Floor Statements

Mr. President, this legislation is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. Since that time, the legislation has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the committee unanimously both as a freestanding bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now as a free-standing bill.

International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons.

In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions.

Over the years, our Government has cobbled together plans, people, and projects to respond to post-conflict situations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. In my judgment, our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deal quickly and efficiently with complex emergencies. In turn, our lack of preparation for immediate stabilization contingencies has made our subsequent reconstruction efforts more difficult and expensive.

This legislation builds on legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a civilian response corps with both Active-Duty and Reserve components and provides the office flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build that corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office.

The State Department has come a long way in recognizing the role it could and should be playing. It established the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization in July of 2004. Under the leadership of Carlos Pascual, the office conducted a government- wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks in post-conflict zones. It has undertaken the planning necessary to recruit, train, and organize a Reserve corps of civilians for rapid deployment. It also is formulating interagency contingency plans--informed by our past experiences--for countries and regions of the world where the next crisis could suddenly arise.

In December 2005, the President signed a directive putting the Secretary of State in charge of interagency stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Last month, Secretary Rice promised to dedicate 15 of the 100 new positions she is requesting for fiscal year 2007 to the Reconstruction and Stabilization Office. This will increase staff to about 95 individuals, with seconded personnel and contractors included in that count.

Despite this good progress, significant gaps in our capabilities remain. Our legislation calls for a 250-person Active-Duty corps, in addition to the Reserves, made up of both State Department and OSAID employees. Such a corps could be rapidly deployed with the military for both initial assessments and operational purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. This Active-Duty corps would be able to do a wide range of civilian jobs that are needed in a post-conflict or otherwise hostile environment.

Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than the typical Army company, but it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain Active-Duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post-conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed.

This legislation also calls on the heads of other executive branch agencies to establish personnel exchange programs designed to enhance stabilization and reconstruction capacity. The Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services--indeed virtually all the civilian agencies--can make unique contributions to the overall effort.

Once the Department embraced the concept of organizing and leading the civilian effort, the main roadblock became resources. So far, only about $21 million has been provided for the operations of the office, despite administration requests for substantially more funding. For 2007, the administration has requested a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration would like to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Reserve component of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the Active-Duty corps, including training, equipment, and travel.

So far, the office has heroically stretched dollars by recruiting personnel on detail from other agencies, taking advantage of DOD-funded training, and getting the State Department to pay for the overhead of new office space from other sources. But such a hand-to-mouth existence has obvious disadvantages. Detailed personnel rarely stay long, and institutional memory

becomes short. Relying on DOD funds puts the office in the passenger seat when it should have the resources to pursue uniquely civilian- oriented goals.

In addition, the crisis response fund outlined in our legislation has not been appropriated. On the Senate side, we were able to secure $20 million for the fund in the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire amount, however, was eliminated in the conference committee with the House.

One stopgap measure that the Congress did pass in fiscal year 2006 was the authority to transfer up to $100 million from the Pentagon to the State Department for boosting the civilian response to particular trouble spots. However, this money will not provide the resources necessary over the long term to improve the State Department's capacity to be a capable partner in responding to complex emergencies.

The foreign affairs budget is always a tougher sell to Congress than the military budget. President Bush has attempted to reverse the downward spiral in overall foreign affairs spending that took place in the 1990s. In that decade, both the executive and legislative branches rushed to cash in on the peace dividend. But President Bush has consistently requested increases for the 150 Account in his budgets. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested a 10.3-percent increase over the CBO-determined baseline of fiscal year 2006.

But, if previous years are any example, the amount appropriated will fall far short of the amount requested. Last year, the President's annual request for foreign affairs was cut by $2.1 billion. The Congress cut the fiscal 2005 annual request by a similar amount. According to a Congressional Research Service report that I requested, Congress has provided $5.8 billion less than the President has requested for foreign affairs in regular and supplemental spending bills since September 11, 2001.

Today, when we are in the midst of a global struggle of information and ideas: when anti-Western riots can be set off by the publication of a cartoon; when we are in the midst of a crisis with Iran that will decide whether the nonproliferation regime of the last half century will be abandoned; when we have entered our fourth year of attempting to stabilize Iraq; and when years of effort to move the Arab-Israeli peace process are at risk--even then, we are unable to muster the necessary support for the President's budget in foreign affairs.

