Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my understanding is the majority leader is en route to the floor. He had responsibilities in the House of Representatives for a period of time. The distinguished Democratic leader is on the floor. It is his desire to wait until the majority leader is present, and both, as I understand, will make final comments, if necessary using leader time. Therefore, Mr. President, I will speak at this point, utilizing the time allotted to our side with a final argument. Mr. President, I appreciated, as did the Senator from New Mexico, the comments of our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, when he discussed really the long debate we have had with regard to the conduct of the war in Iraq, of the conduct of the war against terrorism, which involves Iraq. Clearly, Senator Lieberman is accurate when he points out that essentially we have had many disagreements about the prewar planning, the problems of the dislocation of all of the Iraqi security forces, the great dilemmas we have had as we approach now the elections and the fledgling democracy we hope Iraqis will be able to fashion as they formulate a constitution and elect the officials of their country. The security situation remains extremely precarious for American troops and those who are with us in Iraq attempting to help Iraqis provide security for their villages and for their countryside. There are clearly differences of opinion as to how well all of these activities have been conducted, but I think, in recognition of how very difficult it has been for decisionmakers, a general consensus is that the batting average has been good, even if not perfect. But Senator Lieberman made the point that now, at this particular moment, as we vote today to confirm a Secretary of State, we are a united group in this Senate on the need for success in Iraq. There should be no doubt on the part of all who are about to cast their ballots in Iraq and take the chances that are posed when they are threatened really with loss of life for their willingness to exercise a franchise, it should be clear we are united back here. This is not a fractious group, I hope, today that gives any sustenance of hope to the insurgents, to those who are attempting to formulate disaster in the Middle East that the face of America is not a united face. I make this point because the person we are about to confirm as Secretary of State will be, aside from the President of the United States, the most prominent spokesperson, the most prominent diplomat making the case for the United States of America and for each of us on this Senate floor as proud Americans. And it is very important, now that we have had a full discussion of arguments on deficiencies, things we must do better, institutions we must improve, simply to note how important it is to the world to have confidence we know what we are doing and that we are prepared at least to continually discuss this in the same candid way we have done, but then to come together and say this is our President, this is our Secretary of State, this is our policy. I am very hopeful that the vote for Dr. Rice will be a very strong vote. I do not depreciate for a moment the right or desire of those who may have a heartfelt need to say no. That is a great privilege we all exercise. But a lot is at stake today in saying yes, and saying yes together in as large a number as we can muster when the roll is called is important because this is a person who will be Secretary of State, and this is a vote that will be memorable. It is not in any way a trivial pursuit or time of fractious odds or a time to be spoilers. This is for our country at a time to be the very best we can be as Senators. I have reiterated the record of our hearings and I have appreciated very much the cooperation and, beyond that, the friendship of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, because the both of us have shared from time to time with witnesses who have come before our committee considerable anxieties about the policies they were pursuing or some they were not pursuing, or questions we were raising we felt they perhaps had not been raising and that they should. By my best count, in the last 2 years, we have had 23 hearings on Iraq. That is a lot of quality time devoted by good administration witnesses and other experts, as well as by Senators, as I mentioned, in the long hearings we had with Dr. Rice, and in the almost 200 questions raised before the hearing and another 200 during the hearing. This is a lot of questioning, a lot of information, a big record. So we took this seriously, all 18 of us, plus Senator Feinstein of California, who introduced Dr. Rice to the committee to begin with. Senators have taken it very seriously on the floor. In my opening comments, I mentioned that at least 22 Senators spoke yesterday and many spoke at length, with very sincere tributes to Dr. Rice. Some of the Senators had very sincere questions about where we are going and what we ought to be doing. But those preliminaries are over. We come now to the moment of decision, and I hope and pray that the vote will be a strong one for a candidate who in fact can be a champion for us. Her entire life story, which has been touched upon, but only barely--and perhaps this is a tribute to our next Secretary of State, that we did not dwell on biography, although it is a dramatic one out of Birmingham, AL. We did not dwell on racial background or on the fact that a lady is going to be Secretary of State. We did not get into many of the divisive arguments we often have as to where somebody comes from and what their background is. Dr. Rice was taken seriously from the beginning of the hearings and throughout this debate as a world statesperson who knows a great deal, who is extraordinarily intelligent and dedicated to this country and extraordinarily courageous in speaking out as she has. I add all this simply to say that I am hopeful Senators will vote for Dr. Rice when we vote soon. I will yield the floor in the hopes that our leader and the distinguished minority leader will have an opportunity to make comments before the Chair calls for the roll. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Chair has noted we have 5 minutes. We are hopeful of seeing our leader.

