Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to offer observations on the continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq. In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world. The prospects that the current ``surge'' strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of United States national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news--including deaths and injuries to Americans. We have been debating and voting on whether to fund American troops in Iraq and whether to place conditions on such funding. We have contemplated in great detail whether Iraqi success in achieving certain benchmarks should determine whether funding is approved or whether a withdrawal should commence. I would observe that none of this debate addresses our vital interests any more than they are addressed by an unquestioned devotion to an ill- defined strategy of ``staying the course'' in Iraq.

I speak to my fellow Senators, when I say that the President is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking. Each of us should take a step back from the sloganeering rhetoric and political opportunism that has sometimes characterized this debate. The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.

Commentators frequently suggest that the United States has no good options in Iraq. That may be true from a certain perspective. But I believe that we do have viable options that could strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities. But seizing these opportunities will require the President to downsize the United States military's role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options. It will also require Members of Congress to be receptive to overtures by the President to construct a new policy outside the binary choice of surge versus withdrawal. We don't owe the President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the American people our constructive engagement.

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved. We should attempt to preserve initiatives that have shown promise; such as engaging Sunni groups that are disaffected with the extreme tactics and agenda of al-Qaida in Iraq. But three factors--the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process--are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time frame.

First, it is very doubtful that the leaders of Iraqi factions are capable of implementing a political settlement in the short run. I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.

In recent months, we have seen votes in the Iraqi parliament calling for a withdrawal of American forces and condemning security walls in Baghdad that were a reasonable response to neighborhood violence. The Iraqi parliament struggles even to achieve a quorum, because many prominent leaders decline to attend. We have seen overt feuds between members of the Iraqi Government, including Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who did not speak to each other for the entire month of April. The Shia-led government is going out of its way to bottle up money budgeted for Sunni provinces. Without strident intervention by our embassy, food rations are not being delivered to Sunni towns. Iraqi leaders have resisted de-Baathification reform, the conclusion of an oil law, and effective measures to prevent oil smuggling and other corrupt practices.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari has told me that various aspects of an oil law and revenue distribution could be passed by September. But he emphasized that Iraqis are attempting to make policy in a difficult environment by broad consensus--not by majority vote. He believes other policy advancements will take considerable time, but that consensus is the safest and most appropriate approach in a fledgling democracy.

This may be true, but Americans want results in months. Meanwhile, various Iraqi factions are willing to wait years to achieve vital objectives. Even if the results of military operations improve in the coming months, there is little reason to assume that this will diminish Sunni ambitions to reclaim political preeminence or Shia plans to dominate Iraq after decades of Saddam's harsh rule. Few Iraqi leaders are willing to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush administration had envisioned. In contrast, there are many Iraqi leaders who are deeply invested in a sectarian or

tribal agenda. More often than not, these agendas involve not just the protection of fellow Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, but the expansion of territorial dominance and economic privileges.

Even if United States negotiators found a way to forge a political settlement among selected representatives of the major sectarian factions, these leaders have not shown the ability to control their members at the local level. After an intense year-and-a-half of bloodletting, many subfactions are thoroughly invested in the violence. We have the worst of both worlds in Iraq--factional leaders who don't believe in our pluralist vision for their country and smaller subfactions who are pursuing violence on their own regardless of any accommodations by more moderate fellow sectarians. As David Brooks recently observed in the New York Times, the fragmentation in Iraq has become so prevalent that Iraq may not even be able to carry out a traditional civil war among cohesive factions.

Few Iraqis have demonstrated that they want to be Iraqis. We may bemoan this, but it is not a surprising phenomenon. The behavior of most Iraqis is governed by calculations related to their history, their personal safety, their basic economic existence, and their tribal or sectarian loyalties. These are primal forces that have constrained the vision of most ordinary Iraqis to the limits of their neighborhoods and villages.

In this context, the possibility that the United States can set meaningful benchmarks that would provide an indication of impending success or failure is remote. Perhaps some benchmarks or agreements will be initially achieved, but most can be undermined or reversed by a contrary edict of the Iraqi Government, a decision by a faction to ignore agreements, or the next terrorist attack or wave of sectarian killings. American manpower cannot keep the lid on indefinitely. The anticipation that our training operations could produce an effective Iraqi army loyal to a cohesive central government is still just a hopeful plan for the future.

I suspect that for some Americans, benchmarks are a means of justifying a withdrawal by demonstrating that Iraq is irredeemable. For others, benchmarks represent an attempt to validate our military presence by showing progress against a low fixed standard. But in neither case are benchmark tests addressing our broader national security interests.

Equally unproven is the theory voiced by some supporters of a withdrawal that removing American troops from Iraq would stimulate a grand compromise between Iraqi factions. Some Iraqi leaders may react this way. But most assume that we will soon begin to withdraw troops, and they are preparing to carry on or accelerate the fight in the absence of American forces. Iraqi militias have shown an ability to adapt to conditions on the ground, expanding or contracting their operations as security imperatives warrant.

American strategy must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism will not abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top.

The second factor working against our ability to engineer a stable government in Iraq is the fatigue of our military. The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength or our ability to respond to other national security priorities is closing. Some observers may argue that we cannot put a price on securing Iraq and that our military readiness is not threatened. But this is a naive assessment of our national security resources.

American Armed Forces are incredibly resilient, but Iraq is taking a toll on recruitment and readiness. In April, the Defense Department announced it would lengthen tours of duty for soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months. Many soldiers are now on their way to a third combat tour.

Last month, for the 27th consecutive year, in a ceremony witnessed by tens of thousands of Hoosiers, I swore in new military recruits on Pit Road at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Over the course of the weekend, I visited with the recruits, with the recruiters, and with military officials. I heard personal stories of the 70-hour work weeks put in by recruiters to meet recruiting goals. I was impressed with each of the 66 young men and women I swore in. They are joining a military at war, and each of them is showing tremendous courage and commitment to our country.

The swearing-in ceremony was preceded by a briefing from Army officials here in Washington who assured me that we are fielding the best equipped, best trained, and most capable force we have ever had. Yet, they also reported that the Army has exhausted its bench. Instead of resting and training for 3 to 12 months, brigades coming out of the field must now be ready almost immediately for redeployment.

Basic recruiting targets are being met, but statistics point to significant declines in the percentage of recruits who have high school diplomas and who score above average on the Army's aptitude test. Meanwhile, the Army has dramatically increased the use of waivers for recruits who have committed felonies, and it has relaxed weight and age standards.

The Army is asking for $2 billion more this year for recruitment incentives, advertising, and related activities. It needs $13 to $14 billion a year to reset the force to acceptable readiness ratings, and they will need that amount for up to 3 years after the end of the current operations. The Army needs $52 billion more this year to fill equipment shortages and modernize. These figures do not include the billions of dollars required to implement the planned 65,000 soldier increase in the size of the active force.