As all this suggests, we have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot think this through and plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. I urge its passage.

Mr. President, this legislation is the result of a conversation begun in 2003 between members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leadership of the State Department. Since that time, the legislation has gone through a number of evolutions and has passed the committee unanimously both as a freestanding bill and as part of the State Department authorization bill. I am asking the Senate to pass it now as a free-standing bill.

International crises are inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. We have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a global black market in weapons.

In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency occurs. A delay in our response of a few weeks, or even days, can mean the difference between success and failure. Clearly we need a full range of tools to prevail. Our committee's focus has been on boosting the civilian side of our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities, while encouraging improved mechanisms for civilian and military agencies to work together on these missions.

Over the years, our Government has cobbled together plans, people, and projects to respond to post-conflict situations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies have been complex and time sensitive. In my judgment, our ad hoc approach has been inadequate to deal quickly and efficiently with complex emergencies. In turn, our lack of preparation for immediate stabilization contingencies has made our subsequent reconstruction efforts more difficult and expensive.

This legislation builds on legislation, S. 2127, that Senators Biden and Hagel and I introduced in early 2004 to encourage and support a well-organized, sufficiently resourced and strongly led civilian counterpart to the military in post-conflict zones. It is our view that the civilian side needs both operational capability and a significant surge capacity. This legislation gives statutory status to the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization and makes the position of Coordinator subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The legislation authorizes the establishment of a civilian response corps with both Active-Duty and Reserve components and provides the office flexibility in personnel management, pay, and benefits to build that corps and create surge capacity in an emergency. Finally, it authorizes expenditures for a crisis response fund, for the civilian response corps, and for a substantial training, planning and operational capacity for the office.

The State Department has come a long way in recognizing the role it could and should be playing. It established the Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization in July of 2004. Under the leadership of Carlos Pascual, the office conducted a government- wide inventory of the civilian assets that might be available for stabilization and reconstruction tasks in post-conflict zones. It has undertaken the planning necessary to recruit, train, and organize a Reserve corps of civilians for rapid deployment. It also is formulating interagency contingency plans--informed by our past experiences--for countries and regions of the world where the next crisis could suddenly arise.

In December 2005, the President signed a directive putting the Secretary of State in charge of interagency stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Last month, Secretary Rice promised to dedicate 15 of the 100 new positions she is requesting for fiscal year 2007 to the Reconstruction and Stabilization Office. This will increase staff to about 95 individuals, with seconded personnel and contractors included in that count.

Despite this good progress, significant gaps in our capabilities remain. Our legislation calls for a 250-person Active-Duty corps, in addition to the Reserves, made up of both State Department and OSAID employees. Such a corps could be rapidly deployed with the military for both initial assessments and operational purposes. They would be the first civilian team on the ground in post-conflict situations, well in advance of the establishment of an embassy. This Active-Duty corps would be able to do a wide range of civilian jobs that are needed in a post-conflict or otherwise hostile environment.

Such a 250-person corps would be no larger than the typical Army company, but it would be a force multiplier. It would be equipped with the authority and training to take broad operational responsibility for stabilization missions. Establishment of such a corps is a modest investment when seen as part of the overall national security budget. Even in peace time, we maintain Active-Duty military forces of almost 1.4 million men and women who train and plan for the possibility of war. Given how critical post-conflict situations have been to American national security in the last decade, I believe it is reasonable to have a mere 250 civilians who are training for these situations and are capable of being deployed anywhere in the world, at any time they may be needed.

This legislation also calls on the heads of other executive branch agencies to establish personnel exchange programs designed to enhance stabilization and reconstruction capacity. The Departments of Agriculture, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services--indeed virtually all the civilian agencies--can make unique contributions to the overall effort.

Once the Department embraced the concept of organizing and leading the civilian effort, the main roadblock became resources. So far, only about $21 million has been provided for the operations of the office, despite administration requests for substantially more funding. For 2007, the administration has requested a $75 million crisis response fund to be made available as a contingency for stabilization and reconstruction crises. Of this amount, the administration would like to spend $25 million for the organization, training, and emergency deployment of the Reserve component of the response corps. This legislation authorizes the crisis response fund and $80 million for the operations of the new State Department office and the Active-Duty corps, including training, equipment, and travel.

