Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask amendment No. 400 at the desk be reported.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask Senator Biden be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the cosponsors of this amendment: Senators Biden, Feinstein, DeWine, Hagel, Chafee, Smith, Jeffords, and Kennedy. My amendment would increase the foreign affairs account by $1.15 billion, using section 920 of the budget as an offset. This would restore foreign affairs spending to the amount requested by President Bush. We are engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism and a regional war against Iraq. We should grant the Commander in Chief's funding requests for the accounts that pay for our diplomats' assistance to key allies, food aid, nonproliferation efforts, public diplomacy, and other tools that will contribute to victory now and a better world later. I ask the Senate to join me in restoring the funds the President has requested.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wanted to share with my colleagues the text of a speech delivered by Jurgen E. Schrempp, chairman of the Board of Management DaimlerChrysler AG, on December 2, 2002, at an event sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I had the honor and privilege of introducing Mr. Schrempp at this event, and I hope his insights about the automotive industry and about international trade will be helpful as we, as a nation, work to strengthen our economy. The speech follows. The Transatlantic Partnership 1. Introduction--Senator Lugar, Excellencies, Honored guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for your warm welcome. Senator, may I offer my special thanks for your thoughtful and gracious introduction. Your remarks are deeply appreciated, coming as they do from a world leader in the field of foreign affairs. I would also like to thank the good people from the Center for Strategic and International Studies--and specifically Simon Serfaty--for their hard work in making this conference such a success. The value of the CSIS in facilitating dialogue about what route Europe and America should follow, to fulfill their joint destiny, is immeasurable. It's a great pleasure--and a privilege--for me to be with you today. It is also an opportunity to talk about an important, visceral part of my life. That is the relationship between Europe and the United States. 2. A personal view of the United States--I have a very personal view of this connection. My first real contact with America came during the early eighties. I had been appointed chief executive of Euclid, a Daimler-Benz subsidiary operating out of Cleveland, Ohio. The company produced really heavy-duty trucks. And it was my first really heavy-duty job with Daimler-Benz. In this two-year period: I discovered the bottomless hospitality of the American people. I discovered the extent to which my body could produce adrenaline. I came to grips with the reality of America's leadership in world affairs. And I became very aware of our crucial transatlantic links! Links in which DaimlerChrysler now has an extremely healthy self-interest! DaimlerChrysler is, after all, the most significant German-American company. 3. America's role in Europe--From my perspective, the positive impact of American actions on Europe is central in much of what we, as Europeans, have become. One of the highest points I can recall was the role played by the 41st President of the United States, and his team, in unifying Germany. And, of course, ending the Cold War. Never forget: It was the Americans who stood in the vanguard against European communism. From thousands of kilometers away across the Atlantic! I was certainly not surprised. America's warmth and friendship has been a given for a long time. America helped to establish the Berlin relief-corridor after the war. It put in place the Marshall Plan to rehabilitate Europe. And its contribution to the wider freedoms now enjoyed by Europeans has been enormous. 4. The high stakes of alienating the EU from the US--Ladies and Gentlemen, Stakes are high in the complex areas of business and political diplomacy. Especially for the United States and Europe. More than anything, our priority must be to establish truths about one another and build on these. One such truth is that we are totally wedded to the cause of democracy. We are also inextricably bound together by the cause of those freedoms that define our civilization. These are the values that mark us as prime custodians of the free world. These are the values for which we are prepared to fight! 5. Commercial interdependence is the key--But it is not only these strong emotional ties that underpin the transatlantic bridge. Our commercial interdependence is a vital part of that bridge's structure. The United States and the European Union enjoy the world's most significant commercial relationship. They are, quite simply, each other's largest trade and investment partners. Together the United States and the EU account for 40 percent of world GDP as well as 80 percent of global foreign direct investment. It requires very little analysis to establish that this joint relationship is essential. Yet we now need to face a sudden and strange reality. The exceptional goodwill characterizing our historic links is being tested. Quite seriously, I might add. 6. The DaimlerChrysler example of excellent US/European relations--In this regard I have a real sense of deja vu. Mainly because of my experience at DaimlerChrysler! This merger offers the best example of outstanding transatlantic relations I can think of. Why do I say this? Well, shortly after the deal, global automotive markets began to deteriorate. The highly acclaimed ``Merger of the Century'' was suddenly under fire. But we stayed calm. We were patient. We held our course. Above all, we believed in ourselves. We had an unshakable sense that we should not meet operational challenges by changing our well-defined strategy. And, by the way, why should we have done so? Mercedes-Benz, the most valuable automotive brand in the world, remains the ultimate benchmark in the luxury segment. Our Commercial Vehicle Division was--and is--by some margin, the world's market leader in trucks, vans and buses. Therefore, we were able to focus on our main operational challenge. That was to implement our turnaround plan at Chrysler. Since then our phenomenal team in Auburn Hills has made outstanding progress. As a result, Chrysler Group earnings for the full- year 2002 will reflect a real turnaround. And on this score, I believe the empowering union of German and American interests was a critical factor. It prevented a deeper financial crisis--similar to those experienced at Chrysler in 1979 and 1991--from occurring. And Chrysler now enjoys the same access to credit markets as the rest of our group. Bearing in mind what happened before, I'm sure many Americans have recently breathed a huge sigh of relief! 7. The practical results of amalgamating Daimler-Benz and Chrysler--You may ask how we turned the corner. Firstly, we combined the very best of our American and German heritages. Then we unlocked the vast potential of our joint experience by working with extraordinary commitment--and loyalty--to one another! I can say with considerable pride that since the merger we have built an enterprise in which America and Germany can have great confidence. We have harmonized processes. We have exchanged components, engines and transmissions and other commodities. For example, we decided that state-of-the-art five-speed automatic Mercedes-Benz transmission units would be manufactured in Kokomo, Indiana-- Senator Lugar's home state! It was also decided that, for the benefit of our customers, these units would go into Chrysler vehicles. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. This investment is only part of a 30 to 40 billion dollar, five- year investment plan for North America. It's a plan that will offer optimal security for more than 100,000 employees, well into the future! I should add that, very selectively, we already share expertise and technology for different products. The new Chrysler Crossfire will be the first highly visible result of this policy. It is a breathtaking coupe. With great American design and Mercedes components. The Crossfire will hit the markets next year. At the point where--as we like to say--Route 66 meets the Autobahn. But what we have built together also has substantial global implications. We are now able to develop crucial interests in Asia. Our significant Japanese investment in Mitsubishi Motors and our stake in Hyundai of South Korea are such interests. So is the dynamic commercial vehicle business we are building in the region. Yet this is not all. China has moved into the frame as well. Soon we will have a meaningful, viable operation there. Which is why we can say with pride that ours is a truly global company. 8. Lessons from the DCX experience--Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to share with you what tough times have taught our great company. We have learned one of life's fundamental truths. That success and happiness depend to a great degree on an ability to confront and solve problems. Or challenges, as I prefer to call them. Another fact is absolutely clear to me. Today's positive results have come because Americans and Europeans resolved to capitalize on their differences. We did not succumb to them. We learned a third important lesson during the recovery process. Successful relationships need time for constant review and reaffirmation. Right now, I believe this is of wider and special significance. And, in this context, I feel a strong need for a constructive ``time out'' in the debate on relations between the US and Europe. There is currently far too much heat and far too little light on the subject! We need to regroup! 9. Potential points of dispute--Before we can do that, however, we have to concede that differences have arisen. The first area of conflict concerns trade. We are predominantly a transatlantic company. But trade restrictions imposed on either side of the Atlantic sometimes have really negative results! I think, for example, of US steel tariffs, and EU penalties in response to the FSC decision. We are simply caught in the crossfire. And our customers as well as employees pay the price. But my purpose in mentioning this is not to apportion blame. It is simply to note that trade restrictions do more harm than good. I therefore agree with the recent statement by President Bush that there is a need to remove tariffs. And non-tariff-based trade barriers. I hasten to add. Let's hope the leaders in charge of trade issues go down this road! There is a second front on which policy differences are always aired. The conflicting views of Europe and the US on global environmental matters have developed into a hot topic. Finally, geopolitical issues have arisen around national security and defense commitments. These discordant views are not restricted to partisan arguments. There are also internal disagreements--on both sides of the Atlantic. And, once again, most differences tend to be about procedure and the degree to which action is implemented. Fundamental objectives are seldom in dispute. 10. The need for openness and honesty--However, the problem seems to be systemic. And in the process, concerns that originate from fear have also emerged. Fear that unilateral rather than multi-lateral action could be taken to secure world peace. I think particularly of polarized policies on Iraq. But I don't want to go into detail on that. I simply want to make one point. Among great friends, such as the US and Europe, we are able to discuss differing views with complete honesty. In the same vein, however, we should do this face-to-face, and privately. 11. Call to intensify result-driven dialogue between the two continents--On the public front there is plenty of talk. Talk about how to revive transatlantic initiatives. But there is nothing that remotely resembles implementation. Let's get past the pussy footing! It's time for meaningful engagement and visible, tangible results. However, this will only come from blunt, hard-nosed implementation! In 1998, I found myself chairing the European section of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue. The TABD was the brainchild of the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown and the former European Commissioner, Martin Bangemann. Founded in 1995, it was initially accepted by CEOs on both sides of the Atlantic with some enthusiasm. I'm even able to say that we achieved some encouraging results. But this organization, in its present form, has been allowed to stagnate. What we now need is dynamic interchange between the two continents. And such a process must take place with mutual commitment and enthusiasm from its transatlantic participants. Particularly herby on the political side. I undertake today that DaimlerChrysler will pursue any initiative along these lines. Provided it leads to sensible, intensified and result-driven work between us. 12. To keep the TABD or introduce a new process--At the very least, we need to reinvent the TABD. Or it may be preferable to start afresh. One thing is certain, however. We need to engage a dynamic group of leaders who should represent politics and business. They must select and tackle important as well as relevant issues. And they must be totally committed to the process of implementation. People who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get stuck into things! People with a can-do attitude! People not afraid of breaking new ground! People of passion! 13. The need for a highly principled, organized mission-- Such a body would be the best platform from which to proceed. And build on what the U.S. and Europe have thus far accomplished together. Which is an extraordinary amount! Take the multilateral institutions that have served us so well over the last 50 years. NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the United Nations are among them! Quite clearly, their historic achievements signify an important reality. Now, with the Cold War consigned permanently to the deep freeze, some argue that we no longer have a really big issue to unite us. That instead we hassle over petty details. So I believe we have to find a new, highly principled mission. One that binds our two regions even more closely together! A mission that captures our imagination! Along with the hearts and minds of our global constituencies! In this connection, there are highly complex tasks ahead of us. 14. The priorities of corporations and governments--I refer to the finding of effective solutions for what Kofi Annan calls ``problems without passports.'' This will demand unusual levels of organization! It will also require great determination--and dedicated focus. For instance, we have to find common cause in the war against terror. But this should primarily be directed at preventive action. Never again can the infamy of September 11 be repeated. Joint intelligence sharing and cooperation on the gathering of financial intelligence would be a good start. Another constructive step would be close cooperation on important initiatives like the Nunn-Lugar program. This program is crucial. It offers safeguards against nuclear