Filling expanding ranks will be increasingly difficult given trends in attitudes toward military service. This has been measured by the Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies Program, which produced a ``Propensity Update'' last September after extensive research. The study found that only 1 in 10 youths has a propensity to serve--the lowest percentage in the history of such surveys. Sixty-one percent of youth respondents report that they will ``definitely not serve.'' This represents a 7 percent increase in less than a year. These numbers are directly attributable to policies in Iraq. When combined with the Army's estimate that only 3 of 10 youths today meet basic physical, behavioral, and academic requirements for military service, the consequences of continuing to stretch the military are dire.

The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible. Before the next conflict, we have much to do to repair this invaluable instrument. This repair cannot begin until we move to a more sustainable Iraq policy.

The third factor inhibiting our ability to establish a stable, multisectarian government in Iraq is the timetable imposed by our own domestic political process. The President and some of his advisors may be tempted to pursue the surge strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for United States national security. It would require the President to fight a political rear-guard holding action for more than a year and a half against congressional attempts to limit, modify, or end military operations in Iraq. The resulting contentiousness would make cooperation on national security issues nearly impossible. It would greatly increase the chances for a poorly planned withdrawal from Iraq or possibly the broader Middle East region that could damage U.S. interests for decades.

The President and his team must come to grips with the shortened political timeline in this country for military operations in Iraq. Some will argue that political timelines should always be subordinated to military necessity, but that is unrealistic in a democracy. Many political observers contend that voter `` dissatisfaction in 2006 with administration policies in Iraq was the major factor in producing new Democratic Party majorities in both Houses of Congress. Domestic politics routinely intrude on diplomatic and military decisions. The key is to manage these intrusions so that we avoid actions that are not in our national interest.

We do not know whether the next President will be a Democrat or a Republican. But it is certain that domestic pressure for withdrawal will continue to be intense. A course change

should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq. If the President waits until Presidential election campaign is in full swing, the intensity of confrontation on Iraq is likely to limit United States options.

I am not implying that debate on Iraq is bad. I am suggesting what most Senate observers understand intuitively: Little nuance or bipartisanship will be possible if the Iraq debate plays out during a contentious national election that will determine control of the White House and Congress.

In short, our political time line will not support a rational course adjustment in Iraq, unless such an adjustment is initiated very soon.

In January, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who recalled a half century of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. He argued that this history was not accidental. We have been heavily involved in the region because we have enduring vital interests at stake. We may make tactical decisions about the deployment or withdrawal of forces in Iraq, but we must plan for a strong strategic position in the region for years to come.

This is not just a maxim from diplomatic textbooks. The vitality of the U.S. economy and the economies of much of the world depend on the oil that comes from the Persian Gulf. The safety of the United States depends on how we react to nuclear proliferation in the region and how we combat terrorist cells and ideologies that reside there.

The risk for decision-makers is that after a long struggle in Iraq, accompanied by a contentious political process at home, we begin to see Iraq as a set piece--as an end in itself, distinct from the broader interests that we meant to protect. We risk becoming fixated on artificial notions of achieving victory or avoiding defeat, when these ill-defined concepts have little relevance to our operations in Iraq. What is important is not the precise configuration of the Iraqi Government or the achievement of specific benchmarks, but rather how Iraq impacts our geostrategic situation in the Middle East and beyond. The President's troop surge is an early episode in a much broader Middle East realignment that began with our invasion of Iraq and may not end for years. Nations throughout the Middle East are scrambling to find their footing as regional power balances shift in unpredictable ways.

Although the Bush administration has scaled back its definition of success in Iraq, we are continuing to pour our treasure and manpower into the narrow and uncertain pursuit of creating a stable, democratic, pluralist society in Iraq. This pursuit has been the focal point of the administration's Middle East policy. Unfortunately, this objective is not one on which our future in the region can rest, especially when far more important goals related to Middle East security are languishing. I am not suggesting that what happens in Iraq is not important, but the Bush administration must avoid becoming so quixotic in its attempt to achieve its optimum forecasts for Iraq that it misses other opportunities to protect our vital interests in the Middle East.

To determine our future course, we should separate our emotions and frustrations about Iraq from a sober assessment of our fundamental national security goals. In my judgment, we should be concerned with four primary objectives:

First, we have an interest in preventing Iraq or any piece of its territory from being used as a safe haven or training ground for terrorists or as a repository or assembly point for weapons of mass destruction.

Second, we have an interest in preventing the disorder and sectarian violence in Iraq from upsetting wider regional stability. The consequences of turmoil that draws neighboring states into a regional war could be grave. Such turmoil could topple friendly governments, expand destabilizing refugee flows, close the Persian Gulf to shipping traffic, or destroy key oil production or transportation facilities, thus diminishing the flow of oil from the region with disastrous results for the world economy.

Third, we have an interest in preventing Iranian domination of the region. The fall of Saddam Hussein's Sunni government opened up opportunities for Iran to seek much greater influence in Iraq and in the broader Middle East. An aggressive Iran would pose serious challenges for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab governments. Iran is pressing a broad agenda in the Middle East with uncertain consequences for weapons proliferation, terrorism, the security of Israel, and other U.S. interests. Any course we adopt should consider how it would impact the regional influence of Iran.

Fourth, we have an interest in limiting the loss of U.S. credibility in the region and throughout the world as a result of our Iraq mission. Some loss of confidence in the United States has already occurred, but our subsequent actions in Iraq may determine how we are viewed for a generation.

In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve goals that it cannot achieve. It distances allies that we will need for any regional diplomatic effort. Its failure, without a careful transition to a back-up policy would intensify our loss of credibility. It uses tremendous amounts of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure our objectives. And it lacks domestic support that is necessary to sustain a policy of this type.

A total withdrawal from Iraq also fails to meet our security interests. Such a withdrawal would compound the risks of a wider regional conflict stimulated by Sunni-Shia tensions. It would also be a severe blow to U.S. credibility that would make nations in the region far less likely to cooperate with us on shared interests. It would increase the potential for armed conflict between Turkey and Kurdish forces in Iraq. It would expose Iraqis who have worked with us to retribution, increase the chances of destabilizing refugee flows, and undercut many economic and development projects currently underway in Iraq. It would also be a signal that the United States was abandoning efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a terrorist base.

Moreover, advocates of an immediate withdrawal have tended to underestimate the requirements and complexities of such an operation. Gen. Barry McCaffrey testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 18, 2007, that an immediate withdrawal aimed at getting out of Iraq as fast as possible would take 6 months. A carefully planned withdrawal that sought to preserve as much American equipment as possible, protect Iraqis who have worked with us, continue anti-terrorist operations during the withdrawal period, and minimize negative regional consequences would take months longer.

