Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Florida for his statement. The whole area of weapons of mass destruction is one of interest to me and to many Senators. Very clearly, the war against terrorism contemplates that we will be vigorous in trying to find the al-Qaida and other associates. But at the minimum, we must make certain they do not have access to materials, laboratories, or weapons of mass destruction, which would be catastrophic, whether it be from Cuba or countries in the Middle East, the Far East, Africa, or wherever. Many of us have commented--including the distinguished Senator from Florida--about the worldwide extent of their war effort. The President has commented that it may be a long war for that very reason. I commend him for his statement. I am hopeful the relevant committees have been informed. Perhaps the leadership of the Senate has been informed. But if not, that should occur quickly.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following detailees to the Agriculture Committee be granted privileges on the floor during debate on the farm bill: Benjamin Young, Dave White, Pat Sweeney, and Carol Olander.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the campaign finance reform bill that is before us. I have been involved in elections for the school board, for mayor of a major city, for the U.S. Senate, and for the Republican presidential nomination. My experiences suggest that our present system is outdated and often distorted. Yet I have never believed that we should pass a bill just because it has been labeled ``reform.'' As dysfunctional as our current campaign finance system is, it can be made worse. But in 2001, the U.S. Senate held a genuine debate on campaign finance reform that embraced multiple points of view on the issue. Amendments were considered and debated on their merits. The underlying bill changed dramatically. The Senate reached a conclusion that could not have been predicted before the debate began. This conclusion did not correspond to the ideal system of even a single Senator. In reviewing the 28 votes that we cast on that bill, I found that I had disagreed with the position of every other Senator at least five times during the votes. I expect that most other Senators would find that they also took a unique path through the bill. We all have our own ideas about what a campaign finance system should look like. Although, I do not support every provision of this bill, on balance, I believe that it is a constructive attempt to improve a deeply flawed campaign finance system. Even as we move to pass this bill it is important to admit the limitations of our work. The compromise bill before us will not bring an end to corruption or attempts to influence politicians improperly. We should be skeptical of both extravagant claims of success and dire predictions of disaster. This update was necessary, in part because the lines between soft and hard money were becoming indistinguishable. The development of so- called ``victory funds'' and other schemes for transferring party soft money to candidates was undermining the meaningfulness of hard money contribution limits. In addition, soft money fundraising clearly had been linked to malfeasance in the 1996 presidential election and had assumed a role within the campaign finance structure that almost guaranteed future instances of campaign finance violations and improper influence. The bill also takes the important step of raising contribution limits for candidates facing an opponent who commits large amounts of personal wealth to a campaign. Our current campaign finance system ensures huge advantages for independently wealthy candidates, because their personal funds are not subject to contribution limits. Parties now spend a great deal of energy recruiting millionaires to run for office, because it is the simplest way to apply millions of dollars--sometimes tens of millions--to a political race virtually free of regulation. As more restraints on fundraising are added, the incentive to recruit millionaire candidates increases. The risk is that personal wealth will become a qualification for candidacy--particularly with respect to the Senate. The millionaires amendment in this bill will not eliminate the advantage of wealthy candidates, but it will substantially reduce the current incentives that place personal wealth near the top of qualifications for candidacy. Despite some excellent provisions, this bill will not be implemented without concern. The history of campaign finance law does not provide optimism that restrictions aimed at preventing the entry of money into politics will succeed. Our experience has been that when one inlet for political money is closed or narrowed, that money flows into the system through other inlets. By increasing hard money limits left untouched since the mid-1970s, the bill encourages some soft money contributions to flow toward hard money, the most accountable form of political contribution. But we also will see increases in money flowing through interest groups and non- candidates who seek to influence an election but who cannot be held accountable by voters at the polls. In addition, any campaign finance reform proposal must come to grips with the U.S. Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of speech. Protection of political speech was at the heart of the founding of our nation. We have little leeway in passing laws that regulate the amount or content of political expression. The fact that Congress is charged in the Constitution with the responsibility to hold elections does not relieve it from the requirement that it do so in a manner that is consistent with free speech. I do not believe that it is possible for Congress to write a comprehensive campaign finance bill in this era without stimulating a Court challenge. With the passage of this bill, Congress has made a good faith attempt to improve disclosure and protections against corruption. However, even proponents should admit that this bill raises legitimate First Amendment questions that will have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This bill will not be the end of the campaign finance debate. I am hopeful, however, that our experience with McCain-Feingold will improve the conduct of future debate. Too often, despite good intentions by many participants, the debate on campaign finance reform has not always been constructive. Too often the debate has centered on simplistic absolutes and cynical implications that all money is corrupting. We know that virtually every reform proposal involves complex trade- offs between preventing corruption and protecting Constitutionally- guaranteed freedoms of political expression. Americans don't like to think in these terms because we want to believe that measures to prevent corruption and ensure freedom of speech are goals that should not be subject to compromise. We don't like the idea of having to make hard choices that might result in less freedom or more corruption. Those who support stricter campaign finance laws should admit that many such proposals raise legitimate Constitutional questions, negatively impact First Amendment freedoms of expression, and could produce unintended consequences for political participation. Those who have supported the status quo, must recognize that our current system is seriously flawed and that campaign contributions have been corrupting in some very important cases. Campaign finance is an issue that demands elevated debate on the nature of freedom of speech and fair elections--the most basic instruments of our democracy. Reasonable people should be able to differ on prescriptions without questioning each other's motivations or integrity. The U.S. Senate should strive to be a model of civility and reasoned deliberation on this issue.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 25 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lugar pertaining to the introduction of S. 2026 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nunn-Lugar/ CTR Expansion Act. My bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up to $50 million of unobligated Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for non-proliferation projects and emergencies outside the states of the former Soviet Union. In 1991, I introduced the Nunn-Lugar/Cooperative Threat Reduction legislation with former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. The program was designed to assist the states of the former Soviet Union in dismantling weapons of mass destruction and establishing verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of those weapons. For more than 20 years the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has been our country's principal response to the proliferation threat that resulted from the disintegration of the custodial system guarding the Soviet nuclear, chemical, and biological legacy. The Nunn-Lugar program has destroyed a vast array of former Soviet weaponry, including 443 ballistic missiles, 427 ballistic missile launchers, 92 bombers, 483 long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles, 368 submarine ballistic missile launchers, 286 submarine launched ballistic missiles, 21 strategic missile submarines, 194 nuclear test tunnels, and 5,809 nuclear warheads that were mounted on strategic systems aimed at us. All this has been accomplished at a cost of less than one-third of 1 percent of the Department of Defense's annual budget. In addition, Nunn-Lugar facilitated the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus. Nunn-Lugar also has launched aggressive efforts to safeguard and eliminate the former Soviet chemical and biological weapons arsenals. The Nunn-Lugar Program has been used to upgrade the security surrounding these dangerous substances and to provide civilian employment to tens of thousands of Russian weapons scientists. We are now beginning efforts to construct facilities that will destroy the Russian arsenal of chemical warheads. The continuing experience of Nunn-Lugar has created a tremendous non- proliferation asset for the United States. We have an impressive cadre of talented scientists, technicians, negotiators, and managers working for the Defense Department and for associated defense contractors. These individuals understand how to implement non-proliferation programs and how to respond to proliferation emergencies. The bill I am introducing today would permit and facilitate the use of Nunn-Lugar expertise and resources when non-proliferation threats around the world are identified. The Nunn-Lugar/CTR Expansion Act would be a vita component of our national security strategy in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The problem we face today is not just terrorism. It is the nexus between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. There is little doubt that Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda would have used weapons of mass destruction if they had possessed them. It is equally clear that they have made an effort to obtain them. The