Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator. I also understand that the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference which accompanies this conference agreement suggests that the agriculture reserve fund's $66.15 billion be divided among two budget functions--$63 billion for agriculture (budget function 350) and $3.15 billion for natural resources and environment (budget function 300). It is my understanding that the conference agreement permits the Agriculture Committee to spend more or less in each of these functional areas when it reports out a new farm bill as long as the $66.15 billion total is not exceeded over the specified time period. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for clarifying these key points.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on May 16, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the credit title of the upcoming farm bill.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on May 9, 2001, in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider nominations for positions at the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today with my colleague Senator Bayh to congratulate the Pike County School Corporation located in Petersburg, IN on being named ``One of the Best 100 School Districts in the United States'' for the year 2000 by the Wall Street Journal and Offspring magazine. The Pike Country school administrators, teachers, and students should take great pride in this outstanding accomplishment. This award is based on academic excellence in standardized testing such as the SAT, ACT, Indiana's ISTEP+ test, the number of National Merit Scholars produced by the district, community living costs, and dollar expenditures per student. In October 1996, I had the distinct honor of meeting with the student body at Pike Central Middle High School. I was able to address the student body and saw first hand the hard work and dedication of the school's administrators and teachers. After addressing the student body I had the pleasure of going for a run with a group of Pike County students. It's a high honor to be standing on the floor of the Senate today reflecting on that visit and recognizing Pike County schools for their outstanding achievements. National recognition of Pike County's educational accomplishments is particularly timely as the Senate commences debate on President Bush's Education program. The schools of Pike County have set standards that all school districts across this great nation should strive to emulate. Five years ago, Pike County School Corporation developed and implemented a district- wide plan to improve scores at all grade levels. They aggressively used standardized tests at all grade levels to ensure classroom standards were being met and student weaknesses were being addressed. Their efforts resulted in a significant increase in the percentage of students from Pike County meeting Indiana's academic standards. Also, the number of students attending college after high school graduation nearly doubled during the 1998-99 school year, the year that was used for the national study conducted by Offspring Magazine. Using Title 1 funds, the Pike County School Corporation developed an early-childhood program that targeted pre-school and kindergarten children. Using a corporation-developed assessment process, four-year- old students were placed into the county's three elementary schools for half-day pre-school classes, with five-year-olds invited to participate in extended-day kindergarten. This program has played an important role in the dramatic rise of Pike County ISTEP+ test scores at the third grade level. Additionally, and of particular note, Pike County School Corporation was able to accomplish these goals while spending approximately $6,500 per student year, one of the lowest spending rates per student in the country. As quoted from Offspring magazine, ``the hallmark of a top- rated school district isn't necessarily how much money it has to spend, but how it spends the money it has.'' This great recognition is a tribute to the superlative efforts of the members of the local school board, the school administration, teachers, and support staff of the PCSC. I congratulate Pike County School Corporation and the Pike County community, and wish them continued academic success.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Indiana as a cosponsor of this resolution congratulating the women's basketball team of the University of Notre Dame for winning the 2001 women's basketball championship. This remarkable achievement by the Fighting Irish women's basketball team culminates a season in which Coach Muffet McGraw and her team achieved an outstanding 34-2 record. Player Ruth Riley, an Indiana native, earned the titles Big East Player of the Year and Outstanding Player of the Final Four. Her teammate, Niele Ivey, suffered a sprained ankle during the semifinal game but persevered to help the Fighting Irish win their 68-66 final game victory over the determined Purdue University Lady Boilermakers. The women basketball players of Notre Dame offer an example of dedication, skill, and sportsmanship as they bring Notre Dame its first national basketball title.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 25, 2001 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review agricultural trade issues. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 24, 2001 in SD-562 at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider nominations for positions at the Department of Agriculture. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on April 26, 2001 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review agricultural trade issues. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001. This bill is intended to form the basis for a solution to the MTBE problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using Reformulated Gasoline. Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental and energy security issues involved. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will be good for our economy and our environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national and economic security and stabilizing gas prices. The security of our whole economy revolves around our over-dependence on energy sources from the unstable nations of the Middle East. We must be able to address this challenge. Finding an environmentally sensitive way to promote the use of renewable fuels is an important part of this challenge. That is what I believe our bill will accomplish. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will lead to at least four billion seven hundred million gallons of ethanol being produced in 2011 compared to one billion, six hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a particular year. This will greatly accelerate the development of renewable fuels made from cellulosic biomass. These fuels produce no net greenhouse gas emissions. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will establish a nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, that would increase the current use of renewable fuels from 0.6 percent of all motor fuel sold in the United States in 2000 to 1.5 percent by 2011. Refiners who produced renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS. This bill would require the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE within four years in order to protect the public health and the environment. And it would establish 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. Unlike last year's bill, this bill retains the Minimum Oxygen Standard in the Clean Air Act Amendments. However, the Clean Air Act is amended to ensure that, after MTBE is removed from gasoline, there will be no backsliding in clean air provisions related to ground level ozone and toxic air pollution and also that there will be strict limitations on the aromatic content of reformulated gasoline and of all gasoline in order to further safeguard clean air. I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural or plant materials, while maintaining strict clean air requirements.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle in reintroducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001. This bill is intended to form the basis for a solution to the MTBE problem that will be acceptable to all regions of the nation. In July 1999, an independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline called for major reductions in the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. They did so because of growing evidence and public concerns regarding pollution of drinking water supplies by MTBE. These trends are particularly acute in areas of the country using Reformulated Gasoline. Because of concerns regarding water pollution, it is clear that the existing situation regarding MTBE is not tenable. MTBE is on its way out. The question is what kind of legislation is needed to facilitate its departure and whether that legislation will be based on consideration of all of the environmental and energy security issues involved. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will be good for our economy and our environment. Most important of all, it will facilitate the development of renewable fuels, a development critical to ensuring U.S. national and economic security and stabilizing gas prices. The security of our whole economy revolves around our over-dependence on energy sources from the unstable nations of the Middle East. We must be able to address this challenge. Finding an environmentally sensitive way to promote the use of renewable fuels is an important part of this challenge. That is what I believe our bill will accomplish. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will lead to at least four billion seven hundred million gallons of ethanol being produced in 2011 compared to one billion, six hundred million gallons today. Under the Act, one gallon of cellulosic ethanol will count for one and one-half gallons of regular ethanol in determining whether a refiner has met the Renewable Fuels Standard in a particular year. This will greatly accelerate the development of renewable fuels made from cellulosic biomass. These fuels produce no net greenhouse gas emissions. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 will establish a nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, that would increase the current use of renewable fuels from 0.6 percent of all motor fuel sold in the United States in 2000 to 1.5 percent by 2011. Refiners who produced renewable fuels beyond the standard could sell credits to other refiners who chose to under comply with the RFS. This bill would require the EPA Administrator to end the use of MTBE within four years in order to protect the public health and the environment. And it would establish 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. Unlike last year's bill, this bill retains the Minimum Oxygen Standard in the Clean Air Act Amendments. However, the Clean Air Act is amended to ensure that, after MTBE is removed from gasoline, there will be no backsliding in clean air provisions related to ground level ozone and toxic air pollution and also that there will be strict limitations on the aromatic content of reformulated gasoline and of all gasoline in order to further safeguard clean air. I hope that my colleagues will examine this bill as well as other legislative approaches that would spur the development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, whether derived from corn or other agricultural or plant materials, while maintaining strict clean air requirements.