Our security interests call for a downsizing and re-deployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. Numerous locations for temporary or permanent military bases have been suggested, including Kuwait or other nearby states, the Kurdish territories, or defensible locations in Iraq outside of urban areas. All of these options come with problems and limitations. But some level of American military presence in Iraq would improve the odds that we could respond to terrorist threats, protect oil flows, and help deter a regional war. It would also reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. A re-deployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would end the U.S. attempt to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions.

Six months ago, the Iraq Study Group endorsed a gradual downsizing of American forces in Iraq and the evolution of their mission to a support role for the Iraqi army. I do not necessarily agree with every recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, and its analysis requires some updating given the passage of time. But the report provides a useful starting point for the development of a ``Plan B'' and a template for bipartisan cooperation on our Iraq strategy.

We should understand that if the re-deployment of a downsized force is to be safe and effective, our military planners and diplomats must have as much

time as possible to develop and implement the details. We will need the cooperation of the Iraqi Government and key states in the region, which will not come automatically. The logistics of a shift in policy toward a residual force will test military planners, who have been consumed with the surge. In 2003, we witnessed the costs that came with insufficient planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It is absolutely essential that we not repeat the same mistake. The longer we delay the planning for a re-deployment, the less likely it is to be successful.

The United States has violated some basic national security precepts during our military engagement in Iraq. We have overestimated what the military can achieve, we have set goals that are unrealistic, and we have inadequately factored in the broader regional consequences of our actions. Perhaps most critically, our focus on Iraq has diverted us from opportunities to change the world in directions that strengthen our national security.

Our struggles in Iraq have placed U.S. foreign policy on a defensive footing and drawn resources from other national security endeavors, including Afghanistan. With few exceptions, our diplomatic initiatives are encumbered by negative global and regional attitudes toward our combat presence in Iraq.

In this era, the United States cannot afford to be on a defensive footing indefinitely. It is essential that as we attempt to reposition ourselves from our current military posture in Iraq, we launch a multifaceted diplomatic offensive that pushes adversarial states and terrorist groups to adjust to us. The best counter to perceptions that we have lost credibility in Iraq would be a sustained and ambitious set of initiatives that repairs alliances and demonstrates our staying power in the Middle East.

The Iraq Study Group report recommended such a diplomatic offensive, stating ``all key issues in the Middle East--the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Iran, the need for political and economic reforms, and extremism and terrorism--are inextricably linked.'' The report stressed that diplomacy aimed at solving key regional issues would ``help marginalize extremists and terrorists, promote U.S. values and interests, and improve America's global image.''

A diplomatic offensive is likely to be easier in the context of a tactical draw down of U.S. troops in Iraq. A drawdown would increase the chances of stimulating greater economic and diplomatic assistance for Iraq from multilateral organizations and European allies, who have sought to limit their association with an unpopular war.

A first step is working with like-minded nations to establish a consistent diplomatic forum related to Iraq that is open to all parties in the Middle East. The purpose of the forum would be to improve transparency of national interests so that neighboring states and other actors avoid miscalculations. I believe it would be in the self- interest of every nation in the region to attend such meetings, as well as the United States, EU representatives, or other interested parties. Such a forum could facilitate more regular contact with Syria and Iran with less drama and rhetoric that has accompanied some meetings. The existence of a predictable and regular forum in the region would be especially important for dealing with refugee problems, regulating borders, exploring development initiatives, and preventing conflict between the Kurds and Turks. Just as the Six-Party talks have improved communications in northeast Asia beyond the issue of North Korea's nuclear program, stabilizing Iraq could be the occasion for a diplomatic forum that contributes to other Middle East priorities.

Eventually, part of the massive U.S. embassy under construction in Baghdad might be a suitable location for the forum. It is likely that the embassy compound will exceed the evolving needs of the United States. If this is true, we should carefully consider how best to use this asset, which might be suitable for diplomatic, educational, or governmental activities in Iraq.

We should be mindful that the United States does not lack diplomatic assets. Most regional governments are extremely wary of U.S. abandonment of the Middle East. Moderate states are concerned by Iran's aggressiveness and by the possibility of sectarian conflict beyond Iraq's borders. They recognize that the United States is an indispensable counterweight to Iran and a source of stability. The United States should continue to organize regional players--Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf States, and others--behind a program of containing Iran's disruptive agenda in the region.

Such a re-alignment has relevance for stabilizing Iraq and bringing security to other areas of conflict, including Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The United States should make clear to our Arab friends that they have a role in promoting reconciliation within Iraq, preventing oil price spikes, splitting Syria from Iran, and demonstrating a more united front against terrorism.

A diplomatic offensive centered on Iraq and surrounding countries would help lift American interests in the Middle East. But credibility and sustainability of our actions depend on addressing the two elephants in the room of U.S. Middle East policy--the Arab-Israeli conflict and U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. These are the two problems that our adversaries, especially Iran, least want us to address. They are the conditions that most constrain our freedom of action and perpetuate vulnerabilities. The implementation of an effective program to remedy these conditions could be as valuable to our long-term security as the achievement of a stable, pro-Western government in Iraq.

The Arab-Israeli conflict will not be easily solved. Recent combat between the Hamas and Fatah Palestinian factions that led to Hamas's military preeminence in the Gaza Strip complicates efforts to put the peace process back on track. But even if a settlement is not an immediate possibility, we have to demonstrate clearly that the United States is committed to helping facilitate a negotiated outcome. Progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict would not end the sectarian conflict in Iraq, but it could restore credibility lost by the United States in the region. It also would undercut terrorist propaganda, slow Iranian influence, and open new possibilities related to Syria.

Clearly, the United States does not have the influence to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict unilaterally. In contrast, our dependence on Persian Gulf oil is largely within our capacity to fix. Do not underestimate the impact on Iran and other nations of a concerted U.S. campaign to reduce our oil consumption. A credible well-publicized campaign to definitively change the oil import equation would reverberate throughout the Middle East. It would be the equivalent of opening a new front in Middle Eastern policy that does not depend on the good will of any other country.

Many options exist for rapid progress in reducing our Persian Gulf oil dependence, but I would emphasize two. First, President Bush or his successor could establish the national goal of making competitively priced biofuels available to every motorist in America. Such an accomplishment would transform our transportation sector and cut our oil import bill. It would require multiple elements, including ensuring that virtually every new car sold in America is a flexible fuel vehicle capable of running on an 85 percent ethanol fuel known as E-85; that at least a quarter of American filling stations have E-85 pumps; and that ethanol production from various sources is expanded to as much as 100 billion gallons a year within the next 15 to 20 years. Such a campaign could achieve the replacement of 6.5 million barrels of oil per day by volume--the rough equivalent of one-third of the oil used in America and one-half of our current oil imports. None of these goals are easy, but they are achievable if presidential advocacy and the weight of the Federal Government are devoted to their realization. Brazil already has achieved the large-scale deployment of ethanol as a national transportation fuel, and its success is a source of public pride in that country.

