Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that calls on the administration to assess the progress of poverty reduction efforts around the world since September 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by more than 180 nations, including the United States. Each of these nations signed an agreement to work toward defined objectives, called the Millennium Development Goals, which include the commitments to: build a global partnership for

development; eradicate extreme poverty by halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day and the number who suffer hunger; achieve universal primary education for boys and girls alike; reduce by two-thirds the under-5 child mortality rate; halt and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major disease; promote gender equality, reduce maternal mortality by two-thirds; and ensure environmental sustainability.

This bill also highlights the important research and recommendations of the Report of the Commission for Africa that was commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparation for the July 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. The report, entitled ``Our Common Interest,'' is an excellent study of past development efforts and current opportunities to respond to the challenges of extreme poverty in Africa.

Three important international forums will occur this year that will help define the world's response to extreme poverty; the group of Eight highly industrialized countries will meet in July at Gleneagles, Scotland and will address the challenges and opportunities of the African continent; The United Nations Summit to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals will occur in September. It will provide an opportunity to measure global coherence and commitment to specific objectives in eradicating extreme poverty by 2015; and the The Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization will meet in Hong Kong in December. Progress toward a genuinely equitable trade round in Hong Kong could provide a significant boost to global international development.

This bill asks that the Secretary of State produce a report on the commitments made by the United States and the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the decisions made in regard to these goals in the three upcoming summits. It asks that the report assess the prospects of achieving these goals by 2015 and to review policies that maintain continued United States leadership in reducing poverty worldwide. The report would be due 60 days after the completion of the WTO summit December 13-18, 2005.

The purpose of this report is to encourage a discussion of the goals themselves and the practical challenges with which each of these goals must contend. This discussion should take place within and among donor and developing governments, on a continuing basis. The upcoming summits are an important opportunity to continue that discussion as well as to make concrete efforts, and if necessary adjustments, to achieving such goals.

Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States has taken steps to invest in development in a more comprehensive manner. President Bush made an historic commitment to address the threat and impact of HIV-AIDS on the countries most affected by this pandemic. The United States also established a bold new development initiative that closely parallels important elements of the MDGs and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa report. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has begun to deliver billions in assistance to developing nations that are committed to investing in their own people, to ruling justly, and to encouraging economic freedom. In addition, the United States removed barriers to trade with eligible African countries through the successful Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

There are many other significant efforts by the United States to address the challenges to poor countries face, from technical assistance to bilateral and multi-lateral debt relief, from peacekeeper training and equipping to capacity building and emergency assistance. Whether bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, the international community should capitalize on a coordinated strategy that reinforces the prospect of a more peaceful and stable world.

The commitment of the United States to the moral and humanitarian goal of reducing the inequities seen across the developing world is a key factor in achieving greater security at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, our nation has been engaged in a debate over how to apply national power and resources most effectively to realize the maximum degree of security. Throughout this process, I have been making the point that we are not placing sufficient weight on the diplomatic and economic tools of national power.

Even as we seek to capture key terrorists and destroy terrorist units, we must be working to perfect a longer term strategy that reshapes the world in ways that are not conducive to terrorist recruitment and influence. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory. We must commit ourselves to the painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year. As we undertake this mission, we must be persistent in our advocacy among our fellow nations to encourage a global partnership and commitment to eradicating poverty.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that calls on the administration to assess the progress of poverty reduction efforts around the world since September 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by more than 180 nations, including the United States. Each of these nations signed an agreement to work toward defined objectives, called the Millennium Development Goals, which include the commitments to: build a global partnership for

development; eradicate extreme poverty by halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day and the number who suffer hunger; achieve universal primary education for boys and girls alike; reduce by two-thirds the under-5 child mortality rate; halt and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major disease; promote gender equality, reduce maternal mortality by two-thirds; and ensure environmental sustainability.

This bill also highlights the important research and recommendations of the Report of the Commission for Africa that was commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparation for the July 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. The report, entitled ``Our Common Interest,'' is an excellent study of past development efforts and current opportunities to respond to the challenges of extreme poverty in Africa.

Three important international forums will occur this year that will help define the world's response to extreme poverty; the group of Eight highly industrialized countries will meet in July at Gleneagles, Scotland and will address the challenges and opportunities of the African continent; The United Nations Summit to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals will occur in September. It will provide an opportunity to measure global coherence and commitment to specific objectives in eradicating extreme poverty by 2015; and the The Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization will meet in Hong Kong in December. Progress toward a genuinely equitable trade round in Hong Kong could provide a significant boost to global international development.