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, two years ago I rose to commend Purdue University's women's basketball team for winning the 1999 National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball championship. Today I again rise to honor the Lady Boilermakers for again making a trip to the NCAA Final Four. And this year, I also want to honor the women's basketball team of the University of Notre Dame as Indiana is exceptionally proud to have not one, but two women's basketball teams reaching the 2001 NCAA Final Four. Notre Dame last represented Indiana in the women's NCAA Final Four in 1997. This year the Notre Dame women have achieved an exceptional sixth consecutive tournament appearance and eighth overall tournament appearance under Head Coach Muffet McGraw. Coach McGraw and All- American, Big East Player of the Year Ruth Riley have led the team to an outstanding 32-2 record, a school high for victories in one season. Purdue's women have persevered through adversity to achieve success as they suffered the loss of team member Tiffany Young in a 1999 traffic accident. Team members experienced other personal losses and serious injuries, yet with skill and determination they have become the first team to reach the Final Four under three coaches: Lin Dunn in 1994, Carolyn Peck in 1999, and now current Coach Kristy Curry. Coach Curry, Big Ten Player of the Year Katie Douglas, and the rest of the Lady Boilermakers hold an impressive 30-6 record. We celebrate the dedication of these women, their victories, and the tradition of sportsmanship and excellence present throughout Indiana. We send these two teams our best wishes as they proceed to their respective semifinal games.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation authorizing funding for the National 4-H Program Centennial Initiative. In 2002 we will celebrate the centennial of the founding of the 4-H program. This important youth development program operates in each of the 50 states and more than 3,000 counties. The program is carried out through the cooperative efforts of: youth; volunteer leaders; land grant universities; federal, state and local governments; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Last year over 6.8 million youth ages 5 to 19 participated in the 4-H program. Over 600,000 volunteer leaders work directly or indirectly with youth through the 4-H program. The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the important role of 4-H in youth development. I am pleased that Senator Harkin has joined with me as a cosponsor. In celebration of its centennial, the National 4-H Council has proposed a public-private partnership to develop new strategies for youth development for the next century. The funding authorized in this bill will allow the National 4-H Council to convene meetings and hold discussions at the national, state, and local levels to form strategies for youth development. From input provided through these sessions, a final report will be prepared that summarizes the discussions, makes specific recommendations of strategies for youth development, and proposes a plan of action for carrying out those strategies. Because 4-H is an important program for youth in each of our states, I am hopeful that there will be strong support for this initiative from my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on my last trip to Indiana, I received news that a trusted friend and a great American, Jim Callaghan, had died. I was pleased to have had the time to call at the funeral home and spend some time with the Callaghan family and would like to take a moment here, with my friend Senator Bayh to pay tribute to Lieutenant General James T. Callaghan. I came to know the General after he retired from the Air Force and settled in Indianapolis in 1993. He was a valuable member of my Service Academy Merit Selection Committee for the last several years and through those efforts I gained a great respect for this man who had given so much for his country, and yet wanted to give more of himself and ensure that the armed services that he had served so loyally for 34 years continued to flourish with the best officer candidates Indiana could produce. I think to gain a full appreciation of this man's dedication and service to the United States of America and the United States Air Force, I have to describe a litany of duty stations, qualifications, and awards. I quote liberally from his active duty Air Force bio: General Callaghan was born in Chicago in 1938 and grew up there. He graduated from the University of Detroit in 1959 where he was also commissioned through the ROTC program. He received a masters from The George Washington University in 1971 and was further educated at the Naval War College the National War College and the University of Houston. Following pilot training and follow-on instructor duty at Laredo AFB, TX and duty with the 6th Fighter Squadron at Eglin AFB. The air force pilot set off for Vietnam in 1966, flying in more than 425 combat missions in Southeast Asia. He returned from Vietnam in October 1967, to staff assignments in Washington DC. F-4's were next, and in 1975 he joined the 50th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hahn Air Base, West Germany, eventually rising to command the 86th Tactical Fighter Group based at Ramstein. In 1979, after War College, he joined the Joint Staff's Operations Directorate and in June 1981 became deputy director for regional plans and policy and director of the Ground-Launched Cruise Missile Planning Group in the Directorate of Plans, Air Force headquarters. From 1983 to 1986 General Callaghan was commandant of the Air Force Institute of Technology and of the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management, both located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. His next assignments were in Korea, including chief of staff of the U.N. Command and of the Republic of Korea/U.S. Combined Forces Command, Seoul. In July 1988, the