and scientific material in the former Soviet Union falling into the wrong hands. We generally need to create fresh initiatives to neutralize any other nuclear, biological and chemical agents of destruction. But we need to step up investment in such programs, as well. A second goal must be to bring democracy and economic development to regions that have known too little of both. We need sustainable development to lift people out of poverty and abject subsistence. After all, half the world lives on $2 dollars a day--or less! 15. The need to safeguard and, where necessary, to rebuild civil society--Last year I called for a concerted international effort to rebuild civil society in broken countries like Afghanistan. I repeat that call today. And I do so because dysfunctional countries are much more of a drain on global resources than those that operate efficiently. We must therefore heed the lessons of the past. The investment made in rebuilding Europe has been more than repaid. In hard currency. In the fruits of stability. And-- together with the United States--in the development of the most powerful alliance of nations the world has seen. Only through this alliance will we be able to deal with problems that threaten mankind. 16. Problems that endanger the human race--One such diabolical problem is the spread of the HI Virus and AIDS. More than 45 million people worldwide are currently infected with the virus and face a painful, degrading death. In my beloved South Africa this involves 25 percent of the population! At DaimlerChrysler, combating the AIDS pandemic is a priority. It's a priority recognized by the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS. In June this year, at a function in New York, they acknowledged our tremendous South African HIV/AIDS program. And when Kofi Annan handed me their much-coveted award--for Excellence in the Workplace--I was very proud indeed. At the same time I was appointed Chairman of the Global Business Coalition. I welcomed this assignment with a sense of humility--and urgency. For fighting this dread disease--and dealing with the other problems I have mentioned--represent the real challenges of humanity. It's therefore high time to stop playing in the shallow end of our global pool. We need to dive deep! But it is patently obvious that the partnership, between the U.S. and EU is pivotal to any prospect of real success. Together, we hold the key to the health and wealth of the global economy. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is an awesome responsibility. 17. Conclusion--We may, realistically, not be able to do everything. But over the past 50 years, Europe and the U.S. have changed the face of the planet. Very much for the better! As partners, I'd back us as winners all over again. Our common ground is solid and fertile. The challenges are irresistible. The need for unity is more essential than ever. The urgency that demands immediate engagement between us is white-hot. And the time for a solemn pledge of trust in one another is precisely right. I thank you.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am overwhelmed by the thoughtfulness and graciousness of both leaders, my friends Bill Frist and Tom Daschle. I thank both of them for those very wonderful comments. I will take a moment, if I may, to thank some other people, people of Indiana, who made it possible for me to be in the Senate to cast the 10,000 votes, those who gave me their confidence, their support, and their prayers throughout the years. I especially thank the Lord above for giving me good health throughout that period of time and who made it possible to do this. I must pay tribute, as we all are doing today, to Lloyd Ogilvie whose personal counsel and support to me and my family during the past 8 years has meant so much. Of course, behind all of this is the confidence and love of my wife Charlene, our boys, and their wives, who have really sustained me, who said this is something we ought to be doing, a commitment of our time and our lives in a way that has been exciting for me and I hope for them. My staff has made it possible for me to get to the Chamber for all of these votes. Wherever we are in the country, in Washington or at the airport, each one of us is indebted to staff who tell us when the votes are going to occur and give us some reasonable idea about what is being voted on. I pay tribute to each one of those persons. I pay tribute to colleagues who have sustained me each day with their loyal friendship, likewise the sheer vigor of the experience. I feel each day it is an adventure, and I am sure that is shared by each of the colleagues who are present today. I want to mention specifically Senator Robert Byrd, who was the majority leader when I first came. One of the reasons my vote total escalated so rapidly was that in 1977 I think Senator Byrd created an all-time record of rollcall votes. I am certain he will remember exactly how many, but I recall there were at least 650, which was a substantial amount for a freshman Senator to start out with. So we have had some money in the bank ever since, thanks to Senator Byrd. Finally, I want to thank the pages. They have played a very special role in these votes because, as some of my colleagues know, occasionally I go running out on The Mall. On several occasions I have been caught as far away as 14th Street or the Washington Monument when the beeper went off. I had to run swiftly. Fortunately, my pace is sufficient to get the mile and a half back to the Capitol during the time of the vote to scramble up the back stairs, but in a disheveled condition I have prevailed upon the pages to crack open the door, and the reading clerk has been kind enough to read my name so that I can peak through and keep this voting record alive. So I thank all of you. I appreciate very much this moment today.

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, I rise today to offer legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act as it relates to Russia and to authorize the President to grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia. Congress passed the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment to deny permanent normal trade relations to communist countries that restricted emigration rights. Over the years, it has been an effective tool to promote free emigration, but its continuing applicability to Russia no longer makes sense in the context of the many changes that have occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since 1994, successive Administrations have found Russia in full compliance with the requirements of freedom of emigration. Because Russia continues to be subject to Jackson-Vanik, the Administration must submit a semi-annual report to the Congress on Russia's continued compliance with freedom of emigration requirements. Since 1991, Congress has authorized the removal of Jackson-Vanik restrictions from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Albania, and Georgia. The conditions that have warranted these countries' removal from Title IV reporting apply equally to Russia. For more than 8 years, Russia has satisfied the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik legislation. It has supported free emigration and it has signed a bilateral trade agreement with the United States allowing the application of normal trade relations status. Last year, the United States declared that Russia would no longer be considered a nonmarket economy for the purposes of trade remedies laws. Russia has made tremendous strides in the last decade. While Russia currently receives normal trade relations treatment with respect to its exports to the U.S., repealing Jackson-Vanik will remove the requirement of semi- annual reports that have been an irritant in U.S.