Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I wish to share with my colleagues the winners of the 2003-2004 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/ Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest. In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for 8th grade students in my home state. The purpose of this contest was to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently, craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. I, along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years. I congratulate Elizabeth A. Mercer, of Boone County, and Eric Webb, of Johnson County, as winners of this year's contest, and I ask that the complete text of their respective essays for the Record. Likewise, I ask that the names of all of the district and county winners of the 2003-2004 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest. The material follows: Grocery Shopping Starts on Hoosier Farms (By Elizabeth A. Mercer--Boone County) Indiana farms have a part in many food items around the world. Without farmers our country, even our world, would be starving. In the past, I knew that farmers were a big part of the ``Food Chain.'' Being a daughter of a farmer, I have learned that farmers begin the ``Food Chain.'' Starting my journey through the grocery store, I realize Hoosier farms are in all parts of the store. In the produce section, Hoosier farms raise celery, carrots, broccoli, cabbage, green beans, lettuce, peas, squash, cucumbers, zucchini, sweet corn, apples, potatoes, watermelons, cantaloupe, strawberries, tomatoes, and pumpkins. Produce grown by Indiana farmers is a crop, which adds value and income to their farming operation. Another section of the grocery store is the meat section. Meats produced in Indiana are beef, pork, chicken, turkey, elk, buffalo, sheep, fish, and duck. Indiana is the number one state in the USA for duck production. In the baking aisle corn syrup, corn meal, and corn oil are produced from corn of Indiana farmers. Half of Indiana's corn is raised for animal feed. A large portion of the remainder is used to produce high fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup is used in soft drinks, fruit juices, sport drinks, and canned fruits. Indiana soybeans are processed into soybean oil. Soybean oil is used in many baked goods such as breads, cakes, snack cakes, chips, and cookies. Wheat grown in Indiana is soft red winter wheat. Contrary to popular belief, bread is not made from Indiana wheat. Indiana wheat is used to produce pastas. From now on, when I walk through the grocery store I will know Hoosier farms have made a difference in the food supply for our country and our world. I am proud to say, ``My dad is a Hoosier farmer.''

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a signal anniversary that passed on Friday, March 19, 2004, the 25th anniversary of the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, C-SPAN. Founded in 1979, C-SPAN has rapidly grown from its humble beginnings televising the proceedings on the floor of the House of Representatives to a series of networks reaching millions of viewers daily. This service, which functions without any financial support of the Federal Government, provides our constituents with invaluable access to the day-to-day proceedings of both bodies of Congress, as well as other important mechanisms of our government. As a direct result, it is now easier than ever for our constituents to keep abreast of our deliberations and contribute well to the debates at hand. I am also pleased to point out that these tremendous networks were founded by a fellow Hoosier, Brian Lamb. Through his work experiences on Capitol Hill, Brian realized the importance of bringing the business of the Federal Government into the homes of Americans nationwide and his indefatigable enthusiasm made this possible. In addition, he has shown great commitment to our home State of Indiana. Brian has also maintained strong ties with his alma mater, Purdue University, in West Lafayette, IN, where he established the C-SPAN archives. Over 80,000 hours of C-SPAN programming are immediately accessible through this database. I am pleased to bring this important anniversary to the attention of my colleagues. I am thankful to C-SPAN for their efforts to spread the availability of our government, and I look forward to the continuing relationship, now in its 25th year, between C-SPAN and the U.S. Congress.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 2005 budget resolution. The Budget Committee has presented the Senate with a product of intense labor. Its members are determined to produce a budget resolution in a timely manner, and I have confidence that we will get this job done. I applaud the chairman of the committee, Senator Nickles, for his leadership and the way he has moved this process forward. My amendment would increase funding for the foreign affairs account by $1.1 billion, an amount that would bring the budget resolution up to President Bush's request for this purpose. In cooperation with Senator Durbin and others, my amendment has been modified to reflect an additional $300 million to address the global AIDS epidemic. The amendment would be offset by Section 920 Allowances. Much of our discussion in this budget will focus on taxes, health care, education, and Social Security. These issues will be fought out in the context of highly partisan perspectives. But even as we maneuver for advantage in these areas, we must recognize that international threats, particularly the threat of catastrophic terrorism, puts all these domestic objectives at risk. The threat of catastrophic terrorism now exists as an overarching negative condition on investor confidence, insurance cost and availability, trade flows, energy supplies, budget flexibility, the amount of national assets devoted to increasing productivity, and many other factors that are crucial to our economy. Our future economic prospects rest squarely on our Government's ability to defeat terrorism and to secure weapons and materials of mass destruction to a degree that encourages investment, improves public confidence, and protects the economy against severe economic shocks. If the United States fails to organize and stabilize the world, our economy will never reach its potential. The bottom line is this: for the foreseeable future, the United States and its allies will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. This is the domestic issue of our time, because virtually any large-scale idea to improve life in America will be circumscribed by the economic limitations imposed by this threat. In the 30 months since the September 11 attacks, the United States has refined its military capabilities, created a Department of Homeland Security, improved airport and seaport security, and scrutinized the efficiency of our intelligence services. We have carried the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan and Iraq. But to win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. Today we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has experienced the September 11 tragedy; we have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have been confronted by a nuclear crisis in North Korea; and we have undertaken a worldwide diplomatic offensive to secure allies in the broader war on terror. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We are still searching for a peace settlement in the Middle East. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic in Africa and elsewhere. In our own hemisphere, we have experienced a crisis in Haiti that requires immediate attention. We are assisting a war against drugs and terrorism in Colombia, and we have a challenge to democracy in Venezuela. Mexico, Brazil and other nations are becoming increasingly important to our economy. The ability of our military has not been in doubt. What has been in doubt are factors related to our diplomatic strength and our standing in the world. Can we get the cooperation of the U.N. Security Council? Can we secure the necessary basing and overflight rights? Can we limit anti-American reactions to war in the Arab world? Can we secure allied participation in the work of reconstructing Iraq? Can we prevent poverty and disease from destabilizing countries throughout the developing world? The answers of these questions have depended largely on the diplomatic work done by the State Department. The answers will depend in the future on the work funded by the very budget that we discuss today. Under President Bush and Secretary of State Powell, foreign affairs spending has received important increases since September 11, 2001. But we dug a very deep hole for ourselves during the mid- and late-1990s, when complacency about the role of our diplomats led foreign affairs spending to be greatly devalued. This year, the Budget Committee listened to our arguments sympathetically and provided what it believed it could, given difficult budgetary constraints. But I believe restoring full funding of the President's 150 Account request is the appropriate step at this point in the process. Last week the Foreign Relations Committee passed our State Department and Foreign Assistance Authorization bills by a unanimous vote. These bills were constructed through bipartisan work, and they reflect priorities valued by many of our Members. We stayed within the limits of the President's budget request. We believe that the President's full budget request for the 150 Account is necessary to fund critical priorities, including embassy security, non-proliferation efforts, child survival and health, and programs that fight the spread of AIDS. I concluded by saying that Americans demand that U.S. military capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? Relative to our international needs and the risks that we are facing, this amendment is modest. If a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapons, or the spiral into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost. I thank the co-sponsors of this amendment: Senators Feinstein, Durbin, DeWine, Hagel, Murray, Jeffords, Chafee, Cantwell, Smith, Lautenberg, Santorum, McCain, Biden, Sununu, and Levin. Senator Feinstein, the lead co-sponsor of my amendment, has been a champion of the 150 Account and has worked closely with me during the budget process, both last year and this year. I also want to specifically thank Senator DeWine, who had two amendments to increase the 150 Account that were focused on Haiti and child survival and health programs. He has co-sponsored this amendment as a way to make additional funds available for these purposes. These are extremely important priorities, and both have been a big part of our discussions in the Foreign Relations Committee. I thank the Budget Committee and Chairman Nickles for their help and counsel.