Second, the President could commit to a radical increase in the miles per gallon of America's auto fleet. The Federal Government has numerous tools to make this happen, from direct Federal support for research, to Government fleet purchasing, to market regulations and incentives.

Incredibly, cars in America today get less mileage per gallon than they did 20 years ago. Meanwhile, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric cars are at or nearly at commercialization, yet there is not enough incentive for consumers to buy them or producers to make them on the mass scale necessary. For fiscal year 2008, the administration requested just $176 million for new vehicle technology research--an amount that was less than what was requested 5 years ago.

Given that other developed nations have made great strides in improving fuel economy, this is fertile ground for rapid improvement. In fact, achievements on this front largely would be a matter of generating and sustaining political will that has, thus far, been disappointing.

The issue before us is whether we will refocus our policy in Iraq on realistic assessments of what can be achieved, and on a sober review of our vital interests in the Middle East. Given the requirements of military planners, the stress of our combat forces, and our own domestic political timeline, we are running out of time to implement a thoughtful plan B that attempts to protect our substantial interests in the region, while downsizing our military presence in Iraq.

We need to recast the geo-strategic reference points of our Iraq policy. We need to be preparing for how we will array U.S. forces in the region to target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran, provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict, and generally reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security. Simultaneously, we must be aggressive and creative in pursuing a regional dialogue that is not limited to our friends. We cannot allow fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy to lead to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need to defend our vital interests in the Middle East.

If we are to seize opportunities to preserve these interests, the administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee- jerk political combat over Iraq. Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists. We need to move Iraq policy beyond the politics of the moment and reestablish a broad consensus on the role of the United States in the Middle East. If we do that, the United States has the diplomatic influence and economic and military power to strengthen mutually beneficial policies that could enhance security and prosperity throughout the region. I pray that the President and the Congress will move swiftly and surely to achieve that goal.

Mr. President, on June 5, I had the privilege of attending a gala where my friends Lee Hamilton and John Warner received the George C. Marshall Foundation Award honoring statesmen of courage and integrity.

At the event our former colleague, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, introduced Senator Warner. I appreciate this opportunity to share with my fellow Senators her speech honoring the distinguished career of our colleague and friend. I ask unanimous consent that the speech of Nancy Kassebaum Baker be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on June 5, I had the privilege of introducing my longtime friend and fellow Hoosier, Representative Lee Hamilton, at a gala where he received the George C. Marshall Foundation Award honoring statesmen of courage and integrity.

I appreciate this opportunity to share with my fellow Senators my speech honoring the distinguished career of this outstanding public servant. I ask unanimous consent that my speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on May 28, 2007, Russia requested an Extraordinary Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe--the CFE Treaty--to discuss what Russia identified as ``exceptional circumstances'' that may lead them to suspend implementation of the treaty. Russia complains that most of their former Warsaw Pact allies have now joined NATO, significantly altering, in Russia's view, the ``balance'' of forces in Europe. This Extraordinary Conference is now under way in Vienna, Austria. What happens there will have tremendous implications for the security of Europe and for U.S.-Russian relations. Both sides must avoid actions that could lead to the potential unraveling of a treaty that has served as a cornerstone of European security since the end of the Cold War.

In 1990, the CFE was conceived as a mechanism to reduce post-Cold-War arsenals of conventional weapons in Europe and has evolved into a stabilizing influence through its wide range of agreed verification measures. This treaty should not be relegated to the dustbin of history. That is not in the interest of all European States, including Russia, nor of the United States.

The CFE Treaty was originally designed to limit the possibility of a surprise attack on Europe, when the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact still existed. It imposes numerical limits on

major conventional military weapons--battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters--that can be deployed within Europe. These limits are verifiable through an extensive regime of inspections, transparency measures, and data exchanges. To be sure, since the Cold War ended, most countries, especially in central Europe, have reduced their levels of conventional weapons well below the limits specified by the treaty. Nonetheless, the verification measures that continue in place to the present day provide a level of openness and predictability important to the continued stability of Europe.

The ``exceptional circumstances'' referred to in Russia's request for an Extraordinary Conference of the CFE States Parties are of Russia's own making, and Russia holds the key to their resolution. At the end of the last decade, the CFE Treaty was updated to reflect post-Cold-War realities in Europe. The Adapted CFE Treaty was signed in 1999 at Istanbul, Turkey; however, it has not entered into force. Ratification of the treaty by the United States and its NATO allies will not occur until Russia implements two political commitments it made at the time of the treaty's signing.

In 1999, Russia pledged that it would fully withdraw its forces from the territories of Georgia and Moldova, which were part of the former Soviet Union. One of the CFE Treaty's fundamental tenets is that a nation must give its consent for the stationing or deployment of foreign military forces on its territory. NATO nations have insisted that Russia live up to this fundamental principle and abide by its commitments. In the Senate, we have made clear to administration officials that we would give advice and consent to ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty's provisions only when and if Russia satisfied these commitments.

Russia has protested that its commitments regarding Georgia and Moldova were not related to the CFE Treaty. However, both the Georgian and Moldovan Governments have said repeatedly that they want Russian forces withdrawn from their territories. This has become a central issue in the CFE Treaty debate. Russia possesses the ability and the means to fulfill these commitments, needing only to close a single, largely abandoned Russian base in Georgia, and to withdraw a few hundred troops and an ammunition storage depot in Moldova. Russia has made progress in Georgia, but very little in Moldova since 2004.

The United States is prepared to find ways to work through its differences with Russia on important security issues in ways that recognize shared interests. Russia's threatened suspension of the CFE does not demonstrate a reciprocal view and could lead to the unraveling of the CFE Treaty itself. Nevertheless, the Extraordinary Conference can serve as an opportunity to modernize the Cold-War-era CFE Treaty in a direction that reflects the current security environment in Europe and one in which all parties can completely fulfill their commitments.

The administration's proposal to multilateralize the current Russian peacekeeping forces in Moldova, perhaps under the auspices of the NATO- Russia Council, merits serious consideration. In Georgia, Russia has already taken significant steps to reduce its troop presence the remaining steps are far less demanding but just as important. The Extraordinary Conference should offer a new beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.

