Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce the introduction of the Global Food Security Act of 2008. I would like to thank my friend Senator Casey for lending his ideas and support to this bipartisan effort. I also thank USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore, who took an early interest in potential legislation. Her leadership is very much appreciated. Finally, I want to thank the members of USAID's informal food security team, who advised us on problems and possible legislative solutions.

As we know, food prices started a steep climb in the fall of 2007 and continued to increase during the spring of this year. The crisis has abated somewhat, largely due to the drop in energy prices. Nonetheless, this episode demonstrated that there are significant structural challenges to attaining global food security. The system is vulnerable to periodic disruptions that both expose and exacerbate deeper problems.

We live in a world where nearly 1 billion people suffer from chronic food insecurity. When droughts occur, hurricanes hit, or other disruptions arise, transitory food insecurity can put as many as 100 million people at a time in grave danger. In fact, the World Food Program reports that 25,000 people die each day from malnutrition- related causes. Health experts advise us that a diverse and secure food supply has major health benefits, including increasing child survival, improving cognitive and physical development of children, and increasing immune system function including resistance to HIV/AIDS.

Food insecurity is a global tragedy, but it is also an opportunity for the U.S. The U.S. is the indisputable world leader in agricultural production and technology. A more focused effort on our part to join with other nations to increase yields, improve food distribution, and broaden agricultural knowledge could begin a new era in U.S. diplomacy. Such an effort could solidify relationships with nations where, up to now, we have had few positive contacts. It could improve our broader trade relations and serve as a model for similar endeavors in the areas of energy and scientific cooperation. Achieving food security for all people also would have profound implications for peace and U.S. national security. Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.

The U.S. has always stood for big ideas--from the founding of the Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy's vow to put a man on the moon. One of today's big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America's dedication to science, innovation, technology, and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles to food security.

The Global Food Security Act of 2008, is a 5-year authorization that seeks to provide solutions that will have the greatest effect. First, it creates a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security and puts that person in charge of developing a food security strategy. We call on the development of that strategy to take a whole-of-government approach and to work with other international donors, the NGO community, and the private sector.

Second, the bill authorizes additional resources for agricultural productivity and rural development. U.S. foreign assistance for agriculture has declined by nearly 70 percent since the 1980s. Globally, only four percent of official development assistance from all donors is allocated for agriculture. This amounts to neglect of what should be considered one of the most vital sectors in the alleviation of poverty. Food shortages are likely to recur frequently if the U.S. and the global community fail to invest in agricultural productivity in the developing world.

World leaders must understand that over the long term, satisfying global demand for more and better food can be achieved only by increasing yields per acre. In the 1930s, my father, Marvin Lugar, produced corn yields of approximately 40 to 50 bushels per acre. Today, the Lugar farm yields about 150 bushels per acre on the same land in Marion County, IN. The Green Revolution, from 1965 to 1985, saw the introduction of high yield seeds and improved agricultural techniques that resulted in a near doubling of cereal grain production per acre over 20 years. But yields may have to be doubled or tripled again.

Increasing acreage under production will not satisfy the growth in food demand, and these steps come with serious environmental and national security costs. We need a second green revolution that will benefit developed and developing nations alike.

Recent studies have demonstrated that funds spent in agriculture can be

up to four times more beneficial to economic growth than spending in other areas. It seems, therefore, that our overall foreign aid strategy would benefit from restoring agriculture programs to their former prominence. The bill increases funding for these programs in the first year by $750 million. The increase would reach $2.5 billion in year 5. Because those who subsist on less than one dollar a day spend at least half their incomes on food, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, the bill highlights the need to focus on those living in extreme poverty.

In thinking about how to approach agricultural productivity, we tried to draw from the experience of U.S. land grant colleges and the contributions they have made to U.S. agriculture. The bill creates a new program that would strengthen institutions of higher education in the areas of agriculture sciences, research and extension programs. Investments in human capital and institutional capacity are important to developing a robust agricultural sector.

Universities and research centers can play an important role in achieving technological advances that are appropriate to local conditions. As such, the bill calls for increasing collaborative research on the full range of biotechnological advances including genetically modified technologies.

Third, the bill improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that can make local and regional purchases of food, where appropriate. Funds can be used for emergency food and agricultural assistance. The Government Accountability Office reports that it can often take 4 to 6 months from the time a crisis occurs until U.S. food shipments arrive. Our intention is to provide USAID with the flexibility to respond to emergencies more quickly, without supplanting other food programs such as P.L. 480.

I hope that our bill will begin a productive dialogue on how our government can be a more effective partner with NGO and private actors in promoting food security. There is no good reason why nearly a billion people should be food insecure or that the world should have to endure the social upheaval and risks of conflict that this insecurity causes.

I look forward to working with colleagues to improve the U.S. and global efforts to alleviate food insecurity and advance agricultural knowledge and technology worldwide.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, A few days ago I returned from a two week engagement abroad which included stops at Azerbaijan's oil and natural gas rich Caspian Sea coast, through Georgia, Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Germany, and finally to Brussels, Belgium.