So far, the office has heroically stretched dollars by recruiting personnel on detail from other agencies, taking advantage of DOD-funded training, and getting the State Department to pay for the overhead of new office space from other sources. But such a hand-to-mouth existence has obvious disadvantages. Detailed personnel rarely stay long, and institutional memory

becomes short. Relying on DOD funds puts the office in the passenger seat when it should have the resources to pursue uniquely civilian- oriented goals.

In addition, the crisis response fund outlined in our legislation has not been appropriated. On the Senate side, we were able to secure $20 million for the fund in the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The entire amount, however, was eliminated in the conference committee with the House.

One stopgap measure that the Congress did pass in fiscal year 2006 was the authority to transfer up to $100 million from the Pentagon to the State Department for boosting the civilian response to particular trouble spots. However, this money will not provide the resources necessary over the long term to improve the State Department's capacity to be a capable partner in responding to complex emergencies.

The foreign affairs budget is always a tougher sell to Congress than the military budget. President Bush has attempted to reverse the downward spiral in overall foreign affairs spending that took place in the 1990s. In that decade, both the executive and legislative branches rushed to cash in on the peace dividend. But President Bush has consistently requested increases for the 150 Account in his budgets. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, he requested a 10.3-percent increase over the CBO-determined baseline of fiscal year 2006.

But, if previous years are any example, the amount appropriated will fall far short of the amount requested. Last year, the President's annual request for foreign affairs was cut by $2.1 billion. The Congress cut the fiscal 2005 annual request by a similar amount. According to a Congressional Research Service report that I requested, Congress has provided $5.8 billion less than the President has requested for foreign affairs in regular and supplemental spending bills since September 11, 2001.

Today, when we are in the midst of a global struggle of information and ideas: when anti-Western riots can be set off by the publication of a cartoon; when we are in the midst of a crisis with Iran that will decide whether the nonproliferation regime of the last half century will be abandoned; when we have entered our fourth year of attempting to stabilize Iraq; and when years of effort to move the Arab-Israeli peace process are at risk--even then, we are unable to muster the necessary support for the President's budget in foreign affairs.

As all this suggests, we have a long way to go in creating the kind of robust civilian capacity that we need. Both the State Department and the Defense Department are keenly aware of the importance of this legislation. If we cannot think this through and plan better as a government, the United States may come to depend even more on our military for tasks and functions far beyond its current role. But I remain optimistic that we can build on the progress already made to create a strong and reliable civilian component that boosts our stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Passing this legislation will demonstrate that there is a keen understanding in the Senate that we need to move forward. It will support executive branch actions already taken and encourage further progress. I urge its passage.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3171, the United States Direct Investment Act of 2006, introduced by Senator Bingaman and myself. At a time when commerce routinely crosses national borders, the U.S. should be positioned to compete in all arenas. That means not only strengthening the ability of American business to invest and sell their products in foreign markets, but equally important, attracting foreign companies to the American market. Other nations actively recruit and provide incentives for global companies to set up operations and create new jobs within their borders. We must do the same.

To this end, we propose to establish a framework within the Department of Commerce to specifically study how we can better encourage global companies to invest and set up businesses on our shores. It is essential as well, that we determine where this investment is needed. There are certain communities in the U.S. that are in extreme need of an infusion of economic growth and the opportunity to take part in the global economy. The U.S. has a talented and skilled workforce. We need to lead foreign companies and entrepreneurs to the cities and towns where they can find the resources they require. If this information is readily available, and if we provide incentives for companies to come, we will significantly increase the amount of foreign investment coming into our country.

In 2005, foreign companies accounted for $129 billion worth of investments in the United States. This money translates into jobs and prosperity for Americans. The best way to ensure that this valuable investment is spread more widely throughout the 50 States is by conducting the sort of analysis proposed in this bill. We should keep track of both the quantity of investment attracted to each particular state and region, and as well as the types of investment foreigners make, particularly in the high technology industry. We should conduct an analysis of the industries that are investing in the U.S. compared to the industries that are going to other countries. We also need to assess which policies and programs have had the most success in attracting foreign investment.

It is particularly important to attract research and development and high technology industries. These have a multiplier effect that helps increase the overall competitiveness of the American economy. We should create incentives for high technology companies to develop and invest in a U.S. presence and workforce.

