Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to commend to Senators the Report of the National Commission on U.S.-Indonesian Relations issued today by the United States-Indonesia Society. This report is the culmination of more than one year of work by the Commission, whose co- chairs are former Secretary of State George Shultz, my fellow Hoosier and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, and George Russell, Chairman Emeritus of the Frank Russell Company. This report will be an important point of reference for members of Congress and the public as a whole as the future course of Indonesia- U.S. relations is debated. I, for one, believe that the significance of Indonesia to Asia and to the world is often underappreciated. A relatively new democracy, Indonesia is home to the world's largest Muslim population and overall is the world's fourth most populous nation. The U.S. trade deficit with Indonesia is decreasing. U.S. exports of goods to Indonesia in 2002 were $2.6 billion, up 2.4 percent from the previous year and U.S. imports from Indonesia were $9.6 billion, down 4.6 percent from 2001. The Commission's report examines the U.S.-Indonesia relationship and outlines policies and programs that ``will help strengthen the nation's prospects for success.'' Education, democratization, economic growth and security are areas for emphasis highlighted by the Commission. The report goes into considerable detail about many aspects of life inside Indonesia, citing the challenges and hopes of this fellow democracy. For example, the report notes that the roles of the military and police are changing, with the goal of the Indonesian government being to make the police, rather than the military, fully responsible for internal security. Important reference is made to ongoing conflict in the province of Aceh as well as unrest in Papua connected to issues surrounding the special autonomy law. Of special significance to justice-seeking citizens in the United States and Indonesia, the Commission highlighted the need for a full and thorough investigation into the murder of an Indonesian and two Americans, and the wounding of eight others in an ambush last year near Timika in Papua. My purpose today is not to concur in all of the report's findings, but rather to recommend it to my colleagues as a helpful point of reference in future deliberations by this body on a wide range of issues regarding Indonesia. Those Members interested in viewing the full report may contact the United States--Indonesia Society for a copy. I conclude my remarks by commending the ongoing work of Paul Cleveland, President of the United States--Indonesia Society and Edward Masters, Co-Chair of the Society's Board of Trustees for their tireless and outstanding commitment to stronger Indonesia--U.S. relations. I ask unanimous consent to print the Executive Summary in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Senator Bingaman, the Prevent Pre- maturity and Improve Child Health Act. Pre-maturity has been escalating steadily and alarmingly over the past two decades. Between 1981 and 2001, the rate of premature births rose from 9.4 percent to 11.9 percent, an increase of more than 27 percent. In 2001, more than 476,000 babies were born prematurely. Pre-maturity is the leading cause of infant death in the first month of life. Babies born too early are more likely than full-term infants to face serious multiple health problems following delivery. the health problems facing many of these children include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. If we are able to reduce the number of premature births we will be able to improve the health of hundreds of thousands of infants born each year. The goal of the ``Prevent Pre-maturity and Improve Child Health Act'' is to give States increased flexibility and the Federal resources needed to improve access to prenatal care for low-income pregnant women and their children. Among other things, the bill allows States the option of covering legal immigrant pregnant women under Medicaid. It also promotes new programs and more coverage for tobacco cessation in Medicaid, and Maternal Child Health block grant programs, and allows States the option of providing wrap-around SCHIP coverage for special needs children who have another source of health insurance. Our bill has the potential to make a real difference in many lives. I am pleased that we are able to introduce this bill in conjunction with the March of Dimes kick off of their new campaign on pre-maturity awareness and hope that our colleagues will consider joining us in this effort.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Senator Bingaman, the Prevent Pre- maturity and Improve Child Health Act. Pre-maturity has been escalating steadily and alarmingly over the past two decades. Between 1981 and 2001, the rate of premature births rose from 9.4 percent to 11.9 percent, an increase of more than 27 percent. In 2001, more than 476,000 babies were born prematurely. Pre-maturity is the leading cause of infant death in the first month of life. Babies born too early are more likely than full-term infants to face serious multiple health problems following delivery. the health problems facing many of these children include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. If we are able to reduce the number of premature births we will be able to improve the health of hundreds of thousands of infants born each year. The goal of the ``Prevent Pre-maturity and Improve Child Health Act'' is to give States increased flexibility and the Federal resources needed to improve access to prenatal care for low-income pregnant women and their children. Among other things, the bill allows States the option of covering legal immigrant pregnant women under Medicaid. It also promotes new programs and more coverage for tobacco cessation in Medicaid, and Maternal Child Health block grant programs, and allows States the option of providing wrap-around SCHIP coverage for special needs children who have another source of health insurance. Our bill has the potential to make a real difference in many lives. I am pleased that we are able to introduce this bill in conjunction with the March of Dimes kick off of their new campaign on pre-maturity awareness and hope that our colleagues will consider joining us in this effort.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to inform the Senate that the State of Indiana has lost its beloved Governor, Frank O'Bannon. He passed away on Saturday at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, where he was being treated for a massive stroke suffered five days earlier. He was 73 years old. All of us in Indiana mourn the loss of this fine man, whose kind and gentle nature had won the hearts of so many Hoosiers over the years. Frank O'Bannon will always be remembered for the warmth and friendliness that were essential elements of his character. He was a true Hoosier. He and his wife, Judy, had been married 46 years and were part of a close-knit family that includes their three children and five grandchildren. Judy was at his side at the hospital when he passed away. I extend my deepest condolences to Judy, and I know she will draw strength and support from her family and many dear friends. I consider it a privilege to have known Frank O'Bannon. He grew up in Southern Indiana in the town of Corydon during the 1940s, where he experienced first-hand the special charm of that era captured so wonderfully in the movie Hoosiers. After graduating from Indiana University in 1952, he served in the Air Force, went to law school and then came home to settle down and work as a lawyer and publisher of weekly newspapers. He was first elected to the Indiana State Senate in 1970 and went on to serve 18 years there--much of it as the Democratic floor leader. He was Lieutenant Governor for 8 years before being elected Governor in 1996 and then re-elected by a wide margin in 2000. He was an optimist by nature, a consensus builder and a man of absolute integrity. I always looked forward to my visits with him. I will miss him greatly. On Saturday, our Lieutenant Governor, Joe Kernan, was sworn in as Indiana's 48th Governor. He will serve the remainder of Governor O'Bannon's term, until January 2005. Frank O'Bannon's remains will be buried near other family members in a small cemetery in Corydon. He touched many people in his life. May he rest in peace.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to inform the Senate that our distinguished Governor of Indiana, Frank O'Bannon, has been incapacitated by what his doctors describe as a massive stroke. Governor O'Bannon is currently at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago where-- thankfully--he is showing some small but encouraging signs of improvement. This has been a heartbreaking moment for all of us in Indiana. Frank O'Bannon is not only one of the State's most dedicated public servants--he is also one of the most respected and loved. I have joined with all my fellow Hoosiers in praying for his recovery. His wife, Judy, has been at his side at the hospital since Monday, and I hope she knows that she has our unwavering support. Governor O'Bannon has a record of public service that goes back more than 30 years. He was first elected to the Indiana State Senate where he served 18 years--much of it as the Democratic floor leader. He was Lieutenant Governor for 8 years before being elected Governor in 1996 and then re-elected by a wide margin in 2000. I have known Frank O'Bannon many years and consider him my friend. He is a good man with a good heart--and that is why we are all so saddened by this sudden turn of events. On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court reluctantly issued an order transferring the authority and responsibilities of the Office of Governor to our Lieutenant Governor, Joe Kernan. This transfer of power, done in full compliance with the Indiana State Constitution, ensures that state government will continue to provide all its services without interruption or delay. I ask my colleagues to join my prayers that Frank O'Bannon is able to recover from this sudden affliction and resume his responsibilities as Governor of Indiana.