-Russia relations. Granting permanent normal trade relations also will provide certainty that will improve the investment climate and promote enhanced economic relations between the U.S. and Russia. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act as it relates to Russia and to authorize the President to grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia. Congress passed the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment to deny permanent normal trade relations to communist countries that restricted emigration rights. Over the years, it has been an effective tool to promote free emigration, but its continuing applicability to Russia no longer makes sense in the context of the many changes that have occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union. Since 1994, successive Administrations have found Russia in full compliance with the requirements of freedom of emigration. Because Russia continues to be subject to Jackson-Vanik, the Administration must submit a semi-annual report to the Congress on Russia's continued compliance with freedom of emigration requirements. Since 1991, Congress has authorized the removal of Jackson-Vanik restrictions from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Albania, and Georgia. The conditions that have warranted these countries' removal from Title IV reporting apply equally to Russia. For more than 8 years, Russia has satisfied the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik legislation. It has supported free emigration and it has signed a bilateral trade agreement with the United States allowing the application of normal trade relations status. Last year, the United States declared that Russia would no longer be considered a nonmarket economy for the purposes of trade remedies laws. Russia has made tremendous strides in the last decade. While Russia currently receives normal trade relations treatment with respect to its exports to the U.S., repealing Jackson-Vanik will remove the requirement of semi- annual reports that have been an irritant in U.S.-Russia relations. Granting permanent normal trade relations also will provide certainty that will improve the investment climate and promote enhanced economic relations between the U.S. and Russia. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee still in the Chamber and likewise my colleague, Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I wish to say what a privilege it is to work with these two great Senators. Senator Warner, mentioned, as did Senator Stevens, the great team the President has assembled with Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. We are very pleased in the Senate with the leadership of Bill Frist as our majority leader, and committee chairmen are working together vigorously. I congratulate the Senator from Virginia for his construction this morning of a very important opportunity for us to think together about the events of the present and likewise our possibilities for the future. My hope is that the United States of America will continue to lead in forming a global coalition that will combat terrorism in a very effective way. Terrorists, when armed with weapons of mass destruction, are in a position to create what philosophers would call existential events for countries. By that I mean that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of relatively few people--a rogue state, a sub-national group, or maybe even a small terrorist cell--are capable of obliterating large cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and creating panic in entire countries. One terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction has the potential to create such dislocations in the economy of a country that recovery could take decades. This existential threat from terrorism is a new condition for the world that requires changes in our policy priorities. All nations do not understand this with the same precision that the United States and our leadership does. All nations have not been attacked in the same manner we have been. For some members of our body politic, the September 11 attacks were a wake-up call, but it was a call that has been heard. When President Bush and his strategists put forward a response, it was supported by the vast majority of the American people. We knew that the hijackers were from the al-Qaida group. We knew there were al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan who had been in training camps. We knew that the Afghanistan Government, under the Taliban regime, had been hospitable to terrorists. We asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to turn over the terrorists. They were unwilling to do so. As a result, our country led an international effort in Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. As President Bush has pointed out, we pursued this mission in the most careful and humane way with regard to innocent civilians in that country. We sought to find one by one the individuals who were perpetrating not only deeds in the United States of America, but a long string of terrorist atrocities over the previous decade. The military action that occurred there had the support of our NATO allies. It had the support of many countries that understood immediately the problems terrorism in the world presents. For example, President Putin of Russia and President Bush were on the phone both voicing mutual support. I mention that particular call because in the past 2 days the Senate has had extensive debate on the Moscow Treaty. This debate had significance for our global position and for an important relationship that has been changing for the better, and which must continue to improve. One reason for discussing the Moscow Treaty at this particular point in the life of the Senate was because the Senate is deeply engaged in world affairs, in foreign policy, in defense policy, and deeply concerned about our relationship with Russia. The participation of Russia in the war against terrorism is vital. Even at this moment, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell are working with the Russians to come to a somber understanding of what our mutual obligations are with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and in North Korea and, for that matter, everywhere. These are important conversations. The President of the United States in his news conference last night, talked about this vigorous diplomacy. Our President has been reaching out to world leaders on the phone. He has been active in attempting to make certain that all nations understand the gravity of danger to each one of us and how much the community of nations depend upon the actions of the Security Council and those who take leadership in the United Nations. These are extremely important days for diplomacy. They are critical days for the success of the Security Council and the United Nations. In the Senate, we have understood this in our committees. Chairman Warner pointed out already the extraordinary number of hearings in the Armed Services Committee and the specific ways in which the problems of Iraq have been addressed by his committee. I congratulate the chairman and his committee. Likewise, Senator Stevens has mentioned this morning the extraordinary amount of work that occurs in all of the subcommittees on appropriations, but especially those that are dealing with our national security. In the Foreign Relations Committee we have had hearings almost daily on Iraq, on North Korea, on Afghanistan. Last week, the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, was before our committee making a personal appeal for the kind of support that he hopes will be forthcoming from not only the United States, but also from the European countries and from nations in his neighborhood. Democracy must succeed in Afghanistan, as we hope that it will in Iraq, and as we hope that it will in all countries of the Middle East. Aspirations for freedom can be fulfilled if democratic institutions are built. This is what the coalition against terrorism is about. Clearly, we are concerned with the threats from Iraq, but we also want the coalition to understand the role of expanding freedom. The future is a great one for people who have freedom, but at this particular moment terrorists would deny all of us the opportunity to have freedom. Last evening President Bush indicated that Saddam Hussein has the ability and opportunity to surrender the weapons of mass destruction that were cataloged by the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 and are still in Iraq. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security Council of the United Nations, said to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance. Disarm or show evidence you have disarmed. Each of the succeeding reports from the inspectors have indicated that Iraq has minimally cooperated in allowing inspectors to go to various sites, but the Iraqi regime obviously has been very reluctant to show evidence of disarmament or, in fact, to disarm. Even the Iraqi missiles possessing an illegal range, which are an undisputed and tangible violation, are being surrendered only gradually in the most resistant manner possible. There are reports in the American press of destruction of a few of these, but in the Iraqi press, or at least among people in that country, there is no word of this. In part, it is supposed that Saddam would be embarrassed by the disclosure that he has been found out and is disarming at all. I mention all of this because these are fateful days in bringing together a coalition, hopefully of the Security Council--absent that, a coalition of the willing--that knows the war against terrorism can only be won if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of aggressive dictators are destroyed. Our President has said as the bottom line, Saddam will be disarmed. In the aftermath of that event, we will have a great deal of work to do in this body. There are expenses involved in disarming Saddam. I think every one of us, as committee chairmen, as Senators, have been up front with our people. We know this is costly and we know our Armed Forces are at risk. We know a lot of things are at risk. One thing that must not be at risk, however, is the movement to build a greater coalition in the war against terrorism. I will now speak specifically about the fact that in the Foreign Relations Committee, starting March 25, we will be having hearings on ratification of the NATO treaty of enlargement. The occupant of the chair will recall that a fairly short time ago, seven nations were invited into NATO membership. They have been busy fulfilling the requirements that came with that invitation. They include the Baltic States, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia. I will suggest that the hearings on NATO enlargement will, in fact, fulfill an even a greater purpose. We will have an opportunity to discuss the importance of each of the countries in NATO and the historical importance of America and Canada reaching across the Atlantic for over 50 years and working with European friends to guarantee peace on a continent which has known no peace in any 50-year period in the last millennium. This is the reason that European countries have sought NATO membership. They have wanted to be in a Europe whole and free. They have talked freely about obligations out of area. They are eager to participate in the war against terrorism. They want to be strong friends of the United States of America and manifest that every day. That is something to celebrate. We will do so as we discuss NATO. But as we discuss NATO, we will also discuss its future, which must be a very strong future. My prayer is that all of our NATO allies will be with us in the event Saddam Hussein does not disarm. I hope that in the event NATO allies are not with us on that particular day, they will get their soon. All of our friends are going to be needed as we think about the future of Iraq and work with the people of that country for the building of democratic institutions. I hope we are all prepared for vigorous activity in Afghanistan to ensure the success of that state. I hope that we will sustain a partnership with Afghanistan that will inspire confidence throughout the world in our commitment to freedom. I conclude simply by saying that the President is offering strong leadership and I support him. I am prepared to work with the President in pursuit of all the objectives he has in the days and months ahead. I know from the words of the President that he foresees a future that is filled with complexity, but one that also is filled with promise for our country and for others that share our vision. Therefore, we should face this day with optimism because we have a plan for a future that looks brighter than the future did on September 11, 2001. On that date we discovered that the oceans did not guarantee our safety, that we were vulnerable, that Americans were dying, that our most cherished landmarks--including this Capitol--were at risk. And I suspect each of us prudently understands that this is still the case. But rather than going into a situation of panic, as resolute Americans, we found leadership with President Bush and new reservoirs of strength within ourselves. This is a place of resolute activity in each of our committees and on the floor of the Senate in discussing the most basic foreign policy and defense issues of our time, doing so with intelligence, with optimism, and likewise, with an ability to listen to each other. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who, likewise, distinguished himself as Secretary of the Navy at another time in his career. The Senator clearly has seen parallels at various times. Historically the path for the United States, France, and Germany was not always easy during the Cold War period. The potential for hostilities with the old Soviet Union tested us many times. I can recall, as can the Senator, when Helmut Schmidt went to London in 1979, and came forward with a very bold statement. He said that if the Soviet Union did not withdraw medium-range missiles that were aimed at Europe, then NATO must put missiles on European soil to counteract them. The Russians perhaps predictably, moved their missiles forward and indicated in an intimidating way that they might be prepared to take action sooner, rather than later, against Europe. There were rallies throughout Europe, with people saying, ``better red than dead.'' All the major capitals had frequent marches with people claiming peace is what they wanted, but also with some admitting that they would be prepared to live under communism as opposed to having the proper military preparation to combat and deter communism. In those days the stepping forward of Prime Minister Kohl was critical. Germany came forward and said you can put Pershing missiles on our soil, and so did the Italians. I cite that event because it was an important and courageous step in a time of great uncertainty and fear. It led, ultimately, to President Bush, the father of our current President, committing America to German unification well before Great Britain, well before France. And Germans understand that. That