Mr. LUGAR. I will yield back our time and then the leaders may proceed.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. The bill I am introducing today seeks to enhance United States effectiveness in dealing with countries that are either emerging from civil strife and conflict or threatened with instability. It calls for the creation of certain fundamental capabilities within the Government, and the Pentagon in particular, that are critical to success in what has come to be called stabilization and reconstruction operations. These capabilities include the training and equipping of sufficient numbers of civilian and military personnel for such activities, as well as the development of a new guiding principle--one that designates stabilization and reconstruction as a prime Defense Department mission with the same priority as combat operations. Often these missions will occur at the end of major combat operations. We have learned from recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq that the United States will encounter significant challenges in seeking to ensure stability, democracy, and a productive economy in nations affected by conflict. While United States Armed Forces are extremely capable of effectively projecting military force and prevailing on the battlefield, achieving United States objectives also requires successful stabilization and reconstruction operations after major fighting has ceased. Without success in the aftermath of large-scale hostilities, the United States hard-won military victories will be at risk. To achieve this success, the armed forces and civilian agencies of the United States Government must have the capabilities to support stabilization and reconstruction and to undertake effective planning and preparation well before the outbreak of hostilities. There are many cases, as well, when timely intervention to stabilize a threatening situation can head off the need for a major combat operation. This legislation envisions that the same capabilities created to stabilize a post-conflict situation may also be used to prevent conflict in the first place, thus achieving United States objectives more effectively with less loss of life and less potential risk to our relations with other countries. Much as the military component of a conflict requires extensive planning and training, we must also be well-prepared and trained for stabilization and reconstruction operations. To be fully effective in such operations, the United States needs to have Federal Government personnel deployed continuously abroad for years-long tours of duty so that they become familiar with the local scene and can earn the trust of indigenous people. The active component of the Armed Forces cannot meet all of these requirements. Personnel from other Federal agencies, reserve component forces, contractors, United States allies and coalition partners, and indigenous personnel must help. This bill complements legislation I introduced last year, S. 2127, which calls for creation of a stabilization and reconstruction capability within the State Department. I am pleased the State Department created a new office for such activities. This bill is the important next step. It calls upon the President to issue a directive to develop an intensive planning process for stabilization and reconstruction activities, as well as the establishment of joint interagency task forces composed of senior Government executives and military officers to ensure coordination and integration of the activities of military and civilian personnel in a particular country or area of interest. In addition, the bill 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 planning in other departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. It further calls for the Secretary of Defense to take certain actions to ensure that stabilization and reconstruction becomes a core competency of general purpose forces through training, leader development, doctrine development and the use of other force readiness tools. I recognize that the subject matter of this bill is extremely broad in scope, and that it properly falls within the purview of other committees in addition to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, I believe that the only way the United States will achieve long-term success in stabilization and reconstruction operations is if all resources of the United States Government are brought to bear on the country or area of concern. It is for that reason that I am introducing this bill, and I hope that my colleagues in this body, in particular Senators Warner and Levin, will agree to take a major role in examining the merits of those aspects of this bill that fall within their jurisdiction and expertise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. The bill I am introducing today seeks to enhance United States effectiveness in dealing with countries that are either emerging from civil strife and conflict or threatened with instability. It calls for the creation of certain fundamental capabilities within the Government, and the Pentagon in particular, that are critical to success in what has come to be called stabilization and reconstruction operations. These capabilities include the training and equipping of sufficient numbers of civilian and military personnel for such activities, as well as the development of a new guiding principle--one that designates stabilization and reconstruction as a prime Defense Department mission with the same priority as combat operations. Often these missions will occur at the end of major combat operations. We have learned from recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq that the United States will encounter significant challenges in seeking to ensure stability, democracy, and