This bill asks that the Secretary of State produce a report on the commitments made by the United States and the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the decisions made in regard to these goals in the three upcoming summits. It asks that the report assess the prospects of achieving these goals by 2015 and to review policies that maintain continued United States leadership in reducing poverty worldwide. The report would be due 60 days after the completion of the WTO summit December 13-18, 2005.

The purpose of this report is to encourage a discussion of the goals themselves and the practical challenges with which each of these goals must contend. This discussion should take place within and among donor and developing governments, on a continuing basis. The upcoming summits are an important opportunity to continue that discussion as well as to make concrete efforts, and if necessary adjustments, to achieving such goals.

Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States has taken steps to invest in development in a more comprehensive manner. President Bush made an historic commitment to address the threat and impact of HIV-AIDS on the countries most affected by this pandemic. The United States also established a bold new development initiative that closely parallels important elements of the MDGs and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa report. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has begun to deliver billions in assistance to developing nations that are committed to investing in their own people, to ruling justly, and to encouraging economic freedom. In addition, the United States removed barriers to trade with eligible African countries through the successful Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

There are many other significant efforts by the United States to address the challenges to poor countries face, from technical assistance to bilateral and multi-lateral debt relief, from peacekeeper training and equipping to capacity building and emergency assistance. Whether bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, the international community should capitalize on a coordinated strategy that reinforces the prospect of a more peaceful and stable world.

The commitment of the United States to the moral and humanitarian goal of reducing the inequities seen across the developing world is a key factor in achieving greater security at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, our nation has been engaged in a debate over how to apply national power and resources most effectively to realize the maximum degree of security. Throughout this process, I have been making the point that we are not placing sufficient weight on the diplomatic and economic tools of national power.

Even as we seek to capture key terrorists and destroy terrorist units, we must be working to perfect a longer term strategy that reshapes the world in ways that are not conducive to terrorist recruitment and influence. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory. We must commit ourselves to the painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year. As we undertake this mission, we must be persistent in our advocacy among our fellow nations to encourage a global partnership and commitment to eradicating poverty.

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

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

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on 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 inform my colleagues of the retirement of a fixture of Clay city schools for the past 41 years and faithful friend, Mr. Paul Sinders.

Paul Sinders began his career as an educator in the fall of 1964 at the Clay City Elementary School. He taught fifth grade and moved to Clay City Jr./Sr. High School the following year. This marked the beginning of a remarkable career in which Paul served the Clay community school system in countless capacities. He taught science, math, and health to the junior high students before moving on to instruct health, physical education, and driver education classes in the high school. Additionally, he took time to coach the boys freshman and junior varsity basketball teams, and represented the school as athletic director and guidance director. In 1977, Paul took the reigns as principal of Clay City Jr./Sr. High School.

For the past 28 years Paul has worked extremely long hours overseeing the operations of Clay City High School. In 1992, he was selected as the Principal of the Year in the IASP District 8. In addition, he served as president of the Indiana Association of School Principals of District 8 in 1994-1995. Currently, Paul is on the board of directors for the Clay County Community Foundation and the Wabash Valley Youth for Christ. He is on the advisory board for the Clay City Center for Family Medicine and is a Support Committee Member for the Clay City Area Youth for Christ. He is a member of the Indiana Association of School Principals and Phi Delta Kappa.

Throughout his illustrious career, Paul has been blessed with the consistent support of his wife, Shari, and his children: Annette Ream, Chip Sinders, Natalie Wolfe, Bethany Stoelting, and Justin Sinders. I join his family, friends, and colleagues now in adding my blessing as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Mr. President, I will yield shortly to distinguished colleagues who have sought an opportunity to speak for the first time on the nomination of John Bolton. I had the privilege of addressing the Senate yesterday for over 50 minutes in which I attempted to outline all of the best reasons for John Bolton's confirmation, which I hope will occur today. I believe he will be an outstanding representative of our country, a very able diplomat to the United Nations.

During the course of my comments--now reflected, because they were delivered yesterday, in the Congressional Record today--we attempted to go through each of the case histories of interviews completed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in response to the questions or allegations made about the nominee. Affirmatively, I have tried to point out the tens of very able Americans who have endorsed John Bolton, including a large number of former Secretaries of State, Defense, National Security Directors, and, most importantly, people who have worked with him at the United Nations, at USAID.

I ask Members to reference the specifics of my speech yesterday, if there are questions with regard to the work done by the able staff on both sides of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to make certain that each of the arguments that has been presented has been met and fairly argued.