While my visit was planned well in advance of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, recent events have amplified the importance of energy as a strategic priority in capitals across this region. States dependent on Russian gas to fuel their economies and ways of life understand that turning off the tap may be as effective a weapon as the tanks and armies that rolled across Georgia. For example, the Russian suspension of gas supplies to Ukraine 2 years ago spurred significant discussion of energy security amongst European friends. Yet only modest changes in planning and preparation have occurred. Meanwhile, Russia has aggressively sought to increase its dominance over energy supplies.

In the U.S. we are largely dependent on foreign governments for our transportation energy needs, which leaves our own security and prosperity in jeopardy. Accordingly, we must attain genuine energy security with supplies sufficient enough to grow our economy and insulate us from foreign manipulation. We are fortunate to have the means to bolster both renewable and conventional energy sources.

Realizing this potential will take leadership and vision. Renewable energy offers the greatest hope to wed our energy security needs with economic growth and environmental stewardship. However, one of the major impediments to expanding renewable energy, such as biofuels, is a lack of appropriate infrastructure. Currently our automobile fleet is largely built to run on petroleum based gasoline and up to 10 percent ethanol blends. This means that even though ethanol makes up a relatively small portion of our fuel source, greater production from the next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, will be severely hampered, if not prevented.

This is why I join Senator Harkin of Iowa in introducing the Dual Fuel Automobile Act of 2008. This bill calls for 50 percent of all automobiles manufactured for sale in the U.S. to be dual fuel automobiles by 2011, meaning that the purchaser of the vehicle would have a choice in which fuel they choose to power their vehicle. It would increase to 90 percent of all automobiles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. Relatively minor and inexpensive changes in fuel system designs allow blends of gasoline and ethanol to be used dependent on the consumer's choice each time they fill up.

Mr. President, A few days ago I returned from a two week engagement abroad which included stops at Azerbaijan's oil and natural gas rich Caspian Sea coast, through Georgia, Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Germany, and finally to Brussels, Belgium.

While my visit was planned well in advance of the conflict between Georgia and Russia, recent events have amplified the importance of energy as a strategic priority in capitals across this region. States dependent on Russian gas to fuel their economies and ways of life understand that turning off the tap may be as effective a weapon as the tanks and armies that rolled across Georgia. For example, the Russian suspension of gas supplies to Ukraine 2 years ago spurred significant discussion of energy security amongst European friends. Yet only modest changes in planning and preparation have occurred. Meanwhile, Russia has aggressively sought to increase its dominance over energy supplies.

In the U.S. we are largely dependent on foreign governments for our transportation energy needs, which leaves our own security and prosperity in jeopardy. Accordingly, we must attain genuine energy security with supplies sufficient enough to grow our economy and insulate us from foreign manipulation. We are fortunate to have the means to bolster both renewable and conventional energy sources.

Realizing this potential will take leadership and vision. Renewable energy offers the greatest hope to wed our energy security needs with economic growth and environmental stewardship. However, one of the major impediments to expanding renewable energy, such as biofuels, is a lack of appropriate infrastructure. Currently our automobile fleet is largely built to run on petroleum based gasoline and up to 10 percent ethanol blends. This means that even though ethanol makes up a relatively small portion of our fuel source, greater production from the next generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, will be severely hampered, if not prevented.

This is why I join Senator Harkin of Iowa in introducing the Dual Fuel Automobile Act of 2008. This bill calls for 50 percent of all automobiles manufactured for sale in the U.S. to be dual fuel automobiles by 2011, meaning that the purchaser of the vehicle would have a choice in which fuel they choose to power their vehicle. It would increase to 90 percent of all automobiles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. Relatively minor and inexpensive changes in fuel system designs allow blends of gasoline and ethanol to be used dependent on the consumer's choice each time they fill up.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to share my gratitude for the remarkable work of the students and staff at Indianapolis's Butler University over our 30-year partnership in encouraging fitness and health awareness in central Indiana.

This Saturday, September 13, 2008, I will have the privilege of joining my friends and fellow Hoosiers at the 30th Annual Dick Lugar Community Walk, Run and Health Fair, held on the attractive grounds of Butler University. This festival was inaugurated in May of 1979 in order to highlight the positive benefits of fitness and nutrition to members of the local community. From the very beginning, this initiative was designed to appeal to a wide spectrum of people. Youth and families were encouraged to participate in an effort to reach out beyond the normal universe of running enthusiasts and to capitalize on those who could serve as a model for young people. With the inclusion of the health fair our partnership strove to engage older adults as well. And in 1983, the festivities began to include a Health and Fitness Award, given in recognition of individuals and organizations that have made exemplary contributions to the community in these important areas.

The Fitness Festival remains an event I look forward to with excitement each year. The running and race-walk competitions, the health fair with local experts and organizations in attendance, and the general fellowship all promise to be especially memorable in this signal year. Accordingly, I would like to take special care in highlighting those most responsible for the festival's perennial success.

Butler University and its dedicated president, Dr. Bobby Fong, deserve considerable praise. The university's eagerness to not only host, but embrace this opportunity to promote the benefits of a fit and healthy lifestyle reminds me of why Hoosiers are so proud of our colleges and universities' roles in improving the quality of life for individuals throughout Indiana. Thanks must also be given to the Butler students and faculty, and the community members who volunteer as organizers and race workers; the individuals who devote their experience and expertise at the health fair booths; the city of Indianapolis and Marion County for logistical support; other supporting organizations, whose generosity and commitment to health awareness in the Indianapolis community is highly commendable; and the thousands of individuals who have participated in the Fitness Festival over the course of its life.

