Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation, and we commend and thank the Senator. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his important argument. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I compliment her and I compliment Senator Levin on this work. I am pleased to be associated with them in this amendment. I come to this amendment from an experience serving on the Agriculture Committee throughout the 27 years of my service in the Senate and 6 years as chairman of the committee. The Agriculture Committee spent a great deal of productive time working with the CFTC to make certain that the regulatory aspects with regard to trading were as strong and as just as possible. We did so, not in a sense of being punitive with regard to new markets and new innovations to weigh in on how American enterprise might flourish, but rather to try to give confidence to hundreds of thousands of traders and beyond--the farming community in particular--of our country. That was the basis for the creation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We have had renewals of the CFTC during my tenure, and I believe we have improved upon the situation on each occasion. Historically, energy has been exempted from CFTC regulations. I will not attempt to trace the history of why those exemptions occurred. But I will say, in the give and take of compromise as the legislation made its way through the committees of the House and the Senate, and conferences in consultation with the White House, on each occasion in which energy was about to be incorporated in a regulatory pattern, it was exempted as a final compromise in order to gain passage of legislation at one juncture or another. That turned out to be a fatal flaw. The testimony before the Agriculture Committee, quite apart from testimony before other committees represented by the Senators here today, indicated it was not the entirety of the problem but certainly an example of the contribution of a very grave set of circumstances in which traders without particular scruples and with a minimum of regulation bankrupted each other, and unfortunately, a good number of other innocent parties in the process. Even in the midst of all of this rubble, as we witnessed the whole thing collapsing, there were still brave spirits in committee and elsewhere who said: ``Let freedom rein; don't regulate anything that doesn't need regulating.'' But, of course, by that time, most of the market aspects of it--all the electronic aspects of it--the poles and the plugs, had literally been pulled. I do not claim to understand the entirety of the complexities of how those markets work. At some point, if there are not people who can make good trades, you literally pull the plug and stop your electronic mechanism and the trading stops, and those who are still on the merry- go-round are out of luck. There has always been the arguments that this is simply a subject for a few wealthy Americans to consider as they deal with each other. But that is not the case. The principal users of these markets are very wealthy people--people who ought to know better and who have proper legal or financial counsel so they don't make mistakes. But there are other people who get involved. The ramifications of the energy markets are not just for private corporations but they branch out into services for communities and the governing systems of this country. I appreciate very much those who will continue to advocate in the midst of all of the devastation which is apparent--and books are now being written about the difficulties. These books will point out, as some already have, that the President's working group--whose members testified before the Agriculture Committee several times when I was chairman--let the markets go without regulation; and said if you have not regulated at this point, let them alone. I am here to advise the President and the member of this working group, that these markets do not work well without public confidence, and without a degree of transparency. If there is anything occurring in American financial markets now, anything encouraging to investors, it is the thought that finally many people in Government have come to their senses and realized a good number of things have been going on to undermine confidence in those markets. Those of conservative persuasion who favor the markets and believe markets work, have to take responsibility and make certain they do actually work. In order for them to work, markets must be just, and investors must understand that there are remedies, as opposed to pulling the plug, literally, and letting the trades flounder and bankruptcy ensue. Mr. President, this is a very serious problem. I appreciate very much the persistence of the Senator from California in insisting that this issue needed to be raised again. She has raised it, and this is why I have come to the floor today in support of it. I recognize the atmosphere in which we are involved in trying to come to grips with the Agriculture appropriation in such a short time frame. It is a necessity to complete our work. This is not, perhaps, the most conducive manner to study this complex subject matter that Senators might require. However, I simply say, during my chairmanship, the Agriculture Committee studied this issue to a fault. Beyond circumstances I can control, I was no longer chairman, and the issue slid from the agenda. I do recall that we researched the issue, brought all the parties together, and held 2 days of study with experts on how future markets work. Many Members came to the conclusion that energy should be included, and it should be reformed. I pray that will occur. The CFTC, I believe, is the logical repository, but I am not insistent upon that. The need for reform is at hand and this amendment advances that ball. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment that authorizes the spending contained in this appropriations bill. I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy specifically for the way in which they have worked with me throughout this year on matters pertaining to foreign policy. Our staffs have consulted closely for months, and I believe that our respective legislative efforts have been enhanced greatly by this cooperation. My amendment is an up-to-date version of S. 925, the foreign affairs authorization bill. It contains all of the amendments included in the S. 925 Senate floor action in July. It is truly a bipartisan product. On those 3 days in July in which we debated the bill, we considered dozens of amendments from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee worked with Members on constructive legislative language to enhance the bill; various components have received unanimous committee support. I thank almost every Member of this body who has contributed in one way or another to this amendment because the amendments of almost every Member of this body are a part of the product we are considering today. That is why it not only has enormous bipartisan support, it has pride of authorship of virtually every Senator. In this amendment, the Senate speaks forthrightly on the foreign policy challenges that this appropriations bill addresses by setting forth funding levels for specific programs and projects. This amendment gives voice to the Senate's views on issues touching every continent, from the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to the President's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which is designed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. My amendment authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, our Peace Corps volunteers, many of them in harm's way. They are our civilian soldiers in the war on terrorism, and they are engaged in a noble battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian disasters. American diplomats and aid workers have become targets in most countries and embassies around the world, but there is no shortage of recruits who want to be trained and sent abroad to do America's work. I thank every member of my committee for their hard work during the authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle have devoted tens of hours to developing constructive approaches to a number of very difficult foreign policy questions. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approached many foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit; thus, all of our authorizing legislation in S. 925 passed out of the committee by a vote of 19 to 0. I thank and commend, once again, the distinguished ranking member of our committee, Senator Biden, for his abiding cooperation through this whole lengthy process of this year. Republicans and Democrats reasoned together and made compromises that led to excellent legislation. The members of our committee are united in our belief that the authorization bill contained in this amendment will enhance U.S. national security. A vote for this amendment is a vote of confidence in the Senate's ability to help shape a world where peace, justice, and prosperity might prevail. This is not an academic exercise. Authorization legislation is important. If we are to have a foreign policy that has the long-term support of the American people, the Congress must be in it on the takeoffs as well as the landings. We should not be satisfied with appropriating funds after American soldiers are on the ground. Congress must be in on the policy formulations and the fulfillment of U.S. commitments. Our role is to help make the hard decisions, not just to sign the checks after decisions are made. Extensive hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have formed this amendment. The Senate needs the authorization process to project its voice on foreign policy and to have an impact on the direction this country takes in the world. I believe this step is especially necessary because we are now trying to accomplish our legislative work in extraordinary and dangerous times. These times demand the Senate do its duty to pass a foreign affairs authorization bill. Up to this point, we have not done our duty. We are asking a great deal of our diplomats, our military, and the administration; and on a daily basis, Senators of both parties can be heard delivering commentary on the administration's war effort. Our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the people make such commentary relevant and expected. Even as we perform oversight and function as loyal critics within our Government, we cannot forget we have our own responsibilities in fighting the war on terrorism. If we function merely as critics and commentators without taking the time and effort to authorize the very legislation that pertains to our Nation's security, we are failing in our duties. This simply cannot continue. After September 11, 2001, we know we need a robust civilian foreign policy capacity in addition to a strong military if we are going to shape a world that embraces democracy, tolerance, open markets, and the rule of law. But we find the State Department is stretched thin. Our public diplomacy is underfunded and unfocused on many occasions. Our foreign assistance faces constant conflicting pressures and we need to play catchup just to make sure Americans are as safe as possible in their embassy workplaces, and Americans who approach those workplaces are as safe as possible. We have no civilian surge capacity so our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq end up doing the nonmilitary tasks that should be done by civilians. Our appropriators have been sensitive to foreign policy needs. They have carried the burden of keeping vital foreign policy programs going, but a few lines in appropriations bills are not sufficient to provide the needed direction and framework and the sustained oversight this body should be paying to our civilian foreign affairs capacity. This year the foreign affairs authorization bill has had to overcome obstacles that have had little to do with its own merits. This authorizing amendment lays out Senate priorities for foreign affairs spending. I have resisted adding anything to it that was not approved in July in open debate and after the adoption of the dozens of amendments I talked about from virtually most, if not all, Senators on this floor. The bill exists as it emerged from the Senate floor at that time and it puts people first, as well as the safety of Americans who work around the world for us. It places a high priority on programs that help foreign governments cooperate with us in tracking down terrorists. It authorizes additional funds for security upgrades at embassies which we know are among the most threatened U.S. targets in the world. As we saw in Kenya and Tanzania, Americans serving in embassies are on the front line in the war against terrorism. The amendment authorized an increase in danger pay for the diplomats who serve in high-risk posts. We are in a race to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the authorization of this amendment will increase our capabilities. The amendment authorizes a greater American effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Beyond the war on terrorism, the amendment places a high priority on recognizing the deep reservoir of hope for humanity that resides in the American heart. It authorizes the fulfillment of our humanitarian instincts, including