During the entirety of the debate yesterday, the arguments that were made were not new ones. They may be important ones, and perhaps they will be reargued today. But I ask Members to think constructively now about the President of the United States, his desire for reform of the United Nations, and his desire to have John Bolton there at the United Nations to work in that capacity for reform of an institution that the United States wishes to see much stronger, more able, and certainly a valuable part of American diplomacy and national security policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing replenishment of funds to three of the five multilateral development banks, as requested by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In addition, this legislation includes a long list of reform measures, intended to bring about transparency and accountability at all of the MDBs--the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Bank, the Inter-American Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The World Bank, was the first MDB to be established in 1944, followed by the African Development Bank, 1964 and the Asian Development Bank, 1966. The shared original purpose of the three banks was to encourage economic development and reduce poverty in geographic regions impacted by the respective institutions.

I support the original operating purpose of the banks. However, I am deeply concerned that massive amounts of funds are not utilized as originally intended, due to diversion of those funds.

In 2003, I received information from credible sources within the MDBs alleging corruption on various fronts. As a result, I instructed staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to commence collecting information on the anti-corruption strategies, and successes of each bank.

Based on the initial findings, I launched an investigation, reviewing corruption at the banks and their efforts to combat it. To date, I have chaired four hearings and sent letters of inquiry regarding individual projects to the bank presidents. Committee staff have interviewed scores of NGO representatives, bank insiders, academics and others, and have visited problem projects in six countries. Far too often, projects intended to boost economic development are derailed, and the poor suffer, unable to realize projected benefits in quality health care, clean water and education.

While the United States is one of dozens of donors, the financial contribution of American taxpayers over the years to these three institutions alone

exceeds $30 billion. The Congress has an obligation to our own citizens, as well as the intended beneficiaries of MDB projects, to press for transparency and accountability in the banks' operations.

Through adoption of the package of reforms I propose, the United States would set an example for other donor countries, encouraging their officials to also press for transparency and accountability.

I am pleased there is good news to report. The World Bank has embarked on an anti-corruption voluntary cooperation initiative, based in part on the Pentagon's anticorruption efforts. In addition, leading government officials from Italy, Spain and other countries have contacted the Committee, asking for more information about our review, and comparing strategies on ways of improving bank transparency. Finally, we have witnessed incremental improvements of greater transparency among the banks as a result of the Committee's ongoing work.

However, there is more to accomplish. This substantive package of reforms is based on our findings to date, and the input of many who support the original stated purpose of the multilateral development banks.

The Committee's oversight work continues, with the goal of enduring results.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing replenishment of funds to three of the five multilateral development banks, as requested by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In addition, this legislation includes a long list of reform measures, intended to bring about transparency and accountability at all of the MDBs--the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Bank, the Inter-American Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The World Bank, was the first MDB to be established in 1944, followed by the African Development Bank, 1964 and the Asian Development Bank, 1966. The shared original purpose of the three banks was to encourage economic development and reduce poverty in geographic regions impacted by the respective institutions.

I support the original operating purpose of the banks. However, I am deeply concerned that massive amounts of funds are not utilized as originally intended, due to diversion of those funds.

In 2003, I received information from credible sources within the MDBs alleging corruption on various fronts. As a result, I instructed staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to commence collecting information on the anti-corruption strategies, and successes of each bank.

Based on the initial findings, I launched an investigation, reviewing corruption at the banks and their efforts to combat it. To date, I have chaired four hearings and sent letters of inquiry regarding individual projects to the bank presidents. Committee staff have interviewed scores of NGO representatives, bank insiders, academics and others, and have visited problem projects in six countries. Far too often, projects intended to boost economic development are derailed, and the poor suffer, unable to realize projected benefits in quality health care, clean water and education.

While the United States is one of dozens of donors, the financial contribution of American taxpayers over the years to these three institutions alone

exceeds $30 billion. The Congress has an obligation to our own citizens, as well as the intended beneficiaries of MDB projects, to press for transparency and accountability in the banks' operations.

Through adoption of the package of reforms I propose, the United States would set an example for other donor countries, encouraging their officials to also press for transparency and accountability.

I am pleased there is good news to report. The World Bank has embarked on an anti-corruption voluntary cooperation initiative, based in part on the Pentagon's anticorruption efforts. In addition, leading government officials from Italy, Spain and other countries have contacted the Committee, asking for more information about our review, and comparing strategies on ways of improving bank transparency. Finally, we have witnessed incremental improvements of greater transparency among the banks as a result of the Committee's ongoing work.

However, there is more to accomplish. This substantive package of reforms is based on our findings to date, and the input of many who support the original stated purpose of the multilateral development banks.

The Committee's oversight work continues, with the goal of enduring results.

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

Mr. President, the Senate meets today to debate the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In this capacity, he would play an important role in securing greater international support for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. It is my judgment that Secretary Bolton should be confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

In recent years, the Foreign Relations Committee has made a special effort to work in a bipartisan manner. For 3 straight years, we have reported out foreign affairs authorization bills by unanimous votes. During the last Congress, we met 247 times, which was 50 percent more frequently than any other committee in the Senate. In almost every case, the subject of the meeting and the selection of witnesses enjoyed bipartisan support.