It is important that as citizens we do what we can at the Federal, State, and community levels to promote the benefits of leading healthy lifestyles. This auspicious occasion provides a wonderful opportunity to commend Butler University for its efforts in this regard.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Ditchley Foundation on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of its founding.

Since the foundation's inception in 1958, several of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of the Congress, have taken part in the conferences held at Ditchley Park. This beautiful 18th century country house a few miles outside of Oxford, England, was used as a weekend retreat by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Averill Harriman, then U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, during the frequent bombings of London during World War II. Today, Ditchley Park is home to around a dozen conferences each year on topics of relevance to transatlantic relations and international policy concerns in general. This series includes a keynote annual address given by a distinguished lecturer every summer.

This year's lecture gathering was especially noteworthy during this anniversary year. Individuals from a number of fields and countries attended, including our former colleague in the House of Representatives, now president emeritus of New York University, Dr. John Brademas. Dr. Brademas is himself a trustee of the Ditchley Foundation and was for several years chairman of the American Ditchley Foundation.

The current chairman is Rita E. Hauser, president of the Hauser Foundation and a former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Further, the executive director of American Ditchley is John J. O'Conner, vice chancellor and secretary of the State University of New York.

At the annual lecture on July 11, 2008, chairman of the Ditchley Foundation and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom John Major made the following introductory remarks, which I would like to share with my colleagues. I ask to have the remarks printed in the Record.

The material follows.

``Ditchley is one of the hidden gems of the Transatlantic

relationship.

It doesn't feature in Presidential speeches or Prime

Ministerial briefing. Mercifully, it is not a plaything of

the media: but its role as a clearing house for ideas; a

forum for debate and discussion; and a magnet for policy-

makers gives it a unique status. It is the intellectual

expression of `soft power' and a tribute to the pre-eminence

of reason and rational debate.

Of course--you all know that: it is why you are here. All

of you know Ditchley, are committed to Ditchley, care about

its future and have contributed generously to ensure it. For

that--I thank you most warmly; it is a delight to see you all

here this evening. My only regret is that many others--who

also care for Ditchley and have been enormously generous to

it--could not be here to join us. In their absence, I thank

them, too, for all their support.

On Ditchley's 50th Anniversary, I think it worthwhile to

look at its role.

My father was half-American. Brought up in the United

States he drilled into me as a boy the importance of the

Transatlantic relationship. His affection for it was

emotional--but the economic, political and military case is

even stronger. And yet we cannot take this for granted; it is

not necessarily a fixed star in the firmament. Geography hugs

Britain to her neighbors in Europe, and so does trade.

Trade and real politik turn American eyes to the East:

there is no room for complacency. The most successful

alliance in history is not immutable. It needs cherishing to

keep it in good order.

Ditchley plays a role in this. And why is that? It is, of

course, because thoughtful minds--lifting debate from the

ephemeral to the eternal--see the importance (and the self-

interest if you like) of nurturing Transatlantic ties.

But there is a further reason why Ditchley plays a role--a

more prosaic reason. It is because one man saw the importance

of the subject and had the vision to establish Ditchley in

order to do something about it. That man was David Wills.

Today, we remember and honour his vision, his commitment and

his generosity. He saw the need--forgive the unintended pun--

and he willed the means. David Wills is the Father of

Ditchley and the effect of his invisible hand is evident in

the continuing and instinctive relationship of trust that we

take for granted across the Atlantic.

He chose wisely, too, in entrusting his legacy to Lady

Wills and Catherine Wills. No one could have cared for

Ditchley more, and their generosity has always been

outstanding. I don't simply mean generosity in material

terms--though certainly that, for the Wills family were by

far the largest contributors to our recent fundraising

campaign--but also their personal commitment in time and

involvement. They are the living embodiment of Ditchley. I

believe they can be satisfied that their actions have helped

bind the ties that keep us safe and prosperous.

Following Sir John's remarks, the annual lecture was delivered by an eminent British scholar and scientist, Professor Martin Rees, a member of the House of Lords. President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow is

also Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University, and Astronomer Royal. The address by Lord Rees, in full, was as follows:

Last year, Brent Scowcroft stood at this podium as Ditchley

Lecturer. It's daunting to follow him. I'll take as my text

his concluding words:

``If we behave wisely, prudently and in close strategic

cooperation with each other, the 21st century could be the

best yet in the rather dismal history of mankind.''

This is the 50th anniversary of the Ditchley Foundation,

and I've been asked to offer a scientist's perspective on the

next fifty years. As an astronomer, I often get

mistakenly described as an astrologer--but I cast no

horoscopes and have no crystal ball. My message will be

that the Promethean power of science offers greater

opportunities than ever before--for the developing and the

developed world. We can indeed be optimistic: we can

surely expect huge economic and social advances,

especially in Asia. But there will be new challenges and

vulnerabilities to contend with.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to recognize the important leadership of a remarkable Hoosier businessman, community leader, and treasured friend of 41 years, Mr. P.E. MacAllister. On August 30, 2008, P.E. will celebrate the signal occasion of his 90th birthday. This birthday is a special event for his many friends throughout the Midwest and especially for Hoosiers in central Indiana where P.E. has enriched countless lives through his important service to the Indianapolis community.