Another key feature of the bill is consultations with local and regional authorities, as well as Congress. The administration should determine the needs of particular localities and what the federal government can do to assist local efforts in attracting foreign investment. Congress should also be consulted so that information can be relayed regarding regions of the country that are suffering from a lack of high wage jobs.

Global business ties are vital tools in shaping our international business and foreign policy. Cooperation on the commercial front enhances our ability to work with nations on other matters, including security and intelligence. This bill offers a positive solution to the concerns over domestic job growth by seeking to ensure that globalization is a two-way street with more investment traffic flowing in our direction.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Munster High School's We the People class on being awarded the Central States Region Award at the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national competition held April 29-May 1 in Washington, DC. I am pleased that the members of the Munster High School We the People class were among the 1,200 students from across the country that 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 Munster High School community in recognizing the hard work and dedication of the following members of the Munster High School We the People class: Sara Brown, Sara Farooq, Scott Goodwin, Lauren Hudak, Hannah Huebner, Casey Jedrzejczak, Alexis Jeter, Joseph Kasenga, Emily Lyness, Shobha Pai, Samantha Skrobot, and Matt Westerlund. I also wish to commend Michael Gordon, the teacher of the class, who committed his 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 Erin Braun and others at the Indiana Bar Association, as well as Stan Harris and Cathy Bomberger.

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 2002 and 2005, Indiana had 147,497 students participate in the programs offered through the Center for Civic Education, with 7,074,896 participating nationally.

About 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the bill at the desk is introduced on behalf of myself, Senators Specter, Dodd, Graham, and Schumer. I am pleased to join my good friends and colleagues, Senators Specter and Dodd, in introducing a revised version of the Free Flow of Information Act.

I believe that the free flow of information essential element of democracy. In order for the United States to foster the spread of freedom and democracy globally, it is incumbent that we first support an open and free press nationally. The role of the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves must not be devalued.

Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United States is inhibited. Over 30 reporters were recently served or threatened with jail sentences in at least four different Federal jurisdictions for refusing to reveal confidential sources. I fear the end result of such actions is that many whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide our constituents with information they have a right to know.

In 1972, the Supreme Court held in Branzburg v. Hayes, that reporters did not have an absolute privilege as third party witnesses to protect their sources from prosecutors. Since Branzburg, every State and the District of Columbia, excluding Wyoming has created a privilege for reporters not to reveal their confidential sources. My own State of Indiana provides qualified reporters an absolute protection from having to reveal any such information in court.

The Federal courts of appeals, however, have an incongruent view of this matter. Each circuit has addressed the question of the privilege in a different manner. Some circuits allow the privilege in one category of cases, while others, have expressed skepticism about whether any privilege exists at all.

Congress should clarify the extraordinary differences of opinion in the Federal courts of appeals and the effect they have on undermining the general policy of protection already in place among the States. Likewise, the ambiguity between official Department of Justice rules and unofficial criteria used to secure media subpoenas is unacceptable.

There is an urgent need for Congress to state clear and concise policy guidance.

Senators Specter, Dodd, and I have introduced legislation today that preserves the free flow of information to the public by providing the press the ability to obtain and protect confidential sources. It provides journalists with certain rights and abilities to sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. This bill sets national standards, based on Department of Justice guidelines, for subpoenas issued to reporters by the Federal Government.

Our legislation promotes greater transparency of government, maintains the ability of the courts to operate effectively, and protects the whistleblowers that identify government or corporate misdeeds and protect national security.

It is also important to note what this legislation does not do. The legislation does not permit rule breaking, give reporters a license to break the law, or permit reporters to interfere with crimes prevention efforts. Furthermore, the Free Flow of Information Act does not weaken national security nor restrict law enforcement. Additional protections have been added to this bill to ensure that information will be disclosed in cases where the guilt or innocence of a criminal is in question, in cases where a reporter was an eye witness to a crime, and in cases where the information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm. The national security exception and continued strict standards relating to classified information will ensure that reporters are protected while maintaining an avenue for prosecution and disclosure when considering the defense of our country.

Reporters Without Borders has reported that more than 100 journalists are currently in jail around the world, with more than half 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 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. When we support the development of free and independent press organizations worldwide, it is important to maintain these ideals at home.

In conclusion, I thank, again, my colleagues, Senator Specter, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Dodd for their tireless work on this issue. With their assistance, I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to ensure that the free flow of information is unimpeded.