The United States and its NATO Allies believe that the Adapted CFE Treaty offers the best path toward ensuring a Europe united and at peace, one in which Russia honors its commitments. If this were to occur, then, and only then, would the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the United States Senate be likely to begin a careful, expeditious review leading to U.S. ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty.

Madam President, the thoughts and prayers of my wife Charlene and myself are with Susan today and their four children, as we think about Craig Thomas, our dear friend, our colleague, a man who has been such a wonderful presence in our lives in the Senate.

Much has been said, and quite correctly so, about Senator Thomas as a cowboy, and certainly he was, and his rich heritage of experience in the Marine Corps, as he volunteered to serve his country after college. But I want to stress two or three things that perhaps have not come to the attention of Senators in the same way this morning, one of which is that Craig Thomas was a person who was vitally interested in the Far East. He served for a period of time on the Foreign Relations Committee, and during that period of time, as I recall, was either the subcommittee chairman or heavily involved in hearings and in working with our Ambassadors to countries in Asia.

For a variety of reasons, because Craig always sought opportunities to serve Wyoming in whatever committee assignments seemed most appropriate at the time, his service on the Foreign Relations Committee was not a long one, but he continued that service by holding breakfasts in his office. I was privileged to be invited to those breakfasts in which famous people from abroad, especially the Far East, were his guests. These are ladies and gentlemen he had met during his foreign travels or during his work in Wyoming in which they might have been of value to his State.

It was an extraordinary set of experiences. I stress ``experiences'' because there were many of these breakfasts. I encouraged him to continue on. I enjoyed the fellowship of the people he brought together as well as Senators he brought into an orbit of understanding about the Far East, through his own ministry in this case.

I have been impressed in addition--speaking of breakfasts and the fact that Senator Thomas was a regular at the Aspen Institute breakfasts that are held right here in the Capitol on Wednesdays and Thursdays frequently throughout the legislative year. I am advised as many as 24 of these breakfasts are held on the subjects which the Aspen Institute Congressional group is focusing.

Among the things on which the group has been focusing in recent years has been problems with Russia and the Balkans and developments in Eastern Europe, the problems certainly in education generally as a subject for our schoolchildren in this country, problems in Latin America, the problems of the environment and energy, and, appropriately, problems in Asia and especially China in the Far East.

I noticed Craig Thomas, when it came to these breakfasts, usually was there on time and listened to the lecture or the paper that was being given by the speaker, and that he frequently proceeded on, perhaps, to another breakfast or another appointment without severely questioning either other Members of Congress or the speaker at the time, but was intensely interested. Because we frequently saw and listened to the same people, this led to many rich conversations which I was privileged to have with him. I would ask him: What did you think? What were your impressions of that speaker today? He always had some very concise impressions.

But a third thing I simply want to mention, in addition to these breakfasts, is the sense of good humor with which those impressions were cast. He had his own unique sense of humor, and yet it was clearly there and very much a part of the personal association each one of us enjoyed with the Senator.

Likewise, that sense of humor was shared by Susan, appropriately. I can remember so many times outside the door to this Chamber Susan would be standing there at about 6:30 at night or some such time. It was obvious she and the Senator were going to dinner or had some activity. But one of the delightful things was that so many of us had been visiting with Susan over the years. We had a lot to say to her and she to us, always with a wonderful sense of humor, with a sense of the work we are about, how unusual to some this schedule seems, how absurd it may be to others, someone who had her own vocation as a very remarkable teacher and someone who understood the needs of children.

It is not surprising that Craig would attend the Aspen Education Conferences in addition to his far-flung interests in Asia and most importantly, obviously, the land use issues and the remarkable ability of people to make a living off the land in his home State. It was finally in that capacity that I enjoyed the best conversations with Craig Thomas because he was deeply interested in agriculture, as I am. We come from very different kinds of agriculture, yet there was a profound understanding of the challenges and the joys of people who make their living from the soil; likewise, from the husbandry of animals and the combination of forestry, and even the mineral uses of lands--much more abundant, I must say, in the State of Wyoming than in Indiana. But we both understood the nature of that income, the nature of the challenge, and the importance of State and Federal legislation as it pertained to those farmers. So I will miss those conversations especially because that is a heritage of land in which both of us have been involved in our families, and I suspect his will continue.

Our thoughts are with the family today. We are never prepared for such a day. That is why many of us perhaps are rambling on occasion in our thoughts as we collect them about this outstanding Senator and wonderful friend. But it truly is a privilege to have this opportunity on the floor of the Senate to pay tribute to my dear friend Craig Thomas.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, Senate colleagues of Senator Ted Stevens are grateful that a remarkable U.S. Senate historical landmark provides us an opportunity to honor one of the greatest Senators in history as he continues to supply vigorous and significant leadership for our country.

We recognize, today, that Ted Stevens has served longer than any other Republican Party Senator, and that record for longevity of service will continue to mount with each new day of Senate history.

I would like to believe that the early schooling of Ted Stevens at Public School No. 84 in Indianapolis was a strong foundation for his later success. I enjoyed School No. 84 for 2 years, a few years after Ted had progressed.

Our lives came together again in 1976 when Ted chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee and I was the Indiana Republican candidate against a three-term incumbent.

Under Ted's leadership, Jack Danforth, John Heinz, Jack Schmitt, Malcolm Wallop, Sam Hayakawa, John Chafee, Orrin Hatch, and I were elected: a class of eight freshmen Republican Senators. The overall Senate count after the 1976 election was 61 Democrats, 38 Republicans, and Independent Senator Harry Byrd, thus highlighting Ted's recruitment achievement.

But times changed, and Howard Baker became majority leader after the Republican majority was established in the 1980 election. When Howard retired 4 years later, five Republicans sought the majority leader position in an election procedure requiring the candidate with the lowest vote to retire after each ballot. Senators Jim McClure, Pete Domenici, and I retired in that order before Bob Dole, another Senate lion, defeated Ted Stevens in a close vote.

All of us rejoiced when the GOP won a Senate majority again and Senator Stevens became President pro tempore of the Senate. In this role, he became even more vigorous in boosting the Senate's institutional role and in underlying the responsibilities of each Senator.

Throughout his unfailing attention to overall Senate duties, Ted has been a Senator for Alaska on every day of every year. His legislative achievements that have boosted Alaska are legendary and continue during each appropriations cycle.

Alaskans recognized Senator Stevens as the most prominent Alaskan of the 20th century in a poll taken in his State.

He also led Alaskan and U.S. Senate attention to the interests Alaska and the United States have in the Pacific Ocean and in prominent Pacific rim countries such as China, Japan, and Russia.

I have been privileged to attend Aspen Institute conferences with Ted and to participate in legislative meetings with Chinese delegates that he has organized in Washington.

He has long been an advocate for health and physical fitness. This encourages his friends to observe that he has the opportunity to serve with us for many years to come.