P.E. was raised in Wisconsin and graduated from Carroll College in 1940. He then spent 5 years in the Air Force as a captain and 27 months overseas in the 1st Fighter Group.

Joining the family business of MacAllister Machinery Company in Indianapolis after his service abroad, P.E. has been chairman of the board since 1952. His awards in the business industry are many and well-deserved. In addition to these accomplishments, P.E. has served on boards in the arts, health, recreation, philanthropic, and municipality arenas. His love of opera, to cite one example of his activism, engendered the largest nonrestricted vocal competition for opera singers in the Nation. This competition--The MacAllister Awards--ran for 22 years.

When I was elected mayor of Indianapolis in 1967, P.E. was among my earliest and strongest supporters whose generous and wise counsel was most appreciated. My election occurred just months before the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the extraordinary convulsions which troubled most American cities at that time. P.E. provided exemplary leadership during this challenging time by recruiting business leaders to aid in the creation of outreach programs for our city's youth.

I recall one particular initiative in which the city was availing itself of Federal resources through the Special Employment Program and the Special Program for Disadvantaged Youth in order to employ idle youth in a public works project that turned unused land into gardens. P.E., in recognizing the value in such a project, generously provided the heavy equipment that allowed for the planting of trees, the moving of soil, and the beautification of Indianapolis.

Further, in 1971, P.E. successfully served as the executive director of the Conference on Cities held in Indianapolis. This was an international symposium on urban problems in collaboration with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Since our early work, I have found his insights on world events to be profound, continually aided by his travels and comprehensive reading.

I celebrate P.E.'s achievements, friendship, and tireless dedication to engaging in constructive acts that always lead to great discussion and debate on complex issues. I wish P.E. MacAllister a very Happy 90th birthday.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution honoring the life of Bronislaw Geremek and expressing the condolences of the Senate on his death. I am pleased that Senator Biden has agreed to cosponsor this important resolution.

Minister Geremek was a freedom fighter and a former Foreign Minister of Poland. He began his fight for freedom at age seven when he escaped the Warsaw Ghetto and successfully hid from the Nazis through the end of World War II.

Minister Geremek went on to become a professor of history and received honorary degrees from such prestigious institutions as the Sorbonne and Columbia University. In the 1970s, he joined the Gdansk workers' protest movement in Soviet-controlled Poland. With unwavering conviction, he became a leader of the independent trade union ``Solidarity'' and helped usher in a new era that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. His efforts gave hope to many across Eastern Europe and around the world struggling against tyranny and oppression. While he guided his nation towards democracy in Eastern Europe, the political, social, and economic ramifications of his efforts were felt across the world.

On July 13, 2008, this statesman who helped vanquish communism in Europe unexpectedly passed away. His life's work gave millions of people the freedom to choose their government, their economy, and their livelihood. For his sacrifices to Poland, Europe, and the world, he deserves the honor and respect of the United States Senate and our Nation. I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing this important resolution celebrating the life of Bronislaw Geremek.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Cornyn amendment creating a sunset commission related to this bill. This amendment would require that PEPFAR programs be abolished within 2 years after the new commission reviews them, regardless of whether the review recommends abolition, unless Congress takes steps to reauthorize the programs.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other committees in the House, the Senate, and Congress as a whole have spent the last year reviewing U.S. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs in preparation for the debate on this bill. During this process, numerous changes have been made to achieve greater transparency and oversight, along with programmatic changes to ensure that PEPFAR is moving in the right direction. The bill before us today has benefited from extensive field examinations of the program, GAO review, and a study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Moreover, the underlying bill mandates regular scrutiny by the inspectors general, the GAO, and the IOM.

This reauthorization is based on the widespread view in Congress and in the executive branch that these programs are working and that they have humanitarian and foreign policy values. I do not believe we should be turning over responsibility for part of the legislative process to an unelected commission. Constitutionally, this is a job for Congress, working in association with the executive branch of Government. Congress does not lack the power to end or to change programs. Indeed, the Appropriations Committee must review the program every year during the annual budget process. If some aspect of this program is not meeting expectations, Congress has the ability to withhold funds at that point.

I understand that sunset laws in some cases can have value, and the distinguished Senator from Texas has pointed that out from experience in the State of Texas. For example, they have been used to eliminate unnecessary reports or other provisions of law that have been forgotten or fallen into disuse. But this does not apply to this bill which is continuing a core foreign policy program. There is no lack of scrutiny toward PEPFAR. It is an extremely high-profile endeavor the President has asked us to reauthorize for 5 years. I would, therefore, ask Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the chairman. It is my understanding we could continue on after the vote with Senator Vitter presenting his amendment.

In other words, there will not be a recess in which everyone leaves the floor?

I just wanted to establish that point. The continuity of the debate will continue.

No.

Amendment No. 5085

Madam President, while I agree with the oversight goals the Senator has suggested, the underlying bill we are debating has a very strong inspector general infrastructure, and it operates at much less cost than the cost that would be assumed by the Senator's amendment.

PEPFAR has set a high standard for results-based, accountable development programs both within our own Government and in the international community. PEPFAR has been among the most evaluated of new programs in the U.S. Government, with five GAO reports already completed and a sixth on the way.