general was transferred back to Germany, and assumed the duties of director, plans and policy, Headquarters U.S. European Command, in Stuttgart. His last active duty assignment was as commander, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, and deputy commander in chief, U.S. Air Forces in Europe for the Southern Area, with headquarters in Naples, Italy from December 1990 until his retirement in January 1993, which put him in command of the northern area of operations in Operation Desert Shield and Storm and subsequently Northern Watch. The general, a command pilot with more than 4,500 flying hours was decorated with the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with 16 oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal and Army Commendation Medal. General Callaghan also wears the Parachutist Badge with bronze star. The bronze star was awarded for his combat jump in Vietnam in February 1967 while serving as air liaison officer to the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Over the last 8 years, Jim served in a number of civic organizations, the American Legion, the Air Force Association, the Order of Daedalians, and the Indy 500 Festival Memorial Service Committee. He is survived by his wife, Ann, his sons James T. the third, and D. Christian; his daughter Elizabeth Cooke; his mother Ruth Callaghan; his brothers John, William, Michael and Patrick and his sister Ruth Tushkowski. He and Ann have six grandchildren. In closing, let me add that the while the works of men like General Callaghan often go unheralded, it is because they do not seek the limelight. As I speak these words today, I think the General would want me to make mention of the men and women with whom he served and who worked for him during his 34 years of service, those still on active duty and the many veterans and retirees who have served, to whom we owe a great debt of thanks for the peace and freedoms we enjoy today. So, as I salute General Callaghan today, on his behalf I salute his service, the United States Air Force and all those who have worn the uniform of the United States Armed Forces.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leiberman and other Members of the Senate as an original sponsor of a bipartisan resolution critical of human rights practices in Cuba. The resolution we are introducing today urges the President to develop initiatives to assist the Cuban people and independent organizations in Cuba in their struggle for change, human rights and democracy. Our resolution cites U.S. support for Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s as a model to emulate. The resolution also urges the United States to take an active role in approving a resolution condemning Cuba at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva that is underway as we speak. The recent arbitrary arrest of two Czech citizens, a legislator and a student, by Cuban authorities in Cuba reminds us of the extent to which the government will go to squash expressions of freedom and opposition to the regime. The two Czech citizens understand the arbitrary nature of their arrest because they have been victims of suppression in their own personal struggle for freedom and democracy in their own country a few years ago. As Human Rights Watch noted, Cuba has ``a highly effective machinery of repression,'' Journalists, writers, intellectuals, and anyone else who disagrees or dares to challenge the regime risk harassment, imprisonment or other harsh treatment. Human rights repression in Cuba is one of the most serious impediments to improved relations with the United States. The goal of our resolution is to encourage a peaceful transition to democracy through transparent initiatives that will support human rights groups in Cuba, make available materials and relevant literature on human rights, and provide humanitarian assistance to nongovernmental organizations on the island. My criticism of human rights practices in Cuba is consistent with my criticism of our unilateral economic sanctions against Cuba. There is no inherent incompatibility between these two critiques. A pro- engagement policy can be a pro-human rights policy in much the same way it was in our policy towards central and eastern European countries during the cold war. I believe that programs, such as those of the National Endowment for Democracy and its core institutes, can help promote democracy and political freedoms in Cuba and are likely to be more successful in promoting change than economic coercion. Contacts and interactions through trade, travel, tourism, student exchanges, and other forms of engagement will, in my view, yield more positive results in changing Cuba and improving Cuban human rights practices than isolation and punitive sanctions. This may not be true in all cases where we have differences with other countries, but I believe it has merit with respect to Cuba. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Lieberman and the other sponsors in supporting this resolution and that some day Cuba will join Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other states around the world in making the transformation from tyranny to freedom and democracy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 27, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Research, Extension and Education title of the farm bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 22, 2001, in SH-216 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Mr. President, I would also like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 29, 2001, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review Environmental Trading Opportunities for Agriculture. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. There are several amendments pending. Others are expected to be offered during today's session. Any votes ordered during today's session will be scheduled to occur tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. As a reminder, the Conrad and Sessions amendments are scheduled for votes at 2:45 p.m. tomorrow. Senators should be aware that it is the intention of the majority leader and the managers of the bill to complete action on this bill by midweek. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. LUGAR. I endorse strongly the sentiments of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. I am certain the majority leader would concur with enthusiasm regarding working through the amendments quickly. The Senator from Nevada has always done so.

Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a subject of major importance to the national security of the United States--the maintenance of our nuclear weapons stockpile. For most of the nuclear age, the United States has relied on nuclear testing to ensure that our nuclear weapons remained safe, secure, and reliable. Our country conducted more than one thousand nuclear tests in furtherance of these goals. In July 1992, President George Bush announced that the United States would suspend underground testing. We initiated the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which was designed to replace detonations at the Nevada Test Site with computer simulations. In 1999, concerns about the Stockpile Stewardship Program were a critical element of the Senate debate over ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It was unfortunate that the Senate was forced to take up the treaty in a highly politicized atmosphere. The CTBT was not a new subject, but in 1999, the Senate was not prepared to develop the consensus necessary to ratify a major treaty with far- reaching consequences for U.S. security. I opposed ratification of the CTBT, because I did not believe that the treaty's verification and enforcement provisions would be successful. Equally important, I was concerned about our ability to maintain the integrity and safety of our nuclear arsenal under the conditions imposed by the treaty. The United States must maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. The end of the cold war provided tremendous national security benefits, but the necessity of our nuclear deterrent did not disappear. The transformation of the former Soviet Union has permitted the United States to consider lower numbers of nuclear weapons, but the current security atmosphere does not permit us to consider their elimination. Our nuclear arsenal continues to play a critical role in ensuring the security of the American people. It also plays a role in the security calculations of friends and allies around the world. Many of them have foregone potentially destabilizing arms build-ups and weapons procurement programs because of the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States. During the CTBT debate, I expressed my concern that the Senate was being asked to trust the reliability of our nuclear stockpile to a Stockpile Stewardship Program that was both unproven and unlikely to be fully operational for a decade or more. There remains strong disagreement among many nuclear experts and national security leaders about the efficacy of maintaining a nuclear stockpile without testing. As Senators, we do not have the luxury of taking a chance on the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The restrictions imposed by the CTBT could have harmed the national security of the United States if we could not ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile without testing. We cannot allow our nuclear weapons to fall into disrepair or permit their safety to be jeopardized. Now unfortunately, little progress in advancing the Stockpile Stewardship Program appears to have occurred since the 1999 Senate debate. Our new Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, recently testified before the Armed Services Committee that: The Department of Energy has allowed its nuclear-weapons production plants to degrade over time, leaving a tremendous backlog of deferred maintenance and modernizations. The deterioration of existing facilities is a very serious threat. Under the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the United States will depend on these facilities to inspect our nuclear arsenal and to replace degraded weapons. I am particularly concerned by the uncertainty surrounding the construction of the National Ignition Facility, the NIF, which was profiled in a recent episode of the ``Jim Lehrer Newshour.'' The NIF is intended to play a key role in the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the annual certification of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The National Academy of Sciences and others recommended the construction of the NIF, which will simulate thermonuclear conditions. This facility would be critical to evaluating our nuclear weapons arsenal in the absence of testing. The Academy stated that such a facility was necessary because nearly all of the 6,000 parts of a nuclear weapon change with age. Yet at present, the NIF is 4 years behind schedule and approximately $1 billion over budget. These are dismal omens. Even more disconcerting is that the National Science Foundation and others have estimated the NIF's chances of success at only about 50 percent. It is alarming to learn that the possibility of success for a critical component of our Stockpile Stewardship Program can only be characterized as 50/50. Some supporters of the CTBT, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, have suggested that the stockpile could be maintained without the NIF by replacing old warheads with new warheads manufactured to the same specifications as the originals. They also have posited that current warheads could be rebuilt with fresh nuclear material. Yet many nuclear experts regard these strategies as unreliable. This is why both