We have undertaken the cooperative path, not because we always agree, but because we know the stakes are high for our country in the international arena. We face severe threats capable of undermining our national security and our economic well-being. We believe we should strive to approach these questions with as much unity as possible.

On the John Bolton nomination, our committee could not develop a consensus position. From the start, members had widely divergent views of Secretary Bolton and his suitability for the U.N. ambassadorship. Members formed different opinions about the nominee based on their assessment of the role of the United Nations, their interpretation of Secretary Bolton's statements, their judgments on the testimony of many witnesses, their perspectives on managerial conduct, their philosophy on how much latitude a President should have in nominating subordinates, and many other factors.

On top of these different perspectives, allegations were raised about Secretary Bolton that led to an expanded inquiry. Republicans and Democrats differed on some procedural aspects related to this inquiry, as well as on the relevance of some allegations and documents. Despite these substantive disagreements, we were able to work together in an effort that represents one of the most intense and most far-reaching examinations of a nominee in my experience.

The Foreign Relations Committee has interviewed 29 witnesses, producing approximately 1,000 pages of transcripts. We have received and reviewed more than 830 pages of documents from the State Department, from USAID, and the CIA regarding the Bolton nomination. We have questioned Secretary Bolton in person for 7 hours, and we have received responses to nearly 100 questions for the record, many containing numerous subparts. The depth and breadth of the 11-week inquiry is particularly notable, given that Secretary Bolton has been confirmed 4 times by the Senate already and that most of us have had personal experiences with him.

I thank both Democrat and Republican members of our Foreign Relations Committee for their patience and their perseverance throughout this process. Although we disagree in our conclusions, we share the view that the committee must work together even when we have different perspectives. We also agreed that the nomination has provided an opportunity for debate on larger issues related to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.

At the core of any nomination process is the question of whether the nominee is qualified to undertake the task for which he or she is nominated. I have no doubt Secretary Bolton is extremely well qualified. He has just served 4 years in a key under secretary position that technically outranks the post for which he is being nominated. He has succeeded in several high-profile negotiation settings. He was the primary negotiator in the creation of the successful Proliferation Security Initiative and the landmark Moscow Treaty. He played a large role in the agreement with Libya on the surrender of that nation's weapons of mass destruction program and the ``10 Plus 10 Over 10'' agreement that resulted in $10 billion in pledges from other G-8 countries to secure former Soviet Union weapons of mass destruction arsenals. These are among the Bush administration's most important and indisputable foreign policy successes.

Opponents have argued that Secretary Bolton's personality will prevent him from being effective at the U.N., but his diplomatic successes over the last 4 years belie that expectation. Few in Government have thought more about U.N. reform than has John

Bolton. He served 4 years as the Assistant Secretary of State overseeing international organizations under the first President Bush. He has written and commented extensively on that subject.

During his confirmation hearing, Secretary Bolton demonstrated an impressive command of issues related to the United Nations. Senator Biden acknowledged to the nominee at his hearing that:

There is no question you have extensive experience in UN

affairs.

Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage recently told reporters:

John Bolton is eminently qualified. He's one of the

smartest guys in Washington.

Secretary Bolton also demonstrated his ability to get things done prior to becoming Under Secretary of State. Perhaps the best example is his initiative to repeal U.N. Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism.

In May 1991, as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, John Bolton refused to accept the common wisdom that repealing this infamous resolution was impossible. He and his staff initiated a campaign to change votes in the General Assembly, even though they were advised they would not be successful. Within a few months, they had made substantial progress. By the fall, the State Department put its full weight behind that effort. On December 16, 1991, the U.N. General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution by a vote of 111 to 25.

In the private sector, Secretary Bolton made some blunt statements about the United Nations. Many of these statements were made in academic or think-tank settings where debate on these subjects was encouraged. Many of the quotes that have been repeated by opponents came in the context of much larger speeches that were more nuanced. The fact that he has strong views and a long record of commentary on the job that he is about to undertake should not be disqualifying.

During our hearing with Secretary Bolton, he spoke of the United Nations important role in international security. He has emphasized that he wants the institution to work well on behalf of international security and the interests of the United States.

Beyond qualifications, we should recognize that Secretary Bolton has the confidence of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. The President has made it clear this is not a casual appointment. He wants a specific person to do a specific job. President Bush has a reform agenda in mind at the U.N. This reform agenda is generally supported by the U.N. Secretary General who has put forward a reform plan of his own. The President wants John Bolton, an avowed and knowledgeable reformer, to carry out that reform agenda. Kofi Annan has welcomed John Bolton's appointment.