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a tremendous Hoosier and dear friend Bob Orr, who has recently passed away. Bob Orr was our Governor during 8 years of record growth in Indiana jobs, Indiana exports, and increased interest in public education. As a scholar, businessman, political leader, State legislator, and Lieutenant Governor, he was superbly qualified to be the 45th Governor of Indiana. His extraordinary success brought new idealism, energy, and pride to the Hoosier State. I was privileged to share a myriad of wonderful experiences with Bob Orr during the past 40 years of our work together in public service, but two will be indelible in my memories. In June of l989, Bob was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to be United States Ambassador to Singapore. He proceeded to his post after a hearing by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Shortly thereafter, Char and I visited Ambassador Orr in Singapore. We were thrilled by his vision of the great opportunities our country could enjoy if we utilized our collective imagination and inventive genius to expand exports and to provide constructive economic and political leadership in Asia. Bob Orr was tireless in leading Indiana and the United States to have an international perspective and a clear vision of how our business and educational opportunities could flourish if we sought to compete more effectively. My second indelible memory is my last visit with Bob and Mary Kay Orr last September at a dinner in Indianapolis featuring an address by President George W. Bush. It was exciting to compare political notes with both of them and to catch up on family news. I had the privilege of once again introducing a great Governor, world statesman, and very dear friend. I had introduced, nominated, and spoken about Bob Orr innumerable times, but the last time I had the honor to do so was very special. The assembled crowd rose in cheers and sustained applause. Strongly assisted by Mary Kay, Governor Orr arose, a living legend for a legion of Hoosiers inspired by his life of achievement and service.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of ratification of the United States-Japan Tax Treaty. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I held a hearing on this treaty on February 25, where the committee heard testimony on the treaty's benefits from the Treasury Department, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the United States-Japan Business Council. Our committee voted to approve the treaty, along with several other items, by a vote of 19 to 0 at a business meeting last week. The Japan Tax Treaty is particularly significant due to our expansive trade and investment relationship with Japan. The United States and Japan are the two largest economies in the world, and account for approximately 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Japan is the fourth largest source of imports to the United States and the third largest export market for United States goods. The treaty, signed on November 6, 2003, by Treasury Secretary Snow and Japanese Ambassador Kato, will improve the ability of United States businesses to expand and prosper in Japan. It also will continue to encourage Japanese investment in the United States that contributes to the growth of our economy. The original Japan Tax Treaty was signed in March 1971 and went into force in January 1973. Since then, both United States and Japanese domestic tax laws have changed dramatically. Until now, the 1971 treaty has not been amended to reflect those changes or the monumental expansion of the United States-Japanese commercial relationship. American companies doing business with Japan are eager for this update of the bilateral tax treaty. It will guarantee more equitable treatment for United States corporate investors and relief from double taxation; it will strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms related to tax issues between our countries; and it will eliminate withholding taxes on all royalty income, certain interest income, and dividend income paid to parent companies. The overall benefit of the treaty is that our companies will become more competitive in the Japanese market. Japan is currently a party to tax agreements with several other nations that reduce double taxation for companies from those nations doing business in Japan. Consequently, without this treaty, United States businesses will continue to face a competitive disadvantage in the area of taxation. Following transmittal to the Senate this past December, the Foreign Relations Committee engaged in a thorough review and analysis of the treaty. Officials from the Department of Treasury briefed the committee extensively on the impact of the treaty on business relations between the United States and Japan. The committee also consulted with numerous commercial entities with operations in Japan. These entities all have indicated that the treaty will make them even more competitive in a market where they already are successful. In addition, the committee has had meetings with commercial officers from the Japanese Embassy to discuss ratification and implementation of the treaty. I understand that the timing of enactment of the Japan Tax Treaty is critical. Therefore, I have prioritized it on the Foreign Relations Committee's agenda, and I am grateful to the majority leader for bringing it quickly to the Senate floor. I also have written to the Japanese Finance Minister and leaders of the Diet to encourage them to join us in acting swiftly to bring the treaty into force. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Treasury Department and its International Tax Counsel Barbara Angus both for their work in producing this agreement and for their cooperation with the Foreign Relations Committee during the treaty's consideration. I would also like to salute the business community, and in particular the National Foreign Trade Council and the United States-Japan Business Council for their leadership and advocacy on behalf of this treaty. Mr. President, this treaty is good for the United States and good for our relationship with Japan. I urge my colleagues to vote to ratify it.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a few highlights from the remarkable lifetime of leadership and humanitarianism displayed by Dr. Landrum Bolling, former president of Earlham College. From 1958 to 1973, Dr. Bolling led both the students and the faculty of Earlham College in numerous interdisciplinary programs grounded in peace, justice, equality, simplicity, and consensus decisionmaking. His vast personal experience with foreign cultures and religions facilitates his teaching of international studies and humanitarianism. Currently, at the age of 90, Dr. Bolling serves as director-at-large of Mercy Corps, a not-for-profit organization that exists to alleviate suffering, poverty, and oppression by helping people build secure, productive, and just communities. Through his active involvement with Mercy Corps, he has once again joined forces with Earlham College to form the Landrum Bolling Fellowships in International Service program. The Landrum Bolling Fellowships provide qualified Earlham graduates with the opportunity to participate, on many levels, with Mercy Corps' tremendous humanitarian relief and development programs. It is certainly an opportunity for the students to apply, internationally, the concepts they have previously studied at Earlham College. Dr. Bolling has dedicated his life to both academia and public service, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate him on his many worthwhile accomplishments.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act. Senator Biden is an original co-sponsor and his involvement in the Committee's work on this issue and the resulting legislation is deeply appreciated. Over the past decade the United States has undertaken a series of post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction operations that have been critical to U.S. national security. In the Balkans, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, the U.S. government has cobbled together plans, people and resources in an ad hoc fashion with the Defense Department in the lead. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. Our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deliver the necessary capabilities to deal speedily and efficiently with complex emergencies. The purpose of this bill is to establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies. The prevailing inclination to deal with these problems through ad hoc methods has stemmed, in part, from our bipartisan hope that post- conflict stabilization efforts will not be required of us on a frequent basis. But we should not engage in wishful thinking. Crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. Our tolerance for failed states has been reduced by a global war against terrorists. We have already 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 black market where all kinds of weapons are for sale. In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay of a few weeks, or even days, in our response can mean the difference between success and failure. As a Nation, we have accepted stabilization and reconstruction challenges in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need to go a step further and create structures that can plan and execute strategies to deal with future emergencies. While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has undertaken with skill and courage, we must acknowledge that certain non-security missions would have been better served by a 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 large amounts of people and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, the resources of the Armed Services have been stretched and deployments of military personnel have had to be extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the surge capacity and capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security missions that have burdened the military. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations embarked on a bipartisan experiment beginning in late 2003, assembling an impressive array of experts from inside and outside of government to provide advice on how best to achieve this goal. This Policy Advisory Group held a series of discussions in which Senators, group members, and invited experts spoke frankly about their ideas to improve the U.S. response to post-conflict reconstruction problems and complex emergencies. The bill that Senator Biden and I are introducing draws on these discussions and the comments of participants. I believe that we need structural change, accomplished through legislation, to guarantee improvements in our capabilities. Serving as members of the Policy Advisory Group were Ambassador James Dobbins, Director of International Security and Defense Policy at the RAND Corporation; Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO of CSIS; Gen. George Joulwan, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Gen. William Nash, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations; Mr. Walter Slocombe, former Senior Advisor for National Security to the Coalition Provisional Authority; and Dr. Arnold Kanter of the Scowcroft Group. Other participants included Mr. Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs; Mr. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of USAID; Dr. Joseph Collins, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations; Mr. James Kunder, Deputy Assistant Administrator of USAID; Mr. J. Clint Williamson, Director of Transnational Crime Issues on the NSC; Dr. Hans Binnendijk of the National Defense University; Ms. Sheba Crocker of CSIS; Mr. Frank Kramer of Shea and Gardner; Mr. Bernd McConnell, formerly with USAID and now with the Department of Defense; Mr. Larry Nowels of the Congressional Research Service; Ambassador Robert Oakley of the Institute for National Security Studies at the National Defense University; Mr. Robert Perito of the U.S. Institute of Peace; and Ms. Julia Taft of the UNDP. Although I have tried to incorporate as many of the insights of the group as possible, not every participant will agree with every provision in the bill. This is not surprising given that one of our goals in constructing the group was guaranteeing a diverse set of perspectives. Nevertheless, there were several themes developed that achieved, or at least approached, a consensus: The civilian foreign affairs agencies should be better organized for overseas crisis response and the Secretary of State should play a lead role in this effort. There should be improved standing capacity within the civilian agencies to respond to complex emergencies and to work in potentially hostile environments. The agencies must be capable and flexible enough to provide a robust partner to the military when necessary or to lead a crisis response effort when appropriate. The rapid mobilization of resources must be shared by the civilian agencies and the military. While the need to ensure security will continue to fall on the shoulders of the military, the post-conflict demands on the military for stabilization and reconstruction would be lessened by tapping into the expertise of civilian forces. During this process, the Bush Administration was extremely helpful and forthcoming. Officials from the State Department, the Defense Department, the NSC, and USAID attended as guests of the group and participated in their private capacities. The participation of these officials does not constitute an official endorsement of this legislation by their employing agencies, but the final product was greatly improved by their collective experience and wisdom. We are extremely grateful to the Administration for its willingness to engage the Foreign Relations Committee during this process. This bill urges the President to create a Stabilization and Reconstruction Coordinating Committee to be chaired by the National Security Advisor. This Coordinating Committee would have policy oversight responsibility for ensuring appropriate interagency coordination in the planning and execution of stabilization and reconstruction efforts. The Coordinating Committee would have representation from the Department of State, USAID, and the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, and Defense and other agencies as appropriate. This bill would authorize the creation of an office within the State Department to be the focal point for coordinating the civilian component of stabilization and reconstruction missions. The Office would be headed by a Coordinator who is appointed by the President and reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Coordinator would also work to ensure that civilian components of the United States Government are prepared for joint civilian/military operations if they become necessary. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State to establish a Response Readiness Corps with both active duty and reserve components available to be called upon at a moments notice to respond to emerging international crises. In the reserves would be both federal government officials from the non-foreign affairs agencies who have volunteered to participate and members recruited from the private sector based on the applicable skills each could contribute to the mission. The bill urges the Foreign Service Institute to work with both the National Defense University and the United States Army War College to establish an educational and training curriculum to bring together civilian and military personnel to enhance their stabilization and reconstruction skills and increase their ability to work together in the field. I introduce this bill today to set in motion legislative efforts to strengthen the capacity of our civilian agencies to handle complex emergencies overseas, including post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction efforts. I am hopeful that this legislation will garner further bipartisan support. Its intent is not to critique past practices, but rather to improve our stabilization and reconstruction capacity for the future. We recognize that the bill does not address many facets of this issue that fall under the jurisdiction of the military and the Armed Services Committee. I know that my colleagues on that committee have thought about many of these issues, and they may recommend additional steps. The inevitable post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction demands of future crises will require a formidable capacity to respond to challenges--both military and diplomatic. It is crucial to our success that the necessary resources and plans be put in place now. Let us give the President the tools he needs to carry out these most demanding foreign policy missions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act. Senator Biden is an original co-sponsor and his involvement in the Committee's work on this issue and the resulting legislation is deeply appreciated. Over the past decade the United States has undertaken a series of post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction operations that have been critical to U.S. national security. In the Balkans, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, the U.S. government has cobbled together plans, people and resources in an ad hoc fashion with the Defense Department in the lead. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. Our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deliver the necessary capabilities to deal speedily and efficiently with complex emergencies. The purpose of this bill is to establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies. The prevailing inclination to deal with these problems through ad hoc methods has stemmed, in part, from our bipartisan hope that post- conflict stabilization efforts will not be required of us on a frequent basis. But we should not engage in wishful thinking. Crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. Our tolerance for failed states has been reduced by a global war against terrorists. We have already 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 black market where all kinds of weapons are for sale. In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay of a few weeks, or even days, in our response can mean the difference between success and failure. As a Nation, we have accepted stabilization and reconstruction challenges in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need to go a step further and create structures that can plan and execute strategies to deal with future emergencies. While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has undertaken with skill and courage, we must acknowledge that certain non-security missions would have been better served by a 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 large amounts of people and resources for these tasks. As a consequence, the resources of the Armed Services have been stretched and deployments of military personnel have had to be extended beyond expectations. If we can improve the surge capacity and capabilities of the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security missions that have burdened the military. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations embarked on a bipartisan experiment beginning in late 2003, assembling an impressive array of experts from inside and outside of government to provide advice on how best to achieve this goal. This Policy Advisory Group held a series of discussions in which Senators, group members, and invited experts spoke frankly about their ideas to improve the U.S. response to post-conflict reconstruction problems and complex emergencies. The bill that Senator Biden and I are introducing draws on these discussions and the comments of participants. I believe that we need structural change, accomplished through legislation, to guarantee improvements in our capabilities. Serving as members of the Policy Advisory Group were Ambassador James Dobbins, Director of International Security and Defense Policy at the RAND Corporation; Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO of CSIS; Gen. George Joulwan, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Gen. William Nash, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations; Mr. Walter Slocombe, former Senior Advisor for National Security to the Coalition Provisional Authority; and Dr. Arnold Kanter of the Scowcroft Group. Other participants included Mr. Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs; Mr. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of USAID; Dr. Joseph Collins, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability Operations; Mr. James Kunder, Deputy Assistant Administrator of USAID; Mr. J. Clint Williamson, Director of Transnational Crime Issues on the NSC; Dr. Hans Binnendijk of the National Defense University; Ms. Sheba Crocker of CSIS; Mr. Frank Kramer of Shea and Gardner; Mr. Bernd McConnell, formerly with USAID and now with the Department of Defense; Mr. Larry Nowels of the Congressional Research Service; Ambassador Robert Oakley of the Institute for National Security Studies at the National Defense University; Mr. Robert Perito of the U.S. Institute of Peace; and Ms. Julia Taft of the UNDP. Although I have tried to incorporate as many of the insights of the group as possible, not every participant will agree with every provision in the bill. This is not surprising given that one of our goals in constructing the group was guaranteeing a diverse set of perspectives. Nevertheless, there were several themes developed that achieved, or at least approached, a consensus: The civilian foreign affairs agencies should be better organized for overseas crisis response and the Secretary of State should play a lead role in this effort. There should be improved standing capacity within the civilian agencies to respond to complex emergencies and to work in potentially hostile environments. The agencies must be capable and flexible enough to provide a robust partner to the military when necessary or to lead a crisis response effort when appropriate. The rapid mobilization of resources must be shared by the civilian agencies and the military. While the need to ensure security will continue to fall on the shoulders of the military, the post-conflict demands on the military for stabilization and reconstruction would be lessened by tapping into the expertise of civilian forces. During this process, the Bush Administration was extremely helpful and forthcoming. Officials from the State Department, the Defense Department, the NSC, and USAID attended as guests of the group and participated in their private capacities. The participation of these officials does not constitute an official endorsement of this legislation by their employing agencies, but the final product was greatly improved by their collective experience and wisdom. We are extremely grateful to the Administration for its willingness to engage the Foreign Relations Committee during this process. This bill urges the President to create a Stabilization and Reconstruction Coordinating Committee to be chaired by the National Security Advisor. This Coordinating Committee would have policy oversight responsibility for ensuring appropriate interagency coordination in the planning and execution of stabilization and reconstruction efforts. The Coordinating Committee would have representation from the Department of State, USAID, and the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, and Defense and other agencies as appropriate. This bill would authorize the creation of an office within the State Department to be the focal point for coordinating the civilian component of stabilization and reconstruction missions. The Office would be headed by a Coordinator who is appointed by the President and reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Coordinator would also work to ensure that civilian components of the United States Government are prepared for joint civilian/military operations if they become necessary. The bill would authorize the Secretary of State to establish a Response Readiness Corps with both active duty and reserve components available to be called upon at a moments notice to respond to emerging international crises. In the reserves would be both federal government officials from the non-foreign affairs agencies who have volunteered to participate and members recruited