al-Quaeda terrorist attacks on the United States were planned to kill thousands of people indiscriminately. The goal was massive destruction of institutions, wealth, national morale, and innocent people. We can safely assume that those objectives have not changed. As horrible as the tragedy of September 11th was, the death, destruction, and disruption to American society was minimal compared to what could have been inflicted by a weapon of mass destruction. Victory in this war must be defined not only in terms of finding and killing Osama bin Laden or destroying terrorist cells in this or that country. We must also undertake the ambitious goal of comprehensively preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Let me propose a fairly simple and clear definition of victory. Imagine two lists. The first list is of those nation-states that house terrorist cells, voluntarily or involuntarily. Those states can be highlighted on a map illustrating who and where they are. Our stated goal will be to shrink that list nation by nation. Through intelligence sharing, termination of illicit financial channels, support of local police work, diplomacy, and public information, a coalition of nations led by the United States should seek to root out each cell in a comprehensive manner for years to come and maintain a public record of success that the world can observe and measure. If we are diligent and determined, we can terminate or cripple most of these cells. But there should also be a second list. It would contain all of the states that possess materials, programs, or weapons of mass destruction. We should demand that each of these nation-states account for all of the materials, programs, and weapons in a manner that is internationally verifiable. We should demand that all such weapons and materials be made secure from theft or threat of proliferation, using the funds of that country and supplemented by international funds if required. We should work with each nation to formulate programs of continuing accountability and destruction. Victory, then, can be succinctly stated: we must keep the world's most dangerous technologies out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people. This requires diligent work that shrinks both lists. Both lists should be clear and finite. The war against terrorism will not be over until all nations on the lists have complied with these standards. Despite the tremendous progress realized by the Nunn-Lugar program in the former Soviet Union, the United States continues to lack even minimal international confidence about many foreign weapons programs. In most cases, there is little or no information regarding the number of weapons or amounts of materials a country may have produced, the storage procedures they employ to safeguard their weapons, or plans regarding further production or destruction programs. We must pay much more attention to making certain that all weapons and materials of mass destruction are identified, continuously guarded, and systematically destroyed. As the United States and our allies have sought to address the threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of September 11, we have come to the realization that, in many cases, we lack the appropriate tools to address these threats. Traditional avenues of approach such as arms control treaties and various multilateral sanction regimes have met with some success, but there is still much work to do. In some cases, it is unlikely that the existing multilateral frameworks and non-proliferation tools retain much utility. In fact, several nations have announced their intention to continue to flout international norms such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Beyond Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, Nunn- Lugar-style cooperative threat reduction programs aimed at weapons dismantlement and counter-proliferation do not exist. The ability to apply the Nunn-Lugar model to states outside the former Soviet Union would provide the United States with another tool to confront the threats associated with weapons of mass destruction. The precise replication of the Nunn-Lugar program will not be possible everywhere. Clearly, many states will continue to avoid accountability for programs related to weapons of mass destruction. When nations resist such accountability, other options must be explored. When governments continue to contribute to the WMD threat facing the United States, we must be prepared to apply diplomatic and economic power, as well as military force. Yet we should not assume that we cannot forge cooperative non- proliferation programs with some critical nations. The experience of the Nunn-Lugar program in Russia has demonstrated that the threat of weapons of mass destruction can lead to extraordinary outcomes based on mutual interest. No one would have predicted in the 1980s that American contractors and DOD officials would be on the ground in Russia destroying thousands of strategic systems. If we are to protect ourselves during this incredibly dangerous period, we must create new non-proliferation partners and aggressively pursue any non- proliferation opportunities that appear. The Nunn- Lugar/CTR Expansion Act would be a first step down that road. Ultimately, a satisfactory level of accountability, transparency, and safety must be established in every nation with a WMD program. My legislation is designed to empower the Administration to respond to both emergency proliferation risks and less-urgent cooperative