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize a fine public servant who just retired this past August from the Congressional Research Service. David Ackerman is a sterling example of the expertise we in the Congress can call upon to assist us in our legislative responsibilities. I know Senator Biden joins me recognizing Mr. Ackerman for his splendid accomplishments during his career at CRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of Mr. Ackerman's career be included in the record as part of my remarks. Mr. Ackerman devoted nearly 30 years to supporting Congress in his role as legislative attorney for the American Law Division of CRS. His areas of expertise were international law, foreign affairs and first amendment church-state issues and he applied a keen legal mind and sensitivity for balance and nonpartisanship in providing Congress with the informed and objective analysis we need. Dave Ackerman joined CRS in 1974 after graduating with distinction from Georgetown University Law School. Prior to his legal career, after graduating magna cum laude from Knox College, he worked on Capitol Hill in the Washington office of the National Council of Churches. At CRS, Dave quickly established himself as an attorney with the legal analytical skills necessary to provide Members and committees of Congress with high level support on some of the most complex questions facing them in their legislative and oversight roles. He did this with the professionalism, objectivity, and devotion to client support that we in the Congress value in CRS. Dave's career saw numerous awards and recognition for outstanding performance by CRS as well as expressions of commendation by congressional clients. His work was referred to and reprinted widely during congressional deliberations and in a variety of congressional publications. Among the most notable of the latter, are his contributions over the years to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Print, ``Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate,'' a seminal work and invaluable reference resource on this important topic. Mr. Ackerman's work ranged over many of the controversial issues faced by the Congress and the country over the last 30 years. In the international/foreign affairs law area, Dave wrote extensively on the respective roles of Congress and the executive in waging war and conducting foreign affairs. Both Gulf wars and the Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan conflicts raised their own issues of presidential power and congressional prerogatives and Dave was an invaluable source of legal analysis for the Congress, assisting it in understanding this complex interplay. Mr. Ackerman also provided Congress with sophisticated analyses of such issues as the legal implications for treaties of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the termination of the ABM treaty, NATO enlargement, the Kyoto protocol and the International Criminal Court. Recently, Mr. Ackerman has written extensively on the legally--and politically--complex issue of suits over terrorist acts in United States courts. Both the courts and Congress have struggled to develop solutions to this problem, balancing justice for victims with delicate foreign policy concerns. A remarkable aspect of Mr. Ackerman's career with CRS was his ability to range over a number of areas of law. Dave was also a recognized expert on the separation of church and state. The first amendment's commands regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise of religion have produced some of the most heated debates in the courts and Congress, whether it be prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools or government aid to religious institutions. Dave was able to write on these issues with a clarity and acumen that enabled Congress to understand the ever-changing law of church and state in its legislative deliberations. In the finest traditions of CRS, Mr. Ackerman brought objectivity and even-handedness to an area that invariably elicited strong emotions and heated argument. Congress and CRS will miss the expertise of David Ackerman. He represented the best of what we have come to expect from CRS. Fortunately, a body of work remains that will inform the Congress for years to come. We wish Dave and his family all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, recent developments in Iraq have given Americans cause for renewed confidence in our efforts there, as our soldiers systematically track down, capture, or eliminate the remaining fugitives on the most-wanted list. The cowardly hit-and-run attacks and ambushes on our troops have claimed American lives, but they have not deterred our troops from their task of ridding Iraq of every vestige of the brutal regime that ruled for so long. I rise today to pay tribute to those service members who have fallen in this noble effort. As a nation, we must always keep in mind that our military successes come at a high cost in the loss of promising young human lives. My State of Indiana has paid a very high price indeed. As of this date, 13 Indiana families have suffered the loss of a loved one taking part in Operation Iraqi freedom. Seven of our losses were the result of combat action. Four Indiana soldiers have died from injuries not related to combat, and two have died of illnesses. I pray that there will be no more, but I know the danger still exists. Army Specialist Chad L. Keith of Batesville, IN, died on July 7 in Baghdad when his motorized patrol was ambushed. He was riding in the lead vehicle when it was struck by the detonation of a mine hidden along the roadway. Specialist Keith was 21 years old. He had joined the Army immediately after graduating from Batesville High School in 2000. He went through paratrooper training and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. A week before he died, he talked to his mother by telephone from Baghdad and spoke enthusiastically about wanting to get the job done in Iraq. Chad Keith was an outstanding soldier. He will be missed. Army Private Robert L. McKinley of Peru, IN, died on July 8 in a hospital in Homburg, Germany, where he had been taken for treatment of severe heat injuries suffered in the Iraqi desert. Private McKinley was 23 years old. He had enlisted just 8 months ago and was very proud to be serving with the fabled 101st Airborne Division. Private McKinley, a 1998 graduate of Peru High school, was raised by his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Feller, who loved him as if he were their own son. At his funeral, Private McKinley was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal. Robert McKinley was an outstanding soldier. He will be missed. Sergeant First Class Craig A. Boling of Elkhart, IN, died on July 8 at Camp Wolf in Kuwait after being stricken by a sudden illness. Sergeant Boling was a member of the 1st Battalion, 152nd Infantry, one of two Indiana National Guard battalions mobilized to provide robust force protection to key bases and supply lines in Kuwait and Iraq. These units have done an extraordinary job.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I support Senator Voinovich's efforts to promote normal trade relations with Serbia and Montenegro. Serbia and Montenegro is one of only a handful of countries that do not have normal trade relations with the United States, and the lack of normal trade relations subjects Serbia and Montenegro to high tariff rates, making it difficult for them to grow their economy. While I do not believe that the State Department authorization bill is the appropriate vehicle for this important legislation, I share the concern of Senator Voinovich and so many other members that the miscellaneous tariff reduction legislation, which includes the provision granting normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro, move forward expeditiously. This legislation has been held up for six months for reasons unrelated to any of the provisions in the legislation. In addition to the provision for Serbia and Montenegro, the legislation contains a number of tariff eliminations that help U.S. companies and workers, as well as three provisions that are important for economic development in Africa. Recently I joined 65 of my colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Frist urging him to bring the legislation up under normal Senate procedures. It is my hope that this legislation will pass the Senate soon. I thank my colleague for raising this important issue, and I pledge to work with him on its passage.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business until 12:45 with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk a packet of agreed-upon amendments. I will enumerate those amendments and after enumerating them ask that they be adopted en bloc to Amendment No. 1136.