I believe we now have a strong system of oversight already in the bill that recognizes the participation of many agencies in our antidisease programs, and this system has extensive experience and continuity of oversight over these programs. I believe we should retain this system. Therefore, I hope Members will oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask Senators to oppose this amendment. Because of the anticipated funding curve over the next 5 years, this amendment likely would have the effect of cutting funds available in the final year by several billion dollars.

We should retain the flexibility to spend less than $10 billion now, while spending more than $10 billion in future years, if needed, when our programs are reaching more individuals with treatment and prevention services.

We want the program to expand at a rational pace based on thoughtful goals and on the developing capacity to absorb investments. Our agencies have demonstrated they know how to achieve this. We should retain the flexibility that will give them the best opportunity to succeed.

I ask Senators to oppose the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5077

Mr. President, the President and Members of the House of Representatives have carefully examined the PEPFAR situation and strongly recommended the $50 billion authorization. In the event we were to pass this amendment, it would be a severe blow to United States leadership and prestige on this issue, because it would profoundly affect the calculations of individuals, groups, and governments that we are trying to engage in this fight against HIV/AIDS. These commitments, many of them, are contingent upon our action today. I believe the $50 billion figure will maximize the humanitarian and foreign policy benefits of the PEPFAR program. We have an opportunity to save lives on a massive scale and preserve the fabric of numerous fragile societies. I ask my colleagues to continue to work together for this result. I oppose the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Madam President, on the minority side, I wish to recognize the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio for his very generous comments.

I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona has sought time, and I wish to give him that time, but I simply wish to thank Senator Kerry for his leadership throughout the past decade, starting with the task force which he mentioned and his work all the time and his work all the time with Senator Biden, with me on the Foreign Relations Committee. Likewise, I thank Senator Coburn for his gracious remarks and his leadership and his ability to work with all of us in a bipartisan way to fashion this bill. I believe that is the spirit that has characterized success in this endeavor. I am grateful for that.

I wish to express a special appreciation to Shellie Bressler, Paul Foldi, Dan Diller, and Ken Myers of the Senate Foreign Relations Staff on the Republican side, who have been so instrumental in working on this bill. Of course, I thank profoundly my colleague, Senator Joe Biden, our chairman, and his remarkable staff. It has

been a joy, once again, to work with them on something that is so important.

I recognize the presence of the Senator from Arizona. I believe we still have 5 minutes on this side; is that right?

I yield that to Senator Kyl.

Madam President, we are prepared to yield back the remainder of the time on our side.

If the Senator will yield, I just thank the Senator for his wonderful comments about so many very dear friends, both of ours and of the Senate.

I thanked a few people earlier on, but I really thank the Senator for his comprehensive views. I think it was well worth both the time, as well as the thoughtfulness of his remarks. They will be remembered by our staffs and by our friends.

I will not make further comments because I know other Senators are wanting to transact business, and we appreciate their patience.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I would say, to begin with, I clearly agree with the oversight goals he seeks to achieve. But the underlying bill we are considering today creates a strong inspector general infrastructure for PEPFAR, and it constructs it at less cost than the proposal made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

To begin with, PEPFAR has set a high standard for results-based, accountable development programs both within our own Government and in the international community. PEPFAR has been among the most evaluated of new programs in the U.S. It has been the subject of five GAO reports already completed, with a sixth on the way, examining operations and expenditures. The inspectors general of the Department of State and USAID have so far conducted evaluations of 10 of the 15 focus countries of PEPFAR. These inspections have occurred in South Africa, Guyana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Haiti,

Uganda, Rwanda, Zambia, Ethiopia, and Kenya. The Institute of Medicine conducted a congressionally required multiyear evaluation entitled ``PEPFAR Implementation: Progress and Promise.'' Another review is required by this bill we consider presently. The inspector general of Health and Human Services is currently conducting an extensive financial audit on all PEPFAR funding received by HHS from the State Department for the fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The Peace Corps, beginning in September, will be conducting an internal management assessment on PEPFAR implementation in Ethiopia.

Clearly, officials are paying close attention to how PEPFAR money is being spent. This is particularly important given that various agencies all apportion funds through the office of the Global AIDS coordinator. It is their money, and they know they must account for it. That is why our bill calls on the Global AIDS coordinator to expend some $15 million to fund these IG efforts to ensure that they have adequate resources.

Based on a recommendation from the State Department inspector general, the U.S. Global AIDS coordinator has formally requested that the inspectors general of PEPFAR agencies submit a joint memorandum describing options, feasibility, and estimated costs of conducting a collective independent financial audit of U.S. Governmentwide PEPFAR funds.

The State Department's inspector general has confirmed that he is acting on this request and will be inviting all PEPFAR IGs to come together to develop plans by the end of July.

In addition to the additional funding of inspector general operations, the managers' bill requires the submission of an annual coordinated audit plan by the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of Health and Human Services in relation to PEPFAR, in collaboration with all PEPFAR implementing agencies and the GAO.

In this context, a stand-alone inspector general for PEPFAR, suggested by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire in his amendment, may not be the best way to evaluate the program. I believe we now have a strong system of oversight already in the bill that recognizes the participation of many agencies in our antidisease programs. I believe we should retain that system.

