Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his very thoughtful and generous remarks about cooperative threat reduction and the conversations we have enjoyed about that. The Senator from Illinois has been a very strong supporter of nonproliferation in this country as we have worked with the Russians or we have tried to direct our own programs. It is always difficult to oppose an amendment of someone who has been so generous in mentioning cooperation we have had together. I will oppose the amendment because I believe that, in fact, the Senator's objectives are being realized in many ways. Some are known to the Senator; some I would like to discuss presently. But, first of all, I would say that in arguing in favor of the Moscow Treaty, Senator Biden and I have pointed out that the President had already made a determination that we were going to unilaterally destroy a good number of weapons. And the Russians, for their own reasons, had decided they wanted to do so. This is why it is a very short and simple treaty without extensive verification protocols that have characterized other treaties. But it comes with the START I verification procedures that last through 2009. In our hearings, we have pointed out 2009 is short of 2012, which is the timetable for the total treaty to be consummated. But, at the same time, there is all of the strictness the Senator from Illinois has mentioned in previous treaties incorporated in this one. The second point of verification is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the Nunn-Lugar program. This has people from our country working with Russians on the ground in Russia. They are verifying precisely what they are doing. I want to mention the extent of this reporting and verification by pointing to the CTR report which was just published for the year 2002. It has, on the front, so that all Senators will be able to see, the CTR logo, and says: ``Cooperative Threat Reduction annual report, Fiscal Year 2002.'' Now, page by page, the report goes through a description of cooperative threat reduction activities carried out in fiscal year 2000 in the nuclear, chemical, and biological areas, project by project and objective by objective. It discusses the 5-year plan for destruction or containment, security of each of these materials or weapons systems. I mention this simply because that has been the objective of those of us who have tried to foster this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; that in fact there be very close congressional scrutiny, dollar for dollar, area by area, all the way through. Now, Senator Biden was prescient in his amendment that the Senator from Illinois has cited. But this clearly influenced the subsequent work under cooperative threat reduction, and does to this day. The objectives that the Senator from Illinois has suggested that are especially important--and those were also mentioned by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, early on--we are concerned about the tactical nuclear weapons. We have raised the question to Secretary Powell as to why this was not included. In essence, this is not a quote from the Secretary, but he said: It is a bridge too far. We raised this with the Russians. They are not prepared to come to agreement. Now, other countries are deeply interested in the Russians coming to agreement, the G-8 countries that have come together in the so-called 10 plus 10 over 10 program, which means $10 billion for each of 10 years from the countries in the G-8 other than the United States, thus matching essentially what we are doing under cooperative threat reduction. One of the objectives of the early meetings was clearly: What about the tactical weapons? These are very close to the Europeans. They are not long-range ballistic missiles. They are missiles on the continent in proximity to countries worried about their security. So we have friends, in a multilateral way, who are helping to pursue this situation. I have some confidence--because Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld, in their testimony, indicated this is a high priority for them, they will continue to raise it with the Russians--we will make some headway. But we have not thus far. I would just say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, whether spurred by the Biden amendment years ago or various other activities, our activities as Members of the Senate and the House and on the ground in Russia have been vigorous. I think the Senator cited perhaps some of my trips. But one recently, last August, was an attempt to go to the biomilitary plant at so-called Kirov 200. I sought to go there because it was identified as one of four bioweapons facilities of which we believe the Russians are simply still in denial. They are not prepared to work with us, even though at 14 other sites we do now have active programs. Under the ISTC Program, the International Science and Technology Program, we are giving stipends to Russian scientists who now have left the weapons field and are working on HIV/AIDS or other ways to combat chemical weapons poisoning. I would simply say that the Kirov 200 situation, for me, was almost a bridge too far, even though I thought arrangements were available for our U.S. Air Force plane to convey me and the party out there. At the airport that morning, we were informed we would not be able to land. We could fly, but we were not going to land. So we began to work our way through the bureaucracy of the foreign office of Russia, unwilling to take no for an answer. In due course, we did fly the aircraft, and we did land in Kirov. Having gotten there, I would say that I did not see everything that I wished to see. But what I did find were retired Russians, retired at 55, who had come, from the plant that was denied to me, down to our activities and who, in essence, told me everything they were doing at either. So I think we have a pretty good insight. I just mention this because even as we legislatively will some things to happen, they do not happen without persistence and sort of doggedly pursuing those objectives. I am just testifying that is occurring, sometimes to the discomfort of our relationship with the Russians. But in this particular case, I reported all my activities to the defense minister, Mr. Ivanov, and at least mildly admonished him we ought to be beyond this. The whole idea of the Moscow Treaty should be a new relationship, a new trust between President Putin and our President Bush. And all of us on both sides need to be fostering that. So my response to the Senator from Illinois is to say that I think we are on the same side in pursuing congressional oversight, more vigor with regard to everything we are now doing, although I think it is fully reported annually by the Department of Energy, quite apart from CTR, and with goals to go where we have not been; namely, tactical weapons and future destruction.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I yield for a question.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. The treaty does not call for the destruction of warheads.

