we have acted to implement several programs designed to reduce obesity and increase fitness, educational standards and the social well-being of our children. The fourth benefit to participation in organized youth sports, providing a safe place to play, is a topic that has not received as much attention as the first three. Nonetheless, it is no less important. Fewer kids are simply going outside to play, due to the attraction of TV, video games, and the Internet, combined with parents' safety concerns about letting children run around outside unsupervised. As a result, organized sports teams are an increasingly important source of safe physical activity in children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, ``In contrast to unstructured or free play, participation in organized sports provides a greater opportunity to develop rules specifically designed for health and safety.'' One primary reason why organized sports provide such an opportunity for safe play is that non-profit, volunteer organizations establish rules to provide a safe place to play. These organizations are made up of professional people who are in the business of providing children a fun and safe avenue for athletic exercise. Organizations like the Boys and Girls Club, the National Council of Youth Sports, the National Federation of State High School Associations and others exist largely to establish rules in order to minimize the risk of injury our children face while participating in sports. No matter how well these organizations perform their work, however, boys and girls will be injured. Over the last several years, more and more of these rule making bodies have become targets for lawsuits seeking to prove that the rule maker was negligent in making the rules of play. These lawsuits claim that had a different rule been in place, the injury would not have happened. Indeed, these suits place rule makers into a Catch-22. A child can be injured in almost any situation no matter how a rule is written. The result has been to have more and more lawsuits. As a consequence, the insurance premiums of these organizations have risen dramatically over the past several years. In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Robert Kanaby the Executive Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations testified that: ``Over the last three years, the annual liability insurance premiums for the National High School Federation have increased three-fold to about $1,000,000. We have been advised by experts that given our claims experience and the reluctance of insurers to offer such coverage to an organization `serving 7,000,000 potential claimants,' the premiums will likely increase significantly in years to come. Since we operate on a total budget of about $9,000,000, such an increase would be, to put it mildly, problematical.'' The costs have increased to the point where it is possible that these organizations will cease from providing age appropriate rules and the safety of youth sports will decline. Because of this problem, I join, once again, with Representative Mark Souder in introducing the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will eliminate lawsuits based on claims that a non-profit rulemaking body is liable for the physical injury when the rules was made by a properly licensed rulemaking body that has acted within the scope of its authority. Lawsuits may be maintained if the rule maker was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal or reckless misconduct. This reasonable legislation will help sports rule makers to do their job. If we do not pass this legislation, it is likely that rule makers will eventually close their doors since they will be unable to afford the insurance needed to provide a safe sporting environment. No one who has participated in the debate surrounding this problem has disagreed that the current lawsuit culture needs reform. Instead, concerns have arisen that the remedy was overly broad preventing lawsuits against rule makers on other issue. To remedy these concerns, the legislation introduced today contains a provision that explicitly says that lawsuits involving ``antitrust, labor, environmental, defamation, tortuous interference of contract law or civil rights law, or any other federal, state, or local law providing protection from discrimination'' are not barred by this bill. This provision was worked out between the civil rights groups, including the National Women's Law Center and the National Federation of State High School Associations, in an effort to alleviate this concern. As many of my colleagues know, I am a runner. I enjoy the activity and the positive effect that running and athletics have played in my life. I would hope that my nine grandchildren will be able to have an opportunity to participate in organized sports and that lawsuits against rule makers for allegedly faulty rules will not prevent these organizations from functioning properly. I look forward to the consideration and passage of the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005 during the 109th Congress.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to comment on International Women's Day and to join Senator Biden in introducing the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005. Today is International Women's Day, a day on which we celebrate the progress of women and rededicate ourselves to overcoming the inequities facing women around the globe. In many places in the world, discrimination continues to deny women and girls full political and economic equality. The lives and health of women and girls continue to be endangered by violence that is directed at them simply because they are female. In recognition of these issues, I co-sponsored a Resolution with Senators Biden and Clinton commemorating International Women's Day and reaffirming the Senate's commitment to improving the status of women worldwide. In addition, I am co-sponsoring with Senator Biden the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005, which the Committee on Foreign Relations supported as an amendment to our Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. During humanitarian emergencies, women and children become more vulnerable to a range of abuses including sexual exploitation, trafficking and gender-based violence. Our bill seeks to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance programs are a force for protecting women, children, and other vulnerable populations in the wake of military conflict and natural disasters. The recent tsunami tragedy in the Indian Ocean region has highlighted this important issue. Tens of thousands of children have lost family members and friends and are coping with unspeakable trauma. Nearly 35,000 children have been orphaned, and many more have been separated from their families. These children face the imminent threats of hunger, disease, and diarrhea. Beyond these dangers, children are vulnerable to being trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, or conscription. Without their families, the children orphaned by the tsunami lack protection from predators who would profit from their tragedy. During many of the humanitarian crises that we have witnessed over the last decade, including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Sudan, we have learned that women and children are uniquely vulnerable to sexual violence and exploitation. Over the course of the past year, the world has heard accounts of rape at the camps in Darfur in Western Sudan. Our bill aims to improve the ability of the United States to protect women and children, like those in the tsunami-affected region and in Darfur, from the additional dangers they face during a humanitarian emergency. Our bill calls for a coordinator for protection issues and a strategy to improve our ability to protect and respond to the needs of women and children in such crises. Our bill authorizes funding for the specific health care needs of women during an emergency, the establishment of registries and clearinghouses to trace relatives and help children find their families, and legal services for survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse. In addition, the bill requires that any organization receiving U.S. funds to assist in a humanitarian emergency have in place a code of conduct forbidding its employees from sexually abusing the victims of the crisis. Finally, our bill urges the United Nations to strengthen its policies concerning sexual abuse and exploitation by UN personnel involved in UN peacekeeping operations. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to join with my good friend and colleague, Representative Mark Souder, in introducing this measure. This legislation is based on a bill that was introduced in the last legislative session. I believe that this legislation is very important to encouraging health promotion in our country. The United States has invested a tremendous number of resources in providing our children with the ability to promote fitness through sports. In every town in America, you will find boys and girls playing America's most popular sports: baseball, soccer, football, and, of course, basketball. A recent study by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association showed that in 2000 at least 36 million American children played on at least one team sport. Of those 36 million, 26 million children between the ages of 6 and 17, played on an organized team in an organized league. A study by Statistical Research, Inc. for the Amateur Athletic Foundation and ESPN found that 94 percent American children play some sport during the year. The ability for children to participate in sporting events provides our society many benefits that government cannot provide. Studies have shown that these benefits include betterment to a child's health, academic performance, social development and safety. The most obvious benefit of organized sports is physical fitness. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has identified physical activity such as sports as a key factor in the maintenance of a healthy body. Lack of physical activity, along with unhealthy eating habits, has been identified as the leading cause of obesity in children. The center notes: ``Physical activity provides numerous mental and physical benefits to health, including reduction in the risk of premature mortality, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and cancers.'' A Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research study indicated, ``Low fitness outranks fatness as a risk factor for mortality.'' By encouraging our children to participate in organized sports, we increase physical fitness and fight obesity. A second benefit in the participation of organized sports is an increase in academic performance. The National Institute of Health Care Maintenance has highlighted ``a recent large-scale analysis reported by the California Department of Education [has shown] that the level of physical fitness attained by students was directly related to their performance on standardized achievement measures.'' When we encourage our children to participate in organized sports, we increase the ability for them to achieve academically. A third benefit for young people who participate in organized sports is that they learn positive social development. Organized sports teach values of teamwork, fair play, and friendly competition. Success in organized sports is also a vital self-esteem builder in many children. These three benefits have been widely discussed on the floor of the Senate and we have acted to implement several programs designed to reduce obesity and increase fitness, educational standards and the social well-being of our children. The fourth benefit to participation in organized youth sports, providing a safe place to play, is a topic that has not received as much attention as the first three. Nonetheless, it is no less important. Fewer kids are simply going outside to play, due to the attraction of TV, video games, and the Internet, combined with parents' safety concerns about letting children run around outside unsupervised. As a result, organized sports teams are an increasingly important source of safe physical activity in children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, ``In contrast to unstructured or free play, participation in organized sports provides a greater opportunity to develop rules specifically designed for health and safety.'' One primary reason why organized sports provide such an opportunity for safe play is that non-profit, volunteer organizations establish rules to provide a safe place to play. These organizations are made up of professional people who are in the business of providing children a fun and safe avenue for athletic exercise. Organizations like the Boys and Girls Club, the National Council of Youth Sports, the National Federation of State High School Associations and others exist largely to establish rules in order to minimize the risk of injury our children face while participating in sports. No matter how well these organizations perform their work, however, boys and girls will be injured. Over the last several years, more and more of these rule making bodies have become targets for lawsuits seeking to prove that the rule maker was negligent in making the rules of play. These lawsuits claim that had a different rule been in place, the injury would not have happened. Indeed, these suits place rule makers into a Catch-22. A child can be injured in almost any situation no matter how a rule is written. The result has been to have more and more lawsuits. As a consequence, the insurance premiums of these organizations have risen dramatically over the past several years. In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, Robert Kanaby the Executive Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations testified that: ``Over the last three years, the annual liability insurance premiums for the National High School Federation have increased three-fold to about $1,000,000. We have been advised by experts that given our claims experience and the reluctance of insurers to offer such coverage to an organization `serving 7,000,000 potential claimants,' the premiums will likely increase significantly in years to come. Since we operate on a total budget of about $9,000,000, such an increase would be, to put it mildly, problematical.'' The costs have increased to the point where it is possible that these organizations will cease from providing age appropriate rules and the safety of youth sports will decline. Because of this problem, I join, once again, with Representative Mark Souder in introducing the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005. This legislation will eliminate lawsuits based on claims that a non-profit rulemaking body is liable for the physical injury when the rules was made by a properly licensed rulemaking body that has acted within the scope of its authority. Lawsuits may be maintained if the rule maker was grossly negligent or engaged in criminal or reckless misconduct. This reasonable legislation will help sports rule makers to do their job. If we do not pass this legislation, it is likely that rule makers will eventually close their doors since they will be unable to afford the insurance needed to provide a safe sporting environment. No one who has participated in the debate surrounding this problem has disagreed that the current lawsuit culture needs reform. Instead, concerns have arisen that the remedy was overly broad preventing lawsuits against rule makers on other issue. To remedy these concerns, the legislation introduced today contains a provision that explicitly says that lawsuits involving ``antitrust, labor, environmental, defamation, tortuous interference of contract law or civil rights law, or any other federal, state, or local law providing protection from discrimination'' are not barred by this bill. This provision was worked out between the civil rights groups, including the National Women's Law Center and the National Federation of State High School Associations, in an effort to alleviate this concern. As many of my colleagues know, I am a runner. I enjoy the activity and the positive effect that running and athletics have played in my life. I would hope that my nine grandchildren will be able to have an opportunity to participate in organized sports and that lawsuits against rule makers for allegedly faulty rules will not prevent these organizations from functioning properly. I look forward to the consideration and passage of the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005 during the 109th Congress.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I bring to the attention of my colleagues a signal anniversary occurring tomorrow, the 50th wedding anniversary of Harry and Judy Maitland. Harry and Judy Maitland were married in St. Louis, MO on March 5, 1955. Harry, a fellow Navy man, served on the U.S.S Randolph during the Korean War. Subsequently, he worked for Missouri Pacific and Union Pacific, and he and Judy were blessed with three children and eleven grandchildren. I join all of their family and friends in congratulating Harry and Judy on their signal anniversary.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution expressing the United States Senate's concern about Russia's actions in Georgia and Moldova. At the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) 1999 conference in Istanbul, Russia signed commitments to withdraw troops from both Georgia and Moldova. While Russia has fulfilled some aspects of those agreements, Russian troops and military bases remain in both countries. In my resolution, I urge Russia to live up to its 1999 Istanbul Commitments. The resolution also addresses concerns about the OSCE's Border Monitoring Operation (BMO) in Georgia. The BMO, which took up its mission in Georgia in 2000, is the sole source of objective reporting on border crossings along Georgia's border with the Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia. Since last June, Russia has called for the closure of the BMO in Georgia. In December, Russia blocked renewal of the mandate for the BMO, stating that it had accomplished nothing. I am disappointed that the OSCE was unable to renew the BMO's mandate. The BMO started shutting down in January and is expected to be fully closed by May. The future of the BMO mission is uncertain. The United States, in cooperation with its European allies, should work to preserve the BMO in Georgia. But if the BMO is not revived, my resolution calls upon the United States and its European allies to seek an international presence to monitor objectively crossings along Georgia's border. I am concerned that if Russia does not fulfill its commitments to withdraw troops from Georgia and Moldova, and if the Border Monitoring Operation in Georgia shuts down, the security situation in the region could further deteriorate. The United States must provide strong leadership on these issues. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 109th Congress adopted by the committee on February 1, 2005. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005. On October 7, 2004, I introduced S. 2939, a bill to improve our ability to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries. Because of the gravity and urgency of the growing AIDS orphans crisis, I am reintroducing my bill. The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the international community respond to this crisis. An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by 2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is compromising the overall development prospects of their countries. Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended families. My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. It would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children. Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future. For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school lunch programs. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food. Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with children. The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14 seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005. On October 7, 2004, I introduced S. 2939, a bill to improve our ability to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries. Because of the gravity and urgency of the growing AIDS orphans crisis, I am reintroducing my bill. The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the international community respond to this crisis. An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by 2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is compromising the overall development prospects of their countries. Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended families. My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. It would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children. Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future. For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school lunch programs. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food. Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with children. The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14 seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate regarding the trafficking in children following the Asian tsunami. The recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean region was a natural disaster unlike anything in recent human history. It is estimated that the tsunami claimed the lives of more than 160,000 people throughout the region and displaced more than 1 million. This disaster has taken an incredible toll on children. The United Nations Children Fund, UNICEF, estimates that children comprise more than one-third of all deaths. Tens of thousands of children have lost family members and friends and are coping with unspeakable trauma. Nearly 35,000 children have been orphaned, and many more have been separated from their families. These children are in need of food, water, and shelter. They face the imminent threats of hunger, disease, and diarrhea. In addition to these dangers, these children are also vulnerable to being trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, or to be child soldiers. According to the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the Department of State, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked every year, some 50 percent of whom are children. In South East Asia alone, nearly 250,000 people are trafficked in, out, and through the region. Without their families, the children orphaned by the tsunami lack protection from predators who would profit from their tragedy. My resolution acknowledges this uniquely vulnerable group and urges the United States and other countries to ratify the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the underlying U.N. Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. The Protocol requires countries to enact laws to criminalize trafficking in persons, punish traffickers and assist victims. In addition, the Protocol would enhance our ability to give and receive assistance on a global basis in the common struggle to prevent, investigate and prosecute trafficking. On December 13, 2000, the United States signed these international agreements. Last June, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on these very important law enforcement treaties. At the earliest opportunity, I intend to schedule a vote on the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons at a business meeting of the Committee. By ratifying the Trafficking Protocol, and urging other countries to do the same, we would send a strong message to the world that this modern-day form of slavery must be stopped and that the United States is committed to ensuring that perpetrators are punished and that victims are helped.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that will facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products abroad. I am delighted to join colleagues from both sides of the aisle in cosponsoring this bill, which will help remove potential impediments to the shipment of U.S. agricultural goods to Cuba. Cuba's geographic proximity to the U.S makes it an important market for U.S. exporters. This bill will maintain significant economic benefits not only for the farmers in my home State of Indiana, but for farmers throughout the country. Agricultural trade with Cuba is currently allowed under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, TSREEA. This legislation was enacted in the 106th Congress to provide additional markets for U.S. agricultural products and support the American farmer. I have long been an advocate of exercising care when imposing unilateral economic sanctions. Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. There have been indications that TSREEA will be interpreted in a way that may serve to impede agricultural exports to Cuba, which is contrary to the original intent of the bill. This would be a departure from current policy and undermine the benefits for U.S. farmers which the act has achieved. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau have indicated that the opening up of Cuba as a market has provided significant benefit to their members. Without the important changes that this bill will make, the U.S. economy could be impacted, not only in agricultural exports, but also in related economic output. To prevent this occurrence and to help bolster the agricultural export industry in the U.S., I ask you to join me and the other co-sponsors in support of this important legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by my friend and colleague, Congressman Mike Pence. I applaud the initiative by my colleague to address this important issue and I am pleased to have this opportunity to be the Senate sponsor. Last year, Congress passed legislation I proposed that directed the State Department to increase and add greater focus to international initiatives to support the development of free, fair, legally protected and sustainable media in developing countries. I am pleased to announce that the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy have embraced this initiative and are now proceeding with implementing this initiative. Our Founders understood that free press is a cornerstone of democracy. To embrace and implement President Bush's bold and visionary call for the spread of democracy and freedom in the world, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that foreign assistance programs focus on the development of all the institutions that help democracies work and protect basic human rights. While we focus on those needs abroad, we cannot let those basic freedoms erode at home. The Constitution makes very clear that freedom of the press should not be infringed. A cornerstone of our society is the open market of information which can be shared through ever expanding mediums. The media serves as a conduit of information between our governments and communities across the country. It is important that we ensure reporters certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. This includes the right to refuse to reveal confidential sources. Without such protection, many whistleblowers will refuse to step forward and reporters will be disinclined to provide our constituents with the information that they have a right to know. Promises of confidentiality are essential to the flow of information the public needs about its government. The Free Flow of Information Act closely follows existing Department of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of the news media. These guidelines were adopted in 1973 and have been in continuous operation for more than 30 years. The legislation codifies the conditions that must be met by the government to compel the identity of confidential sources. I am hopeful that my colleagues will give careful consideration to the merits of this legislation. It provides an appropriate approach and careful balance to protect our freedom of information while still enabling legitimate law enforcement access to information.