I would emphasize that Secretary Bolton is being appointed to a position that is within the chain of command of the President and the Secretary of State. The Ambassador to the United Nations reports directly to the President and to the Secretary of State. In fact, historically this ambassadorship has reflected directly on the President. The ambassador is seen as the President's voice at the U.N. Consequently, there are few positions in Government where the President should have more latitude in choosing his nominee. In my judgment, it would take absolutely extraordinary circumstances for the Senate to tell the President he cannot have his choice to carry out his directives at the U.N., even though the nominee is highly experienced and knowledgeable about U.N. affairs.

At times during this process, opponents have suggested that Secretary Bolton sits outside the mainstream in the Bush administration. The problem with this assertion is that President Bush is telling us this is not so. President Bush is telling us Secretary Bolton accurately reflects his views about the U.N. and how that institution should be reformed. President Bush is saying Secretary Bolton is his considered choice to implement his policies and diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations.

Some observers who want a different program than the President's may not agree with the President's choice, but the results of the 2004 election give the President the responsibility and the right to nominate like-minded representatives and to define who a like-minded representative is.

We have ample evidence that the United Nations is in need of reform. The Foreign Relations Committee held the first congressional hearing on the U.N. oil-for-food scandal more than a year ago. Since that time, through the work of Paul Volcker, our own colleague on the committee, Senator Coleman, and many others, we have learned much more about the extent of the corruption and mismanagement involved. This knowledge has supported the case for reform.

We know billions of dollars that should have been spent on humanitarian needs in Iraq were siphoned off by Saddam Hussein's regime through a system of surcharges, bribes, and kickbacks. This corruption depended upon members of the U.N. Security Council who were willing to be complicit in these activities. It also depended on U.N. officials and contractors who were dishonest, inattentive, or willing to make damaging compromises in pursuit of a compassionate mission.

The U.N. reform is not a new issue. The structure and the role of the United Nations have been debated in our country almost continuously since the U.N. was established in 1945. But in 2005 we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the U.N. The revelations of the oil-for-food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the U.N.

Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions. The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in troubled spots around the world, a diminishment of U.N. credibility because of scandal reduces United States options and increases our own burdens.

Secretary Bolton has become closely associated with the U.S. efforts to reform the U.N. If he goes to the U.N. and helps achieve reform, the U.N. will gain in credibility, especially with the American people. If reform moves forward, Secretary Bolton will be in an excellent position to help convince skeptics that reform has occurred and that the United Nations can be an effective partner in achieving global security. If we reject Secretary Bolton, President Bush's hand will be weakened at the U.N. We will recover, but we will have wasted time. And we will have strengthened the position of reform opponents.

In the days immediately following Secretary Rice's March 7 announcement of Secretary Bolton's nomination, most Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee expressed their opposition to the nomination on policy grounds. A March 8 Associated Press report states:

Almost immediately after Bolton's nomination was announced,

Democrats objected.

The March 8 edition of the Baltimore Sun said:

Reaction from Senate Democrats promised contentious

confirmation hearings for Bolton when he goes before the

Foreign Relations Committee.

In several cases, the statements by Democrats were unequivocal in opposition. In several other cases, statements were very negative, leaving open only the smallest of possibilities that the Senator would ultimately support the nominee. In all of these cases, objections were based on Secretary Bolton's supposed attitudes toward the United Nations.

Senator Dodd said that Secretary Bolton's ``antipathy to the U.N. will prevent him from effectively discharging his duties as our ambassador.''

Senator Kerry said that the Bolton nomination was ``the most inexplicable appointment the President could make to represent the United States to the world community.''

Senator Boxer said of Secretary Bolton:

He's contemptuous of the U.N.

By March 31, still almost 2 weeks before the first Bolton hearings, a Los Angeles Times report noted:

Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against John R.

Bolton when his nomination to be United States ambassador to

the United Nations comes before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee . . . according to Democratic and Republican

lawmakers and aides.

Senators have the right to oppose a nominee because of his substantive views and his past statements. However, it is important to acknowledge that the ethical inquiry into Secretary Bolton's background has been pressed by Members who had planned to vote against him even before we began interviewing witnesses. They have the right to ask questions, and the committee of jurisdiction has a responsibility to follow up on credible allegations. But we should also understand that at times the inquiry has followed a more prosecutorial path than most nominees have had to endure.

Our committee staff has worked long and hard to run down the salvo of allegations that were levied at Secretary Bolton. The end result is that many of the accusations have proven to be groundless or, at worst, overstated. New information has cast others in a different light. There is no doubt that Secretary Bolton has been blunt and combative in defense of his perspectives. Indeed, this is one of the qualities that President Bush and Secretary Rice have cited as a reason for their selection of this nominee.