a productive economy in nations affected by conflict. While United States Armed Forces are extremely capable of effectively projecting military force and prevailing on the battlefield, achieving United States objectives also requires successful stabilization and reconstruction operations after major fighting has ceased. Without success in the aftermath of large-scale hostilities, the United States hard-won military victories will be at risk. To achieve this success, the armed forces and civilian agencies of the United States Government must have the capabilities to support stabilization and reconstruction and to undertake effective planning and preparation well before the outbreak of hostilities. There are many cases, as well, when timely intervention to stabilize a threatening situation can head off the need for a major combat operation. This legislation envisions that the same capabilities created to stabilize a post-conflict situation may also be used to prevent conflict in the first place, thus achieving United States objectives more effectively with less loss of life and less potential risk to our relations with other countries. Much as the military component of a conflict requires extensive planning and training, we must also be well-prepared and trained for stabilization and reconstruction operations. To be fully effective in such operations, the United States needs to have Federal Government personnel deployed continuously abroad for years-long tours of duty so that they become familiar with the local scene and can earn the trust of indigenous people. The active component of the Armed Forces cannot meet all of these requirements. Personnel from other Federal agencies, reserve component forces, contractors, United States allies and coalition partners, and indigenous personnel must help. This bill complements legislation I introduced last year, S. 2127, which calls for creation of a stabilization and reconstruction capability within the State Department. I am pleased the State Department created a new office for such activities. This bill is the important next step. It calls upon the President to issue a directive to develop an intensive planning process for stabilization and reconstruction activities, as well as the establishment of joint interagency task forces composed of senior Government executives and military officers to ensure coordination and integration of the activities of military and civilian personnel in a particular country or area of interest. In addition, the bill 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 planning in other departments and agencies, principally the Department of State. It further calls for the Secretary of Defense to take certain actions to ensure that stabilization and reconstruction becomes a core competency of general purpose forces through training, leader development, doctrine development and the use of other force readiness tools. I recognize that the subject matter of this bill is extremely broad in scope, and that it properly falls within the purview of other committees in addition to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, I believe that the only way the United States will achieve long-term success in stabilization and reconstruction operations is if all resources of the United States Government are brought to bear on the country or area of concern. It is for that reason that I am introducing this bill, and I hope that my colleagues in this body, in particular Senators Warner and Levin, will agree to take a major role in examining the merits of those aspects of this bill that fall within their jurisdiction and expertise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may require of the time on our side. Mr. President, I have the pleasure and honor today of speaking in support of the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be our Secretary of State. As a result of her distinguished career as National Security Adviser to President Bush and her earlier assignment on the NSC, she is well known to most Members of the Senate. I admire her accomplishments, and I am particularly thankful for the cooperation she has provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me personally. The enormously complex job before Dr. Rice will require all of her talents and experience. American credibility in the world, the progress in the war on terrorism, and our relationships with our allies will be greatly affected by the Secretary of State's actions and the effectiveness of the State Department in the coming years. Dr. Rice is highly qualified to meet those challenges. 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. I had the good fortune to get to know Dr. Rice before she assumed the post of National Security Adviser to President Bush. Before President George W. Bush was elected, I enjoyed visits with Dr. Rice when we both attended Stanford University meetings on foreign policy hosted by former Secretary of State George Shultz. Secretary Shultz, a close friend of many of us in the Senate, was a very early supporter of the then-Governor Bush of Texas. He recognized Dr. Rice's prodigious talents and encouraged her leadership within the Bush foreign policy team. At the Stanford University meetings, Dr. Rice's analytical brilliance and broad knowledge of world affairs were evident. During the campaign for the Presidency of George Bush, she established a trusted relationship with then-Governor Bush that has carried through in her work as National Security Adviser to President Bush. Last week, the Committee on Foreign Relations held exhaustive hearings on this nomination. Dr. Rice fielded questions on every imaginable subject for more than 10\1/2\ hours over 2 days. All 18 members of our 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 