was the basis upon which the unification of the country came. Now, from time to time, the French have been extraordinarily helpful, and I think we need to remember that they have participated in many critical NATO policies and operations. They have asked us to step forward specifically in Bosnia where they believed they had a history, as did Germany, that they simply could not overcome. I mention all these things off the top of the head because they are important, as ways in which we have worked together when there were urgent mutual problems. NATO has not been a hollow alliance. It has been central to the security of Europe and our nation. On this floor we debated the INF Treaty which provided that all intermediate-range missiles come down, every one of them, on both sides. This happened only because of the strength of the alliance and our mutual action. That is what we ask of our friends now, that they remember that fairly recent history of our solidarity against tyranny. And they understand that terrorism could hit them. The war against terrorism is not just the United States versus al-Qaida. Terrorists could just as well level the Brandenburg Gate or the Eiffel Tower or symbols that are important quite apart from the human losses of those who got in harm's way.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for his inquiry. The Senator is correct, times have changed with regard to inspection. Let me offer as an anecdote the Russian facility at Pokrov. This situation is not well known, but it is an agricultural chemical station. Pokrov is an example of the problems which confront Hans Blix and the inspectors. As I and others went there at the invitation of Russians, we looked around at a rather desolate-looking place with run-down buildings. We were led to a room in which people were making shampoo. They were using stainless steel equipment. I would say, without two Russians at my side, I would have had no idea about the history of that room, quite apart from the facility. But they pointed out that just months before, anthrax was produced in the same machinery. This is dual use in a dramatic way. Equipment used for biological weapons had been easily converted to producing a commercial product. Likewise on this premise, but clearly not within view, were stores of anthrax. In fact, on the third floor of another building they had been making anthrax. In another building, they had been making dual-use materials for agricultural livestock. One was to produce antidotes so they could protect, they thought, the Russian livestock. The other use was to produce toxins, deadly toxins, out of 14 serums that were in vials in a room, in an icebox, that could kill all the livestock in the United States. My point is that we would have been clueless without those who could give us a 25-year history of the activities at Pokrov. All of it could have been completely hidden. There was not a ghost of a chance an inspector would find anything there in years, quite apart from months. These are old facilities. Saddam Hussein, and others, have gone to school on dual use. Therefore I simply say, as the chairman already knows, the production of chemical weapons is clearly enveloped in dual use. There is not a ghost of a chance you will find a scintilla of it unless Iraq wants you to find it. Regarding the biological situation, as Secretary Powell already pointed out in his public address at the U.N., the Iraqis are able to break down all the equipment, put it in vans and cart it down the road 200 miles. Unless the inspector is clued in that this particular van out of all the vans in Iraq has a biological laboratory in it, there is not a chance, zero, of finding anything there. This is the reason why the inspection business is at best a holding action. Those who argue in favor say: After all, with all those inspectors there, with all of the press following them out every day, surely Saddam Hussein cannot now be producing a whole lot. But that doesn't solve the problem of what is there, detailed by the U.N., after all these years. Nor does it solve the problem of the intellectual inquiry of scientists who even as we speak are working on new formulations. They don't need huge factories and installations visible from the air. They need only the necessary scientific knowledge and, ultimately, fissile material from somewhere else to get the bomb. And each intelligence report that we have all seen--those now made public--say Iraq may be a year, 2 years, 3 years from making a nuclear weapon. But there is always the footnote: If they get the fissile material from somewhere else--it will take far less time. That is the basis on which our President has to say the security of the American people is at stake. This is not a speculative business for we all know fissile material exists in the world, a lot of it in Russia. A lot of it is still not pinned down by the cooperative threat reduction program or anything else. That is a tremendous danger, and we all ought to recognize that. It is not going to go away with inspectors.

Mr. LUGAR. We must continue to assist them in reaching those conclusions.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his thoughtful comments. I encourage amendments to be offered as soon as possible and that we be prepared to debate those amendments and work with both leaders to finalize actions on the Moscow Treaty today. I appreciate very much the specific amendments that are out there. I hope we can identify those amendments and work with the offerers of the amendments. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I would simply indicate that the Moscow Treaty before the Senate today is very important for several reasons. Some of these were outlined by Senator Biden, myself, and others yesterday. But let me reiterate the fact that this treaty arose from a very important meeting that President Bush had with President Putin of Russia last May. During the course of that time, both leaders identified the fact that both countries were in the process of thinking through how to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that are still on missiles aimed at each other. These leaders identified thousands of such warheads and the dangers of leaving things where they were. Our President has indicated that he had already reached a determination with his advisers. It would be in our best interests, if necessary, to unilaterally change our situation; that is, to think through carefully how many warheads the United States needs to defend itself against all potential adversaries and to move to that number. That would save a great deal of expense for the taxpayers in perpetuity--every year that these warheads were no longer required. Furthermore, and more obviously, it would relieve the anxiety of people all over the world who see the cold war still manifested in a very large number of nuclear weapons on missiles that could convey them. The Russians have had the same idea. They have budget stringencies that are much more severe than our own. Therefore, the two leaders came to a conclusion that an agreement was useful, and, furthermore, it would illustrate what both characterized as a new relationship between Russia and the United States in a very visible and tangible way. Some advisers of both President Bush and President Putin may have believed all of this might be done without a treaty; that is, both countries simply taking action would seem to be in the self-interest of the two countries. Others clearly believed it would be best to codify this in as simple an agreement as possible. The Moscow Treaty was the product of that effort. It is a short treaty, as many have pointed