Mr. LUGAR. I would not disagree, in response to the distinguished Senator, that it would be ideal for this verification to occur, but I would simply respond that although we have been negotiating such verification for some time, the Russians have not agreed to do this. In other words, one reason that is not in this treaty is the negotiators have found resistance. I have found resistance. Other people have found resistance. These things open up tediously, sort of one by one. For example, after great pressure, I was taken on a small Russian aircraft to a plant where in fact there are warheads taken off of missiles, and they are stored almost like bodies in coffins side by side, lined there. Each one had a history of when the warhead was built, when it was taken off of the missile that would have conveyed it, when it was put there in storage, and some estimate as to its efficacy; that is, how long you can anticipate this warhead would actually be explosive. Much more ominous down the trail and something that I am pursuing is some sort of prediction as to when it might become dangerous. The difficulty--and the Senator knows this--is these warheads are unstable sometimes in terms of their chemical composition. They may not lie there in peace forever, like a sporting goods store situation of inert matter. That is the problem for the Russians. At some point they will have to move the warheads. So they already have a railway station secured. They have procedures because they know that at some stage they will have to take the warhead out and disassemble it, a very dangerous predicament and one that then leads to problems of storage of the fissile material. So in another Nunn-Lugar program we are trying to work on the storage facilities for thousands of these warheads because, for the moment, there is not adequate storage for the fissile material itself after it is taken as plutonium or highly enriched uranium from the warhead. The Russians would like to pursue that. So we asked the logical question the Senator has asked: Why can't we work together to verify where all these warheads are, what status they are in. We are interested in that. We don't want an accidental nuclear event in Russia. And the Russians have been resistant, in the fullness of time perhaps less resistant, but I would just say, once again, that was probably a bridge too far for this treaty. Our negotiators found the Russians not to be prepared.

Mr. LUGAR. Of course.

Mr. LUGAR. I think it is a reasonable interpretation, I respond to the Senator, but I would also say that in fact the President, at least through the Department of Defense, in the CDR report I have in front of me, is doing that each year. These are annual reports. Likewise the Secretary of Energy is making his own reports on the nuclear accountability issues. So it appears to me that generally the objective of the Senator is being fulfilled in current reports. What is not being fulfilled and what the Senator and I both wish was being fulfilled is more progress toward the destruction of the warheads themselves and more openness on the part of the Russians to what their problem clearly is and one in which we could help if we had more access. Before I got into this particular vault I am talking about, General Habiger, who has been mentioned in this debate, was the last American ever to get there. This is not openness or transparency. So even though property threat reduction brings a lot of Russians and Americans together, there are areas in which we have not come together, these bioweapons plants, the four of them, for example, and some of these vaults that we have not seen. Every year we are reporting, however, our deficiencies or our inability to reach agreement. It is a checkoff list with the Russians. I say, on behalf of those who are in the field with the CDR, they work at it all the time, working with their compatriots out in the hinterland of Russia to see what might open up this year.