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005. This bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by my friend and colleague, Congressman Mike Pence. I applaud the initiative by my colleague to address this important issue and I am pleased to have this opportunity to be the Senate sponsor. Last year, Congress passed legislation I proposed that directed the State Department to increase and add greater focus to international initiatives to support the development of free, fair, legally protected and sustainable media in developing countries. I am pleased to announce that the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy have embraced this initiative and are now proceeding with implementing this initiative. Our Founders understood that free press is a cornerstone of democracy. To embrace and implement President Bush's bold and visionary call for the spread of democracy and freedom in the world, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that foreign assistance programs focus on the development of all the institutions that help democracies work and protect basic human rights. While we focus on those needs abroad, we cannot let those basic freedoms erode at home. The Constitution makes very clear that freedom of the press should not be infringed. A cornerstone of our society is the open market of information which can be shared through ever expanding mediums. The media serves as a conduit of information between our governments and communities across the country. It is important that we ensure reporters certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. This includes the right to refuse to reveal confidential sources. Without such protection, many whistleblowers will refuse to step forward and reporters will be disinclined to provide our constituents with the information that they have a right to know. Promises of confidentiality are essential to the flow of information the public needs about its government. The Free Flow of Information Act closely follows existing Department of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of the news media. These guidelines were adopted in 1973 and have been in continuous operation for more than 30 years. The legislation codifies the conditions that must be met by the government to compel the identity of confidential sources. I am hopeful that my colleagues will give careful consideration to the merits of this legislation. It provides an appropriate approach and careful balance to protect our freedom of information while still enabling legitimate law enforcement access to information.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to again introduce a bill that will strengthen U.S. nonproliferation efforts. It is supported by the Administration and several of my colleagues. This bill represents the fourth installment of Nunn-Lugar legislation that I have offered since 1991. In that year, Sam Nunn and I authored the Nunn-Lugar Act, which established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. That program has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle their enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, means of delivery and related materials. In 1997, Senator Nunn and I were joined by Senator Domenici in introducing the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which expanded Nunn-Lugar authorities in the former Soviet Union and provided WMD expertise to first responders in American cities. In 2003, Congress adopted the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which authorized the Nunn-Lugar program to operate outside the former Soviet Union to address proliferation threats. The bill that I am introducing today would strengthen the Nunn-Lugar program and provide it with greater flexibility to address emerging threats. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated or destroyed: 6,564 nuclear warheads; 568 ICBMs; 477 ICBM silos; 17 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 142 bombers; 761 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 420 submarine missile launchers; 543 submarine launched missiles; 28 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels. The Nunn-Lugar program also facilitated the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these three nations emerged as the third, fourth, and eighth largest nuclear powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn- Lugar program. In addition, Nunn-Lugar is the primary tool through which the United States is working with Russian authorities to identify, safeguard and destroy Russia's massive chemical and biological warfare capacity. These successes were never a foregone conclusion. Today, even after more than 12 years, creativity and constant vigilance are required to ensure that the Nunn-Lugar program is not encumbered by bureaucratic obstacles or undercut by political disagreements. During Secretary Rice's confirmation hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18, 2005, I asked Dr. Rice if she and the Administration supported this legislation, to which she responded ``Yes we do.'' Secretary Rice and President Bush have long argued that there needs to be maximum flexibility granted to the Administration to execute a global, focused and timely effort to fight proliferation. In view of the Administration's strong support for this bill, I look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee to enact it. I have devoted much time and effort to overseeing and accelerating the Nunn-Lugar program. Uncounted individuals of great dedication serving on the ground in the former Soviet Union and in our government have made this program work. Nevertheless, from the beginning, we have encountered resistance to the Nunn-Lugar concept in both the United States and Russia. In our own country, opposition often has been motivated by false perceptions that Nunn-Lugar money is foreign assistance or by beliefs that Defense Department funds should only be spent on troops, weapons, or other war-fighting capabilities. Until recently, we also faced a general disinterest in non-proliferation that made gaining support for Nunn-Lugar funding and activities an annual struggle. The attacks of September 11 changed the political discourse on this subject. We have turned a corner--the public, the media, and political candidates are paying more attention now. In a remarkable moment in the first presidential debate last year, both President Bush and his opponent agreed that the number one national security threat facing the United States was the prospect that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the hands of terrorists. While the Administration has noted its support for this bill, the 9/ 11 Commission also weighed in last year with another important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' My bill would underscore the bipartisan consensus on Nunn-Lugar by streamlining and accelerating Nunn-Lugar implementation. It would grant more flexibility to the President and the Secretary of Defense to undertake proliferation projects outside the former Soviet Union. It also would eliminate Congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar assistance that in the past have forced the suspension of time- sensitive nonproliferation projects. The purpose of the bill is to reduce bureaucratic red tape and friction within our government that hinder effective responses to nonproliferation opportunities and emergencies. For example, recently Albania appealed for help in destroying 16 tons of chemical agent left over from the Cold War. Last August, I visited this remote storage facility. Nunn-Lugar officials are working closely with Albanian leaders to destroy this dangerous stockpile. But this experience also is illustrative of the need to reduce bureaucratic delays. The package of documents related to the mission took some 11 weeks to be finalized and readied for President Bush. From beginning to end, the bureaucratic process to authorize dismantlement of chemical weapons in Albania took more than three months. Fortunately, the situation in Albania was not a crisis, but we may not be able to afford these timelines in future nonproliferation emergencies. As I said when I introduced this legislation during our November session last year, I wanted to have the benefit of the Administration's views and my colleagues' input. Since then, I am pleased that Senators Domenici, Hagel, Reed, Biden, Levin, Collins, McCain and Obama have all signed on as co-sponsors. The Administration has now stated that they support this bill. I look forward to working in Congress to enact it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to again introduce a bill that will strengthen U.S. nonproliferation efforts. It is supported by the Administration and several of my colleagues. This bill represents the fourth installment of Nunn-Lugar legislation that I have offered since 1991. In that year, Sam Nunn and I authored the Nunn-Lugar Act, which established the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. That program has provided U.S. funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle their enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, means of delivery and related materials. In 1997, Senator Nunn and I were joined by Senator Domenici in introducing the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, which expanded Nunn-Lugar authorities in the former Soviet Union and provided WMD expertise to first responders in American cities. In 2003, Congress adopted the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which authorized the Nunn-Lugar program to operate outside the former Soviet Union to address proliferation threats. The bill that I am introducing today would strengthen the Nunn-Lugar program and provide it with greater flexibility to address emerging threats. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated or destroyed: 6,564 nuclear warheads; 568 ICBMs; 477 ICBM silos; 17 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 142 bombers; 761 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 420 submarine missile launchers; 543 submarine launched missiles; 28 nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels. The Nunn-Lugar program also facilitated the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these three nations emerged as the third, fourth, and eighth largest nuclear powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn- Lugar program. In addition, Nunn-Lugar is the primary tool through which the United States is working with Russian authorities to identify, safeguard and destroy Russia's massive chemical and biological warfare capacity. These successes were never a foregone conclusion. Today, even after more than 12 years, creativity and constant vigilance are required to ensure that the Nunn-Lugar program is not encumbered by bureaucratic obstacles or undercut by political disagreements. During Secretary Rice's confirmation hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18, 2005, I asked Dr. Rice if she and the Administration supported this legislation, to which she responded ``Yes we do.'' Secretary Rice and President Bush have long argued that there needs to be maximum flexibility granted to the Administration to execute a global, focused and timely effort to fight proliferation. In view of the Administration's strong support for this bill, I look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee to enact it. I have devoted much time and effort to overseeing and accelerating the Nunn-Lugar program. Uncounted individuals of great dedication serving on the ground in the former Soviet Union and in our government have made this program work. Nevertheless, from the beginning, we have encountered resistance to the Nunn-Lugar concept in both the United States and Russia. In our own country, opposition often has been motivated by false perceptions that Nunn-Lugar money is foreign assistance or by beliefs that Defense Department funds should only be spent on troops, weapons, or other war-fighting capabilities. Until recently, we also faced a general disinterest in non-proliferation that made gaining support for Nunn-Lugar funding and activities an annual struggle. The attacks of September 11 changed the political discourse on this subject. We have turned a corner--the public, the media, and political candidates are paying more attention now. In a remarkable moment in the first presidential debate last year, both President Bush and his opponent agreed that the number one national security threat facing the United States was the prospect that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the hands of terrorists. While the Administration has noted its support for this bill, the 9/ 11 Commission also weighed in last year with another important endorsement of the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar . . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' My bill would underscore the bipartisan consensus on Nunn-Lugar by streamlining and accelerating Nunn-Lugar implementation. It would grant more flexibility to the President and the Secretary of Defense to undertake proliferation projects outside the former Soviet Union. It also would eliminate Congressionally-imposed conditions on Nunn-Lugar assistance that in the past have forced the suspension of time- sensitive nonproliferation projects. The purpose of the bill is to reduce bureaucratic red tape and friction within our government that hinder effective responses to nonproliferation opportunities and emergencies. For example, recently Albania appealed for help in destroying 16 tons of chemical agent left over from the Cold War. Last August, I visited this remote storage facility. Nunn-Lugar officials are working closely with Albanian leaders to destroy this dangerous stockpile. But this experience also is illustrative of the need to reduce bureaucratic delays. The package of documents related to the mission took some 11 weeks to be finalized and readied for President Bush. From beginning to end, the bureaucratic process to authorize dismantlement of chemical weapons in Albania took more than three months. Fortunately, the situation in Albania was not a crisis, but we may not be able to afford these timelines in future nonproliferation emergencies. As I said when I introduced this legislation during our November session last year, I wanted to have the benefit of the Administration's views and my colleagues' input. Since then, I am pleased that Senators Domenici, Hagel, Reed, Biden, Levin, Collins, McCain and Obama have all signed on as co-sponsors. The Administration has now stated that they support this bill. I look forward to working in Congress to enact it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I offer a resolution commemorating the life of the late Zurab Zhvania, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Georgia. At the request of President Bush, I was honored to lead a delegation last weekend to represent the United States at Prime Minister Zhvania's funeral. Also representing the United States was Paul Applegarth, Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO; and Lorne Craner, President of the International Republican Institute. Prime Minister Zhvania was a prominent leader in Georgia's Rose Revolution. He was a true reformer, lauded for his intellectual acuity, and a friend of America. I was fortunate to meet with Zhvania last December. We had an extensive discussion about Georgia's promising future and vigorous agenda to transform it into a regional model of political and economic progress. The U.S.-Georgia relationship is strong. I am grateful to Georgia's recent decision to increase its troop level in Iraq. I am also grateful for its partnership in the War on Terror, including its troop commitment in Afghanistan and to the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. I am hopeful that our strategic relationship with Georgia will continue to grow as we face the new threats of the 21st century. The death of Prime Minister Zhvania is a loss for Georgia, for the United States, and for the community of democratic nations. I ask my colleagues for their support of this resolution.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate on promoting initiatives to develop an HIV vaccine. On June 6, 2004, I introduced Senate Resolution 398 urging the President to promote initiatives to develop an HIV vaccine. While I am encouraged by the progress that has taken place in the months since I submitted that resolution, much remains to be done to develop an effective HIV vaccine. Because of the gravity and urgency of this issue, I am submitting my resolution. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is unlike any disease in history and has profound implications for political stability, development, and human welfare. The sheer magnitude of the crisis is overwhelming. An estimated 40,000,000 people around the world live with HIV or AIDS, and nearly 8,500 people die every day from AIDS. Last year alone, more than 3 million people died from AIDS. Every 14 seconds, a child loses a parent to AIDS. An estimated 14,000,000 children have lost one or both parents to AIDS, and this number is expected to increase to 25 million by 2010. According to recent projections from the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS, if the pandemic spreads at its current rate, there will be 45 million new infections by 2010 and nearly 70 million deaths by 2020. Sub-Saharan Africa has been hardest hit by the disease, with more than 75 percent of the people infected with HIV living in the region. The U.S. is leading global efforts to combat the pandemic through its $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and its commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. But the human and economic toll of the HIV pandemic demands that these activities be complemented by accelerated efforts to develop an HIV vaccine. An HIV vaccine would prevent new HIV and AIDS cases, which could save millions of lives and dramatically reduce the negative social and economic consequences of the disease. Yet, HIV vaccine development is still not prominent on national or international public health agendas. Developing an HIV vaccine is particularly challenging because HIV is one of the most complicated viruses ever identified. In addition, many private sector biotechnology companies have not invested money and expertise in the search for an HIV vaccine. Developing an HIV vaccine, therefore, is unlikely to occur without a well-coordinated and focused global research effort. The Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise is mobilizing such an effort. The Enterprise is an alliance of the world's leading scientists and independent organizations around the world committed to accelerating the development of a preventive vaccine for HIV/AIDS. The Enterprise, like the Human Genome Project, seeks to promote a new level of coordination and information-sharing to address a complex scientific problem. In addition, the HIV Vaccine Enterprise is intended to accelerate progress by promoting international public-private collaboration. The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, IAVI, has been instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Enterprise. The IAVI is an international organization that collaborates with developing countries, governments, and international agencies dedicated to accelerating the development of a vaccine to halt the AIDS epidemic. The IAVI, however, cannot accomplish this task alone. Here in the United States, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation have joined forces to help address the financial problems faced by small biotechnology companies. They founded BIO Ventures for Global Health to help small biotechnology companies address the problems they confront in developing new medical products for poor countries. The wider application of this model would greatly improve the development of vaccines and other medicines aimed at improving health in the developing world. Under President Bush's leadership, the Members of the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations, G-8, during their meeting at Sea Island last June, endorsed the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. At the meeting, President Bush announced plans to establish a second HIV Vaccine Research and Development Center in the United States, in addition to the one already operating at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Recently, the President announced funding for that second center, the Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology, CHAVI, which will become a key component of the Enterprise. I commend the President's leadership on this critically important issue. The G-8's endorsement of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise is a big step forward in the development of an HIV vaccine. My resolution acknowledges the President's and the G-8's actions towards this goal and urges them to continue to cooperate with other countries, particularly those hit hardest by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, to achieve this important objective.