additional detailed questions for the record to Dr. Rice. Members received answers to each of those questions. Thus, Dr. Rice responded to a total of 390 questions from Senators. In American history, few Cabinet members have provided as much information or answered as many questions as Dr. Rice answered during the confirmation process. She demonstrated that her understanding of U.S. foreign policy is comprehensive and insightful. Our hearings served not only as an examination of Dr. Rice's substantial qualifications but also as a fundamental debate on the direction of American foreign policy. I believe 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 hearing, and at many points she engaged in theoretical exchanges on national security choices. Dr. Rice emphasized that support for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law would be at the core of U.S. foreign policy during her watch. She said: In these momentous times, American diplomacy has three great tasks. First, we will unite the community of democracies in building an international system that is based on our shared values and the rule of law. Second, we will strengthen the community of democracies to fight the threats to our common security and alleviate the hopelessness that feeds terror. And third, we will spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe. The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy adviser, 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, but, as I told Dr. Rice during our hearings, the Secretary of State, at this critical time in our history, must excel in all three roles. Since 2001, we have witnessed terrorists killing thousands of people in our country and the destruction of the World Trade Center and a part of the Pentagon. We have seen U.S. military personnel engaged in two difficult and costly wars. We have seen the expansion of a nihilistic form of terrorism that is only loosely attached to political objectives and is, therefore, very difficult to deter. We have seen frequent expressions of virulent anti-Americanism in many parts of the Islamic world. We have seen our alliances, our international standing, and our Federal budget strained by the hard choices we have to make in response to terrorism. In this context, many diplomatic tasks must be approached with urgency. In particular, our success in Iraq is critical. The elections scheduled for January 30 must go forward, and the United States must work closely with Iraqi authorities to achieve the fairest and the most complete outcome. At the same time, we must understand that those forces that want to keep Iraq in chaos will commit violence and intimidation. Both Iraqis and the coalition will have to be resilient and flexible in the elections' aftermath. The Bush administration and the State Department also must devote themselves to achieving a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict; to coming to grips with the nuclear proliferation problems in Iran and North Korea; to continuing urgent humanitarian efforts in Sudan, the Indian Ocean region, and elsewhere; to maintaining our commitment to the global fight against AIDS and other infectious diseases; to advancing democracy in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and elsewhere; to repairing alliances with longstanding friends in Europe; to reinvigorating our economic and security relationships in our own hemisphere; and to engaging with rapidly changing national powers, especially China, India, and Russia. Even though this list of diplomatic priorities is daunting, it is not exhaustive, and it does not anticipate unforeseeable events. Just weeks ago, none of us could have predicted a tragic earthquake and a tsunami would change the face of the Indian Ocean region. Our efforts must include the expansion of our foreign policy capabilities so we are better prepared for crises that cannot be averted and better able to prevent those that can be. With this in mind, I would observe that Congress must improve its own performance in foreign affairs, particularly in the area of legislation. The enthusiasm for engaging in the details of U.S. foreign policy the Senate demonstrated last week, and will again demonstrate today, too often has been absent when it is time to perform our legislative duties. Even as Senators have cited shortcomings of administration policy in responding to extraordinarily difficult circumstances in Iraq and elsewhere, the Senate has allowed partisan fights and unrelated domestic legislation and disagreements over that legislation during the last Congress to delay the far simpler task of passing the foreign affairs authorization bill, for example. Now, this bill includes new initiatives and funding authority related to the security and productivity of our diplomats, our outreach to the Muslim world, our nonproliferation efforts, our foreign assistance, and innumerable other national security priorities. Yet politically motivated obstacles were thrown in the path of the bill almost cavalierly, as if Congress's duty to pass foreign affairs legislation had little connection to our success in Iraq or in our war against terrorism. Even as we do our duty to oversee the foreign policy performance of the executive branch, we must take a sober look at our own performance. We must critique ourselves with the same diligence that we have applied to the administration. Every Senator should reflect on the troubling fact that we have not passed a comprehensive foreign assistance bill since 1985. This means that for 20 years we have depended primarily on stopgap measures and bandaids applied during the appropriations process to govern one of the major tools of U.S. foreign policy. Only 24 Members of the current Senate body were