opportunities to further non-proliferation goals. When the Defense Department identifies a non-proliferation opportunity that is not time sensitive, when the near-term threat of diversion or theft is low, it should consult with Congress. In such a scenario my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the appropriate congressional entities of his intent to utilize unobligated Nunn-Lugar funds and to describe the legal and diplomatic framework for the application of non- proliferation assistance. Congress would have time to review the proposal and consult with the Department of Defense. This process would closely parallel the existing notification and obligation procedures that are in place for Nunn-Lugar activities in the former Soviet Union. However, proliferation threats sometimes require an instantaneous response. If the Secretary of Defense determines that we must move more quickly than traditional consultation procedures allow, my legislation provides the Pentagon with the authority to launch emergency operations. We must not allow a proliferation or WMD threat to ``go critical'' because we lacked the foresight to empower DOD to respond. In the former Soviet Union the value of being able to respond to proliferation emergencies has been clearly demonstrated. Under Nunn- Lugar the United States has undertaken time-sensitive missions like Project Sapphire in Kazakstan and Operation Auburn Endeavor in Georgia that have kept highly vulnerable weapons and materials of mass destruction from being proliferated. This type of scenario does not mean Congress will abandon its oversight responsibilities; the Secretary of Defense will be required to report to the appropriate congressional entities within 72 hours of launching of a mission describing the emergency and the conditions under which the assistance was provided. The review process permits Congress to investigate the incident and decide if the authority needs to be restricted or amended. In consulting with the administration on this legislation, we explored how to create the flexibility necessary to respond to WMD threats while protecting congressional prerogatives and maintaining the necessary checks and balances. Accordingly, I have included several conditions beyond the strenuous reporting requirements. First, my bill permits the Secretary of Defense to provide equipment, goods, and services but does not include authority to provide cash directly to the project or activity. This preserves one of the basic tenets of the program: Nunn-Lugar is not foreign aid. In fact, more than 80 percent of Nunn-Lugar funds have been awarded to American firms to carry out dismantlement and non-proliferation assistance programs in the former Soviet Union. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to avoid singling out any particular existing Nunn-Lugar project as an exclusive or predominate source of funds for emergency projects outside the former Soviet Union. In other words, it is my intent that the Pentagon utilize resources from a number of different Nunn-Lugar projects so as to reduce any impact on the original, on-going Nunn-Lugar program in the former Soviet Union. The Secretary also is required to the maximum extent practicable, to replace any program funds taken on emergency operations in the next annual budget submission or supplemental appropriations request. Lastly, if the Pentagon employs the emergency authority to carry out non-proliferation or dismantlement activities in two consecutive years in the same country, the Secretary of Defense must submit another report to Congress. This report would analyze whether a new Nunn-Lugar- style program should be established with the country in question. If the Pentagon has successfully carried out cooperative threat reduction activities 2 years in a row with a country, we should explore how to expand this cooperation. We should also recognize that where sustained cooperation has been developed it is likely to be more efficient to provide assistance through an established Nunn-Lugar-style program. The Nunn-Lugar/CTR Expansion Act can make valuable contributions to the implementation of the war on terrorism and our non-proliferation policy. It is not a silver bullet, and it cannot be used in every circumstance, but it is our best option in carrying out cooperative non-proliferation activities outside the former Soviet Union. There are always risks when expanding a successful venture into new areas, but we must give the Administration every opportunity to interdict and neutralize the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This new venture, like its predecessor, will take time to organize and to establish operating procedures. But I am hopeful that a decade from now, we will look back on this effort and rejoice in our persistent and successful efforts to provide great security for our country and the world at critical moments of decision. I ask my colleagues to join with me in passing this important legislation.