As I have said previously, Secretary Bolton's blunt style alienated some colleagues. Our review showed that on several occasions he made incorrect assumptions about the behavior and motivations of subordinates. A few other times he failed to use proper managerial channels or unnecessarily personalized internal disputes. But there is no evidence that he has broken laws or engaged in serious ethical misconduct. The picture is one of an assertive policymaker with an intense commitment to his missions--missions that, in fact, were supported by President Bush.

With regard to the most serious charge, that Secretary Bolton sought to improperly manipulate intelligence, the insights we have gained do not support the conclusion. He may have disagreed with intelligence findings, but in the end he always accepted the final judgment of the intelligence community, and he always delivered speeches in their cleared form.

During this inquiry, there has been an implication that if the nominee challenged or opposed the conclusions of intelligence analysts, he somehow committed an ethical violation. I think we need to be very precise that arguing in favor of one's own reading of intelligence within the context of an internal policy debate is not wrongdoing. Intelligence reports are not sacrosanct. They involve interpretation. They are intended to stimulate debate.

Many Senators participate in classified briefings. The word ``briefing'' is a misnomer because, as Senators, we spend much of the time during briefings questioning the panel. We probe to determine not just what analysts think but why they think it, and often we challenge their conclusions.

Earlier this year, for example, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a highly classified briefing on North Korea in which one of our members pointedly disputed the conclusions of the briefer. There was a blunt exchange of views, and no resolution to this disagreement was achieved. I am doubtful that any of us who have attended a good number of intelligence briefings have not done the same thing on occasion. My point is that the act of challenging or disputing intelligence conclusions is not in and of itself wrong.

Some have appeared shocked that Secretary Bolton might have challenged intelligence conclusions or advanced alternative interpretations, even though the same thing happens every day in multiple departments and agencies. Congress has the benefit of something called the ``speech and debate clause.''

Article I, section 6 of the Constitution states that Members of Congress ``shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.''

The Founders put this extraordinary provision in the Constitution because they saw the value of debate. The context surrounding arguments within an administration over intelligence is different, but the principle is the same. Policymakers should be free to exert opinions and interpretations during the policymaking process. Clearly, there are lines that should not be crossed. Some may argue that Secretary Bolton crossed these lines. But the proof is in the result. After fighting for his interpretation, Secretary Bolton conformed to the clearance process and gave the speeches as they had been approved.

It has been charged that Secretary Bolton sought to retaliate in some way against analysts and others with whom he disagreed. Our inquiry looked into these cases thoroughly, and in each one I believe the allegations are overstated.

In the case of Christian Westermann, the INR analyst whom the committee heard about from Carl Ford, the dispute was over a procedural issue, and Mr. Westermann continued in his job.

We should recall that the focus of Mr. Ford's complaint was that Mr. Bolton should not have raised his objections directly with Mr. Westermann, not that Mr. Bolton was wrong to raise the issue. Our Democratic colleagues last month made much of the fact that after this incident Secretary Powell had to go all the way down to INR to boost morale. But we heard from Secretary Powell's chief of staff that such visits were not uncommon. It was part of the Secretary's leadership style to visit with staff in the ``bowels of the building,'' including

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

I ask that the time now be equally charged to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that quorum calls be charged equally against both sides for the duration of the debate on the Bolton nomination.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Gergen, a State Department detailee who is currently serving on the Foreign Relations Committee staff, be given floor privileges during the consideration of the John Bolton nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the centennial anniversary of Lincoln Financial Group.

In 1905, Lincoln Financial Group began with one product, one company, four employees and a small rented space above a telegraph office in downtown Fort Wayne, Indiana. Amid the stir of controversy that gripped the big, established insurers at the time, Lincoln's founders envisioned a new insurance enterprise--one based on dependability and honesty. Believing that the name of Abraham Lincoln would powerfully convey this spirit, the founders wrote the 16th President's only surviving son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to ask for permission to use a portrait of his father on the company stationery. Robert Todd Lincoln agreed, and that is how Lincoln's legacy began with a name that reflects its character.

Since its founding, Lincoln Financial has consistently leveraged its strong capital foundation to grow. From 1905-1955, Lincoln Life grew to become the ninth largest life insurance company in the United States. Even during the Great Depression, Lincoln acquired three companies. In 1968, Lincoln National Corporation was formed as an Indiana corporation. At the time, it

was one of the first holding companies in the insurance industry.