here the last time we passed a comprehensive foreign aid bill. Our single largest foreign assistance program, the Millennium Challenge Account, cannot even be found in the core legislation affecting foreign assistance. Moreover, many aspects of our foreign assistance law have not been updated since the original Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Forty-four years ago, when our basic foreign assistance law was written, we were preoccupied with the Cold War, terrorism was a rare phenomenon, scientists had not identified the HIV/AIDS virus, the illegal trade in drugs was a small fraction of what it is today, dozens of present day countries did not exist, and only one Senator who still sits in this body was present. Congress's most basic responsibility is to write and pass good legislation that provides clear direction to U.S. policy. In the area of foreign assistance, however, we are operating under an archaic Rube Goldberg contraption that has been patched hundreds of times. Much of the underlying law is irrelevant or redundant. Other parts are contradictory. As a result, the law is a confusing muddle that serves neither the interests of U.S. taxpayers nor our national security goals. We are tolerating this legislation of irresponsibility at a time of great national vulnerability. Congress's failure in this area has more to do with inattention than with disagreement. In both 2003 and 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a foreign affairs authorization bill by a unanimous vote. In 2003, we were mere hours away from final Senate passage, when the bill was derailed by unrelated domestic issues. We have not been blocked by intractable policy disagreements but by our devaluation of our own legislative role in foreign policy. We need to make a bipartisan decision that passing a foreign affairs authorization bill each Congress is as important as passing a defense authorization bill or a homeland security authorization bill. We must be prepared to fulfill our own core national security responsibilities. Dr. Rice indicated her strong support for passage of a comprehensive foreign affairs bill. I know we will have a powerful advocate in Dr. Rice for such action. I would like to emphasize another critical area of national security policy where Dr. Rice's advocacy has been strong, consistent, and persuasive. During the Foreign Relations Committee hearings last week, I opened the question period with three questions pertaining to the Nunn-Lugar program and other aspects of our nonproliferation efforts. In each case Dr. Rice expressed the administration's strongest commitment to the programs and to diplomatic objectives in question. She stated: I really can think of nothing more important than being able to proceed with the safe dismantlement of the Soviet arsenal, with nuclear safeguards to make certain that nuclear programs facilities and the like are well secured, and then the blending down--as we are doing--of a number of hazardous, potentially lethal materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons, as well as, of course . . . the chemical weapons. . . . It is just an extremely important program that I think you know that we continue to push. In fact, the Bush administration has achieved a great deal in the area of nonproliferation. Dr. Rice has been a stalwart proponent of a robust Nunn-Lugar program. Chief among these successes is the rarely mentioned Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, informally known as ``10 plus 10 over 10.'' Under this agreement, negotiated by the Bush administration, the United States will spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to safeguard and to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction arsenal of the former Soviet Union. The other members of the G8 agreed collectively to spend another $10 billion over the same time period. Our commitment of funds is primarily money that we had planned to spend in any event through the Nunn-Lugar program and other associated efforts. With this agreement, the President effectively doubled the funds committed to securing weapons of mass destruction in Russia with minimal additional obligation to American taxpayers. The Bush administration also has successfully recruited more than 60 countries to join the Proliferation Security Initiative Program that has enhanced our ability to interdict illegal weapons of mass destruction shipments around the world. Through the Energy Department, it established the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which aims to secure high-risk nuclear and radiological materials globally. It has facilitated at several junctures the acceleration of Nunn-Lugar work at critical chemical weapons destruction facilities at Shchuchye in Russia through personal intervention by the President and by Dr. Rice. It finalized the deal with Libya to lay open that country's weapons of mass destruction programs. And it advocated passage of the IAEA additional protocol which greatly expands that international agency's ability to detect clandestine nuclear activities. It secured the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 in April 2004, which for the first time declared that weapons of mass destruction proliferation is illegal. It has also provided constant encouragement to the promising talks between India and Pakistan that represent the best chance in years to reduce tensions between these nuclear powers. The President supported, through personal communication to congressional leaders, and signed into law the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act, which establishes the authority to use Nunn-Lugar moneys and expertise outside the former Soviet Union. In these cases and others, the President and his administration