programs for child survival, nutrition and health, famine assistance and the Peace Corps. It authorizes the Millennium Challenge Account, President Bush's new program to invest American development dollars where they are most likely to spur economic growth. A lot of work has gone into the deliberations on the Millennium Challenge Account and the final product is supported by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, as well as the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. All of us now support the President's concept for creating a new means of delivering economic assistance to nations that are implementing positive and measurable economic and political reforms. We agree with the President that this and our development assistance programs are important tools in the war on terrorism. They can prevent failed states, improve our relationships with developing countries, and reduce impoverished conditions that are conducive to terrorist recruitment. The Senate has been diligent this year in moving other foreign policy items. Among the measures we have passed are the global AIDS bill, the Moscow Treaty, NATO expansion, and the Iraq supplemental. The Senate has shown a capacity to act decisively on the Nation's foreign policy business because we recognize that in these perilous times it is our duty to do so. American national security is at risk, and as the leaders entrusted with passing legislation to keep America secure, we should include the authorization for the civilian foreign affairs agencies and their programs among our accomplishments this year. I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. I am prepared to accept the passage of the amendment by voice vote if it is the pleasure of both managers of the bill.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at the outset of this debate. Mr. President, I regret that objection has been made, although I understand the reasoning of those who have made the objection. I identified this as the State Department authorization bill, a bill that also included authorization for the money in the challenge account and, for that matter, a good number of other things that, in this particular urgent period of the war on terrorism, attempts to help brave Americans who are serving in our embassies, who are serving in humanitarian ways abroad. I need not remind the Senate that a number of these brave Americans have lost their lives in recent days and weeks. I need not remind the Senate we are at war. This is not an incidental amendment or a last-minute whim of one Senator. Nor, for that matter, is it a particular desire of our committee-- which voted 19 to zero in behalf of some very important principles that support Americans on the civilian side of the war against terrorism--to impose our will upon the Senate. Obviously, we are not in a position to do so. But I pointed out in the days of debate on the amendment that I have offered today, there were tens of amendments offered by many Senators. A majority, I believe, of the body have tried to perfect this bill. It is not a controversial bill. It is, in fact, a statement of the best motivation, the idealism of the Senate. It is our best collective effort to try to meet an imperative in the war against terrorism. At this point, a point of order has been raised that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. Indeed, it is. I have made a motion to waive that requirement, given what I believe is the gravity and the importance of the lives of the Americans we are trying to serve. Members may decide that they wish to debate procedure today. And procedure in the Senate and the rules of the Senate are very important. But the rules of the Senate also permit, as one rule of the Senate, the waiver, so that authorization might occur on an appropriations bill. Some Senators have approached me and indicated they think there is a lot of merit in the bill. As a matter of fact, some of their own work is in this bill, in this amendment I am offering. Yet at the same time, they are reluctant to vote for my waiver on this occasion, my desire to set aside rule XVI, because they believe there are, after all, many considerations the Senate might be taking up today. There is a broad gamut of domestic issues, for that matter, discussions of foreign policy--various ideas that might come to Senators that might be quite welcome to our national debate. I do ask for consideration of the whole package of the ideas, authorizations, and support that my amendment provides the Senate today because I believe it is important to our country. I believe it is important, as a statement of who we are, that we are doing business. We might make a statement, when we have this vote, that we are prepared, really, not to do business, but in our own internal difficulties we are prepared to frustrate each other at almost every pass. We enjoy the fact that, as a Senate, we are fairly evenly divided. Yet I pointed out on this particular bill we are not divided. So there almost has to be a very peculiar twist, it seems to me, that finds this debate whether or not we should authorize the State Department Millennial Challenge. Beyond that, there has been perhaps a debate in the Senate throughout the year. It is an important one. It is important to be resolved constructively. There may be some Senators who would say that, by and large, it is probably useful to have authorization bills but some Senators almost in the next breath will say it is not very necessary. In other words, if in fact programs are not thought through and they are not fleshed out and there are not formats for them that, by and large, somehow we get along year by year appropriating money and adding some verbiage that gives a hint that someone authorized these expenditures along the way as well as appropriated them. We found in July when Senator Biden and I were attempting to manage this bill that there were a lot of Senators who were in favor of what we were doing but some Senators said we have not really had our day on the floor; we have really not had a chance to offer our agenda; the reason we couldn't was because the format of the Senate always seemed to be taking up appropriations bills; and rule XVI says you cannot have authorization of general legislation. Therefore, we were cut out from any consideration of objectives which we thought were very important. As a result, we came along with an authorization bill and Senators said finally we have an authorization bill. This offers us the opportunity to pile in everything that we have. The Senators who argued against that point of view said, no, that really wasn't what the debate on foreign policy was about. But the