the former Bush and Clinton administrations moved forward on the Stockpile Stewardship Program. According to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, it is impossible to guarantee that new warheads manufactured to old specifications will work reliably. Neither is replacing the nuclear core of existing weapons a viable option. Nuclear material contained within weapons changes with age. As the nuclear material changes, so does its effects on the other components of the warhead. If one attempted to maintain weapons by periodically replacing their nuclear cores, the older warhead components around the pits would not be matched to the new nuclear material. Under these conditions, the warheads would not necessarily function as originally designed. Even many proponents of the CTBT do not believe that U.S. nuclear weapons can be maintained in the absence of an effective Stockpile Stewardship Program. Most notably, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, who conducted extensive review of the CTBT following the Senate's rejection of the treaty, outlined the need for an effective Stockpile Stewardship Program. His review emphasized that the program was needed to provide the people, knowledge, equipment, and facilities necessary to accomplish three tasks: First of all, to enhance surveillance of weapons in the stockpile to monitor for age-related changes and to identify other defects; second, to deepen the scientific understanding of how nuclear weapons work and how they age so that we are better able to spot potential defects; and, third, to remanufacture components and refurbish warheads using an updated nuclear weapons complex. General Shalikashvili offered his strong support for the Stockpile Stewardship Program and reiterated its necessity in the absence of testing. But if we are going to depend on the Stockpile Stewardship Program, it must be reliable and accurate, Recently, the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety and Security of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile found: . . . growing deficiencies in the nuclear weapons production complex, deep morale and personnel problems, continued slippage of program milestones, and unacceptably high risks to the completion of needed weapons refurbishments. The panel, established by Congress in the 1999 Defense authorization bill, was tasked with providing an assessment of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The panel's concerns led to numerous recommendations, including: one, stopping the slippage in stockpile life-extension programs; two, restoring missing production capabilities and refurbishing the production complex; three, stopping the slippage in development of tools needed to make future assessment of the stockpile's safety and reliability; and four, responding to the low morale at the weapons laboratories. The panel concluded that the problems within our nuclear weapons complex are ``unacceptable,'' and they warned that the situation could decline further. The report states that: Worrisome deterioration of nuclear components has already been found. Moreover, the history of the stockpile has demonstrated many surprises, and weapons are entering an age regime for which we have no prior experience. Furthermore, the Stockpile Stewardship Program simply will not be ready in the near term, even if its deficiencies can be fixed. Dr. Michael Anastasio, the associate director of defense and nuclear technologies at the Livermore Lab, has stated that we will not know for ``at least ten years'' whether the Stockpile Stewardship Program can be a viable replacement for testing. I am concerned that while our country's nuclear experts are still debating the composition and efficacy of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, we not rush into another ill-prepared attempt to ratify the CTBT. It is difficult to envision how the Senate could be asked to reverse its position of 2 years ago by placing its faith in a program that not only is incomplete, but whose exact components are still a source of debate. Some proponents of the treaty have argued that the United States can ratify the CTBT regardless of potential stockpile problems, because the United States has the ability to withdraw from the treaty should we lose confidence in our stockpile. I disagree. First, the Clinton administration originally cited withdrawal as an emergency escape hatch, not an option on which to base nuclear policy. And second, withdrawing from the treaty would send a damaging signal to our allies and foes around the world on the status of our nuclear stockpile. If the U.S. were to abrogate the CTBT, citing the safety and reliability of the stockpile, our friends and allies would question the credibility of the nuclear umbrella itself that plays a vital role in their security. Enemies and foes would question America's strength and confidence in the status of our nuclear arsenal. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated during his confirmation hearing that the administration ``will not be asking for the Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in this next session.'' I believe this is a wise course of action. The United States may be in a position to ratify the CTBT at some point in the future, but not today. I understand the impulse of proponents of the CTBT to express United States leadership in another area of arms control. Inevitably, arms control treaties are accompanied by principles that envision a future in which international norms prevail over the threat of conflict between nations. However, while affirming our desire for international peace and stability, the U.S. Senate is charged with the constitutional responsibility of making hard judgments about the likely outcomes of treaties. This requires that we examine the treaties in close detail and calculate the consequences of ratification