I thank my good friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for his personal thoughtfulness and for so many great experiences, together, during his recordbreaking tenure in the Senate. I look forward to many new opportunities to be with him and to work with him for the benefit of our country.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Hamilton Southeastern High School's We the People class on receiving an Honorable Mention at the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national competition held April 28 to 30 in Washington, DC. I am pleased that the members of the Hamilton Southeastern High School We the People class were among the 1,200 students from across the country who participated in this important event specifically designed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I join family, friends, and the entire Hamilton Southeastern High School community in recognizing the hard work and dedication of the following members of the Hamilton Southeastern High School We the People class: Ben Anderson, Lauren Bowser, Austin Brady, Kristin Buckingham, Jesse Hawkins, Kirk Higgins, Chris Hill, Tiernan Kane, Nika Kim, Ryan Landry, Julie Lux, Rachel Morris, Jeff Neufer, David Ostendorf, Ryan Puckett, Taylor Schueth, Matt Stein, Amy Thomas, Aleks Vitolins, and Edward Wolenty. I also wish to commend Jill Baisinger, the teacher of the class, who committed her time and talent to prepare the students for the national competition.

The success of the Indiana We the People program is also attributed to the hard work of Stan Harris, the State coordinator, and Lisa Hayes, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing this program in our state.

The We the People national competition is a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students are able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.

The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education through congressional appropriations. I am proud to note that between 2003 and 2006, Indiana had 176,653 students participate in the programs offered through the Center for Civic Education, with 8,439,873 participating nationally.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Farm Risk Management Act for the 21st Century. This bill is a

blueprint on how to transition away from the farm programs linked to the Great Depression into a new market driven system. We have also suggested how Congress could utilize achieved savings to improve our farm economy, our environment, alleviate hunger, promote renewable energy, and reduce our Federal deficit.

Current Federal Farm Programs target payments to a relatively narrow sector of American farmers and provide direct payments regardless of commodity prices. The bulk of these payments are made to growers of just 5 crops. Cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybean farmers receive about 85 percent of the annual payments provided by U.S. taxpayers. Notably, about 70 percent of these payments go to only 10 percent of our nation's farmers.

The current farm subsidy system is inequitable, inefficient, and disconnected from the core goal of maintaining a family farm safety net. It is also self-perpetuating, in that it stimulates over- production and stagnant prices that produce calls for greater Government support. I believe that what we need is a true safety net that would embrace all farmers, avoid incentives to overproduce commodities when market signals do not exist, and lower costs for taxpayers.

On my farm in Marion County, IN, we have 604 acres of corn, soybeans, and trees. This farm currently qualifies and receives direct payments as well as counter-cyclical and loan deficiency payments when prices dictate. Under this new plan we would continue to receive these payments for one year. After that year the farm will receive direct payments that decline over the next 5 years, and most of those payments would be deposited in an individual risk management account held in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture at a lending institution of our choice. We would be able to use funds from this risk management account to purchase crop or revenue insurance, to invest in enterprises that add value to the crops we produce, or to cover losses not covered by crop or revenue insurance compared to the 5 year revenue average of our operation. This legislation would also provide incentives for employing environmentally responsible farming techniques and other conservation practices.

In addition to being a more market oriented approach, the plan also has the added advantage of saving Federal resources, which will be invested in conservation activities, domestic and international nutrition programs, bioenergy research and deployment, and deficit reduction.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Farm Risk Management Act for the 21st Century. This bill is a

blueprint on how to transition away from the farm programs linked to the Great Depression into a new market driven system. We have also suggested how Congress could utilize achieved savings to improve our farm economy, our environment, alleviate hunger, promote renewable energy, and reduce our Federal deficit.

Current Federal Farm Programs target payments to a relatively narrow sector of American farmers and provide direct payments regardless of commodity prices. The bulk of these payments are made to growers of just 5 crops. Cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybean farmers receive about 85 percent of the annual payments provided by U.S. taxpayers. Notably, about 70 percent of these payments go to only 10 percent of our nation's farmers.

The current farm subsidy system is inequitable, inefficient, and disconnected from the core goal of maintaining a family farm safety net. It is also self-perpetuating, in that it stimulates over- production and stagnant prices that produce calls for greater Government support. I believe that what we need is a true safety net that would embrace all farmers, avoid incentives to overproduce commodities when market signals do not exist, and lower costs for taxpayers.

On my farm in Marion County, IN, we have 604 acres of corn, soybeans, and trees. This farm currently qualifies and receives direct payments as well as counter-cyclical and loan deficiency payments when prices dictate. Under this new plan we would continue to receive these payments for one year. After that year the farm will receive direct payments that decline over the next 5 years, and most of those payments would be deposited in an individual risk management account held in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture at a lending institution of our choice. We would be able to use funds from this risk management account to purchase crop or revenue insurance, to invest in enterprises that add value to the crops we produce, or to cover losses not covered by crop or revenue insurance compared to the 5 year revenue average of our operation. This legislation would also provide incentives for employing environmentally responsible farming techniques and other conservation practices.

In addition to being a more market oriented approach, the plan also has the added advantage of saving Federal resources, which will be invested in conservation activities, domestic and international nutrition programs, bioenergy research and deployment, and deficit reduction.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate fellow Hoosier Dale B. Engquist who will be recognized today with the Department of the Interior's Distinguished Service Award honoring his leadership with the National Park Service as superintendent of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

Under Dale's leadership the Lakeshore has undergone remarkable changes, including a 15 percent increase in the size of the area being preserved. Dale has also developed an environmental education program that currently serves over 35,000 students per year. Recently Dale worked closely with local and State leaders to design and build the new Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center, a shared resource which welcomes the two million visitors from Indiana and across the nation who come each year to learn about and enjoy the precious natural ecosystem along the southern tip of Lake Michigan which spans northwest Indiana.

I look forward to each opportunity to be with Dale and to learn about the many initiatives he and his staff have undertaken to preserve and share the spectacular beauty of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. I am certain that in the coming years the staff of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore will continue Dale's important work to preserve this resource for generations to come.

I congratulate Dale on his recent retirement following a career dedicated to public service, and wish him and his wife JoAnn good health and happiness as they embark upon this new chapter in their lives, together.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleagues Senators Dodd, Graham, Domenici, and Landrieu to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act.

The free flow of information is an essential element of democracy. A free press promotes an open marketplace of information and provides public and private sector accountability to our Nation's electorate. By ensuring the free flow of information, citizens can work to bring about improvements in our governance and in our civic life. It is in our nation's best interest to have an independent press that is free to question, challenge, and investigate issues and stories, without concern for political party, position or who holds power. The role of the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves must not be devalued.