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 2001-2002 Eighth Grade Youth Essay Contest which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Bank One of Indiana. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and have proven themselves to be outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I 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, ``World-Wide Meals from Hoosier Farms.'' I submit for the Record the winning essays of Crista Dismore of Scott County and Joseph Jochim of Gibson County. As State winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, March 15, 2002 during a visit to our Nation's Capitol. The essays follow: World-Wide Meals From Hoosier Farmers (By Christa Dismore, Scott County) Indiana farms can contribute significantly to the production of food for people around the world. Agriculture in Indiana is a large industry with 65,000 farms containing 15.5 million acres of farmland. Hoosier farmers will use new technologies to increase their crop yield, produce healthier food, and sell their crops to more specialized markets. Farming is becoming more like science. In Indiana, corn production is king. Through improvements in technology such as new equipment, safer pest control, and hybrid seed the yield per acre has increased from 40 to 150 bushels per acre. Also, the farmers will be able to raise livestock that is less fattening for our bodies because of a new science, genomics, which allows researchers to make changes in plants and animals. This technology will be important in keeping Indiana a leader in food production since Indiana farmers supply our dinner tables with bacon, eggs, steaks, and milk. Indiana farms will become more specialized in that they will only raise one type of animal instead of a variety of animals. An example is Rose Acre Farms in southern Indiana which raises chickens to produce eggs. Indian agriculture affects my daily life because my grandfather grows a large garden and my father sells farming equipment. I eat tomatoes, corn, green beans, potatoes, beets and broccoli from the garden. My dad tells me abut tillers, loaders, backhoes, and trailers that farmers use. In Austin, Indiana, Morgan Foods is one of the nation's largest condensed soup manufacturers and many of my friends' families work there. Hoosier farmers will do their part in providing the world with food. Indiana has three of the most well-known research universities, a prominent agricultural school, and many science-based companies that will help Indiana to become a leader in meeting the world-wide demands on the food supply.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our dependence on oil from the Middle East represents a grave national security threat. The events of September 11 have underscored the urgency of moving forward on multiple fronts to improve our energy situation in the short term and achieve energy independence in the long term. I have long believed that renewable energy is a vital part of the solution. Renewables are essential to freeing ourselves and developing countries from growing dependence on oil imports from volatile regions of the world. They also help address climate change. This is why I have long supported increased funding for biomass, solar, and other renewable energy programs. Today I am proud to introduce with my colleagues a bipartisan agreement on provisions in the energy bill that would go far toward diminishing our Nation's dependence on oil imports. The proposal incorporates into the energy bill the Daschle-Lugar national renewable fuels standard legislation that Senator Daschle and I introduced in May of 2000. This proposal, like the legislation I introduced with Senator Daschle, would phase-out the use of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, and increase the use of ethanol and biomass ethanol as the clean fuel additive to gasoline. Use of biofuels would nearly triple over the next decade. Fuel derived from biomass offers the most promising long-term approach to the problems of oil dependence. Previously, ethanol could only be produced efficiently from a tiny portion of plant life including corn and other feedgrains. High production costs made a broad transition to ethanol fuel impractical. But recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering of biocatalysts, enzymes, bacteria and yeasts, make it possible to break down a wide range of plants. Like the Daschle- Lugar legislation, the proposal that we are introducing today includes a special credit for ethanol used under the renewable fuels standard program that is produced from non-grain cellulosic materials like rice straw, municipal waste, and fast-growing poplars. Such fuel is environmentally friendly and would not require significant changes to America's automobile-based infrastructure. There is a virtual consensus among scientists that when considered as part of a complete cycle of growth, fermentation, and combustion, ethanol contributes no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The transition to cellulosic ethanol would have a positive effect on air quality in American cities. Cellulosic ethanol could be introduced directly into our current auto infrastructure with only modest changes. In fact, Henry Ford originally thought ethanol would be the fuel of choice to power cars. Studies indicate that the United States has more than enough idle land to supply a significant portion of its transportation fuel needs with cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol compares favorably to gasoline in its performance as an internal combustion engine fuel with considerably higher octane levels. Reductions in processing costs of ethanol are already occurring, and further reductions are imminent. We must remember that ethanol processing remains a relatively young industry. Oil processing is cheaper now because it has had the benefit of a century of intensive research and development. Further market penetration of cellulosic ethanol as a fuel provides a cash crop to any region that grows grass, trees or other vegetation. This offers enormous potential for rural development both in the United States and abroad. Such a democratization of world energy supplies could reduce armed conflict, lower the risk of global recession, and aid in the development of emerging markets. National security complications and costs stemming from the need to safeguard Middle Eastern oil resources will be diminished. The agreement my colleagues and I reached on the renewable fuels standard provision of the energy bill will form an important and essential component of our national energy policy, but it is only the beginning. I encourage my colleagues to support this agreement and to work with President Bush to achieve national energy security.