out. As I mentioned yesterday, many of the critics believe it is far too short; that it should have covered a great number of areas in much greater detail, including verification procedures and a number of aspects that have been part and parcel of previous arms control agreements between Russia and the United States, and/or the United States and other parties. Nevertheless, the treaty that was adopted does speak clearly to the aim by the year 2012. Both of our countries will, in fact, have reduced the number of warheads that are viable vehicles of destruction from a level of roughly 6,000 apiece now to somewhere in the 1,700-to- 2,200 range. We will do this on our own schedules, and we will have the protocols of START before us through 2009 and the cooperative threat reduction activity--at least the very visible form of cooperative activity and verification--through that means. I mention all of that because some Senators have asked both on the floor and off the floor, Is this important to President Bush now? Why is the Moscow Treaty coming up at this particular moment? I would respond to those questions by saying from the very first meeting the President had with Senator Biden, then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and me, he encouraged us to move as rapidly as prudent. And we have done so. We pledged to the President that day that hearings would be held. In fact, they were held last year. They were extensive. We have mentioned that hearings were held also in the Armed Services Committee and there were behind-closed-door hearings in the Intelligence Committee, and that both of the other committees shared with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the product of those hearings. Senators have been on the floor of the Senate as members of those committees and have already testified to the efficacy and the importance of the treaty. This is the first period of time available on the calendar of the Senate. The majority leader has given this time to our committee with the full cooperation of Senator Daschle and Democratic leaders of the Senate. I treasure that fact because I think it is important and it is keeping the faith not only with our President but with the relationship that our President and President Putin have been attempting to forge. I would simply point out that we have just concluded in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee another extensive hearing on North Korea. There we talked about the importance of a relationship between Russia and the United States. That is a very important relationship. The United States is counting upon Russian friends to be forthcoming with regard to their understanding of the risks that are involved in the Korean peninsula, the risk to Russia, the risk to the United States, and the risk with regard to nuclear weapons throughout the world in which Russia and the United States have perhaps the greatest responsibility and the greatest stake. The Moscow Treaty is timely with regard to dialog and diplomacy with the United States and Russia with regard to North Korea. Many hope it may be relevant still with regard to our dialog on the question of Iraq and Resolution 1441 at the United Nations or its successor. I mention those aspects not with prediction but simply with the relevancy and the timeliness of this debate. I think it is important for us to proceed, if we can, to have a successful conclusion of the debate and a vote on the Moscow Treaty today. The distinguished Democratic leader has indicated that he perceives this as in the best interests of the Senate. I know our leader feels the same. I simply invite Senators to come to the floor to come forward with their amendments, and we will try to proceed. I finally add, both Senator Biden and I indicated yesterday it would be our hope that amendments would not be adopted to the text of the treaty or its annexes at this point. We believe passage by the Duma, as well as passage by the Senate, in a timely manner is very important. We understand there are many Senators who wish the treaty had been longer, more extensive, more intrusive with regard to Russian procedures as well as our own, but we have attempted to achieve a great deal. We have much further to go as we negotiate with our Russian friends. Therefore, I hope Senators will not call for bridges that are too far on this treaty and thus jeopardize both its passage here and its implementation by both countries. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I do so reluctantly because of my high regard for the Senator and his work on arms control, which has been indefatigable. His wisdom I respect. As a rule, we are on the same side. I, however, wish to oppose the amendment for the reasons I will relate in this testimony. I read, in my opening statement yesterday, words that the Foreign Relations Committee addressed to this issue in the Resolution of Ratification. The Senator has referenced that fact. It was drafted by us in an attempt to address concerns put forward by the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Wisconsin, and others regarding the treaty's withdrawal clause contained in article 4. Our text is based on Secretary Powell's commitment to consult with the Senate should the President consider the utilization of the withdrawal provision. It is worth repeating, especially in light of the amendment offered today, the answer Secretary Powell submitted for the record on the issue of treaty withdrawal. The Foreign Relations Committee asked the Secretary: What role will the Congress have in any decision to withdraw from this treaty? Will the administration agree to at least consult closely with this committee-- That is the Foreign Relations Committee-- before making any such decision? The Secretary responded: While it is the President who withdraws from treaties, the administration intends to discuss any need to withdraw from the treaty with the Congress, to include the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to announcing any such action. This was a carefully considered answer of Secretary Powell for the record. Past Senate consideration of this issue has resulted in the view that one of the bases on which a President may terminate a treaty without congressional participation is when a decision to withdraw is taken in conformity with the provisions of the treaty. The Moscow Treaty, as it stands, provides for this. I am aware of Senators' concerns and arguments about the need to insert the Senate into the process. Many of the arguments we have heard about withdrawal stem from President Bush's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. That decision was taken in full compliance with the terms of the ABM Treaty. The President made no secret about his desire to do so, and Congress held innumerable hearings and public statements about the need to take the action. I am sympathetic to arguments from Senators regarding the need to maintain Senate prerogatives. The process governing termination and withdrawal is a point of constitutional debate. Although the Constitution assigns a specific role for the Senate in the treaty ratification process, it is silent on the issue of treaty termination. Furthermore, nothing in the Constitution restricts the President from terminating or withdrawing from a treaty on his own authority. Presidents have consistently terminated advice and consent treaties on their own authority since 1980. Twenty-three of the thirty treaties terminated during this period were bilateral; seven of these treaties were multilateral, all of them terminated by the President. Prior to 1980, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona challenged President Carter's termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. Senator Goldwater's challenge failed and the treaty was terminated. The White House legal adviser has long argued that the President is the principal spokesman of the Nation in foreign affairs, and restrictions on that power have been strictly construed. Given the absence of a textual basis conferring the termination power on another branch or an established practice derogating from the President's termination power, it is difficult to envision such a role for the Senate. Proponents of a senatorial role in this process will often respond by suggesting that the President cannot, on his own authority, terminate a treaty because it is the law of the land. Again, the White House suggests this is a fallacy. A terminated treaty no longer has effect in much the same way that a provision of a law or treaty found by the courts to be unconstitutional no longer has effect. However, in neither case is the law repealed. Historically, there is evidence of only one instance in which the Senate sought by a resolution of advice and consent to limit the President's constitutional power to terminate a treaty. The first condition to the 1919 proposed resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the Versailles Treaty would have provided: Notice of withdrawal by the United States may be given by a concurrent resolution of the Congress of the United States. On that occasion, the Vice President of the United States, Thomas Marshall, addressing the Senate before the vote, called the condition an unconstitutional limitation on the President's powers, a view with which a number of leading scholars of the day concurred. The resolution failed to receive the required two-thirds vote and the question has remained moot for the better part of a century--I might say, until today. Beyond the legal issues that underlie this debate, some have expressed concern that article 4 differs from previous arms control agreements in that it only requires 3 months' notice and permits withdrawal based upon issues related to national sovereignty. Critics point out the START treaty allows the parties to withdraw after giving 6 months' notice, and only ``if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interest.'' The withdrawal clause is reflective of the changed nature of our relationship with Russia, not a desire to rob the Senate of its role in the treaty-making process. As the administration's article-by-article analysis sent to the Senate with the treaty states--this is the analysis by the administration as it submits the treaty: Unlike some other arms control agreements, the withdrawal clause is not tied to a Party's determination that extraordinary circumstances jeopardizing its supreme national interests exist. Rather, the Moscow Treaty includes a more general formulation that allows greater flexibility for each Party to respond to unforeseen circumstances. Indeed, as we have related in this debate, the Moscow Treaty arose from a desire on the part of the United States unilaterally to destroy its nuclear weapons and likewise a similar desire by the Russians. Finding these coincident interests, they have joined in this treaty; nevertheless, there is no timetable. Some critics have pointed out that the nature of this treaty is substantially different. It is one that comes from the volition of the two without specific verification procedures. I do not view the withdrawal provisions as a weakness in the treaty. Instead, I believe it is another manifestation of the improved U.S.- Russian relationship. It should also be pointed out that our bilateral relationship provides us with some confidence that the time and reasons for withdrawal would not necessarily relate to the agreement. As the Secretary of State told the Committee: ``The Moscow Treaty's formulation for withdrawal reflects the likelihood that a decision to withdraw would be prompted by causes unrelated either to the Treaty or to our bilateral relationship. We believe this formulation more appropriately reflects our much-improved strategic relationship with Russia.'' In sum Mr. President, I was hopeful that our resolution of ratification would have resolved this issue. For the benefit of the Senate let me again read the text of our resolution of ratification. Given the Senate's continuing interest in the Treaty and in continuing strategic offensive reductions to the lowest possible levels consistent with national security requirements and alliance obligations of the United States, the Senate urges the President to consult with the Senate prior to taking actions relevant to paragraphs 2 or 3 or Article IV of the Treaty. This text was negotiated closely with Administration officials with the goal of striking a compromise that would preserve Senate prerogatives while not infringing upon the power provided to the President by the Constitution. I believe we succeeded in doing so. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, again, I will simply say that in our Resolution of Ratification--and this is what we have before the Senate now: Given the Senate's continuing interest in the treaty and in continuing strategic offensive reductions to the lowest possible levels consistent with national security requirements and the alliance obligation of the United States, the Senate urges the President to consult with the Senate prior to taking action relevant to paragraphs 2 or 3 of article 4 of the treaty. It seems to me the language is clear. We have spelled it out. In addition, we have had testimony and have queried Secretary Powell regarding his interpretation of the role of the Congress, and he has assured us that there would be consultation.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, that would be very satisfactory. In fact, I even will propose a time sooner than that if that is in the realm of the possible.

Mr. LUGAR. Let me make a proposal and, in fact, offer a unanimous consent at this time to that effect. I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Levin amendment No. 252 occur at 4:05 today, and that the time until then be equally divided in the usual form; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator from Michigan for that suggestion. I will conclude by indicating that the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Wisconsin proposed a serious constitutional issue. At the initiation of this debate, I indicated that this is not a settled law. I also argue that this is not the treaty on which to attempt to settle. There has been precedent--at least in terms of activity that both the distinguished Senator from Delaware and I have decided. I pointed out 30 treaties terminated by the President since 1980. This is a lot of treaties. That has been the regular practice. I referred to a debate on this issue indicated in 1919 on the Versailles Treaty on which the Vice President of the United States addressed the Senate. The Senate did not come up with a two-thirds vote to change the fact that the Constitution is silent. I accept the fact that the Senator from Michigan pointed out at some point in our history--and I think the Senator from Delaware made the same point--we may want to have this debate, but I hope not on this treaty at this time, given the assurance by the Secretary of State, and likewise by the committee, in our article 4 to this treaty. For the benefit of Senators, there are about 26 minutes left and, essentially, we will leave it to the Chair how that should be divided. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum equally divided.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 254