This principle that we practice at home is also one that we promote abroad. Spreading democracy abroad has become a pillar of United States foreign policy, and we have recognized that a free and independent press is both essential to building democracies and a barometer of the health of young and often imperfect democratic systems. The example of press freedom we set in this country is an important beacon to guide other nations as they make the transition from autocratic forms of government.

Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United States is inhibited and our open market of information is being threatened. While gathering information on a story, a journalist is sometimes required to accept information under a promise of confidentiality. Without assurance of anonymity, many conscientious citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. Restricting the manner in which appropriate news is gathered is tantamount to restricting the information that the public has the right to hear.

After a long period when there were few clashes between the media and authorities, a disturbing new trend has developed. More than 30 reporters have recently been served subpoenas or questioned in at least four different Federal jurisdictions about their confidential sources. From 1991 to September 6, 2001, the Department of Justice issued 88 subpoenas to the media, 17 of which sought information leading to the identification of confidential sources. In fact, three journalists have been imprisoned at the request of the Department of Justice, U.S. attorneys under its supervision, or special prosecutors since 2000. As a result, the press is hobbled in performing the public service of reporting news. I fear the end result of such actions is that many whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide the American people with information they deserve.

Most jurisdictions in our country have recognized that confidential sources are integral to the press's role of keeping the public informed, and have provided some kind of shield so that journalists can keep secret the names of such sources. Every State and the District of Columbia, excluding Wyoming, has, by legislation or court ruling, created a privilege for reporters not to reveal their confidential sources. My own State of Indiana provides qualified reporters appropriate protection from having to reveal any such information in court.

The Federal courts of appeals, however, have an inconsistent view of this matter. Some circuits allow the privilege in one category of cases, while others have expressed skepticism about whether any privilege exists at all. It does not make sense to have a Federal system of various degrees of press freedom dependent upon where you live or who provides the subpoena. In fact, 34 State attorneys general have argued that the lack of a clear standard of Federal protection undermines state laws.

In addition, there is ambiguity between official Department of Justice rules and unofficial criteria used to secure media subpoenas. The Department of Justice guidelines also do not apply to special prosecutors or private civil litigants. There is an urgent need for Congress to state clear and concise policy guidance.

In response to this situation, 2 years ago, I was pleased to join with my colleague Congressman Mike Pence, and Congressman Rick Boucher in the House of Representatives and Senator Chris Dodd in the Senate to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act. This legislation provides journalists with certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. The bill sets national standards which must be met before a Federal entity may issue a subpoena to a member of the news media in any Federal criminal or civil case. It sets out certain tests that civil litigants or prosecutors must meet before they can force a journalist to turn over information. Litigants or prosecutors must show, for instance, that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the information in other ways and that the information is critical to the case. These standards were based on Justice Department guidelines and common law standards.

Subsequently, additional protections have been added to this bill to ensure that information will be disclosed in cases where the information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm or in cases which relate to the unlawful disclosure of trade secrets. The bill also permits a reporter to be compelled to reveal the source in certain national security situations. Finally, the bill would provide protections to ensure that source information can be provided when personal health records and financial records were disclosed in violation of Federal law.

By providing the courts with a framework for compelled disclosure, our legislation promotes greater transparency of government, maintains the ability of the courts to operate effectively, and protects whistleblowers who identify government or corporate misdeeds.

It is also important to note what this legislation does not do. The legislation neither gives reporters a license to break the law, nor permits reporters to interfere with criminal investigation efforts. State shield laws have been on the books for years, and I have not seen any evidence to support a correlation between reporter privilege laws and criminal activity or threats to public safety. Furthermore, the Free Flow of Information Act does not weaken our national security. The explicit national security exception will ensure that reporters are protected while maintaining an avenue for prosecution and disclosure when considering the defense of our country. This qualified privilege has been carefully crafted to balance the distinct and important roles of both the press and law enforcement.

As ranking member of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe that passage of this bill would have positive diplomatic consequences. This legislation not only confirms America's Constitutional commitment to press freedom, it also advances President Bush's American foreign policy initiatives to promote and protect democracy. Our Nation always leads best when it leads by example.

Unfortunately, the press remains under siege in a number of foreign countries. For instance, Reporters Without Borders points out that 125 journalists are currently in jail around the world, with more than half of these cases in China, Cuba, and Burma. This is not good company for the United States of America. Global public opinion is always on the lookout to advertise perceived American double standards.

I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd as well as Mike Pence and Rick Boucher, in the House of Representatives for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to continuing work with each of them to protect the free flow of information.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleagues Senators Dodd, Graham, Domenici, and Landrieu to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act.

The free flow of information is an essential element of democracy. A free press promotes an open marketplace of information and provides public and private sector accountability to our Nation's electorate. By ensuring the free flow of information, citizens can work to bring about improvements in our governance and in our civic life. It is in our nation's best interest to have an independent press that is free to question, challenge, and investigate issues and stories, without concern for political party, position or who holds power. The role of the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves must not be devalued.

This principle that we practice at home is also one that we promote abroad. Spreading democracy abroad has become a pillar of United States foreign policy, and we have recognized that a free and independent press is both essential to building democracies and a barometer of the health of young and often imperfect democratic systems. The example of press freedom we set in this country is an important beacon to guide other nations as they make the transition from autocratic forms of government.

Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United States is inhibited and our open market of information is being threatened. While gathering information on a story, a journalist is sometimes required to accept information under a promise of confidentiality. Without assurance of anonymity, many conscientious citizens with evidence of wrongdoing would stay silent. Restricting the manner in which appropriate news is gathered is tantamount to restricting the information that the public has the right to hear.

After a long period when there were few clashes between the media and authorities, a disturbing new trend has developed. More than 30 reporters have recently been served subpoenas or questioned in at least four different Federal jurisdictions about their confidential sources. From 1991 to September 6, 2001, the Department of Justice issued 88 subpoenas to the media, 17 of which sought information leading to the identification of confidential sources. In fact, three journalists have been imprisoned at the request of the Department of Justice, U.S. attorneys under its supervision, or special prosecutors since 2000. As a result, the press is hobbled in performing the public service of reporting news. I fear the end result of such actions is that many whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide the American people with information they deserve.

Most jurisdictions in our country have recognized that confidential sources are integral to the press's role of keeping the public informed, and have provided some kind of shield so that journalists can keep secret the names of such sources. Every State and the District of Columbia, excluding Wyoming, has, by legislation or court ruling, created a privilege for reporters not to reveal their confidential sources. My own State of Indiana provides qualified reporters appropriate protection from having to reveal any such information in court.