I would point out that I share the distinguished Senator's views with regard to economies, but I am suggesting that the inspector general results that he anticipates can be achieved for less money. This is why I have outlined, tediously and laboriously, specifically all of the audits that have already been conducted, plus the ones now being coordinated by the Department of State. I take seriously, as I think all Senators do, the thought that these moneys must be carefully spent in whatever country they may reside. I would simply say this is why I have enumerated the 10 countries in which extensive examination has already occurred, with the five to go to be completed shortly.

Finally, clearly the Congress does have to make choices with regard to expenditures. We all take that responsibility seriously. I come, as do many Senators today, as an advocate for the PEPFAR Program, for all of the reasons we have expressed in outlining the introduction of the bill. In very quick review, they come down to the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, the alleviation of extraordinary suffering on this Earth, and from the standpoint of our foreign policy, one of the strongest ways in which the United States has made an impact on a number of countries in which our public diplomacy or diplomacy of any sort has not been very successful in the past. We make an impact because people in those countries know that we care. We do care for the people, but we also care for the relationships and for the roles these countries play in the formulation of world peace and in preservation of a world in which we all do better.

Therefore, the PEPFAR Program does have merit and, I believe, extensive popularity not only in our country but in so many other areas of the world in which we have served. That does not obviate for a moment the need to carefully detail precisely the results that I believe we have tried to take account of, and I believe have done so with economy in the underlying bill.

Of course.

That is essentially true. Each has responsibility for those programs that are a part of their jurisdiction and their funding.

And my response, at least, would be that very clearly each of the agencies does take it seriously. But I have outlined how all are to be brought together by our Federal Government in a coordinated way. It appears to me the inspector general function occurs in this manner with the same results and for less money than the Senator's amendment would suggest, and that is that an independent effort going outside of all of this is not productive in terms of savings, either on the face of it or in terms of fraud and abuse that might be found. But that, obviously, is the nature of our debate, and I respect the Senator's opinion.

Madam President, in the concluding time before the scheduled vote, I want to give a statement in opposition to the Bunning amendment and also to the DeMint amendment, No. 5077, that was introduced earlier today. Both seek to reduce the authorization in the pending bill.

The amendment posed by the distinguished Senator DeMint poses a fundamental question with regard to this legislation, which likewise is reiterated by Senator Bunning: How much should we authorize for the continuing fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis? It is a question for honest debate and on which Members may have different views.

The figure of $50 billion in the bill we are debating today rose out of bipartisan negotiations between Congress and the White House. It is based on what the President and we believe can be spent efficiently and effectively in the years ahead.

It presumes that funding will gradually increase each year over the coming 5-year period. Of the $50 billion authorized, $5 billion has been reserved for malaria, and $4 billion has been reserved for tuberculosis.

The global impact of malaria and tuberculosis has been underestimated for years. And the bill before us takes an important step to invigorate these worldwide efforts. As other Senators have observed, this is an authorization bill that will be subject to the annual appropriations process. It is meant to establish policy and overall parameters of spending on the PEPFAR Program.

Congress may not deem it necessary or possible to spend the entire $50 billion over the course of 5 years, but if the funds authorized by this bill are being spent efficiently and effectively and productively for the lifesaving and life-altering purposes in the bill, I believe we should have the authorization in place to spend that much.

There is no question that the crisis created by these diseases is real, that our programs are preserving or improving millions of lives, and it is difficult to put the dislocation and human devastation caused by AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis in context because the impact extends well beyond the lives lost.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic, coupled with the effects of tuberculosis and malaria, are rending the socioeconomic fabric of communities, nations, and entire continents. The U.S. National Intelligence Council and innumerable top officials, including President Bush, have stated that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a threat to our national security and to international security.

Communities are being hobbled by the disability and loss of consumers and workers at the peak of their productive, reproductive and caregiving years. In the most heavily affected areas, communities are losing a whole generation of parents, teachers, laborers, peacekeepers, and police.

The projections of the United Nations indicate that by 2020, HIV/AIDS will have depressed the GDP by more than 20 percent in the hardest hit countries, and many children will have lost parents to HIV/AIDS or left entirely on their own, leading to an epidemic of orphan-headed households.

When they drop out of school to fend for themselves, they lose the potential for economic empowerment that education can provide. Such dislocation has obvious implications for our efforts to suppress and prevent terrorism. It has implications for our ability to expand economic opportunity and trade with emerging nations.

It has implications for our efforts to solidify partners to combat climate change and environmental degradation. Countries and regions that are prostrate due to the massive incidence of deadly diseases cannot effectively address the problems we need them to address. When circumstances reach such dire proportions, the countries in question can become the source of extreme instability. Therefore, we should understand our investments in disease prevention programs have yielded enormous foreign policy benefits during the past 5 years, and we look forward to extraordinary progress during the coming 5 years. This is why I support the $50 billion authorization, appreciating that there will need to be constant auditing, constant debate with the White House and the Congress on priorities, a tailoring during the appropriations process in each year.

I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Biden in introducing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008, important legislation to deepen our engagement with Pakistan over the long term. The Foreign Relations Committee has held an important series of hearings on Pakistan which have allowed Members to review the gamut of challenges there, including the dynamic political and security situation, United States policy options and the resources required to pursue them. We have few more important foreign policy priorities than encouraging stability in Pakistan and throughout the region, and providing sustainable cooperation to fight the terrorists who threaten both our countries.