Mr. President, the bill at the desk is introduced on behalf of myself, Senators Specter, Dodd, Graham, and Schumer. I am pleased to join my good friends and colleagues, Senators Specter and Dodd, in introducing a revised version of the Free Flow of Information Act.

I believe that the free flow of information essential element of democracy. In order for the United States to foster the spread of freedom and democracy globally, it is incumbent that we first support an open and free press nationally. The role of the media as a conduit between government and the citizens it serves must not be devalued.

Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United States is inhibited. Over 30 reporters were recently served or threatened with jail sentences in at least four different Federal jurisdictions for refusing to reveal confidential sources. I fear the end result of such actions is that many whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide our constituents with information they have a right to know.

In 1972, the Supreme Court held in Branzburg v. Hayes, that reporters did not have an absolute privilege as third party witnesses to protect their sources from prosecutors. Since Branzburg, every State and the District of Columbia, excluding Wyoming has created a privilege for reporters not to reveal their confidential sources. My own State of Indiana provides qualified reporters an absolute protection from having to reveal any such information in court.

The Federal courts of appeals, however, have an incongruent view of this matter. Each circuit has addressed the question of the privilege in a different manner. Some circuits allow the privilege in one category of cases, while others, have expressed skepticism about whether any privilege exists at all.

Congress should clarify the extraordinary differences of opinion in the Federal courts of appeals and the effect they have on undermining the general policy of protection already in place among the States. Likewise, the ambiguity between official Department of Justice rules and unofficial criteria used to secure media subpoenas is unacceptable.

There is an urgent need for Congress to state clear and concise policy guidance.

Senators Specter, Dodd, and I have introduced legislation today that preserves the free flow of information to the public by providing the press the ability to obtain and protect confidential sources. It provides journalists with certain rights and abilities to sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. This bill sets national standards, based on Department of Justice guidelines, for subpoenas issued to reporters by the Federal Government.

Our legislation promotes greater transparency of government, maintains the ability of the courts to operate effectively, and protects the whistleblowers that identify government or corporate misdeeds and protect national security.

It is also important to note what this legislation does not do. The legislation does not permit rule breaking, give reporters a license to break the law, or permit reporters to interfere with crimes prevention efforts. Furthermore, the Free Flow of Information Act does not weaken national security nor restrict law enforcement. Additional protections have been added to this bill to ensure that information will be disclosed in cases where the guilt or innocence of a criminal is in question, in cases where a reporter was an eye witness to a crime, and in cases where the information is critical to prevent death or bodily harm. The national security exception and continued strict standards relating to classified information will ensure that reporters are protected while maintaining an avenue for prosecution and disclosure when considering the defense of our country.

Reporters Without Borders has reported that more than 100 journalists are currently in jail around the world, with more than half 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 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. When we support the development of free and independent press organizations worldwide, it is important to maintain these ideals at home.

In conclusion, I thank, again, my colleagues, Senator Specter, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Dodd for their tireless work on this issue. With their assistance, I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to ensure that the free flow of information is unimpeded.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate the

10th anniversary of the founding of Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, TMMI, and their operation of the state-of-the-art production facility in Princeton, IN. The continuing success of TMMI and the nearly 5,000 team members at the facility demonstrate the remarkable capabilities of many Hoosiers as they work together as innovators and leaders of the automotive industry in Indiana, the United States, and abroad.

In addition to TMMI important leadership in the automotive industry, the company's more than $2.6 billion investment in Princeton and surrounding communities has been an important engine of economic growth and development in southwestern Indiana. A study by the University of Evansville concluded that TMMI's production in Princeton has created 8,865 jobs in Gibson County, 12,990 in the Evansville metropolitan area, and 31,385 across the State of Indiana. TMMI's investment has resulted in more than $5.5 billion in business sales. This economic activity has strengthened communities and improved lives across the State.

I am also pleased that TMMI's dedication to the State of Indiana will be growing in the coming years. In March, I had the privilege of sharing with my fellow Hoosiers news that Toyota will begin production of the Camry in Lafayette. It is expected that this venture will create an additional 1,000 jobs in Indiana. This decision signals a recognition by Toyota that the highly skilled Hoosier workforce and attractive business climate in Indiana will allow them to achieve their goals in the coming years.