The Federal courts of appeals, however, have an inconsistent view of this matter. Some circuits allow the privilege in one category of cases, while others have expressed skepticism about whether any privilege exists at all. It does not make sense to have a Federal system of various degrees of press freedom dependent upon where you live or who provides the subpoena. In fact, 34 State attorneys general have argued that the lack of a clear standard of Federal protection undermines state laws.

In addition, there is ambiguity between official Department of Justice rules and unofficial criteria used to secure media subpoenas. The Department of Justice guidelines also do not apply to special prosecutors or private civil litigants. There is an urgent need for Congress to state clear and concise policy guidance.

In response to this situation, 2 years ago, I was pleased to join with my colleague Congressman Mike Pence, and Congressman Rick Boucher in the House of Representatives and Senator Chris Dodd in the Senate to introduce the Free Flow of Information Act. This legislation provides journalists with certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. The bill sets national standards which must be met before a Federal entity may issue a subpoena to a member of the news media in any Federal criminal or civil case. It sets out certain tests that civil litigants or prosecutors must meet before they can force a journalist to turn over information. Litigants or prosecutors must show, for instance, that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the information in other ways and that the information is critical to the case. These standards were based on Justice Department guidelines and common law standards.

Subsequently, additional protections have been added to this bill to ensure that information will be disclosed in cases where the information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm or in cases which relate to the unlawful disclosure of trade secrets. The bill also permits a reporter to be compelled to reveal the source in certain national security situations. Finally, the bill would provide protections to ensure that source information can be provided when personal health records and financial records were disclosed in violation of Federal law.

By providing the courts with a framework for compelled disclosure, our legislation promotes greater transparency of government, maintains the ability of the courts to operate effectively, and protects whistleblowers who identify government or corporate misdeeds.

It is also important to note what this legislation does not do. The legislation neither gives reporters a license to break the law, nor permits reporters to interfere with criminal investigation efforts. State shield laws have been on the books for years, and I have not seen any evidence to support a correlation between reporter privilege laws and criminal activity or threats to public safety. Furthermore, the Free Flow of Information Act does not weaken our national security. The explicit national security exception will ensure that reporters are protected while maintaining an avenue for prosecution and disclosure when considering the defense of our country. This qualified privilege has been carefully crafted to balance the distinct and important roles of both the press and law enforcement.

As ranking member of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe that passage of this bill would have positive diplomatic consequences. This legislation not only confirms America's Constitutional commitment to press freedom, it also advances President Bush's American foreign policy initiatives to promote and protect democracy. Our Nation always leads best when it leads by example.

Unfortunately, the press remains under siege in a number of foreign countries. For instance, Reporters Without Borders points out that 125 journalists are currently in jail around the world, with more than half of these cases in China, Cuba, and Burma. This is not good company for the United States of America. Global public opinion is always on the lookout to advertise perceived American double standards.

I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd as well as Mike Pence and Rick Boucher, in the House of Representatives for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to continuing work with each of them to protect the free flow of information.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my fellow Hoosiers in commemorating Purdue University Libraries' centennial as a Federal Depository Library. Since 1907, the staff of the Purdue University Libraries has worked diligently to provide Hoosiers with access to contemporary and historical information about our Nation and the workings of our Federal Government.

I am hopeful that this signal milestone will serve as a reminder to all Hoosiers of the remarkable resources available at the Purdue University Libraries through the Federal Depository Loan Program. As the Federal Depository Loan Program makes these resources available free of charge, I would encourage Hoosiers to utilize them as they learn and work together.

I am grateful for the important service of the staff at the Purdue University Libraries, and I wish them congratulations on this auspicious occasion.

Mr. President, Char and I want to share with all of our colleagues and friends the joyous news of the birth of Robert Riley Lugar on April 16, 2007, at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, DC. Robert Riley was a healthy 8 pounds at birth. His parents are our son, John Hoereth Lugar, and his wife, Kelly Smith Lugar, daughter of Renee Routon Conner and the late Robert Lee Smith. Robert Riley was born at 6:21 p.m., and within the next hour, Renee, Char, and I were in the delivery room to admire a very healthy newborn baby boy and to congratulate John and Kelly as we shared these unforgettable moments together. Robert Riley joins his big brothers Preston Charles and Griffin Mack.

Kelly and John were married on November 3, 2001, in the Washington Cathedral with Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie, former Chaplain of the Senate, presiding. They and their families and guests had enjoyed a rehearsal dinner in the Mansfield Room of the Capitol on the night before the wedding. Kelly worked with many of our colleagues during her service to the administration of President George Bush and our former colleague, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, as Deputy Assistant Secretary with responsibilities for congressional relations. She now has a private consulting business. A graduate of the University of Texas, she was once a member of the staff of Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas. John Lugar came with us to Washington, along with his three brothers, 30 years ago. He graduated from Langley High School in McLean, VA, Indiana University, and received his master's of business administration degree from Arizona State University. He is currently a vice president with Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real estate services and investment management firm.

We know that you will understand our excitement and our gratitude that they and we have been given divine blessing and responsibility for a glorious new chapter in our lives.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez on his recent trip to Moscow, Russia. The Secretary delivered an important message to the Russian Government and Russian people: ``While political issues between our nations tend to garner the most headlines, economic interests should not be ignored. U.S.-Russia commercial ties are stronger and more dynamic than ever before, providing stability to our overall relationship.'' I couldn't agree more with this assessment.

The United States and Russia business relationship is expanding significantly. Last year, U.S. exports to Russia increased by 20 percent to $4.7 billion in a broad range of merchandise and service markets. The American Chamber of Commerce in Russia recently conducted a survey of American business in Russia. They made some interesting findings:

Half of the American companies surveyed report sales increases of 200 percent in Russia from 2001 to 2005.

Ninety-seven percent of U.S. companies in Russia project continued growth in sales during the next three years.

Ninety-two percent of U.S. companies in Russia believe that continued

commercial engagement with Russia is positive for American business, and 86 percent believe that Russia's membership in the WTO will bring new opportunities for them.

Profitability of two-thirds of American companies in Russia is on or above target.

Seventy-five percent of Russian employees of American companies in Russia view the United States positively, compared to 47 percent of employees in Russian-owned companies.

The people of Russia and the United States stand to benefit a great deal from this expanded relationship. The Secretary also focused on those areas where improvement is needed, including, stronger accountability, enforcement of intellectual property rights and and anticorruption efforts.

The U.S.-Russia relationship is critical to the security and prosperity of both countries and the international community. In recent months the bilateral relationship has been dominated by disagreements and confrontation on a number of important issues. American and Russian leaders must reverse this trend. I congratulate Secretary Gutierrez in making a strong step forward in the right direction.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of a speech he delivered at the American Chamber of Commerce's Annual Investment Conference in Moscow on April 4, be printed in the Record at this point.