from the private sector based on the applicable skills each could contribute to the mission. The bill urges the Foreign Service Institute to work with both the National Defense University and the United States Army War College to establish an educational and training curriculum to bring together civilian and military personnel to enhance their stabilization and reconstruction skills and increase their ability to work together in the field. I introduce this bill today to set in motion legislative efforts to strengthen the capacity of our civilian agencies to handle complex emergencies overseas, including post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction efforts. I am hopeful that this legislation will garner further bipartisan support. Its intent is not to critique past practices, but rather to improve our stabilization and reconstruction capacity for the future. We recognize that the bill does not address many facets of this issue that fall under the jurisdiction of the military and the Armed Services Committee. I know that my colleagues on that committee have thought about many of these issues, and they may recommend additional steps. The inevitable post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction demands of future crises will require a formidable capacity to respond to challenges--both military and diplomatic. It is crucial to our success that the necessary resources and plans be put in place now. Let us give the President the tools he needs to carry out these most demanding foreign policy missions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, during this past recess of the Senate, my wife, Charlene, and I received the joyous news that Preston Charles Lugar, the newborn son and first child of our son, John Hoereth Lugar and his wife, Kelly Smith Lugar, had been born on February 20, 2004, at Sibley Hospital, in Washington, DC. Preston was a healthy 8 pounds, three and eight/tenths ounces at birth. Kelly's parents, Robert Lee Smith and Renee' Camille Smith, Charlene, and I were present to greet our new grandson and his parents as they returned to their Arlington, VA, residence on February 22. Kelly and John were married on November 5, 2001, in the Washington Cathedral with Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie, former Chaplain of the Senate, presiding. They and their families and guests had enjoyed a rehearsal dinner in the Mansfield room of the Capitol on the night before the wedding. Kelly has worked with many of our colleagues during her current service to the administration of President George Bush and our former colleague, Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, as Assistant Under Secretary with responsibilities for Congressional Relations. A graduate of the University of Texas, she was once a member of the staff of Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas. John Lugar came with us to Washington, along with his three brothers, 27 years ago. He graduated from Langley High School in McLean, VA, Indiana University, and received his Masters of Business Administration degree from Arizona State University. He has been active in the private equity industry in recent years. We know that you will understand our excitement and our gratitude that they and we have been given divine blessing and responsibility for a glorious new chapter in our lives.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Free Press and Open Media Act of 2004. This legislation will provide greater focus on, and more coordination of, initiatives to develop free, fair, legally protected, and self- sustaining press and media in the world. A free press is enshrined as a cornerstone of democracy in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations in 1948, also proscribes free press and media. The United States government through various agencies and programs has long been involved in helping to train journalists around the world, and establish newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations. These programs, however, are not centralized in one bureau or agency. Many are orphans to other assistance programs. They are effective in training journalists, but they stop short of ensuring that the media in a developing country has the necessary legal protections, follows basic rules of fairness and equal access, and can sustain itself financially. In addition, these existing media programs are not established in ways to leverage federal government spending with the assistance of America's vibrant media sector. There is a strong desire by our finest journalism schools, newspapers, broadcasters, and marketing and advertising enterprises to help build free press and open media in the world. We also need to engage all the new media, like Internet companies and wireless forms of communications. To better organize and focus these efforts, this legislation directs the Secretary of State to provide funding to the National Endowment for Democracy for the work a free press institute. For more than 20 years the National Endowment for Democracy has been leading American efforts to help build the required democratic institutions of a free society. The President's proposed 2005 budget wisely doubles the funding for the work of the Endowment. It is important to note that the National Endowment for Democracy and its four existing institutes--representing the two major political parties, business, and labor--have established a reputation in the world for integrity and transparency. They are ambassadors of the best traditions of American democracy, and they have provided continuity to democratization efforts, even as administrations and policies have changed. Having served on the board of the Endowment for a number of years, as have some of my colleagues, I can attest that the independence of the NED is central to the success of its initiatives to help develop a free press in the world. This bill seeks to employ the uniquely independent organization of the NED to accomplish a mission that complements public diplomacy, but is separate from it. The U.S. government maintains important public diplomacy programs, where the goal is to communicate American views to the world. But developing a free press in emerging democracies goes beyond advocacy of American views. It requires us to have a tolerance for criticism, to take into account cultural differences, and to commit to long-term projects. The NED is suited to this mission. A fully successful U.S. foreign policy requires that we make progress in building democratic institutions internationally, especially free and open media. Societies that are built on the foundation of a free press are far less likely to abuse human rights or threaten American security. I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this legislation, and hope for speedy consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Free Press and Open Media Act of 2004. This legislation will provide greater focus on, and more coordination of, initiatives to develop free, fair, legally protected, and self- sustaining press and media in the world. A free press is enshrined as a cornerstone of democracy in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations in 1948, also proscribes free press and media. The United States government through various agencies and programs has long been involved in helping to train journalists around the world, and establish newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations. These programs, however, are not centralized in one bureau or agency. Many are orphans to other assistance programs. They are effective in training journalists, but they stop short of ensuring that the media in a developing country has the necessary legal protections, follows basic rules of fairness and equal access, and can sustain itself financially. In addition, these existing media programs are not established in ways to leverage federal government spending with the assistance of America's vibrant media sector. There is a strong desire by our finest journalism schools, newspapers, broadcasters, and marketing and advertising enterprises to help build free press and open media in the world. We also need to engage all the new media, like Internet companies and wireless forms of communications. To better organize and focus these efforts, this legislation directs the Secretary of State to provide funding to the National Endowment for Democracy for the work a free press institute. For more than 20 years the National Endowment for Democracy has been leading American efforts to help build the required democratic institutions of a free society. The President's proposed 2005 budget wisely doubles the funding for the work of the Endowment. It is important to note that the National Endowment for Democracy and its four existing institutes--representing the two major political parties, business, and labor--have established a reputation in the world for integrity and transparency. They are ambassadors of the best traditions of American democracy, and they have provided continuity to democratization efforts, even as administrations and policies have changed. Having served on the board of the Endowment for a number of years, as have some of my colleagues, I can attest that the independence of the NED is central to the success of its initiatives to help develop a free press in the world. This bill seeks to employ the uniquely independent organization of the NED to accomplish a mission that complements public diplomacy, but is separate from it. The U.S. government maintains important public diplomacy programs, where the goal is to communicate American views to the world. But developing a free press in emerging democracies goes beyond advocacy of American views. It requires us to have a tolerance for criticism, to take into account cultural differences, and to commit to long-term projects. The NED is suited to this mission. A fully successful U.S. foreign policy requires that we make progress in building democratic institutions internationally, especially free and open media. Societies that are built on the foundation of a free press are far less likely to abuse human rights or threaten American security. I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this legislation, and hope for speedy consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise to share with the Senate the efforts of Corporal Thomas Roberts and Patrolman Bryan Verkler, of the Mishawaka Police Department, Mishawaka, IN, who gave their lives in the line of duty on December 13, 2003. Corporal Roberts was a 14-year veteran of the force. Patrolman Verkler had completed nearly 2\1/2\ years of service. Both men are survived by their families. At this difficult time, my thoughts and prayers are with these men and their families.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a constituent of mine, Charles T. Biggs, from Hope, IN, who passed away on December 2, 2003. Mr. Biggs, known as ``Charlie'' to his numerous friends and colleagues, was an invaluable asset to the State of Indiana, and will be sorely missed in each community he worked so diligently to improve. Charlie taught at Hauser High School for many years as a music instructor, and a band and choir director. He also owned and published a local newspaper, the Hope Star-Journal. In addition, he was a member of the Hoosier State Press Association and a past president of the Indiana Democratic Editorial Association. Charlie selflessly offered his remaining time to numerous organizations. He served on the Hope Volunteer Fire Department as an EMT, was a board member of the Heritage of Hope Foundation, was a member of the St. Bartholomew Catholic Church, and even served for over 30 years as the organist for the Hope United Methodist Church. He is survived by his wife, Carol, four children, and seven granddaughters. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I am pleased to introduce the Additional Protocol Implementation Act of 2003. This important legislation is needed to implement the provisions of the Protocol to the Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Regarding Safeguards in the United States. The United States signed the Additional Protocol in Vienna on June 12, 1998. President Bush submitted the Additional Protocol to the Senate on May 9, 2002. The State Department sent the implementing legislation to us on November 19, 2003, and asked that it be considered in conjunction with the Senate's advice and consent on the Protocol. The adoption of this agreement is an important step in demonstrating U.S. leadership in the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons. The Additional Protocol will provide the United States and the IAEA with another tool as we attempt to secure broader inspection rights in non- nuclear-weapon states that are parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. When the Committee on Foreign Relations reported out the NPT in 1968, it noted that ``the treaty's fundamental purpose is to slow the spread of nuclear weapons by prohibiting the nuclear weapon states which are party to the treaty from transferring nuclear weapons to others, and by barring the non-nuclear weapon countries from receiving, manufacturing, or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons.'' Since the Senate ratified the NPT, we have seen 188 states join the United States in approving the treaty. But recently we also have seen a disturbing increase in the global availability of nuclear materials and reprocessing and enrichment technology. To ensure that these materials and technologies are devoted only to peaceful purposes, the IAEA must have the power to conduct intrusive inspections at almost any location in a non-nuclear- weapon state to verify state parties' commitments under the NPT. The world community has learned that existing safeguard arrangements in non-nuclear-weapon states do not provide the IAEA with a complete and accurate picture of possible nuclear weapons-related activities. It is critical that the IAEA have the ability to expand the scope of its activities in states that pose a potential proliferation threat. At this point, the only means at the IAEA's disposal, beyond existing safeguards arrangements, is the Model Additional Protocol. The United States, as a declared nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, may exclude the application of IAEA safeguards on its nuclear activities. Under the negotiated Additional Protocol, the United States also has the right to exclude activities and sites of direct national security significance in accordance with its National Security exclusion. This provision is crucial to U.S. acceptance of the Additional Protocol and provides a basis for the protection of U.S. nuclear weapons-related activities, sites, and materials as a declared nuclear power. The Additional Protocol does not contain any new arms control or disarmament obligations for the United States. While there are increased rights granted to the IAEA for the conduct of inspections in the United States, the administration has assured the committee that the likelihood of an inspection occurring in the United States is very low. Nevertheless, should an inspection under the Additional Protocol be potentially harmful to U.S. national security interests, the United States has the right, through the National Security Exclusion, to prevent such an inspection. The Committee on Foreign Relations will hold hearings early next year to consider the Additional Protocol. I am confident the Committee will draft a resolution of ratification that will enjoy the support of the senate. Ratification of this treaty and passage of its implementing legislation would be an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to vigorous and expansive authority for the IAEA in non-nuclear-weapon states. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today as a statement of the Committee's strong support for aggressive verification capabilities in the global fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I look forward to working closely with my friend, Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to construct legislation that protects U.S. national security interests, while strengthening the ability of the IAEA to discover illegal nuclear weapons activities. the package I send to the desk today contains a letter from the Department of State, the administration's implementing legislation, and a section-by-section analysis, all submitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the referenced letter and analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I am pleased to introduce the Additional Protocol Implementation Act of 2003. This important legislation is needed to implement the provisions of the Protocol to the Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Regarding Safeguards in the United States. The United States signed the Additional Protocol in Vienna on June 12, 1998. President Bush submitted the Additional Protocol to the Senate on May 9, 2002. The State Department sent the implementing legislation to us on November 19, 2003, and asked that it be considered in conjunction with the Senate's advice and consent on the Protocol. The adoption of this agreement is an important step in demonstrating U.S. leadership in the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons. The Additional Protocol will provide the United States and the IAEA with another tool as we attempt to secure broader inspection rights in non- nuclear-weapon states that are parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. When the Committee on Foreign Relations reported out the NPT in 1968, it noted that ``the treaty's fundamental purpose is to slow the spread of nuclear weapons by prohibiting the nuclear weapon states which are party to the treaty from transferring nuclear weapons to others, and by barring the non-nuclear weapon countries from receiving, manufacturing, or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons.'' Since the Senate ratified the NPT, we have seen 188 states join the United States in approving the treaty. But recently we also have seen a disturbing increase in the global availability of nuclear materials and reprocessing and enrichment technology. To ensure that these materials and technologies are devoted only to peaceful purposes, the IAEA must have the power to conduct intrusive inspections at almost any location in a non-nuclear- weapon state to verify state parties' commitments under the NPT. The world community has learned that existing safeguard arrangements in non-nuclear-weapon states do not provide the IAEA with a complete and accurate picture of possible nuclear weapons-related activities. It is critical that the IAEA have the ability to expand the scope of its activities in states that pose a potential proliferation threat. At this point, the only means at the IAEA's disposal, beyond existing safeguards arrangements, is the Model Additional Protocol. The United States, as a declared nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, may exclude the application of IAEA safeguards on its nuclear activities. Under the negotiated Additional Protocol, the United States also has the right to exclude activities and sites of direct national security significance in accordance with its National Security exclusion. This provision is crucial to U.S. acceptance of the Additional Protocol and provides a basis for the protection of U.S. nuclear weapons-related activities, sites, and materials as a declared nuclear power. The Additional Protocol does not contain any new arms control or disarmament obligations for the United States. While there are increased rights granted to the IAEA for the conduct of inspections in the United States, the administration has assured the committee that the likelihood of an inspection occurring in the United States is very low. Nevertheless, should an inspection under the Additional Protocol be potentially harmful to U.S. national security interests, the United States has the right, through the National Security Exclusion, to prevent such an inspection. The Committee on Foreign Relations will hold hearings early next year to consider the Additional Protocol. I am confident the Committee will draft a resolution of ratification that will enjoy the support of the senate. Ratification of this treaty and passage of its implementing legislation would be an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to vigorous and expansive authority for the IAEA in non-nuclear-weapon states. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today as a statement of the Committee's strong support for aggressive verification capabilities in the global fight against the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I look forward to working closely with my friend, Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to construct legislation that protects U.S. national security interests, while strengthening the ability of the IAEA to discover illegal nuclear weapons activities. the package I send to the desk today contains a letter from the Department of State, the administration's implementing legislation, and a section-by-section analysis, all submitted by the administration. I ask unanimous consent that the referenced letter and analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``United States-Africa Partnership Act.'' This bill builds on the important trade and investment initiatives that were contained in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed in 2000. The original African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expansion of AGOA that I am introducing today emphasize the need to elevate the African private sector. The AGOA legislation offers enhanced trade benefits, more U.S. private sector investment, and a higher level dialogue with African governments. It envisions a new economic partnership between the United States and African nations. To gain these benefits, African countries are expected to undertake sustained economic reform, abide by international human rights practices, and strengthen good goverance. These standards have been used by the U.S. to stimulate reforms in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to expect that they will not be successful in Africa as well. Private investment tends to follow good governance and economic reform, but the private sector takes cues from government policies and involvement. It is very much in our interest to play a constructive role in the evolving political and economic transition in Africa. A stable and prosperous Africa will be better equipped to cooperate on a range of shared global problems such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, narcotics, the environment and contagious diseases. African economic success also can create new markets for American exports. If jobs are created and foreign exchange is earned through enhanced exports, Africa will have greater capacity to buy goods and services from abroad. They will likely purchase machinery, electronics, financial services, agricultural products, and many other goods and services from U.S. suppliers. If we had ignored Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s when they were at stages of economic development comparable to many African societies today, we would have missed out on enormous opportunities in East Asia. Years from now, I hope we can look back and say that we were present at a crucial juncture in Africa's growth and development and that we played a constructive role in that change. In an effort to reverse the persistent under-performance by African economies and to stimulate American involvement in Africa, I introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States Senate in 1999. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has been a positive economic force in Africa. In 2002, 94 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries entered duty-free. The United States imported $9 billion in merchandise duty-free under AGOA in 2002, a 10 percent increase from 2001. Imports from African countries, not counting oil, jumped 50 percent last year. In South Africa, sub-Sahara's most important economy, exports of automobiles have increased sixteen-fold in the past two years. The tiny country of Lesotho, population 2.2 million, generated $318 million in AGOA exports in 2002. New export-oriented garment factories have created 25,000 jobs. For the first time in its history, private sector manufacturing employment--thanks to trade--exceeds government employment. Performances like this, which occurred despite the recent slowdown in world trade, are the direct result of AGOA. The legislation lets African countries export some 1,800 products duty-free, without quotas, to the United States. It is a direct response to developing countries' long-time plea; trade, not aid, is the real key to ending poverty and bringing about sustainable, long term economic growth. Despite these signs of progress, many Africa economies remain in bad shape. Of the 64 least developed countries in the world, 38 are in Africa. Per capita output of goods and services actually dropped during the 1990s, according to the World Bank, and with only 1.4 percent of world trade in 2001, sub-Saharan Africa has been falling behind the rest of the world. During the 1990s, global gross domestic product grew a robust 44 percent; the figure for Africa was only 8.5 percent. From 1990 to 2001, gross national income per capita in sub-Saharan Africa actually declined by .2 percent. Africa is in need of help, and expanding AGOA should be a part of the development strategy for the continent. The experience of AGOA has taught us valuable lessons about the path to enhanced investment and economic development and has confirmed some of the key principles that proponents of market-based development have used to guide policy. First, AGOA has demonstrated that a commitment to good governance and a positive investment climate is important to economic growth. Countries such as Lesotho, which has made significant efforts in recent years to promote economic reform and stable democracy, have derived the most benefit from the AGOA provisions. Second, the experience of AGOA has demonstrated that regional integration is as essential to development as access to the U.S. and other foreign markets. Using the infrastructure and economic stability of South Africa as a base, neighboring southern African countries have worked together to take advantage of the benefits under AGOA. AGOA should not be seen as an end in itself. Rather, it is an initial step designed to expand development and decrease poverty by promoting greater integration of Africa into the global trading community. Achieving these goals will require both enhancements to the AGOA framework and additional steps to address the compelling problems facing Africa. Our trade efforts must be part of a broader American partnership with the often-neglected countries of Africa. This partnership starts with three issues. First, we must help address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the human tragedy that HIV/AIDS has created in Africa, the epidemic severely limits the economic growth that would reduce Africa's poverty. When workers are forced to call in sick more days than they are able to work, when government positions are experiencing regular turnover, and when scarce capital must be diverted from investment to dealing with the AIDS crisis, it is nearly impossible to build a stable economy. Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation establishing a program under which the United States will contribute $15 billion over the next 5 years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. The President signed this bill into law and has placed his prestige behind its effective implementation. It is my hope that this leadership and much needed funding will start to turn the tide in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Second, we have begun an effort to rethink the way that aid is delivered to the world's poorest countries, most of which are in Africa. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took action on the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative. This initiative would deliver up to $8 billion over the next three years to the world's poorest countries, and it would condition that aid on the development of policies by the recipient countries that will make that aid more effective. These policies include a commitment to just and democratic governance and economic freedom. The Millennium Challenge Corporation would build on the lessons of AGOA, which has demonstrated that private investment will flow to countries that build a stable, predictable investment climate. The incentives provided by Millennium Challenge Corporation dollars would help to establish conditions that will cause private investment dollars to flow to the poorest countries. Third, we need to move forward with enhancements to AGOA itself. That is my purpose in introducing the United States Africa Partnership Act (USAPA)--also known as ``AGAO III.''' The current AGOA expires in 2008. My bill would extend AGOA benefits until 2015. This coincides with the goal of the World Trade Organizations to have a ``tariff free world'' by 2015. We should take action on this extension soon so that investors will have the certainty they need when making investment decisions involving Africa. AGOA contains a provision that allows least developed countries (LDCs) to export capped quantities of apparel made from third country fabric to the U.S. duty free. All other countries must use U.S. or African fabric inputs in order to receive duty-free treatment. This ``special rule'' for LDCs expires on September 30, 2004. USAPA would extend this provision for four additional years until September 30, 2008. It also would eliminate the import sensitivity test with respect to African products and nuisance provisions in the rule of origin for apparel. The AGOA rule of origin is modified so that it applies only to the essential components of apparel. USAPA also clarifies the definitions of certain fabrics for customs purposes, including hand- loomed folklore articles. USAPA would develop initiatives to provide technical and capacity building experience. In the area of agriculture, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to increase import and export abilities in agricultural trade. It also provides that 20 full-time personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service be stationed in at least 10 AGOA eligible countries to provide technical assistance in meeting U.S. import requirements and trade capacity building. In an effort to stimulate business partnerships, the bill I introduce today also addresses investment incentives and encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to facilitate investment in AGOA eligible countries. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek negotiations regarding tax treaties with eligible countries. In addition, it encourages U.S. private investment in African transportation, energy and telecommunications and increases coordination between U.S. and African transportation entities to reduce transit times and costs between the United States and Africa. Finally, the bill grants funding for the continuation of the AGOA forums and establishes an AGOA task force to facilitate the goals of the Act. The original African Growth and Opportunity Act launched an effort to formulate a new American strategy towards Africa. It sought to establish the foundation for a more mature economic relationship with those countries in Africa that undertake serious economic and political reforms. That effort was supported by virtually all sub-Saharan African nations, and it had wide support among American businesses and non- governmental organizations. We should now seize the opportunity to further integrate African countries into the world economy. The United States-Africa Partnership Act that I introduce today recognizes the enormous potential for economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa. It embraces the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among forty-eight countries and nearly 700 million people. A stable and economically prosperous Africa can provide new partnerships that will contribute greatly to our commercial and security interests. I urge all members to support the United States-Africa Partnership Act so that we can achieve the mutual long-term benefits that it would bring to Africa and to our country.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``United States-Africa Partnership Act.'' This bill builds on the important trade and investment initiatives that were contained in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed in 2000. The original African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expansion of AGOA that I am introducing today emphasize the need to elevate the African private sector. The AGOA legislation offers enhanced trade benefits, more U.S. private sector investment, and a higher level dialogue with African governments. It envisions a new economic partnership between the United States and African nations. To gain these benefits, African countries are expected to undertake sustained economic reform, abide by international human rights practices, and strengthen good goverance. These standards have been used by the U.S. to stimulate reforms in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to expect that they will not be successful in Africa as well. Private investment tends to follow good governance and economic reform, but the private sector takes cues from government policies and involvement. It is very much in our interest to play a constructive role in the evolving political and economic transition in Africa. A stable and prosperous Africa will be better equipped to cooperate on a range of shared global problems such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, narcotics, the environment and contagious diseases. African economic success also can create new markets for American exports. If jobs are created and foreign exchange is earned through enhanced exports, Africa will have greater capacity to buy goods and services from abroad. They will likely purchase machinery, electronics, financial services, agricultural products, and many other goods and services from U.S. suppliers. If we had ignored Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s when they were at stages of economic development comparable to many African societies today, we would have missed out on enormous opportunities in East Asia. Years from now, I hope we can look back and say that we were present at a crucial juncture in Africa's growth and development and that we played a constructive role in that change. In an effort to reverse the persistent under-performance by African economies and to stimulate American involvement in Africa, I introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States Senate in 1999. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has been a positive economic force in Africa. In 2002, 94 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries entered duty-free. The United States imported $9 billion in merchandise duty-free under AGOA in 2002, a 10 percent increase from 2001. Imports from African countries, not counting oil, jumped 50 percent last year. In South Africa, sub-Sahara's most important economy, exports of automobiles have increased sixteen-fold in the past two years. The tiny country of Lesotho, population 2.2 million, generated $318 million in AGOA exports in 2002. New export-oriented garment factories have created 25,000 jobs. For the first time in its history, private sector manufacturing employment--thanks to trade--exceeds government employment. Performances like this, which occurred despite the recent slowdown in world trade, are the direct result of AGOA. The legislation lets African countries export some 1,800 products duty-free, without quotas, to the United States. It is a direct response to developing countries' long-time plea; trade, not aid, is the real key to ending poverty and bringing about sustainable, long term economic growth. Despite these signs of progress, many Africa economies remain in bad shape. Of the 64 least developed countries in the world, 38 are in Africa. Per capita output of goods and services actually dropped during the 1990s, according to the World Bank, and with only 1.4 percent of world trade in 2001, sub-Saharan Africa has been falling behind the rest of the world. During the 1990s, global gross domestic product grew a robust 44 percent; the figure for Africa was only 8.5 percent. From 1990 to 2001, gross national income per capita in sub-Saharan Africa actually declined by .2 percent. Africa is in need of help, and expanding AGOA should be a part of the development strategy for the continent. The experience of AGOA has taught us valuable lessons about the path to enhanced investment and economic development and has confirmed some of the key principles that proponents of market-based development have used to guide policy. First, AGOA has demonstrated that a commitment to good governance and a positive investment climate is important to economic growth. Countries such as Lesotho, which has made significant efforts in recent years to promote economic reform and stable democracy, have derived the most benefit from the AGOA provisions. Second, the experience of AGOA has demonstrated that regional integration is as essential to development as access to the U.S. and other foreign markets. Using the infrastructure and economic stability of South Africa as a base, neighboring southern African countries have worked together to take advantage of the benefits under AGOA. AGOA should not be seen as an end in itself. Rather, it is an initial step designed to expand development and decrease poverty by promoting greater integration of Africa into the global trading community. Achieving these goals will require both enhancements to the AGOA framework and additional steps to address the compelling problems facing Africa. Our trade efforts must be part of a broader American partnership with the often-neglected countries of Africa. This partnership starts with three issues. First, we must help address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the human tragedy that HIV/AIDS has created in Africa, the epidemic severely limits the economic growth that would reduce Africa's poverty. When workers are forced to call in sick more days than they are able to work, when government positions are experiencing regular turnover, and when scarce capital must be diverted from investment to dealing with the AIDS crisis, it is nearly impossible to build a stable economy. Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation establishing a program under which the United States will contribute $15 billion over the next 5 years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. The President signed this bill into law and has placed his prestige behind its effective implementation. It is my hope that this leadership and much needed funding will start to turn the tide in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Second, we have begun an effort to rethink the way that aid is delivered to the world's poorest countries, most of which are in Africa. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took action on the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative. This initiative would deliver up to $8 billion over the next three years to the world's poorest countries, and it would condition that aid on the development of policies by the recipient countries that will make that aid more effective. These policies include a commitment to just and democratic governance and economic freedom. The Millennium Challenge Corporation would build on the lessons of AGOA, which has demonstrated that private investment will flow to countries that build a stable, predictable investment climate. The incentives provided by Millennium Challenge Corporation dollars would help to establish conditions that will cause private investment dollars to flow to the poorest countries. Third, we need to move forward with enhancements to AGOA itself. That is my purpose in introducing the United States Africa Partnership Act (USAPA)--also known as ``AGAO III.''' The current AGOA expires in 2008. My bill would extend AGOA benefits until 2015. This coincides with the goal of the World Trade Organizations to have a ``tariff free world'' by 2015. We should take action on this extension soon so that investors will have the certainty they need when making investment decisions involving Africa. AGOA contains a provision that allows least developed countries (LDCs) to export capped quantities of apparel made from third country fabric to the U.S. duty free. All other countries must use U.S. or African fabric inputs in order to receive duty-free treatment. This ``special rule'' for LDCs expires on September 30, 2004. USAPA would extend this provision for four additional years until September 30, 2008. It also would eliminate the import sensitivity test with respect to African products and nuisance provisions in the rule of origin for apparel. The AGOA rule of origin is modified so that it applies only to the essential components of apparel. USAPA also clarifies the definitions of certain fabrics for customs purposes, including hand- loomed folklore articles. USAPA would develop initiatives to provide technical and capacity building experience. In the area of agriculture, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to increase import and export abilities in agricultural trade. It also provides that 20 full-time personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service be stationed in at least 10 AGOA eligible countries to provide technical assistance in meeting U.S. import requirements and trade capacity building. In an effort to stimulate business partnerships, the bill I introduce today also addresses investment incentives and encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to facilitate investment in AGOA eligible countries. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek negotiations regarding tax treaties with eligible countries. In addition, it encourages U.S. private investment in African transportation, energy and telecommunications and increases coordination between U.S. and African transportation entities to reduce transit times and costs between the United States and Africa. Finally, the bill grants funding for the continuation of the AGOA forums and establishes an AGOA task force to facilitate the goals of the Act. The original African Growth and Opportunity Act launched an effort to formulate a new American strategy towards Africa. It sought to establish the foundation for a more mature economic relationship with those countries in Africa that undertake serious economic and political reforms. That effort was supported by virtually all sub-Saharan African nations, and it had wide support among American businesses and non- governmental organizations. We should now seize the opportunity to further integrate African countries into the world economy. The United States-Africa Partnership Act that I introduce today recognizes the enormous potential for economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa. It embraces the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among forty-eight countries and nearly 700 million people. A stable and economically prosperous Africa can provide new partnerships that will contribute greatly to our commercial and security interests. I urge all members to support the United States-Africa Partnership Act so that we can achieve the mutual long-term benefits that it would bring to Africa and to our country.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I thank him for his leadership throughout this debate and his extraordinary contribution to our understanding. I likewise appreciate very much the testimony of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina with specific references to remarkable nominees, and the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who preceded the Senator from North Carolina, with his insightful comments. I would like to take a slightly different approach in my speech. I believe this debate is about the thought that we ought to have a vote up or down on each nominee. That is very important to the Senate, to our country, for fairness to the nominees and to the strength of the judiciary. It has been my privilege to serve almost 27 years, 15 of these years with a Republican President. The custom I knew as a young Senator and now in whatever age I am at is that you have a responsibility: If you are going to make recommendations to the President of the United States, do so with care. In the first 25 years of my career, I appointed a nominating committee in Indiana made up principally of very distinguished attorneys and judicial figures for whom I had respect and from all over my State. I knew these people commanded respect, and they were very helpful in identifying, each time a judicial vacancy occurred, several nominees. Without fail, I presented all of these nominees to the President, and his staff sifted through them and in each case came up with one of the nominees, frequently the one recommended first by the panel I had suggested. And thank goodness, each one of these nominees had an up-or- down vote, usually a very fine consideration by the Judiciary Committee. I did not ever take that for granted, but I saw coming along the horizon a very different story in the current workings of the Judiciary Committee. I have great respect for that committee and its members and for those who have served as chair and ranking member of the committee. I think there is a crisis in that committee which is very important for us to be thinking about. I believe that privately a good number of members in the committee on both sides of the aisle deeply regret what has been occurring in the committee. Nevertheless, once again, on May 15, 2002, I was confronted with the news that Judge William Lee and Judge James Moody would both be retiring. I appreciated that those vacancies, two of them, were going to come in to the particular milieu about which we are now talking. So on this occasion, I took the responsibility personally to write to the press throughout our State that we had a very substantial opportunity ahead of us. I outlined all the qualifications I could see of a Federal judge and, with great cooperation of the press, invited every well-qualified person to apply. The applications the candidates filled out consumed tens of pages, including substantial writings and often the statements they had made in their professional work. Over the course of 4 months, ultimately 15 serious candidates emerged. I personally read all of their statements carefully. Those 15 candidates included 6 State judges, 4 U.S. magistrate judges, 2 attorneys in private practice, 1 Federal prosecutor, 1 Indiana prosecutor, and a legal professor. Their ages ranged from 