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Philippine Free Trade Act of 2002. My bill provides President Bush with the authority to engage the Republic of the Philippines in negotiations on a free-trade agreement, and if an accord is forthcoming, to have it considered by Congress under ``fast-track'' conditions. The political and economic histories of the United States and the Philippines have long been intertwined. Immediately following the end of World War II, with the help and protection of the United States, the Philippine economy soared. In the mid-1980's when the circumstances surrounding the Marcos regime threatened to destabilize the country and subvert democracy in his election campaign against Corazon Aquino, the United States once again provided strong support. I was a member of a delegation of American election observers who voiced strong concerns over the conduct of the election and provided support for the rightful winner, Mrs. Aquino. Ultimately she was awarded the presidency and her administration brought greater civil liberties and freedom to the Philippine people and an even stronger relationship with the United States. A free trade agreement with the Republic of the Philippines would hold special economic significance for the United States. United States exports to the Philippines totaled more than $22.7 billion in the year 2000. The Philippines ranks as the 19th largest export market for American goods. The United States is the largest foreign investor in the Philippines with some $3 billion in investments and 24 percent of the foreign direct investment stock as of the end of the year 2000. Both nations would benefit greatly from the elimination of tariffs and increased economic transparency that would come with a free-trade agreement. The Philippine economy has enjoyed a mixed history of growth and development since the end of World War II. Growth immediately after the war was rapid, but slowed over time. The Philippines went from being one of the wealthiest nations in Asia to one of the poorest. Broad economic reforms designed to spur business growth and foreign investment met with success through most of the early and mid-1990s. Under the leadership of President Ramos the Philippines secured ratification of the Uruguay Round agreement and membership in the World Trade Organization. The Philippines was not as severely affected by the Asian financial crisis as most of its neighbors but it continue to face economic challenges. Exports continue to grow but at slower rates. Despite continued slow growth, long-term prospects remain promising. The pace of economic reform is expected to accelerate under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's leadership. Specifically, it is hoped that progress in electronic commerce, banking reform, and securities regulation will improve the investment and business climate. President Arroyo was the first foreign head of state to pledge her country's strong support for the United States in the aftermath of September 11. The Philippines, she said, is prepared to ``go every step of the way'' with the United States. The U.S. was provided with the use of Filipino ports and airfields to support military operations in Afghanistan. President Arroyo defined Philippine national interests by linking the struggle against international terrorism with the struggle against the Abu Sayyaf within the Philippines. The Philippines has proven to be a strong and steadfast ally in the war on terrorism. I am pleased that American and Filipino troops are working side by side to eliminate the threat posed terrorists linked to al Quaeda. I believe a free-trade agreement with the Philippines would make significant contributions to the economies of both countries and strengthen our diplomatic and security relationships. It will ensure the continuance of open dialogue, peace of mind, and security between our two nations. It is my hope that the United States and the Philippines will soon begin the process of constructing a free-trade agreement. There is much work to do and success will not come easily or quickly. But I believe increased free trade is the next step in this close and vitally important relationship.