We worked closely with the State Department's Deputy Secretary Negroponte, as well as officials at USAID, to craft this legislation. This bipartisan effort reflects the important realization that our relations with Pakistan must be broad-based and enduring. As Mr. Negroponte told the committee earlier this year, following the elections that ended military rule, we have ``a strategic opportunity to help the nation consolidate its democratic gains by encouraging development and economic reform.''

This legislation marks a good first step toward seizing that opportunity. Its success will be contingent upon effective progress in good governance by the leaders throughout the Pakistan government, and upon their commitment to combating terrorism within their borders. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate revealed in June of

last year that al-Qaeda had reestablished its pre-2001 capacity in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This reconstituted capacity across the border from Afghanistan, together with the extreme Taliban leadership based in Pakistan, represents a threat to Pakistan, to the region, and to the United States.

The legislation recognizes that strengthening democracy and countering terrorism go hand in hand. American Defense, intelligence and State Department officials have all said that economic development and improved governance are at least as critical as military action in containing the terrorist threat.

While our bill envisions sustained cooperation with Pakistan for the long haul, it is not a blank check. It calls for tangible progress in a number of areas, including an independent judiciary, greater accountability by the central government, respect for human rights, and civilian control of the levers of power, including the military and the intelligence agencies. It recognizes that Pakistan will need security assistance to fight the terrorists, but it subjects this assistance to a certification that the government is using the money for its intended purpose, namely, to go after the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that civilian control is maintained. It calls for a comprehensive, cross- border approach to the very difficult situation along the adjoining Afghan and Pakistani tribal areas, combining the economic and security aspects.

This bill represents a lot of hard work by many parties, but we recognize the job is not yet done. Passing it into law will require further efforts, first of all by us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then we must take it to the floor of the Senate, where I look forward to working with our chairman on advancing the bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Biden in introducing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008, important legislation to deepen our engagement with Pakistan over the long term. The Foreign Relations Committee has held an important series of hearings on Pakistan which have allowed Members to review the gamut of challenges there, including the dynamic political and security situation, United States policy options and the resources required to pursue them. We have few more important foreign policy priorities than encouraging stability in Pakistan and throughout the region, and providing sustainable cooperation to fight the terrorists who threaten both our countries.

We worked closely with the State Department's Deputy Secretary Negroponte, as well as officials at USAID, to craft this legislation. This bipartisan effort reflects the important realization that our relations with Pakistan must be broad-based and enduring. As Mr. Negroponte told the committee earlier this year, following the elections that ended military rule, we have ``a strategic opportunity to help the nation consolidate its democratic gains by encouraging development and economic reform.''

This legislation marks a good first step toward seizing that opportunity. Its success will be contingent upon effective progress in good governance by the leaders throughout the Pakistan government, and upon their commitment to combating terrorism within their borders. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate revealed in June of

last year that al-Qaeda had reestablished its pre-2001 capacity in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This reconstituted capacity across the border from Afghanistan, together with the extreme Taliban leadership based in Pakistan, represents a threat to Pakistan, to the region, and to the United States.

The legislation recognizes that strengthening democracy and countering terrorism go hand in hand. American Defense, intelligence and State Department officials have all said that economic development and improved governance are at least as critical as military action in containing the terrorist threat.

While our bill envisions sustained cooperation with Pakistan for the long haul, it is not a blank check. It calls for tangible progress in a number of areas, including an independent judiciary, greater accountability by the central government, respect for human rights, and civilian control of the levers of power, including the military and the intelligence agencies. It recognizes that Pakistan will need security assistance to fight the terrorists, but it subjects this assistance to a certification that the government is using the money for its intended purpose, namely, to go after the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that civilian control is maintained. It calls for a comprehensive, cross- border approach to the very difficult situation along the adjoining Afghan and Pakistani tribal areas, combining the economic and security aspects.

This bill represents a lot of hard work by many parties, but we recognize the job is not yet done. Passing it into law will require further efforts, first of all by us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then we must take it to the floor of the Senate, where I look forward to working with our chairman on advancing the bill.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I have asked the leader for clarification of the situation. My understanding is that, as things stood, we would be automatically moving on to discussion of PEPFAR. I appreciate the anxiety of the leader with regard to the situation, but, at the same time, from our standpoint on this side of the aisle, I have been advised we would need to object to that simply because the agreement our Members feel they have realized would be that we would move to PEPFAR today and have the debates on PEPFAR, as opposed to additional material.

I object.

I thank the leader.

I rise today in support of S. 2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Act Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. I thank Chairman Joe Biden for working with me and other Republicans to achieve a bipartisan approach for the reauthorization of our Nation's program to combat these diseases. I believe we will have an excellent bill before us that will preserve the best aspects of the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief--PEPFAR--and expand the efforts of the United States to stem the tide of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic, coupled with the impact of tuberculosis and malaria, is rending the socioeconomic fabric of communities, nations, and an entire continent. The U.S. National Intelligence Council and innumerable top officials, including President Bush, have stated the HIV/AIDS pandemic is a threat to national and international security.