Mr. LUGAR. In response to the Senator, of course, I see it in that light. My only argument with the Senator today is that I do not believe it ought to be part of the treaty. I believe clearly the fulfillment is already occurring in terms of the reporting, with considerable vigor, but at the same time, as I have admitted to the Senator, the objectives we both seek by getting the President to indicate energy and so forth also requires the Russians to reciprocate. This particular treaty still has to be ratified by the Duma. We have our own debate here, but they will have theirs, too. Senator Biden and I in our opening comments indicated we would resist amendments simply because we believe we have at least in a very general way covered territory of what we ought to be doing in terms of oversight but in ways that would not in any way be objectionable to the Russians who have to ratify the treaty and thus at least preserve the spirit in which Presidents Putin and Bush negotiated, admittedly, a limited treaty. I would ask the Senator at least for his thoughts as to whether he would be sufficiently assured by the vigor of my response to withdraw the amendment, understanding that we will continue to pursue these reports. I will try to make available to Senators the CDR message if they do not have it which really reviews in detail the gist of what the Senator is requesting. But beyond that, it is a pledge of vigor in proceeding where we have not been, these bridges too far that I have described that are very important.

Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the Senator that I would be pleased to work with the Senator on a letter which affirms, once again, the importance of the debate we are having, the interest of Members who are signing the letter, but others literally in the subject matter of what we are talking about who would acknowledge perhaps that some reports are being made and maybe ask for more vigor in being more complete. I would like to work with the Senator in that project.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that Jason Hamm, a presidential management intern for the Committee on Foreign Affairs Committee, be given floor privileges during the debate on the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young Indiana students who have shown great educative achievement. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the winners of the 2002-2003 Eighth Grade Youth Essay Contest, which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and are outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I will submit their names for the Congressional Record because they demonstrate the capabilities of today's students and are fine representatives of our Nation. This year, Hoosier students wrote on the theme, ``Growing Nutrition Right Here In Indiana.'' I would like to submit for the Record the winning essays of Caitlin Dunn and Ryan Nigh. As State winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, February 28, 2003, during a visit to the United States Capitol. The essays are as follows: Growing Nutrition Right Here In Indiana (By Caitlin Dunn--Jay County) Don't leave the table. Stay in your seat. An event of magic Is yours to meet. With the wave of my wand And a magical spell, The nutrition grown in Indiana Will help you stay well! Our magical journey begins with an ordinary deck of cards. ``Pick a card--any card--just don't tell me what it is. You have chosen the ace of spades.'' This card is remarkable because it holds the most powerful magic of all. It represents the farmer's spade used to tend the bountiful and nutritious crops grown in Indiana. Indiana farmers create a powerful potion for keeping our bodies healthy: M--Maintaining a healthy diet from the basic food groups including Indiana beef, pork, poultry, vegetables, fruits, grains, and dairy will increase the body's level of energy and make it easier to live an active lifestyle. A--Agriculture from Indiana such as corn, tomatoes, cucumbers, snap beans, potatoes, apples, watermelons, cantaloupes, peaches, and blueberries as well as soybeans, wheat, and oats will help the body resist infection and disease. G--Good eating habits will improve ``brain power,'' creating a better aptitude for learning. I--An increase in life expectancy can result from decreasing cholesterol with Indiana whole grains and soy protein. C--Caring for bones and teeth with dairy products from Indiana farms will help prevent osteoporosis and promote a healthy digestive system. Combine all ingredients and simmer for a lifetime. Eat properly and unlock the MAGIC. maintain a healthy diet, consume nutritious Indiana agricultural products, practice good eating habits, increase life expectancy with Indiana whole grains, and care for bones and teeth with Indiana dairy products. Conjure up a little magic in yourself and-- ABRACADABRA--live a healthy life with nutrition grown right here in Indiana.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Daschle, in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act. I am thankful for this opportunity to remind my colleagues about the importance of this legislation, and the benefits it brings to the American people. In the 107th Congress, the Senate voted in favor of a comprehensive energy bill establishing a renewable fuels standard. This provision would triple the amount of renewable fuel America consumes, displacing nearly 600,000 barrels of oil per day. The bipartisan renewable fuels agreement is a culmination of years of effort and enjoys strong support from a broad spectrum. Regrettably, disagreements on other provisions in the comprehensive energy legislation stranded the renewable fuels provision in a House-Senate conference committee last year. Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable fuels standard three years ago. Like that earlier bill, this bill represents an important first step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our nation's energy security. At the same time, this proposal goes far toward protecting the environment, stimulating rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price spikes. This bill will also forms the basis for a solution to the MTBE problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. MTBE, a carcinogen that contaminates drinking water, is on its way out. This proposal addresses public concerns regarding water pollution while considering all of the environmental and energy security issues involved. It requires the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE within four years in order to protect public health and the environment. And it establishes strict ``anti-backsliding'' provisions to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down and then phased out. Those of us who recall the energy crises of the 1970s--and recognize the current political instability in oil-rich regions around the world--remain committed to the development of cheap, plentiful renewable sources of energy. For years, tax incentives supporting ethanol production have helped foster the creation of a strong domestic ethanol industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of ethanol and make this plant-based commodity more competitive with fossil fuels. Energy and agriculture are closely tied topics that have been of interest to me for several years. Since 1996, I have chaired five hearings in the Agriculture Committee regarding energy security and renewable fuels. These hearings were designed to inform the public that our reliance on imported oil is growing, making the U.S. and the world increasingly dependent on the unstable nations of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. At the same time, the hearings convinced many in Washington that a greater reliance on renewable fuels like ethanol could have major energy security, air quality and rural development benefits. As we look to the future, major new scientific and technical breakthroughs are making ethanol more economical. As a result of the Biomass Research and Development Act, federal agencies are now coordinating research activities focused on making ethanol out of virtually any plant in the world. New biocatalysts--genetically engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria--are reducing the cost of so- called cellulosic ethanol to the point where petroleum products may one day face vigorous competition. The legislation we are introducing today will build on these efforts by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol. Like our previous proposals, this bill gives a special credit to users of cellulosic ethanol for the purpose of fulfilling requirements of the renewable fuels standard. This legislation will go far toward strengthening our national security, improving our rural communities, protecting our natural environment and, ultimately, substituting carbohydrates for hydrocarbons. Thank you for joining me in supporting ethanol, a domestic form of clean, renewable energy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Daschle, in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act. I am thankful for this opportunity to remind my colleagues about the importance of this legislation, and the benefits it brings to the American people. In the 107th Congress, the Senate voted in favor of a comprehensive energy bill establishing a renewable fuels standard. This provision would triple the amount of renewable fuel America consumes, displacing nearly 600,000 barrels of oil per day. The bipartisan renewable fuels agreement is a culmination of years of effort and enjoys strong support from a broad spectrum. Regrettably, disagreements on other provisions in the comprehensive energy legislation stranded the renewable fuels provision in a House-Senate conference committee last year. Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable fuels standard three years ago. Like that earlier bill, this bill represents an important first step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our nation's energy security. At the same time, this proposal goes far toward protecting the environment, stimulating rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price spikes. This bill will also forms the basis for a solution to the MTBE problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. MTBE, a carcinogen that contaminates drinking water, is on its way out. This proposal addresses public concerns regarding water pollution while considering all of the environmental and energy security issues involved. It requires the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE within four years in order to protect public health and the environment. And it establishes strict ``anti-backsliding'' provisions to capture all of the air quality benefits of MTBE and ethanol as MTBE is phased down and then phased out. Those of us who recall the energy crises of the 1970s--and recognize the current political instability in oil-rich regions around the world--remain committed to the development of cheap, plentiful renewable sources of energy. For years, tax incentives supporting ethanol production have helped foster the creation of a strong domestic ethanol industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of ethanol and make this plant-based commodity more competitive with fossil fuels. Energy and agriculture are closely tied topics that have been of interest to me for several years. Since 1996, I have chaired five hearings in the Agriculture Committee regarding energy security and renewable fuels. These hearings were designed to inform the public that our reliance on imported oil is growing, making the U.S. and the world increasingly dependent on the unstable nations of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. At the same time, the hearings convinced many in Washington that a greater reliance on renewable fuels like ethanol could have major energy security, air quality and rural development benefits. As we look to the future, major new scientific and technical breakthroughs are making ethanol more economical. As a result of the Biomass Research and Development Act, federal agencies are now coordinating research activities focused on making ethanol out of virtually any plant in the world. New biocatalysts--genetically engineered enzymes, yeasts, and bacteria--are reducing the cost of so- called cellulosic ethanol to the point where petroleum products may one day face vigorous competition. The legislation we are introducing today will build on these efforts by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol. Like our previous proposals, this bill gives a special credit to users of cellulosic ethanol for the purpose of fulfilling requirements of the renewable fuels standard. This legislation will go far toward strengthening our national security, improving our rural communities, protecting our natural environment and, ultimately, substituting carbohydrates for hydrocarbons. Thank you for joining me in supporting ethanol, a domestic form of clean, renewable energy.