for the present and the future. Viewed in this context, I could not support the treaty's ratification in 1999, nor for the reasons I have just expressed could I support ratification now. The Bush administration's position not to request immediate Senate consideration of this treaty is prudent. I am hopeful that proponents and opponents alike will not force the Senate into another counterproductive debate, particularly when prospects for a different outcome in the Senate have not improved since 1999. Instead, we should reinvigorate bipartisan efforts on the broader question of arms control and non-proliferation, as well as explore improvements in technology. Even during the fractious CTBT debate in the Senate, many of us on both sides of the issue, including Senators Warner, Levin, and Moynihan, were working together to delay treaty consideration and build a consensus on arms policy for the short term. Our goal now should be to achieve sufficient technological progress to permit confidence in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Both proponents and opponents of the CTBT have a mutual interest in this goal, because the safety and reliability of our weapons depend on it. I have urged the Bush administration to maintain a strong commitment to the program and support the funding necessary to correct problems. In addition, the United States should work with allies to develop technological means through which we might improve verification techniques and capabilities. The current shortcomings of the CTBT's verification regime are very serious, but we should remain open to diplomatic or technological developments in the long run. I am confident that there does exist within the Senate a strong desire to work toward a consensus on arms policies. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at 10:25 a.m. on June 4, 1942, a Japanese armada including four carriers was steaming east towards Midway Island, 1150 miles west of Pearl Harbor in the Central Pacific. Its objectives: Invade the strategically situated atoll, seize the U.S. base and airstrip, and, if possible, destroy what remained of our Pacific fleet after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor the preceding December. At 10:30 a.m. three of the four Japanese carriers and their aircraft were a flaming shambles. Moments before, Japanese fighter cover had swatted down torpedo bomber squadrons from the U.S. carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown--the final, fatal mission for 35 of 41 American planes and 68 of 82 pilots and gunners. But their courageous attack had drawn the fighters down to deck level, leaving the skies nearly empty for the 37 U.S. dive bombers who then appeared and, in five fateful minutes, changed the course of history. By nightfall, the fourth Japanese carrier, too, was a blazing wreck, a fitting coda to a day that reversed forever the military fortunes of Imperial Japan. ``So ended,'' wrote Churchill, ``the battle of June 4, rightly regarded as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.'' With Sir Winston, of course, the question at times was whether the event could rise to the level of his prose. Midway measured up. ``The annals of war at sea,'' he intoned, ``present no more intense, heart-shaking shock'' than Midway and its precursor in the Coral Sea--battles where ``the bravery and self-devotion of the American airmen and sailors and the nerve and skill of their leaders was the foundation of all.'' Few today pause to remember Midway, now six decades past. Fewer still recall the American leader whose nerve and skill were paramount in what historians consider one of the two or three most significant naval battles in recorded history. He was an unlikely figure, a little-known, soft-spoken, publicity-averse 56-year-old Rear Admiral from Indiana named Raymond Ames Spruance. Yet it is doubtful that any other American in uniform contributed more than this quiet Hoosier to our World War II triumph--a foundation for every blessing of peace and prosperity we now enjoy. I heard Admiral Spruance speak in February 1946, when I was 13 years old and he visited Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, his alma mater and soon to be mine. Our teachers were excited as they shepherded my junior high classmates and me into the auditorium for a joint assembly with the high schoolers. But nothing about the speech was particularly vivid or exciting to this member of the youthful audience. I recall little more than the talk about our recent victory in the Pacific--with little hint from the modest man on stage about his personal involvement, at one crucial juncture after another, in making that victory possible. Only years later did I really understand how large a role Raymond Spruance had played on the stage of actual events, starting at Midway. His very presence at the battle--replacing the flamboyant William ``Bull'' Halsey, temporarily shore-bound with a skin ailment--had been happenstance. Yet it was Spruance, with no prior carrier combat experience, who at the key moment made the crucial command decision to launch all available aircraft, which led to the devastation of the enemy carriers. It was Spruance who then preserved that turning-point victory, instinctively resisting Japanese attempts over the next two days to lure the American fleet into a trap--a trap subsequent U.S. intelligence would confirm was indeed waiting. It was Spruance, as famed Navy historian Samuel Eliot Morison would write, who ``emerged from the battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval history.'' It was also Spruance who, when complimented on Midway years after the War, would say, ``There were a hundred Spruances in the Navy. They just happened to pick me for the job.'' Herman Wouk's masterful ``War And Remembrance'' has the best rejoinder, which the author puts in the mouth of a fictional