have embraced diplomacy and skillfully employed multilateralists in support of important nonproliferation objectives. I believe Dr. Rice's strong statements of support for nonproliferation programs last week demonstrate the Bush administration's continuing commitment to these vital objectives. Last November, I introduced two new bills to strengthen U.S. nonproliferation efforts, and I will be introducing these bills again this week. They represent the fourth installment of the Nunn-Lugar legislation that I have offered since 1991. In that year, former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia 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 an enormous stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, the 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 weapons of mass destruction 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 bills I am introducing this week would strengthen the Nunn-Lugar program and other nonproliferation efforts and provide them 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. And 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 the cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. In addition, the program provides the primary tool with which the United States is working with Russian authorities to identify, to safeguard, and to destroy Russia's massive chemical and biological warfare capacity. Countless individuals of great dedication, serving on the ground in the former Soviet Union and in our Government, have made the Nunn-Lugar program work. Nevertheless, from the beginning we have encountered resistance to the concept in both the United States and Russia. In our own country opposition has sometimes been motivated by false perceptions that Nunn-Lugar money is foreign assistance or by the belief that Defense Department funds should only be spent on troops, weapons, or other warfighting capabilities. Until recently, we also faced a general disinterest in nonproliferation which made gaining support for Nunn-Lugar funding and activities an annual struggle. The attacks of September 11 changed the political discourse radically on that subject. We have turned a corner. The public, the media, and political candidates are now paying more attention. In a remarkable moment in the first Presidential debate of 2004, both President Bush and Senator Kerry agreed that the No. 1 national security threat facing the United States was the prospect that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the hands of terrorists. The 9/11 Commission weighed in 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 counterproliferation 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. The first new bill I have introduced is the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2005. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Domenici and Hagel, would underscore the bipartisan consensus on Nunn-Lugar by streamlining and accelerating Nunn-Lugar implementation. It would grant more flexibility to the President and to the Secretary of Defense to undertake nonproliferation 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 redtape and friction within our Government that hinder effective responses to nonproliferational opportunities and emergencies. At last week's hearing, Dr. Rice reiterated the administration's strong support of the bill. She understands how important it is to prevent needless delays in our weapons dismantlement schedule. Our recent experience in Albania is illustrative of the need to reduce bureaucratic delays. Last year in 2004, Albania appealed for help in destroying 16 tons of chemical agent left over from the Cold War. In August of last year, I visited this remote facility, the location of which still remains classified. Nunn-Lugar officials are working closely with Albanian leaders to destroy this dangerous stockpile. But from beginning to end, the bureaucratic process to authorize the dismantlement of chemical weapons in Albania took more than 3 months, largely because of requirements in current law. Fortunately, the situation in Albania was not a crisis. But we may not be able to afford these timelines in future nonproliferation emergencies. The second piece of legislation that I will introduce is the Conventional Arms Threat Reduction Act of 2005 or CATRA. This legislation, cosponsored by Senator Domenici, is modeled on the original Nunn-Lugar Act. Its purpose is to provide the Department of State with a focused response to the threat posed by vulnerable stockpiles of conventional weapons around the world, including tactical missiles and man portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, as they are now more commonly called. Such missile systems could be used by terrorists to attack commercial airlines, military installations, and government facilities at home and abroad. Reports suggest that al-Qaida has attempted to acquire these kinds of weapons. In addition, unsecured conventional weapons stockpiles are a major obstacle to peace, reconstruction, and economic development in regions suffering from instability. My bill declares it to be the policy of the United States to seek out surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional armaments, including small arms and light weapons and tactical missile systems, for elimination. It authorizes the Department of State to carry out a global effort to destroy such weapons and to cooperate with allies and international organizations when possible. The Secretary of State is charged with devising a strategy for prioritizing, on a country-by-country basis, the obligation of funds in a global program of conventional arms elimination. Lastly, the Secretary is required to unify program planning, coordination, and implementation of the strategy into one