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Philippine Free Trade Act of 2002. My bill provides President Bush with the authority to engage the Republic of the Philippines in negotiations on a free-trade agreement, and if an accord is forthcoming, to have it considered by Congress under ``fast-track'' conditions. The political and economic histories of the United States and the Philippines have long been intertwined. Immediately following the end of World War II, with the help and protection of the United States, the Philippine economy soared. In the mid-1980's when the circumstances surrounding the Marcos regime threatened to destabilize the country and subvert democracy in his election campaign against Corazon Aquino, the United States once again provided strong support. I was a member of a delegation of American election observers who voiced strong concerns over the conduct of the election and provided support for the rightful winner, Mrs. Aquino. Ultimately she was awarded the presidency and her administration brought greater civil liberties and freedom to the Philippine people and an even stronger relationship with the United States. A free trade agreement with the Republic of the Philippines would hold special economic significance for the United States. United States exports to the Philippines totaled more than $22.7 billion in the year 2000. The Philippines ranks as the 19th largest export market for American goods. The United States is the largest foreign investor in the Philippines with some $3 billion in investments and 24 percent of the foreign direct investment stock as of the end of the year 2000. Both nations would benefit greatly from the elimination of tariffs and increased economic transparency that would come with a free-trade agreement. The Philippine economy has enjoyed a mixed history of growth and development since the end of World War II. Growth immediately after the war was rapid, but slowed over time. The Philippines went from being one of the wealthiest nations in Asia to one of the poorest. Broad economic reforms designed to spur business growth and foreign investment met with success through most of the early and mid-1990s. Under the leadership of President Ramos the Philippines secured ratification of the Uruguay Round agreement and membership in the World Trade Organization. The Philippines was not as severely affected by the Asian financial crisis as most of its neighbors but it continue to face economic challenges. Exports continue to grow but at slower rates. Despite continued slow growth, long-term prospects remain promising. The pace of economic reform is expected to accelerate under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's leadership. Specifically, it is hoped that progress in electronic commerce, banking reform, and securities regulation will improve the investment and business climate. President Arroyo was the first foreign head of state to pledge her country's strong support for the United States in the aftermath of September 11. The Philippines, she said, is prepared to ``go every step of the way'' with the United States. The U.S. was provided with the use of Filipino ports and airfields to support military operations in Afghanistan. President Arroyo defined Philippine national interests by linking the struggle against international terrorism with the struggle against the Abu Sayyaf within the Philippines. The Philippines has proven to be a strong and steadfast ally in the war on terrorism. I am pleased that American and Filipino troops are working side by side to eliminate the threat posed terrorists linked to al Quaeda. I believe a free-trade agreement with the Philippines would make significant contributions to the economies of both countries and strengthen our diplomatic and security relationships. It will ensure the continuance of open dialogue, peace of mind, and security between our two nations. It is my hope that the United States and the Philippines will soon begin the process of constructing a free-trade agreement. There is much work to do and success will not come easily or quickly. But I believe increased free trade is the next step in this close and vitally important relationship.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Maine would like to address us. I invite her to do that.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute in favor of the amendment to myself.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Domenici amendment is a straightforward and simple amendment. It says, if we are going to have a dairy support program in the country, it should be fair and equitable for all dairymen. Currently, the bill provides for $2 billion, split 25 percent for New England, although New England provides only 18 percent of the milk. There are other inequities throughout. The Domenici amendment simply says treat everybody the same throughout the country. It likewise does away with a lot of bureaucratic, complex maneuvers in terms of trying to compute this formula, changing it to a straightforward, once-a-year payment, the same for every dairyman. Because of the equity of the amendment and its simplicity, I commend the amendment to Senators and ask for their vote.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment. We are hopeful that the fisheries that will be helped by it will move toward a healthier situation generally for fishing in New England. We have consulted with our Senators from New England. This is a very important issue for them and to others in the industry. For these reasons, we are prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. 