Mr. LUGAR. I so ask that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for his analysis of Mexico. Certainly we ought to underline the importance of the relationship. I believe it is deeply felt by most Americans who are interested in our neighbors to the south and to the north. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, we have been trading a great deal more, much to the benefit of both of our countries. There is increased wealth in Mexico; likewise, its distribution and whether it is getting to the rural people the Senator from Nevada has discussed. I would say, first, in perspective, in the fiscal year 2003 budget of the United States, about $43 million was allocated in foreign assistance to Mexico. The President has requested that for fiscal year 2004--the one we are now discussing--that be increased now to a total of $67.5 million. So the United States, in its foreign assistance, recognizes a number of ways in which our country can work with the people of Mexico for the betterment of people on both sides. But let me say generally about all of this that the analysis that the Senator has given would be important as testimony in our committee process, as dialog with our Department of State, to try to think through the priorities of how U.S. assistance to Mexico should best be spent. The Senator has offered some excellent items in terms of microloans, rural development prospects. There are numerous areas in Mexico that require our retention and our cooperation. I would say, once again very generally, committing $100 million to any country in addition to that which we are now expending is a matter of no small moment. It is worthy of the attention of the committee and the proper procedures of consultation with our diplomats and with those in the State Department who have responsibility for that country and that portfolio. Furthermore, we face an important point as Senators in looking at this amendment. As I commenced the debate on the State Department authorization bill and foreign assistance authorization bill, we pointed out we have been careful to observe the budget agreement, the budget we all came to in the Senate. Clearly, the $100 million that would be authorized by this amendment is not a part of that budget. It was not requested by the President. It clearly would be money that would have to be subtracted from other programs for other countries or from American diplomacy generally. In essence, it is not money that can be added on at this particular juncture. There was a point in which we were having the budget debate in which Senators could have indicated more money for foreign assistance, more money for the State Department or American diplomacy. As I have reviewed the bidding from that procedure, I pointed out and commended all of the Senators who worked with me to restore in the budget $1.15 billion that the President asked for to begin with. So at least we began the procedure with the moneys the President requested. The $100 million committed to authorization in this amendment is clearly not a part of that process. Therefore, I am going to oppose the amendment on the basis that I think the worthy objectives of the amendment require discussion through the committee system and in consultation with the State Department and with the administration. Secondly, I think there is a budget problem Senators have to look at squarely. I appreciate in the past it may have been the habit of the Senate, during these authorization processes, to simply authorize money with the hopes that somehow or other appropriators, at the next stage, would either find the money, subtract it from somebody else's program, or generally ignore the request. Authorization, as we know, is not appropriations, not expenditures; therefore, sometimes Senators, from time to time, have offered an authorization with the hope that somehow in the process the money might be forthcoming or a portion of it. I understand that. But I would say, in view of the fact that our country is committing in this budget process $67.5 million to Mexico, we are already taking note of obligations and opportunities that we have. The authorization of an additional $100 million in the Reid amendment, without the committee process, and in negotiation with the State Department, in my judgment, is inadvisable. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Nevada in a short colloquy. May I ask the Senator if he is prepared to proceed to a vote on his amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I would like to suggest to him that in view of testimony occurring before the committees presently, the Senator might consider laying the amendment aside temporarily and that it might be voted upon perhaps at 11:30 this morning. Would the Senator be amenable to that idea?