opposition to that was simply we understand that, but we have not had our chance and we don't see that we are going to have our chance. We don't see another authorization bill coming along the pike. Therefore, although yours will somehow disappear in the midst of all of these other discussions, that has happened for years. Very seldom do we pass authorization bills, and in the case of foreign relations, as a matter of fact, not many for many, many years. As a result, our staff found as we approached the State Department and foreign assistance and what have you that this year there was a need for cleanup of a lot of our case activity, and we hope to do some more of that work next year. One reason for that is if you do not have authorization bills and force things to happen, no one really examines legislative language. There are a whole series of bureaucracies and responsibilities from year to year. No one pays attention and, legislatively, no one cares. Let me say we do care. In fact, a large majority of Senators care about the content of this legislation. I believe it is very important on this occasion that my proposal to lay aside rule XVI should be adopted, and that will be our goal. I encourage an ``aye'' vote not only on the rule XVI waiver but a vote on behalf of brave Americans who this amendment supports and serves and remembers. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Let me respond as thoughtfully and calmly as I can because the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated he has been a very strong friend of American diplomacy, of our diplomats abroad, of those who are at risk presently in the war against terror. I appreciate that. I have visited with him about ways in which we could have an authorization bill for the State Department, the millennium challenge, and the other issues that were in this comprehensive Senate bill, S. 925, originally, as amended by so many Senators. The Senator's statement illustrates precisely the problem on which Senators must now vote. That is, simply, if we are to have an authorization bill this year for the State Department, this is the opportunity. We had an opportunity in July. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts points out correctly that he and other distinguished Senators had a number of issues that they believed were important. Hate crimes and the minimum wage are two of them. And there were additional ideas that Senators wanted to present. They made the point at that time that they believed that on our side of the aisle, they had not been given an opportunity to forward their agenda, to have a time certain for clean bills. Therefore, although in some cases they said, we regret the fact that the State Department authorization bill is likely now to be withdrawn and not to happen, essentially it hasn't happened for many years. As a matter of fact, very few authorization bills were happening. The only reason, I gather, that hate crimes and unemployment compensation came up in July was a belief on the part of proponents of those ideas that they had no other authorization bill on which to have a debate or to attach their amendments, that the appropriations procedure we are under today precluded all of that. I ask that even those who are strong proponents of legislation dealing with the minimum wage and hate crimes support the authorization of legislation that helps civilian Americans who are at risk in the war against terror now. That is an important objective. It has not been my purpose to try to frustrate the aims of any Senator but, rather, simply on behalf of a committee that voted 19 to zero and on behalf of a Senate that approved tens of constructive amendments, to try to forward that work product while there is still an opportunity this year. This is the moment in which Senators must make that sort of decision. Some may wish to make it on the basis of procedure or the basis of how the two parties get along with each other in the Senate. But I would plead with Senators that this is important by itself. It is an important, relevant vote for American security and American good governance. I believe the American people respect this effort. They want us to do this. They want Senators to vote aye, even though some may say this is at least an opportunity to make points on other discussions at the expense of the totality of all of it ending up in failure. I appreciate very much the cooperation of the managers of the bill. I thank, once again, my distinguished ranking member, Joe Biden, who has served our committee well as chairman and as a member for three decades, for all of the constructive work. I thank especially the members of the staffs on both sides of the aisle who have diligently devoted hundreds of hours of constructive work trying to reform aspects of the State Department, a bureaucracy of our Government that had not been observed and touched for a long time and which this bill, an authorization bill, has really the unique capacity to do. For all these reasons, I ask that Senators vote aye and that we have an opportunity for this legislation to proceed. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I object.

Mr. LUGAR. I object.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1974.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer amendment 1974 to that bill.

Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator that I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me just say, in view of the two proposals made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I offered objection on both of these counts because I am the only Republican Senator in the Chamber. On behalf of the leadership of our party, that was my duty, given the fact that our party had not had an opportunity to consider those proposals. I would just say, personally, I am hopeful that consideration will be given to the Senator from Massachusetts and to all Senators for proposals that are constructive. Those two have a lot of constructive emphasis, and it may well be that before March 15, the Senate will be able to entertain those motions. I hope the Senator understands my objection today. That is why I stated it as a part of this conclusion. Once again, I am hopeful that Senators will vote constructively in favor of the foreign relations bill. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Mattler, a detailee from the State Department to the Foreign Relations Committee staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I hereby provide notice that I intend to move to suspend rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer the amendment No. 1974 to that bill. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')