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. Madam President, during these moments while we are attempting to work out the managers' amendment, I would like to take a few minutes to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, and his staff for their remarkable work and cooperation with members of our staff as we have worked in the Agriculture Committee. I thank also the leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, Senator Nickles, and particularly Senator Reid, who has guided this process with great persuasion and effectiveness. I wanted to mention by name each of the members of the Agriculture Committee minority staff to whom I am greatly indebted for their expertise, their faithfulness, and their patience. I commend Katie Boots, Danny Spellacy, Andy Morton, Carol Dubard, Chris Salisbury, Beth Bechdol, Dave Johnson, Erin Shaw, Michael Knipe, Walt Lukken, Terri Nintemann, Jeff Burnam, Andy Fisher, Mark Tyndall, and Keith Luse, who has headed this effort so ably. We have also had detailees to the committee. From GAO, we had Pat Sweeney, and from USDA, Carol Olander, Dave White, and Benjamin Young. I thank them all, as I know my colleagues do, for their remarkable work. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I defer for a moment before I propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LUGAR. I agree with Senator Roberts that those are the intentions of the language regarding non-federal technical assistance providers.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor this amendment with my friend and colleague Senator Allard, who has been involved deeply in this issue from the first whispers of improprieties following the 2000 election. Like him and many Americans, my conscience was struck by the failure of our voting system as a whole. The inadequacies exposed in Florida may well have been found in any election district in any county in any state in the Union. While my state of Indiana has been hard at work remedying its own shortfalls, it is essential that coupled with important changes we made as part of the FY 2002 Defense Authorization bill, we take the steps outlined in this amendment to improve the lot of the military voter. We live in the 21st Century. We are used to instantaneous information and communication and data exchanges. We hold ourselves up as an example to the world in the area of free and fair elections. Everyone can vote, we say. Register, show up at the polls. Or, if you are not going to be in your home state, you can get a paper ballot through the mail and send it in. Simple. Unfortunately, the reality has been much more complicated. In fact, as recent history has indicated and any military member deployed overseas can tell you, it's not simple. Depending on the election year, DoD goes to varying lengths to get the word out to the individual service members, however, there is no real oversight and many times the Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine in the weeks leading up to the election is far away from a polling place without the materials he or she needs to register or vote. For the overseas military voter, registering and voting is a multi- step process that can take months: first, a member must register to vote; second, a member must request an absentee ballot for each election and its primary; third, the ballot must be received from the local voting jurisdiction; fourth, a member must complete that ballot and get it in to his or her election Board in the allotted time; and last, the ballot is subject to a myriad of state and local election board requirements. With mail delays, remote deployments and other very real circumstances, it can take literally months to complete the multi-step process. And, in the end, a military voter has no idea whether that ballot was received and counted, or disqualified because of some obscure state standard for those ballots. Some jurisdictions, as we saw in Florida, execute a stringent checklist on each ballot to ensure that it meets exacting standards, unbeknownst to the servicemember. To say the least, military voters need to plan ahead, especially when they are going to be deployed during an election. Certainly, the right to vote implies some level of responsibility for the member, but even such matters as the proximate scheduling of primary and general elections in some states renders obsolete even the most prudent planning. This is further complicated by run-offs and local ballot issues, making even a 45-day turnaround, the recommended standard, challenging. This amendment, coupled with the changes we made in the fall, will help alleviate this situation for the 2.7 million military members and their families who may at some time in their careers be sent overseas. The Government Accounting Office, the Reserve Officers Association, the Carter-Ford Commission and others discuss each of the shortfalls we seek to correct. And, as my colleague from Colorado has stated, we are looking for very modest changes. Among the provisions we are advocating, Senator Allard's amendment clarifies the standards that states must follow when processing the ballots for our military personnel, and in maintaining their registrations following discharge or release from active duty. All states should use the same checklist when evaluating a ballot in a federal election, and it should not be promulgated only during recount proceedings. Fairness and simplification is important. But even as we tout its merits and strive for simplification, we must maintain a cautious eye on ensuring an accurate list of qualified voters. Fraud happens. As we watch the trend toward more permissive absentee voting, the opportunities to commit fraud could very well expand. The Allard amendment is thoughtful about balancing procedural simplification and standardization with the imperative to prevent fraud. I strongly encourage my colleagues, on behalf of the men and women in uniform who are serving overseas today and those who will be in the remote corners of the globe in future election seasons, to support this amendment.