Mr. LUGAR. I agree that it is an up-or-down vote at 11:30.

Mr. LUGAR. I object for the moment. I want to respond.

Mr. LUGAR. I object temporarily to the request for the yeas and nays. I will go along with that shortly. I am just trying to work with the distinguished leader on procedure. Senator Nickles requires 10 minutes for debate on the Murray amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I agree the distinguished Senator should have a rollcall vote on the amendment. I will probably make a motion to table at the appropriate time.

Mr. LUGAR. We on our side are trying to work out an agreement. Presently it is being drafted. Both sides are attempting to work out voting arrangements. It might be available. It might be useful to set aside the Murray amendment temporarily to listen to Senator Allen.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for offering his amendment. As the Senator from Oklahoma has said, his has been persistent on behalf of the victims. The administration has proposed a comprehensive program for addressing compensation for all U.S. victims of terrorism. I have introduced that proposal, by their request, as S. 1275. The Committee on Foreign Relations will hold hearings on the proposal on July 17. I hope our committee will have the benefit of considering the proposal, deliberating on it, and offering its best advice to the Senate. Senator Biden and I are prepared to accept the amendment. We would like to do so at this stage as opposed to having a rollcall vote, or a voice vote for that matter.

Mr. LUGAR. If the Chair would proceed to the question.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak prior to the sequence of votes: Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, Senator Nickles for 10 minutes, Senator Murray for 5 minutes, Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes, and that following the debate the Senate proceed to the vote on the Reid amendment to be followed by a vote in relation to the Murray amendment No. 1170; provided that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form for debate prior to each of the two votes.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments, one by Senator Leahy and one by Senator Biden, that have been agreed to by both sides, and I ask for their immediate consideration.

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