In the last decades of the 20th century, Lincoln transformed itself from a life insurance company into a nationally recognized financial services enterprise. The corporation adopted the name Lincoln Financial Group as its marketing name in 1998. In addition to Fort Wayne, Lincoln maintains primary offices in Philadelphia, PA; Hartford, CT; Chicago, IL; Portland, ME; and Barnwood, Gloucester, England.

Today, Lincoln is a family of companies working together to provide an array of financial planning, retirement income, life insurance, annuity, mutual fund, and investment management solutions to its clients. As of year-end 2004, Lincoln had consolidated assets of $116 billion and annual consolidated revenues of $5.4 billion in 2004.

Lincoln's growth has been spurred by a corporate culture that rewards creativity and believes that success is derived from a diverse and talented workforce. The people of Lincoln have always valued the trust customers place in the company each time they seek financial advice, purchase a Lincoln product or recommend the company to a friend. The company has seven shared values that reflect the principles expressed by its namesake and characterize the quality of its products: integrity; commitment to excellence; responsibility; respect; fairness; diversity; and employee ownership.

Lincoln's sense of responsibility shapes not only its business practices, but also its commitment to the communities where it operates. Since its founding, Lincoln has recognized that investing in these communities is fundamental to its success. The company's spirit of philanthropy led to the establishment of the Lincoln Financial Group Foundation in 1962, which further inspired a rich tradition of giving. Today, Lincoln sets aside 2 percent of its pre-tax earnings for philanthropy. Over the past 30 years, the Lincoln Financial Group Foundation has given over $70 million in charitable giving in Indiana.

In addition to the company's monetary donations, its employees bring the company's spirit of philanthropy to life every day. Collectively, they donate thousands of hours each year in personal volunteerism and participation in various company-sponsored community activities. To encourage and recognize their efforts, Lincoln provides employees with paid time off to participate in various volunteer projects. The company's Matching Gifts program to colleges and universities also maximizes employee donations. From food drives to donating blood, homebuilding projects to tutoring, Lincoln employees actively make a difference in the communities they call home.

As it celebrates its centennial, Lincoln's name gives a distinctive character to its legacy.

As the next 100 years begin, there is much to celebrate for the company as it looks to build a future of opportunity, focused on its shared values.

Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues of the remarkable feat reached by a dedicated group of young women from my home State of Indiana, qualification for the 2005 USA Junior Olympic Girl's Volleyball Championships.

The Team Indiana Outlaws, consisting of nine young women well coached by Larry Leonhardt and Erika Dobrota, will represent the State of Indiana and their Team Indiana Volleyball Club in the 13 and Under Division of the 26th Annual USA Junior Olympic Girl's Volleyball Championships held this year in Salt Lake City, Utah. From June 29, 2005 through July 3, 2005, the Team Indiana Outlaws will compete against a number of other national teams who have likewise qualified for this tournament.

I commend these nine young women for their hard work and discipline that culminated in their qualification for competition against equally dedicated national opponents. I am additionally pleased that their tutelage came at the hands of two fine Hoosiers, Coaches Leonhardt and Dobrota, who have been mainstays in the Indiana volleyball community for a number of years. I am confident that the Team Indiana Outlaws will not only play with distinguished efforts, but also demonstrate the good sportsmanship that is prevalent in Indiana athletics.

The names of the Team Indiana Outlaws are as follows: Coaches: Larry Leonhardt, Erika Dobrota; players: Sammi Deer, Shelby Hiltunen, Megan Neher, Alli Norris, Lauren Rafdal, Emily Reber, Lucy Reser, Kasey Ruppe, and Allison Snyder.

Mr. President, today, on World Intellectual Property Day, I rise in support of a resolution I have submitted recognizing the importance of

protecting intellectual property. One of the key benefits of protecting intellectual property is preserving innovation. Only with enforcement of protections will there be incentives for inventors to create and protect their innovations. As the sharing of goods and ideas transcends national boundaries, it is vital that these protections be able to accompany the ideas that they protect globally.

Although most of our trading partners have national domestic laws protecting intellectual property piracy and are even parties to agreements which contain intellectual property protections, piracy continues largely due to lack of enforcement. Theft of intellectual property results in competitive disadvantages to U.S. industries and job loss for American workers.

Counterfeiting and digital piracy have increased dramatically in recent years. In addition to the direct impact on the sales and profits of the subject industries, there is also significant harm and deception to consumers who believe they are purchasing legal and legitimate goods. Piracy and counterfeiting of copyrighted products in digital and other formats have grown to an enormous scale because these illegal activities offer a high rate of return with minimal risk to the criminal producing element. This element can conduct piracy with little capital investment, and in many countries, little chance of apprehension. Even if apprehended, the penalties may be so minor that they offer no deterrent.