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, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 108th Congress adopted by the committee on January 28, 2003.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I am pleased to join with my colleague to discuss some of the agricultural provisions in this legislation. A provision in Section 421 dealing with the transfer of certain agricultural inspections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture--USDA--to the new Department of Homeland Security--DHS--needs clarification. This section requires that USDA and DHS enter into a transfer agreement and stipulates that the agreement shall address USDA supervision of training of employees who will be carrying out agricultural inspection functions at the new DHS and the transfer of funds from USDA to the new DHS. We want to make clear that we expect that the transfer agreement shall include these components and that USDA will be responsible for agricultural inspection training and that appropriate funds would be transferred from USDA to the new DHS.

Mr. LUGAR. That is an important provision in this legislation. I also want to clarify a provision related to the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from USDA to the new DHS. Due to a technical error, there appears to be a contradiction between Section 303(3) and Section 310 of the House passed bill. The intent of this bill is to transfer the assets and liabilities of this center, which is now part of USDA, but not the USDA personnel or functions. While I am fairly confident this technical error will yet be rectified, in implementing this new law, I would expect that the language in Section 310 would govern.

Mr. LUGAR. I also concur with their interpretation which follows and would expect that these agricultural provisions be carried out consistent with this description. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I am pleased to join with my colleague to discuss some of the agricultural provisions in this legislation. A provision in Section 421 dealing with the transfer of certain agricultural inspections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture--USDA--to the new Department of Homeland Security--DHS--needs clarification. This section requires that USDA and DHS enter into a transfer agreement and stipulates that the agreement shall address USDA supervision of training of employees who will be carrying out agricultural inspection functions at the new DHS and the transfer of funds from USDA to the new DHS. We want to make clear that we expect that the transfer agreement shall include these components and that USDA will be responsible for agricultural inspection training and that appropriate funds would be transferred from USDA to the new DHS.

Mr. LUGAR. That is an important provision in this legislation. I also want to clarify a provision related to the transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from USDA to the new DHS. Due to a technical error, there appears to be a contradiction between Section 303(3) and Section 310 of the House passed bill. The intent of this bill is to transfer the assets and liabilities of this center, which is now part of USDA, but not the USDA personnel or functions. While I am fairly confident this technical error will yet be rectified, in implementing this new law, I would expect that the language in Section 310 would govern.

Mr. LUGAR. I also concur with their interpretation which follows and would expect that these agricultural provisions be carried out consistent with this description. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, on November 10th, we honored the 227th birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. For more than two centuries, the U.S. Marine Corps has exemplified the highest virtues of commitment, service, and sacrifice. From the Barbary Coast to the far reaches of the Pacific, in the jungles of Vietnam and across the vast expanse of the Arabian desert, America's Marines have lived up to their motto: ``Semper Fidelis.'' Through the long march of our history, the U.S. Marine Corps has built a proud tradition. The smallest of the four service branches, they have typically been the ``tip of the spear'' of American military might. U.S. Marines have been among the first troops dispatched to international crises over the past century. Always apace with world dynamics, they have expanded their expertise to encompass the entire spectrum of conflict from humanitarian assistance to major theater war. Amphibious Forces have demonstrated--in times of crisis and frequently on very short notice--that they possess a capable and formidable ``package'' of ships and Marines to meet the threat across the full spectrum of modern conflict. Our Marines have protected America's interests, struggled against foes that meant harm to our national security and that of our allies, and remained at the forefront of our Nation's efforts to maintain global peace and stability. From Lebanon to Bangladesh to Somalia, Marines restored and maintained order, aided people in distress, provided protection for the weak, and upheld the values that have come to define our country on the world stage. Many also made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country, and we honor their memory. America's Amphibious Forces remain the force of choice in responding to crises in this uncertain world. When, in the early part of this year, this nation resolved to liberate Afghanistan from an oppressive regime and take action upon terrorist aggressors, it was again the United States Marine Corps who got the call--and responded valiantly. Despite Afghanistan's isolation, the first sustained U.S. military operation ashore was