35 to 61 and they represented 11 counties across our State. After taking a hard look at all of these applications, I interviewed, over the course of an hour or 2, 5 of the nominees I thought were the most promising. In those interviews, I was interested principally in their professional skills, but likewise I had read the opinions of these nominees. I did not ask them questions on social issues in America today, on political issues, on foreign policy issues. I did ask them about their work, the characterization of how they would fulfill their responsibilities. Following all of that, I submitted three names to the White House, and two of those persons were in fact nominated. They were Philip Simon, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the criminal division in Hammond, IN, and Theresa Springmann, a U.S. magistrate judge from Hammond, IN, this being the northern half of that State, that particular district that was involved. In fact, I have nominated a third, whom I shall not indicate in this address. But President Bush, in fact, did send those two nominees I have cited, Mr. Simon and Ms. Springmann, to the Senate. Philip Simon, I had found and the Senate Judiciary Committee discovered, had a remarkable record as a U.S. attorney. He was chief of the criminal division and responsible for all criminal prosecution in the Northern District of Indiana. He supervised and participated in prosecutions involving large-scale drug distribution rings, illegal firearms trafficking, white-collar fraud cases, environmental crime, and mob-related racketeering cases. He was in charge of a public corruption task force in Lake County, IN, which was very vigorous. He has been the recipient of a number of awards and commendations. The mutual insurance companies of Indiana presented an award to Judge Simon for his work to combat insurance fraud. He was given the Directors Award by former Attorney General Janet Reno, the highest award given to a U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in the last administration. Judge Springmann was the first woman to be made partner at Sprangler, Jennings & Doherty, the largest law firm in northwest Indiana. She followed this up by becoming the first woman judicial official in the Northern District of Indiana, presided over 30 civil jury trials, 10 civil and criminal bench trials, and conducted 300 settlement conferences for the district court. She received a number of commendations and the highest rating from the Lake County Bar Association. At this point, I decided to write to Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, chairman and ranking member of the committee. Beyond that, I went to both of them for personal conversation about these nominees, to explain the procedure and my own criteria, at least, in making these suggestions to the President. In fact, on March 12 of this year, Judge Springman and Judge Simon were given hearings; but prior to that time, I approached Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and I gave to Senator Bayh the total records of these nominees, so that he might see exactly the same applications I had examined, the same opinions. I asked him for his support of these nominees, and in fact he gave that. He appeared with me before the Judiciary Committee on behalf of these two nominees. Perhaps we had an unusual situation in Indiana, but I point out that I was pleased the Judiciary Committee acted promptly on the nominees and the Senate did likewise. Thus, what could have been a gaping hole in the Northern District of Indiana judiciary lineup, in fact, was promptly filled, even after the departure of these two distinguished judges. Now, that will not work for every situation, and there may be occasions, as a matter of fact, when the President of the United States has nominees in mind, as he takes a look at a particular State, that the Senator from that State may not have in mind. I can conceive that my three nominees might have led to the President or his people saying: Go back and try again and see if there are not other persons among these distinguished people you have nominated who more fit the idea of what I believe ought to be on the bench in America today. I recognize that. But it was very important to my constituents in Indiana that we have the service of these judges--continuity in that regard. It was very important that they knew the criteria, the character, the whole process, that it was totally transparent and played out over several months with an enormous amount of publicity. Sadly enough, the Northern District of Indiana has an extraordinary number of political corruption trials going, with problems of gang- related crime from Chicago and the Illinois border, and sometimes from Michigan and through that area, which brings a total Federal emphasis quite apart from the local situations that might have been involved. These were controversial areas of turmoil, not the placid situations that more characterize my State. This is why the selection of people in this particular business-- where there was enormous fraud, abuse, and corruption--was especially important and the civic trust in these judges is especially important. They have been serving for several months with distinction, as I anticipated they would. There was in fact a recognition at the time they were sworn in by the total community, in a very large celebration, celebrating the judiciary and the rule of law in that part of our State. I recite all of this and have asked Senators to indulge in what amounts to maybe a parochial recitation about Indiana simply to say I believe that somehow in the workings of the Judiciary Committee and the relation of that committee with the White House and with us, there really has to be a working out of a better feel. What I suspect is occurring here is that, unfortunately, there may be individual members of the committee who have decided a way to carve out a different function for themselves or maybe suggest a different function for the Senate. We are all judges of the Constitution and what is proper and so forth. There are some who say, after all, a Presidential nominee for a Cabinet position is going to be bound by the term of the President. But these are lifetime officials, and we recognize that. But as the distinguished Senators who preceded me have pointed out, new Presidents come and go. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats are somehow going to have to work together year after year in an ongoing body for the continuity of our country. What is occurring now doesn't work. Without arguing the wisdom or justice of someone holding up a nomination through a filibuster, I submit that this is not in the best interest of the Senate or our judiciary. The public doesn't like it. There may be partisan persons or people with special interests in America who do like it. Whose entire being resonates with a particular cause and they attempt to prevail upon people to stop somebody at all costs before they do harm. I understand that. We all have to deal with that. What we are talking about today is, I hope, the continuity for the very broad number of Americans who want to have confidence in justice and confidence in us, even in a closely divided Senate, maybe in a closely divided country, and to be able to work in their interests. That is why this debate is so important--to elevate this idea not only of comity but of justice, doing the right thing to a much higher level, as opposed to the tactical advantage of filibuster, of a misuse, in my judgment, of a separation of power situation to cause harm. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate with my distinguished colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Indianapolis Public School Charity Dye Elementary 27 as a recent recipient of the prestigious No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program was established in 1982 to identify and recognize outstanding public and private schools across the United States. In keeping with the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act--the education reform bill signed into law in 2002--the requirements for this award have been strengthened and now focus more intently on student achievement results. Charity Dye Elementary School is an Indianapolis inner-city school, and is the first IPS school to receive this award in nearly 20 years. While the school faces all the same challenges as most inner-city schools, Charity Dye has shown that challenges can be overcome with hard work and dedication to the cause. Five years ago, the percentage of third grade students who passed the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress exam at Charity Dye was 30 percent. Last year, this number was 83 percent a gain of 50 percentage points, and nearly 13 percentage points over the statewide average. This is an extraordinary turn around. Charity Dye has made this progress by internalizing the philosophy of the No Child Left Behind Act and operating under the assumption that every child can learn, and that every child will learn. I am very pleased to take this opportunity to applaud all the students, teachers, and administrators of Charity Dye Elementary School for their hard work and dedication to learning. I hope that the early love of learning will stay with each of the students of Charity Dye as they progress through school. And I encourage each and every one of Charity Dye's teachers, students, and administrators to keep up the excellent work. As a former mayor of Indianapolis, I am very proud of IPS Charity Dye Elementary 27 and offer this school as a model of excellence for other schools in Indiana and across the Nation.

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 and influence 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 to 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 insuring 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 and influence 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 to 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 insuring 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 pleased that the Senate soon will be taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank Senators Santorum and Boxer for their commitment to this bill and their bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment. A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national security interests of the United States. On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses, we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken for granted. Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al- Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al- Qaida has saved American lives.'' But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and to pursue development of lethal biological agents. Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people. These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on the presumption that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in ``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill provides the President with the necessary flexibility. Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq. With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further possible military action from Israel. The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East Free Trade Agreement down the road. In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves, the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in pursuit of a viable settlement. The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his speech and for his thoughtful comments. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time allotted to our side on this amendment.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this point. I yield the floor.