wartime adversary: ``In fact, there was only one Spruance and luck gave him, at a fateful hour, to America.'' Speaking in their own voices, Wouk and other Americans of faith would quarrel only with the word ``luck.'' Midway would prove but the first of many Spruance-led successes. As Commander of the newly formed Fifth Fleet, he would lead American operations in the Gilberts, then in the Marshalls, and then in the Marianas, including the invasion of Saipan. (Among the fighting men under Spruance's overall command during this 1943-44 period was a young aviator--the war's youngest commissioned Naval pilot--named George Bush). Spruance would then command 1945's crucial, hard-fought invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the latter involving some 1,200 vessels and 548,000 men, an amphibious operation on a scale surpassed only by Normandy. Throughout, he maintained the unassuming attitude that downplayed his own role at Midway. Unlike some of his contemporaries (and in marked contrast to the spirit of our own age), Spruance avoided publicity and abjured self-promotion, which he saw as a threat to effective command. ``A man's judgment is best,'' said Spruance, ``when he can forget himself and any reputation he may have acquired, and can concentrate wholly on making the right decision.'' These are words to live by for any leader. Spruance, both during the war and in his later service as President of the Naval War College and Ambassador to the Philippines, lived them as few other leaders in any age and any field of endeavor have managed. One consequence was that he forwent levels of recognition and reward accorded others who, though fully worthy, were certainly no more worthy than he. Serious historians and scholars, however, never doubted the merits of the man whose biography is aptly titled ``The Quiet Warrior.'' Among all the war's combat admirals ``there was no one to equal Spruance,'' wrote Morison. ``He envied no man, regarded no one as rival, won the respect of all with whom he came in contact, and went ahead in his quiet way winning victories for his country.'' That was surely enough for Spruance, who passed away in December 1969. But I do not think it should be enough for us, his countrymen, who are the beneficiaries of the victories he won. That is why I have introduced legislation authorizing and requesting President Bush to promote Raymond Spruance--the ``quiet warrior'' under whom the President's father once served--to the five-star rank of Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy. I believe this posthumous honor should be the fitting, and final, promotion among America's World War II Armed Forces, even as we anticipate dedication of a national memorial honoring all who served in that conflict. It is fitting, first of all, because it corrects an oversight. Near the end of the war, Congress authorized four five-star positions each in the Army and in the Navy. The new generals of the Army were George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and Henry ``Hap'' Arnold--later redesignated general of the Air Force. The first three five-star admirals were Pacific commander-in-chief Chester Nimitz, wartime CNO Ernest King, and William Daniel Leahy, President Roosevelt's chief of staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But an internal battle raged for months over whether the fourth fleet admiral would be the colorful Halsey--who was ultimately selected--or his more reticent colleague, the victor at Midway. Later, when Congress authorized another five-star post for the ``GI General,'' Omar Bradley, it overlooked creating a fifth Navy five-star opening, which unquestionably would have gone to Bradley's ocean-going counterpart, Raymond Spruance. Typically, Spruance stayed away from these controversies. His one comment came in 1965, when he wrote a friend: So far as my getting five-star rank is concerned, if I could have had it along with Bill Halsey, that would have been fine; but, if I had received it instead of Bill Halsey, I would have been very unhappy over it. Well, Raymond Spruance can now have five-star rank ``along with Bill Halsey.'' He deserves it, the more so because he did not seek it. It is an oversight that he was not given it earlier. But these are reasons enough to correct that oversight now. And there are other reasons we should pay Raymond Spruance this posthumous honor, reasons that have as much to do with us as with him. What we choose to honor says a great deal about who we are. Much of what our political and popular culture ``honors'' today--with celebrity and fortune and swarms of media attention is the foolish and flighty, the sensational and self-indulgent. Too often, the pursuits made possible by freedom are unworthy of the sacrifices that preserved freedom itself. Those sacrifices were made by earlier generations inspired by a simpler, sturdier set of values, values that included duty to country and, when necessary, self-sacrifice on her behalf. If we cherish and would preserve the blessings of freedom, we must hold up before our children--who daily see too many less worthy models--those who willingly made the sacrifices that kept freedom alive. No one served the values of freedom more fully or nobly, and with less thought of personal praise or fame, than Raymond Spruance. On any list of the great Allied military leaders of World War II, his character and his contributions to victory stand in the very first rank. It is simple justice to him, and fitting and proper for us, now to award him actual rank commensurate with such character and contributions. My hope is that my colleagues and the President will agree--so that history henceforth will honor Fleet Admiral Raymond Ames Spruance, the quiet Hoosier warrior whose triumph at Midway opened the door to America's triumph in the Pacific.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.