There are various agreements between nations implemented at different levels for the protection of intellectual property. One of these is part of the World Trade Organization, WTO, charter, the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS. Key TRIPS provisions require all WTO members to provide certain minimum standards of protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, geographical indicators, and other forms of intellectual property. There is also a requirement to provide effective enforcement of each nation's domestic intellectual property regulations.

Also currently in force are two copyright treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which entered into force in 2002. These treaties help raise the minimum standards of intellectual property protection around the world, particularly with respect to internet-based delivery of copyrighted works. As with the TRIPS agreement, enforcement of obligations by member countries remains the issue.

This resolution focuses on two nations, China and Russia, with which we have significant trading relationships, yet, are still not offering the necessary enforcement of protections. China has become a leading exporter of counterfeit and pirated goods to the world. It is, therefore, critical that we address the issue of protection and enforcement in China. At the April 2004 meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, JCCT, the Chinese Government indicated that it would undertake a series of actions to significantly reduce infringement throughout the country. Piracy rates in China have remained at extremely high levels for the past decade, despite numerous actions by the Chinese Government such as the seizure and destruction of millions of pirated products, often via highly publicized steamrollings of counterfeited discs. As a fellow member of the WTO, we must ensure that China fulfills its commitments to enforce intellectual property protections under the rules of the WTO.

Piracy in Russia continues to be a growing problem. Only a few pirate optical disc factories existed in Russia in the late 1990s. Reports indicate that there are now over 30 such plants producing pirated products in Russia, ruining the Russian market for American right- holders and substantially undermining other markets in Europe as well. The Russian Government has made many promises to solve this problem, but meaningful results have yet to occur. Russia recognizes that its domestic laws and enforcement measures still do not meet TRIPS requirements; however, the required legislation has not been implemented. We should encourage the Government of Russia to act promptly and implement these measures so that it can fully comply with the rules of the WTO.

The problem of protecting intellectual property is evident. Going forward, our focus should be on the solutions. What enforcement methods should be utilized that have not been thus far? Should our international agreements and treaties with our trading partners be better utilized to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights laws? Some progress has been made in these areas, yet there is much more ground to cover. I encourage the administration to insure that our trading partners fulfill their commitments and agreements to abide by global intellectual property rules.

I ask unanimous consent that relevant material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues a signal anniversary occurring on May 3, 2005, the 25th Anniversary of the Indiana Sports Corporation, ISC.

Over the past quarter of a century, the ISC has been a tremendous contributor to the city of Indianapolis, providing economic stimulus, volunteer and community involvement opportunities, and most importantly, working to identify our capital city as a worthy destination for amateur sporting events. I have been pleased to work with the ISC through the Dick Lugar Community Run, Walk and Corporate Challenge, an event I look forward to every year.

Since 1979, the ISC has hosted more than 400 national and international sporting events. These events include: NCAA Championships, highlighted with four NCAA Division 1 Men's Basketball Final Fours, 1980, 1991, 1997, 2000; the 1987 Pan American Games; the 1982 U.S. Olympic Festival, the 2001 World Police and Fire Games; World Championships in track and field, 1987, gymnastics 1991, rowing 1994, basketball 2002 and swimming, 2004. Additionally, they have hosted U.S. Olympic trials and other National Governing Body, NGB, national championships in canoe/kayak, diving, gymnastics, judo, rowing, swimming, synchronized swimming, table tennis, track and field, and volleyball.

It is likewise noteworthy that since 1988, the ISC has awarded over $2.5 million to more than 200 youth service organizations across the State of Indiana, and 132 Olympic hopefuls through its CHAMPS and Future Olympians grant programs respectively.

I am pleased to join the vast number of individuals who have been touched by the efforts of the Indiana Sports Corporation over the years in congratulating them on this signal anniversary.

Mr. President, today I submit a Senate resolution to celebrate the decision made by Kazakhstan to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state. Ten years ago this month Kazakhstan sent the last Soviet nuclear warhead on its territory to Russia.

With the Review Conference on the NPT in New York starting next week, it is an especially important time to note the progress made toward the NPT's goals, with U.S. assistance, in Kazakhstan.

More than a decade ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Kazakhstan became the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. But instead of enlarging the nuclear club, Kazakhstan joined Ukraine and Belarus in turning away from weapons of mass destruction. Courageous leaders chose instead to embrace the NPT in removing all nuclear arms from Kazakhstan.

The world cheered when Kazakhstan formally acceded to the NPT. I am proud of the role the United States played in Kazakhstan's decision and of our role in facilitating the removal of thousands of nuclear warheads and the elimination of hundreds of SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missiles, silos, and command centers. The addition of three more nuclear-armed states would have been a devastating setback for the