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy Reform Act. The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself. Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions are actually undermining our own interests in the world. Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems. But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated. Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight- jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions on our own security and prosperity before we enact them. To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American objectives. In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority if the President determines it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of such sanctions. The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws. Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort (to the extent possible, other means of persuasion ought to be exhausted first); if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian population (we should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to function); our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a minimum the adverse affects of our sanctions on our friends and allies; we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or rewards; the President of the United States should always have options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to circumstance and nuance (the Congress should be vigilant by ensuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law); and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and objectives. An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests. The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however, whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign policy will be more effective.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy Reform Act. The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself. Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions are actually undermining our own interests in the world. Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems. But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated. Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight- jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions on our own security and prosperity before we enact them. To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American objectives. In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority if the President determines it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of such sanctions. The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws. Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort (to the extent possible, other means of persuasion ought to be exhausted first); if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian population (we should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to function); our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a minimum the adverse affects of our sanctions on our friends and allies; we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or rewards; the President of the United States should always have options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to circumstance and nuance (the Congress should be vigilant by ensuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law); and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and objectives. An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests. The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however, whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign policy will be more effective.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am re-introducing today a bill that was on the legislative calendar of the 108th Congress when it adjourned in December. The Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act is intended to build operational readiness in the civilian agencies to improve our nation's capacity to carry out post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction missions. Until very recently, the concept of ``nation building'' was considered to be pejorative by many Members of Congress and government officials. The foreign policy orthodoxy of both parties was skeptical of missions that entailed long-term peacekeeping or stabilization commitments. If military force was necessary, most policymakers believed it should be used only for relatively brief periods followed by rapid withdrawal. But experience has taught us that this approach rarely can be accommodated if we are serious about protecting our own security in an age of terrorism. We have seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons technology. If we are to deny sanctuaries to terrorists, we must be involved in post-conflict stabilization. With this in mind, the Foreign Relations Committee took up the issue of how best to organize and prepare for post-conflict missions. Well over a year ago, we held our first bipartisan roundtable that brought together some of the best minds from inside and outside of government to consider this issue. From this process, we developed the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004. I introduced this legislation with Senators Biden and Hagel, and the Committee passed it unanimously. The purpose of our bill is to establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies. The bill puts the State Department at the center of the civilian reconstruction and stabilization effort, while coordination between State and Defense would continue at the NSC level. The Defense Science Board (DSB), which recently recommended a similar strengthening of stabilization and reconstruction capacity in the Defense Department, endorsed our legislation. On January 26, I introduced S. 192, new legislation that took the DSB recommendations and provided the executive branch the necessary authorities to carry them out. It calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take immediate action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the Department of Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction activities as well as to support the development of core competencies in other departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. The bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Service Committee for that Committee's consideration. While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has undertaken with skill and courage in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we must acknowledge that certain non-security missions will be better served in the future by a more organized civilian response. Our post-conflict efforts frequently have had a higher than necessary military profile. This is not the result of a Pentagon power grab or institutional fights. Rather, the military has led post-conflict operations primarily because it is the only agency capable of mobilizing sufficient personnel and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, military resources have been stretched and deployments of military personnel have been extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security missions that have burdened the military. In re-introducing the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act'' in the 109th Congress, I am well aware of the impact it has already had on both the debate on this issue and developments to date. In fact, some initiatives contained in the legislation have moved forward without its having been enacted. My Senate colleagues on the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the need to provide an emergency conflict response fund for stabilization and reconstruction crises. And the Commerce, Justice, State appropriators in both the Senate and the House agreed with the need to establish a new office at the State Department to take the lead in organizing our civilian efforts. Indeed, an Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization has now been organized and a highly capable coordinator named. At her confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice demonstrated detailed knowledge of the Office and its work. I am confidant that she has already embraced the Department's role as a core mission and will work to support the Office with appropriate funding and the kind of Department-wide backing and support from management that it will need to do its job. So why continue to pursue the