office at the State Department and to request a budget commensurate with the risk posed by these weapons. The Department of State has been working to address the threats posed by conventional weapons. But in my judgment, the current funding allocation and organizational structure are not up to the task. Only about $6 million was devoted to securing small arms and light weapons during the two-year period that covered FY 2003 and FY 2004. We need more focus on this problem and more funding to take advantage of opportunities to secure vulnerable stockpiles. In August, I visited Albania, Ukraine, and Georgia. Each of these countries has large stockpiles of MANPADS and tactical missile systems and each has requested U.S. assistance to destroy them. On August 27, I stood in a remote Albanian military storage facility as the base commander unloaded a fully functioning MANPAD from its crate and readied it for use. This storage site contained 79 MANPADS that could have been used to attack an American commercial aircraft or installation. Fortunately, the MANPADS that I saw that day were destroyed on September 2, but there are many more like them throughout the world. Too often, conventional weapons are inadequately stored and protected. This presents grave risk to American military bases, embassy compounds, and even targets within the United States. We must develop a response that is commensurate with the threat. I am offering these two bills, with the hope of passing them at the earliest opportunity. I anticipate and welcome strong support from Members of the Senate that reflects the priority status of U.S. non proliferation efforts. Mr. President, I would like to highlight another topic that is critical to U.S. foreign policy. This is our effort to lead the global fight against the horrific HIV/AIDS pandemic. During the hearings on Dr. Rice's nomination, she responded to several questions on the administration's Global AIDS initiative. I was pleased that she reiterated the administration's strong commitment to fighting AIDS and underscored the importance of paying special attention to the needs of women, who are contracting AIDS at an accelerated rate. In 2003, at the administration's urging, Congress passed comprehensive legislation that created the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator and pledged $15 billion over five years to address the HIV/ AIDS crisis. We must be mindful of the President's observation that, ``Time is not on our side,'' in combating this disease. In Africa, nearly 10,000 people contract the HIV virus each day. The United States has a clear moral obligation to respond generously and quickly to this crisis. The United States has acted with unprecedented urgency in combating HIV/AIDS globally, and the President's emergency plan for HIV/AIDS Relief is showing clear signs of progress. In the first 8 months of the President's emergency plan, the United States has supported bilateral programs in 15 of the most afflicted countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean to provide anti-retroviral treatment to those living with HIV/AIDS. I am pleased with the emergency plan's deep commitment to international cooperation. In fact, tomorrow, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Ambassador Tobias will be joining the leaders of the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the Global Fund to report on the progress that has been made in making drug treatment available to the developing world. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to work closely with the administration to make the fight against HIV/AIDS a priority. Charged with the oversight of the President's initiative, we will continue to hold hearings and briefings on the subject of AIDS and the progress of the President's emergency plan for AIDS Relief. In 2004, for instance, we held a hearing focused on the intersection of HIV/AIDS and hunger. At this hearing, Ambassador Randall Tobias, the Global AIDS Coordinator, and Jim Morris, Executive Director of the World Food Program, testified about the devastating effects that the HIV/AIDS crisis is having on agricultural workers and the food supply in sub- Saharan Africa. In addition, we explored the special nutritional needs of individuals who are taking antiretroviral medication. We are just beginning to understand how women, and young girls in particular, are especially vulnerable to HIV and AIDS, due to a combination of biological, cultural, economic, social and legal factors. Young girls constitute 75 percent of new infections in South Africa among individuals between 14 and 25 years of age. In Malawi, the National AIDS Commission has said that HIV and AIDS is killing more women than men, and that HIV-positive girls between 15 and 24 years of age outnumber males in the same age group by a six to one margin. Even in the United States, the disease is having a devastating effect on women, and is the leading cause of death among African American women ages 25 to 34. Not only are women and girls more vulnerable to infection, they are also shouldering much of the burden of taking care of sick and dying relatives and friends. In addition, in the vast majority of cases, they are the caretakers of the estimated 14 million children who have been orphaned by this pandemic. Grandmothers often take the responsibility of caring for grandchildren, and older female children often take care of their younger siblings. One such young girl is Fanny Madanitsa. Fanny is a 16-year-old girl living in Malawi with her two younger sisters and a brother. Life has been difficult for Fanny and her siblings since they lost their parents to AIDS. As the oldest child, Fanny must deal with the stress of taking care of her younger siblings. They live in a modest