I am hopeful that you will join me in congratulating Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, and in wishing them many years of success and leadership in Indiana.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Enhancement Act. The legislation that I introduce today would improve pharmaceutical and biotechnological development and manufacturing through education and research at our nation's institutions of higher education. By expanding pharmaceutical science, technology and engineering research within our universities, this bill aims to expedite the drug manufacturing process,

thereby producing quality pharmaceuticals at a more affordable cost to consumers.

In 1999, 8.2 percent of total health care spending in the United States was attributed to prescription drugs. By 2010, prescription drugs are expected to account for 14 percent of our nation's health care spending. In addition, the average cost of bringing a new drug to market has risen 50 percent in the last five years, now costing as much as $1,700,000,000.

The trend of rising pharmaceutical costs is disturbing as it discourages innovation and impedes efforts to fight disease and address important public health concerns. High pharmaceutical manufacturing costs associated with outdated manufacturing processes significantly contribute to the rising cost of prescription drugs and overall health care in our country.

This legislation would establish a partnership between the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies, the pharmaceutical and medical industries, and the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education whose member institutions include Purdue University, in my home state of Indiana, and ten other exemplary research universities throughout the country. This collaboration will expand the ability of those in the academic research field to contribute to the medical technology and pharmaceutical industries to create better quality products with more efficient, less costly manufacturing.

Without a change in the pharmaceutical manufacturing process, health care costs in this country will continue to rise and prevalent public health concerns will remain unanswered. Engaging the academic community in this process is vital and I urge my colleagues to join me as co- sponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce ``The U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Act'', which signals the importance of bolstering the U.S.-ASEAN relationship for our mutual benefit.

ASEAN was originally established in 1967. The founding Members, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, remain as anchor participants of ASEAN today. Overall membership has expanded, with ten countries now comprising ASEAN.

Over the years, ASEAN has contributed to regional stability in East Asia and has partnered with the United States to combat global terror. In addition to promoting regional peace and stability, ASEAN is committed to accelerating economic growth, social progress, and cultural development.

ASEAN is the third largest export market for United States products, and has received approximately $90 billion in direct investment from U.S. sources. Nearly 40,000 ASEAN students are studying in the United States.

The United States maintains bilateral relationships with the ASEAN Member countries. However, as ASEAN develops an integrated free trade area and addresses matters of common concern with the United States-- ranging from environmental and financial challenges to avian influenza and terrorism--it is appropriate for the United States to enhance its overall relationship with ASEAN.

With this in mind, my legislation establishes the position of U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN, subject to advice and consent of the Senate. I believe this initiative will be an important step in advancing an already positive relationship. In addition, I am hopeful that once the position is established, the U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN will help facilitate ongoing implementation of the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership, announced last November by ASEAN leaders and President Bush.

Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce ``The U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Act'', which signals the importance of bolstering the U.S.-ASEAN relationship for our mutual benefit.

ASEAN was originally established in 1967. The founding Members, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, remain as anchor participants of ASEAN today. Overall membership has expanded, with ten countries now comprising ASEAN.

Over the years, ASEAN has contributed to regional stability in East Asia and has partnered with the United States to combat global terror. In addition to promoting regional peace and stability, ASEAN is committed to accelerating economic growth, social progress, and cultural development.

ASEAN is the third largest export market for United States products, and has received approximately $90 billion in direct investment from U.S. sources. Nearly 40,000 ASEAN students are studying in the United States.

The United States maintains bilateral relationships with the ASEAN Member countries. However, as ASEAN develops an integrated free trade area and addresses matters of common concern with the United States-- ranging from environmental and financial challenges to avian influenza and terrorism--it is appropriate for the United States to enhance its overall relationship with ASEAN.

With this in mind, my legislation establishes the position of U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN, subject to advice and consent of the Senate. I believe this initiative will be an important step in advancing an already positive relationship. In addition, I am hopeful that once the position is established, the U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN will help facilitate ongoing implementation of the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership, announced last November by ASEAN leaders and President Bush.

Mr. President, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the annual 3-mile Capitol Challenge race, we reflect upon the history of this event and how it has brought together members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal Government with members of the print and electronic media through exercise and fellowship.

Since the first race in 1981, which was held in East Potomac Park, annual proceeds and registration fees have benefited the Special Olympics.

During the ensuing years, the race has evolved to a new location and expanded to accommodate and increasing number of participants. In 2002, the race moved from the fall to the spring while also moving from East Potomac Park to Anacostia Park.