legislation? It is still important to seek enactment because the legislation provides a permanent basis in law for the established office as well as new authorities that the Department will need to be successful. The Bush Administration's action on this issue demonstrates its ability to recalibrate policy and organization to address a changing world. We know that the President will continue to provide leadership in organizing the U.S. government for this mission. As demonstrated by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of 19-0, and by actions taken by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary and the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, there is significant support in the Congress for his work and for the foresight he is already demonstrating. The new Office, headed by Carlos Pascual, is doing a government-wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks. It is also pursuing an idea proposed in our bill of a Readiness Reserve to enable rapid mobilization of post-conflict stabilization personnel. It will work closely with the Secretary to assist in the coordination of policy, the preparation and management of response, and in developing cooperative arrangements with foreign countries, international and regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector organizations. I am hopeful that the Office also will develop the concept of a 250- person active duty Response Readiness Corps that is contained in the legislation. In Army terms, that is less than a small battalion of well-trained people--a modest but vigorous force-multiplier that would greatly improve our nation's stabilization capacity. This Corps would be composed of State Department and USAID employees who have the experience and technical skills to manage stabilization and reconstruction tasks in a hostile environment. Secretary Rice has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of enhancing standing civilian capacity to respond to post conflict situations. In answer to one of my questions during the confirmation process, she said: ``Creating a strong U.S. Government stabilization and reconstruction capacity is an Administration national security priority.'' She asserted that ``experience has shown that we must have the capacity to manage 2 to 3 stabilization and reconstruction operations concurrently. That means [we need] staff in Washington and in the field to manage and deliver quality programs.'' Dr. Rice is prepared to make the State Department an effective inter- agency leader as it should be--in post-conflict operations. I look forward to working closely with her on this effort. I consider this new mission to be one of the most important long-term defenses that the State Department can mount against future acts of terrorism.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am re-introducing today a bill that was on the legislative calendar of the 108th Congress when it adjourned in December. The Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act is intended to build operational readiness in the civilian agencies to improve our nation's capacity to carry out post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction missions. Until very recently, the concept of ``nation building'' was considered to be pejorative by many Members of Congress and government officials. The foreign policy orthodoxy of both parties was skeptical of missions that entailed long-term peacekeeping or stabilization commitments. If military force was necessary, most policymakers believed it should be used only for relatively brief periods followed by rapid withdrawal. But experience has taught us that this approach rarely can be accommodated if we are serious about protecting our own security in an age of terrorism. We have seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons technology. If we are to deny sanctuaries to terrorists, we must be involved in post-conflict stabilization. With this in mind, the Foreign Relations Committee took up the issue of how best to organize and prepare for post-conflict missions. Well over a year ago, we held our first bipartisan roundtable that brought together some of the best minds from inside and outside of government to consider this issue. From this process, we developed the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004. I introduced this legislation with Senators Biden and Hagel, and the Committee passed it unanimously. The purpose of our bill is to establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies. The bill puts the State Department at the center of the civilian reconstruction and stabilization effort, while coordination between State and Defense would continue at the NSC level. The Defense Science Board (DSB), which recently recommended a similar strengthening of stabilization and reconstruction capacity in the Defense Department, endorsed our legislation. On January 26, I introduced S. 192, new legislation that took the DSB recommendations and provided the executive branch the necessary authorities to carry them out. It calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take immediate action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the Department of Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction activities as well as to support the development of core competencies in other departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. The bill has been referred to the Senate Armed Service Committee for that Committee's consideration. While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has undertaken with skill and courage in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we must acknowledge that certain non-security missions will be better served in the future by a more organized civilian response. Our post-conflict efforts frequently have had a higher than necessary military profile. This is not the result of a Pentagon power grab or institutional fights. Rather, the military has led post-conflict operations primarily because it is the only agency capable of mobilizing sufficient personnel and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, military resources have been stretched and deployments of military personnel have been extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security missions that have burdened the military. In re-introducing the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act'' in the 109th Congress, I am well aware of the impact it has already had on both the debate on this issue and developments to date. In fact, some initiatives contained in the legislation have moved forward without its having been enacted. My Senate colleagues on the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the need to provide an emergency conflict response fund for stabilization and reconstruction crises. And the Commerce, Justice, State appropriators in both the Senate and the House agreed with the need to establish a new office at the State Department to take the lead in organizing our civilian efforts. Indeed, an Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization has now been organized and a highly capable coordinator named. At her confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice demonstrated detailed knowledge of the Office and its work. I am confidant that she has already embraced the Department's role as a core mission and will work to support the Office with appropriate funding and the kind of Department-wide backing and support from management that it will need to do its job. So why continue to pursue the legislation? It is still important to seek enactment because the legislation provides a permanent basis in law for the established office as well as new authorities that the Department will need to be successful. The Bush Administration's action on this issue demonstrates its ability to recalibrate policy and organization to address a changing world. We know that the President will continue to provide leadership in organizing the U.S. government for this mission. As demonstrated by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of 19-0, and by actions taken by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary and the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, there is significant support in the Congress for his work and for the foresight he is already demonstrating. The new Office, headed by Carlos Pascual, is doing a government-wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks. It is also pursuing an idea proposed in our bill of a Readiness Reserve to enable rapid mobilization of post-conflict stabilization personnel. It will work closely with the Secretary to assist in the coordination of policy, the preparation and management of response, and in developing cooperative arrangements with foreign countries, international and regional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and private sector organizations. I am hopeful that the Office also will develop the concept of a 250- person active duty Response Readiness Corps that is contained in the legislation. In Army terms, that is less than a small battalion of well-trained people--a modest but vigorous force-multiplier that would greatly improve our nation's stabilization capacity. This Corps would be composed of State Department and USAID employees who have the experience and technical skills to manage stabilization and reconstruction tasks in a hostile environment. Secretary Rice has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of enhancing standing civilian capacity to respond to post conflict situations. In answer to one of my questions during the confirmation process, she said: ``Creating a strong U.S. Government stabilization and reconstruction capacity is an Administration national security priority.'' She asserted that ``experience has shown that we must have the capacity to manage 2 to 3 stabilization and reconstruction operations concurrently. That means [we need] staff in Washington and in the field to manage and deliver quality programs.'' Dr. Rice is prepared to make the State Department an effective inter- agency leader as it should be--in post-conflict operations. I look forward to working closely with her on this effort. I consider this new mission to be one of the most important long-term defenses that the State Department can mount against future acts of terrorism.