house and share one bed. Fanny dreams of being a nurse, but reaching this goal will be a challenge for her. She cannot always attend classes, as she sometimes has to look after her siblings. Because money is scarce, she has a difficult time paying for school materials and other costs of her education. But Fanny is more fortunate that many girls in similar circumstances. With the help of her Village AIDS Committee, a community-based organization that has organized to take care of the orphans in its village, Fanny and her siblings receive food, soap, school materials and also medicines. Through the Village AIDS Committee, which receives support from Save the Children, the community assists Fanny in watching her siblings so she can attend school. Last June, I introduced the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2004. I will reintroduce this bill in the coming days. It was written with the support of the administration, and I have received letters from both the State Department and USAID endorsing its passage. My bill would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing assistance to orphans and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children. Furthermore, my bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education for orphans and vulnerable children 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. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food. They have been a proven incentive for poor and orphaned children to enroll in school. In addition, many women and 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. I know that Dr. Rice is supportive of this legislation, and I am hopeful that, with bipartisan action, it will become law early this year. The AIDS orphans crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I know Dr. Rice shares the view that fighting Global AIDS must be a priority for U.S. foreign policy. I am hopeful that, with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Global Fund, and Congressional initiatives, we can make great strides together in the battle against this pandemic. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that I co-authored in the January 19 edition of the Washington Post with Patty Stonesifer, co-chair and President of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Mr. LUGAR. This editorial entitled ``Speeding an AIDS Vaccine'' lays out the case for improved global coordination in this area. Achievement of an AIDS vaccine would save millions of lives and billions of dollars in treatment costs in the coming decades. I am pleased that the Bush administration, through the NIH, already has taken the initiative to establish one Vaccine Research Center and has unveiled support for a second one. These centers are a critical element in improving global cooperation on the development of an AIDS vaccine. Mr. President, I have cited just a small sample of critical issues on which work in both the executive and legislative branches is proceeding with good results. 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 start 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. I believe that 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 18 Senators who participated in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings and all Senators who will join in the debate today. I strongly urge Members to vote in favor of the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Dorothy Height of the Washington Post of January 19 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, the following be the order of speakers: Senator McConnell, Senator Byrd, Senator Hagel, Senator Allen, Senator Boxer, Senator Alexander, Senator Durbin, a Republican Senator, and Senator Feinstein.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. This will be helpful, I believe, so Senators can allocate their time. I would comment to the Chair this means that essentially the period from 2:15 to approximately 5 o'clock will be consumed by these Senators. But the order allows for 9 hours of debate, which means theoretically there could be 4 more hours-plus after that to accommodate other Senators. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that during quorum calls the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. My information is at some point Senator Salazar wishes to speak before the luncheons.

Mr. LUGAR. And then Senator Salazar be accommodated. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides of the aisle for debate this afternoon?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator, Senator Reed is on a list but is not designated precisely. Perhaps while the speaker is speaking we can work this out.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial endorsing Dr. Rice for Secretary of State, published in the Evansville Courier & Press, on January 24, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator, my friend and colleague from Virginia, for his generous remarks. I ask unanimous consent at this point, to try to formulate the program for much of the rest of the evening, that following the remarks of Senator Feinstein, this be the order of speakers: Senator Stevens; Reed of Rhode Island; Voinovich; Kerry; Inhofe; a Democratic Senator at this point, if one seeks recognition; Senator Cornyn; once again, at the next point a Democratic Senator, if one seeks recognition; and there may be as many as three additional speakers who have not determined whether they were prepared to speak.

Mr. LUGAR. At this point, in trying to formulate for the benefit of the Senators the rest of the program, how much time remains on both sides of the aisle at this juncture?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Ohio be recognized.

Mr. LUGAR. How much time does the Senator plan to speak?