Communities are being hobbled by the disability and the loss of consumers and workers at the peak of their productive, reproductive, and care-giving years. In the most heavily affected areas, communities are losing a whole generation of parents, teachers, laborers, health care workers, peacekeepers, and police.

United Nations projections indicate that by 2020, HIV/AIDS will have depressed GDP by more than 20 percent in the hardest hit countries. The World Bank recently warned that while the global economy is expected to more than double over the next 25 years, Africa is at risk of being left behind.

Many children who have lost parents to HIV/AIDS are left entirely on their own, leading to an epidemic of orphan-headed households. When they drop out of school to fend for themselves and their siblings, they lose the potential for economic empowerment that an education can provide. Alone and desperate, they sometimes resort to transactional sex or prostitution to survive and risk becoming infected with HIV themselves.

I believe that in addition to our own national security concerns, we have a humanitarian duty to take action. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence

for most individuals in the developing world who contracted that disease. Now there is hope. We should never forget that behind each number is a person--a human being--a life the United States can touch or even save.

PEPFAR has provided treatment to an estimated 1.4 million men, women, and children infected with HIV/AIDS in Africa and elsewhere. Before the program began, only 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving lifesaving antiretroviral drugs. Today, three times that many are being treated in Kenya alone. PEPFAR also has focused on prevention programs, with the target of preventing 7 million new HIV infections. As Americans, we should take pride in our Nation's efforts to combat these diseases overseas.

We should understand that our investments in disease prevention programs have yielded enormous foreign policy benefits during the last 5 years. PEPFAR has helped to prevent instability and societal collapse in a number of at-risk countries; it has stimulated contributions from other wealthy nations to fight AIDS; it has facilitated deep partnerships with a generation of African leaders; and it has improved attitudes toward the United States and Africa and other regions of the world. In my judgment, the dollars spent on this program can be justified purely on the basis of the humanitarian results we have achieved, but the value of this investment clearly extends to our national security and to our national reputation.

I wish to emphasize three points that should guide our deliberations. First, it is important that Congress move now to reauthorize the program. The authorization expires in 2\1/2\ months. Partner governments and implementing organizations in the field have indicated that without certainty of reauthorization of this bill, they may delay expanding their programs to meet PEPFAR goals. Certainty of U.S. action is an important matter of perception, delivering something similar to consumer confidence to these nations. It may be intangible, but it will profoundly affect the behavior of individuals, groups, and governments engaged in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The continuity of our efforts to combat aids, malaria, and tuberculosis, and the impact of our resources on the commitments of the rest of the world will be maximized if we act now.

Underscoring this point, last fall the Ministers of Health of the 12 African focus countries receiving PEPFAR assistance wrote to us saying:

Without an early and clear signal of the continuity of

PEPFAR's support, we are concerned that partners might not

move as quickly as possible to fill the resource gap that

might be created. Therefore, services will not reach all who

need them. . . . The momentum will be much greater in 2008 if

we know what to expect after 2008.

Secondly, our bill expands the flexibility of current law so that U.S. efforts in each country can be tailored to its unique situation. I have consulted extensively with American officials who are implementing PEPFAR. Most believe that adding new restrictions to the law can limit the flexibility of those charged with implementation in 2009 and beyond. We don't know who that will be and, more importantly, we don't know what the challenges of 2013 will be, although we can probably say with confidence the landscape will be very different than it is today. As the Institute of Medicine said, the Global Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' We should pass a bill that allows PEPFAR to expand and evolve its program implementation, utilizing the experience it has gained in its initial years of operation.

I understand some Members identify concerns or areas that they believe deserve specific emphasis. As Senators study the record of PEPFAR to date, I believe they will find that the vast majority of the authorities needed for the next phase of our efforts already are in existing legislation. This flexibility is preserved in the House bill and in the bill before us today.

The one directive in the Leadership Act that I believe must be maintained holds that 10 percent of funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children. There were few programs focused on the needs of these children before the Leadership Act, and we remain in the early stages of the effort to serve them. Before the advent of PEPFAR, neither the United States nor anyone else had much experience in programs that support children infected with or affected by HIV/AIDS. After several years of effort, we have made some progress, but our programs are not yet as firmly established as they can be.

The AIDS orphans crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond that region. The American people strongly back this effort, and the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure that we remain attentive to those who need our support the most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005, a bill I drafted and which was cosponsored by 11 Senators. That bill was signed into law on November 8, 2005.

The third point I would underscore is this is an authorization bill subject to the annual budget and appropriations process. It is meant to establish policy and the overall parameters of spending on the PEPFAR program. The $50 billion figure is based on what we believe can be spent efficiently and effectively in the years ahead. It presumes that funding will gradually increase over the coming 5-year period. Of the $50 billion authorized, $5 billion has been reserved for malaria and $4 billion has been reserved for tuberculosis.

I understand some Members would spend less than $50 billion, while others would choose to spend more.

But this is a reasonable target that has emerged from good-faith negotiations between Congress and the White House. I believe it will maximize the humanitarian and foreign policy benefits of the PEPFAR Program.

We have an opportunity this week to establish policy on a bipartisan basis that will be a triumph for the United States of America. We have the opportunity to save lives on a massive scale and preserve the fabric of numerous fragile societies. I ask my colleagues to continue to work together for this very important result.

I look forward to the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.