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I submit today a resolution commending the Iraqi people for their participation in the election of January 30, 2005, of a 275-member Transitional National Assembly and provincial and regional governments; and encouraging further steps toward establishment of a free, democratic, secure and prosperous Iraq. Despite the threats to voters, candidates and election workers, and the acts of violence by those seeking to prevent the voice of the majority from being heard, millions of Iraqis voted on Sunday. For the first time in over 50 years, the Iraqi people have been given the opportunity to choose their leadership. Through this resolution, the Senate recognizes and commends this historic moment and the strides of the Iraqi people toward free and fair elections.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have the pleasure and the honor to commend the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Soon, the Senate will carry out its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on President Bush's nominee for the office of Secretary of State. We will be participants in an historic moment that will reaffirm the Senate's role in foreign policy and underscore the brilliance of the constitutional design. Last week, the Committee on Foreign Relations held exhaustive hearings on this nomination. Dr. Rice fielded questions on dozens of subjects for more than 10\1/2\ hours over 2 days. All 18 members of the Committee took advantage of the opportunity to ask Dr. Rice questions. At the hearings, she responded to 199 questions--129 from Democrats and 70 from Republicans. In addition, in advance of the hearings, members of the Committee submitted 191 detailed questions for the record to Dr. Rice. Members received answers to each of these questions. Thus, Dr. Rice responded to a total of 390 questions from Senators. In American history, few cabinet nominees have provided as much information or answered as many questions during the confirmation process. She demonstrated that her understanding of U.S. foreign policy is comprehensive and insightful. Our hearings and yesterday's floor action served not only as an examination of Dr. Rice's substantial qualifications, but also as a fundamental debate on the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This debate was useful to the Senate and to the American people. Having the opportunity to question a Secretary of State nominee is a key aspect of Congressional oversight of any administration's foreign policy. Dr. Rice enthusiastically embraced this function of the hearings. In my judgment she is extraordinarily well-qualified to become Secretary of State. Even Dr. Rice's opponents have taken the time to admire her accomplishments and her qualifications. She is a person of conviction, loyalty, integrity, and ability. As a result of her distinguished service as National Security Advisor to President Bush and her earlier assignments on the NSC, she is well known to many Members of the Senate. We have observed her energy, her expertise, and her devotion to this country. I appreciate the cooperation that she has provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me personally. I had the good fortune to visit Dr. Rice before she assumed the post of National Security Adviser. Before President George W. Bush was elected, I participated with Dr. Rice at Stanford University meetings on foreign policy hosted by former Secretary of State, George Shultz. Secretary Shultz, a close friend of many in the Senate, was an early supporter of then Governor Bush. He recognized Dr. Rice's prodigious talent and encouraged her leadership within the Bush foreign policy team. At the Stanford University meetings, Dr. Rice demonstrated analytical brilliance and broad knowledge of world affairs. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, she established a trusted relationship with Governor Bush that has carried through in her work as National Security Adviser. The enormously complex job before Dr. Rice will require all of her talents and experience. American credibility in the world, progress in the war on terrorism, and our relationships with our allies will be greatly affected by the Secretary of State's leadership and the effectiveness of the State Department in the coming years. We recognize the deep personal commitment necessary to undertake this difficult assignment, and we are grateful that a leader of her stature is willing to step forward. Opponents of the nomination have focused primarily on individual statements made by the nominee during her tenure as National Security Adviser. I simply observe that Dr. Rice has spent 4 years in one of the most intense crucibles of leadership imaginable. The scrutiny that National Security Advisers must live under is unrelenting, and their responsibility for foreign policy outcomes often is exceeded only by the President, who makes the final decision. Dr. Rice has been in the arena making tough decisions and answering tough questions on a daily basis for 4 years. I do not remember any National Security Adviser who did not have bruises to show for stepping into this arena. The attachment of controversies to a National Security Adviser is inevitable. Even as Senators scrutinize Dr. Rice's record, we must not fail to recognize the level of sacrifice, courage, and discipline that is required to be National Security Adviser. Her proven fortitude in meeting these challenges and in sustaining herself physically and mentally through the pressures of responsibility is impressive. Dr. Rice is not just a survivor. Even under intense pressure, she has performed her duties successfully with thoughtfulness, fairness, and magnanimity. These are exactly the qualities that we want in our top diplomat. And these qualities already have produced results. Dr. Rice has contributed to numerous policy successes in the Bush administration. These successes have involved issues as diverse as our non-proliferation policies, our campaign against global AIDS, and reform of our post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction mechanisms. Befitting the role of National Security Adviser, she has not been in the limelight claiming credit for successes. Instead, she has performed without ego, while preserving the trust of the President. This close relationship will serve her well at the State Department. The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy advisor, as our Nation's most visible emissary to the rest of the world, and as manager of one of the most important Departments in our Government. Any one of these jobs would be a challenge for even the most talented public servant. The Secretary of State, at this critical time in our history, must excel in all three roles. From my own conversations with Dr. Rice, I am confident that she understands that the President's foreign policy can be enhanced in the second term by a closer working relationship with Congress. In moving to head the State Department, she understands that much of this communication will depend on her. Last week's hearings were an excellent start. Her attitude throughout these arduous hearings was always accommodating and always respectful of the Senate's Constitutional role in the nomination process. From the beginning she made clear her desire to have a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. foreign policy and to take all the questions that members wanted to ask. If confirmed, it will be her duty to use the foundation of these hearings to build a consistent bridge of communication to the Congress. As legislators, we have equal responsibility in this process. We have the responsibility of educating ourselves about national security issues, even when they are not the top issues in headlines or polls. We have the responsibility to maintain good foreign affairs law, even when taking care of this duty yields little credit back home. We have the responsibility to ensure that our first impulse in foreign affairs is one of bipartisanship. And we have the responsibility to speak plainly when we disagree with the administration, but to avoid inflammatory rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or settle partisan scores. We have the opportunity with the beginning of a new presidential term to enhance the constructive role of Congress in foreign policy. We have made an excellent start during the past week. I thank all 19 Senators who participated in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings and all 22 Senators who have joined in the floor debate. I urge Members to vote in favor of the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the quorum count equally against both sides of the aisle.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair please recognize Senator Domenici.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides at this stage?

Mr. LUGAR. There is 14 minutes and 1 minute?