conducted by the 15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary Units, an expeditionary force that was deployed, organized and launched from the USS Peleliu and USS Bataan Amphibious Ready Groups. These two MEU's seized and established the first in- country staging base (Rhino, nearly 400 nautical miles inland), secured the Kandahar airport (another 200 miles) and established a base from which quick-reaction operations could be conducted to further track down Taliban and al-Qaida forces. Amphibious ships with embarked Marine forces are one of the most formidable power projection capabilities in the world and represent our Nation's only sustainable forcible-entry capability. In peace and in war, their value has been ever-present. Always faithful, our Marines are men and women of greatness. Tough and dedicated, they are truly the best America has to offer. For 227 years, they have stood for all that is great about this Nation. Their values, sense of courage and steadfast character remain timeless and valuable commodities for an age in which our Nation faces considerable new threats. Today, not unlike 227 years ago, the importance of our Marine Corps is immutable. The razor-sharp readiness of the U.S. Marine Corps reassures our friends and warns our enemies, promising swift action, decisive victories and a firm adherence to tradition. As our U.S. Marine Corps celebrates another anniversary of its proud birth on November 10th, 1775 in Philadelphia's Tun Tavern, I stand with my colleagues in the Senate in saluting all who have worn the eagle, globe and anchor, and to their families who also serve by supporting them.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I have recently received news that Mr. Russ Peterson, a fellow Hoosier and an outstanding American, has passed away. I rise today to offer my condolences to the Peterson family and share with my colleagues a few words regarding his lifetime of service and achievement. Mr. Peterson embodied all of the characteristics of an outstanding leader. He served as President of Porter Advertising, a firm based in Richmond, Indiana. Mr. Peterson was a remarkable community business leader whose vision and determination created jobs and generated economic growth across Indiana. He also served, nationally, in leadership positions for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. While his entrepreneurial achievements are impressive, I admire his countless contributions to the community of Richmond, Indiana. He was a music afficionado and enthusiast, who used his talents and leadership positions to encourage and support local performance arts and music. In addition, he was a performer and sang in the Central United Methodist Church choir, a local symphony chorus, various operas, and even a barbershop quartet many years ago. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Russ Peterson. I express my most solemn condolences to his wife of nearly 50 years, Joan Porter Peterson, and his entire family.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important event in Indiana, the 250th birthday of George Rogers Clark. Vincennes University, located in Vincennes, IN, is hosting a celebration that will be held on November 19, 2002. I am pleased to add my voice to those honoring a man who is one of the greatest figures in American frontier history. George Rogers Clark was born on November 19, 1752, to John and Ann Rogers Clark. Although Clark was literate, he was not known as a scholar. Instead, like George Washington, he took an interest in surveying, a high risk profession that presented the possibility of great reward. Surveying required intelligence, determination, physical strength, resilience, and a thorough knowledge of wilderness survival skills. When the Revolution began, the Virginia legislature appointed Clark to the position of Commander of the Frontier Militia. He set out, in May 1778, with a small force to battle the British and their Native American allies. During the summer, Clark and his troops ousted the British from Kaskaskia, Cohokia, and Vincennes. On December 17, 1778, British Lt. Governor Henry Hamilton and his troops retook Fort Sackville, the important stronghold in the City of Vincennes. Clark led about 170 men on a grueling 18-day winter trek from Kaskaskia, through present day Illinois, up to Fort Sackville. Clark and his men moved relentlessly, braving cold weather and crossing freezing rivers, in an effort to stop further British incursions. Then, in a brilliant maneuver, he duped the British into believing that he had gathered a considerably larger militia than he actually had. This tactic worked, and Lt. Governor Henry Hamilton surrendered Fort Sackville to Clark on February 25, 1779. For the next several years, Clark conducted successful campaigns against the Shawnee. He and his forces maintained control of most of the Northwest. This success not only had military significance, but it also strengthened America's post-war claims to the western territories. During this period, Clark spent his own money to help maintain his small army. George Rogers Clark's courage and leadership have been recognized and carefully remembered in the Hoosier State. President Franklin Roosevelt dedicated the memorial of George Rogers Clark in the City of Vincennes on June 14, 1936. This memorial is the focal point of George Rogers Clark National Historical Park that had 128,000 visitors last year. I appreciate the efforts of Vincennes University and the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park to honor this remarkable man and his contributions to American history. This event will be a testament to the exceptional accomplishments and overall character of George Rogers Clark and his men.