Current races bring out more than 650-700 participants each year, including 30-35 Members of Congress.

It has been estimated that, since the first race in 1981, over 15,000 runners have competed, and of those 15,000 runners, nearly 800 Members of Congress have participated.

Furthermore, each year a celebrity runner has joined the race which brings enthusiasm to the morning's event while running and helping to present the following awards.

1st Place Overall

1st Senator

1st Representative

1st Cabinet Department or Independent Agency Head

1st Sub-Cabinet

1st Judge

1st Print Journalist

1st Electronic Journalist

Top Three Captains (or equivalent) *Age 60-69

Top Three Captains (or equivalent) *Age 70 and over

Male and Female Divisions for Above Awards

Top Two Senate Teams

Top Two House Teams

Top Two Judicial Teams

Top Two Executive Teams

Top Two Print Teams

Top Two Print Media Teams

Top Two Electronic Media Teams

To commemorate the 25th running of the Capitol Challenge race I am including for the Record the dates of each of the previous races.

Nike Capital Challenge--September 10, 1981

Nike Capital Challenge--September 9, 1982

Nike Capital Challenge--September 15, 1983

Nike Capital Challenge--September 13, 1984

Nike Capital Challenge--September 12, 1985

Nike Capital Challenge--September 11, 1986

Nike Capital Challenge--September 15, 1987

Nike Capital Challenge--September 15, 1988

Nike Capital Challenge--September 14, 1989

Nike Capital Challenge--September 13, 1990

Nike Capital Challenge--September 12, 1991

Nike Capital Challenge--September 17, 1992

Nike Capital Challenge--September 15, 1993

Nike Capital Challenge--September 21, 1994

Nike Capital Challenge--September 20, 1995

Nike Capital Challenge--September 18, 1996

SGMA Capital Challenge--September 17, 1997

SGMA Capital Challenge--September 16, 1998

SGMA Capital Challenge--September 15, 1999

SGMA Capital Challenge--September 13, 2000

SGMA Capital Challenge--May 1, 2002

SGMA Capital Challenge--May 7, 2003

ACLI Capital Challenge--May 5, 2004

ACLI Capital Challenge--May 11, 2005

ACLI Capital Challenge--May 3, 2006

Additionally, I would like to give special thanks to Mr. Jeff Darman for his important public service as race director of the Capital Challenge and for his vision in founding the race. Jeff has served as the race director for every race and he provides tireless leadership in its organization by obtaining needed permits and resources for its resounding success.

I hope that you will join me in wishing competitors safety and success as they compete this year and for the continuing success for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that calls upon the United States to lead the discussion at NATO headquarters of the role the alliance could play in energy security. It further calls upon the President to submit to Congress a report that details ``a strategy for NATO to develop secure, sustainable, and reliable sources of energy, including contingency plans if current energy resources are put at risk.''

NATO is now facing new challenges and new priorities. To be fully relevant to the security and well-being of the people of its member nations, NATO must think and act globally.

International developments are calling attention to the growing importance of energy security for NATO member countries and other nonmember partners. Dependence on imports of oil and natural gas from limited numbers of countries with state-controlled reserves makes NATO member countries vulnerable to political manipulation of supply. On a global scale, increased competition for finite supplies of oil and gas could lead to conflict that would directly involve NATO member states. This is why the resolution urges that the United States energy security message to NATO members include attention toward sustainable fuels and preparedness for supply disruption.

As the alliance focuses on a clearer definition of its purpose in the 21st century, I believe that it is important to show congressional support for NATO playing a role in energy security.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in order to join my fellow Hoosiers in celebrating the 125th Anniversary of St. Vincent Health. Over the span of those 125 years, St. Vincent Health has grown into one of the largest health care systems in the State of Indiana, with 16 facilities serving 45 counties.

April 26, 2006, marks Founder's Day, the culmination of a year-long celebration which began on November 29, 2005, during which the 11,500 associates of St. Vincent and the communities they serve will commemorate this important milestone. This year Founder's Day will include the unveiling of a statue to commemorate the four Daughters of Charity who came to Indianapolis to start what is now known as St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital and the 125 years of service that resulted from their remarkable work.

Like so many of my fellow Hoosiers, I am grateful for the important services that the associates of St. Vincent Health provide each day to Hoosiers in their time of need.