Floor Statements

Mr. President, this legislation supports the President's Global Peace Operations Initiative. That initiative contemplates a multi-year program to enhance global peacekeeping capacity by training and equipping military and security forces to facilitate the deployment of trained forces to international peace support operations.

The initiative stems from recognition of the concerns that have been identified in dealing with peace support operations. Specifically it has become clear that many countries have the political will to participate in peace support operations, but lack the capabilities and resources required to deploy and sustain themselves in the field. Similarly, some countries have the capacity to conduct traditional peacekeeping, but many missions, such as in Liberia, require combat- like peace enforcement tasks.

The Group of Eight, meeting this week, has endorsed the President's idea that the Group should pursue the goal of training at least 75,000 international peacekeepers over the next several years and develop a plan to provide logistical support around the world. The Group of Eight has had a longstanding interest, expressed at both the Kananaskis and Evian summits, in providing technical and financial assistance to sustain and strengthen peacekeeping capacity worldwide, particularly in Africa.

This bill supports that goal by authorizing a transfer of funding from the Department of Defense to the State Department for these activities. The administration has made clear to me that the Department of Defense believes that the costs for this program would be more than offset by the savings realized by not having to deploy U.S. military units to international peace operations.

The President's leadership and initiative demonstrates the strong U.S. interest in peace and prosperity worldwide and is an expression of U.S. confidence in growing African attention to and capacity in addressing security problems on and beyond the continent.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2004.

The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the international community respond to this crisis that threatens stability within individual countries, the region, and around the world.

An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by 2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is compromising the overall development prospects of their countries.

Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended families.

My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. It would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children.

Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food.

For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school lunch programs.

Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with children.

The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14 seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2004.

The unprecedented AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region. Sub-Saharan African nations stand to lose generations of educated and trained professionals who can contribute meaningfully to their countries' development. Orphaned children, many of whom are homeless, are more likely to resort to prostitution and other criminal behavior to survive. Most frighteningly, these uneducated, poorly socialized, and stigmatized young adults are extremely vulnerable to being recruited into criminal gangs, rebel groups, or extremist organizations that offer shelter and food and act as ``surrogate'' families. It is imperative that the international community respond to this crisis that threatens stability within individual countries, the region, and around the world.

An estimated 110 million orphans live in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The HIV/AIDS pandemic is rapidly expanding the orphan population. Currently an estimated 14 million children have been orphaned by AIDS, most of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. This number is projected to soar to more than 25 million by 2010. The pandemic is orphaning generations of African children and is compromising the overall development prospects of their countries.

Most orphans in the developing world live in extremely disadvantaged circumstances. Poor communities in the developing world struggle to meet the basic food, clothing, health care, and educational needs of orphans. Experts recommend supporting community-based organizations to assist these children. Such an approach enables the children to remain connected to their communities, traditions, rituals, and extended families.

My bill seeks to improve assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. It would require the United States Government to develop a comprehensive strategy for providing such assistance and would authorize the President to support community-based organizations that provide basic care for orphans and vulnerable children.

Orphans are less likely to be in school, and more likely to be working full time. Yet only education can help children acquire the knowledge and develop the skills they need to build a better future. Studies have shown that school food programs provide an incentive for children to stay in school. School meals provide basic nutrition to children who otherwise do not have access to reliable food.

For many children, the primary barrier to an education is the expense of school fees, uniforms, supplies, and other costs. My bill aims to improve enrollment and access to primary school education by supporting programs that reduce the negative impact of school fees and other expenses. It also would reaffirm our commitment to international school lunch programs.

Many children who lose one or both parents often face difficulty in asserting their inheritance rights. Even when the inheritance rights of women and children are spelled out in law, such rights are difficult to claim and are seldom enforced. In many countries it is difficult or impossible for a widow--even if she has small children--to claim property after the death of her husband. This often leaves the most vulnerable children impoverished and homeless. My bill seeks to support programs that protect the inheritance rights of orphans and widows with children.

The AIDS orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has implications for political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far beyond the region, affecting governments and people worldwide. Every 14 seconds another child is orphaned by AIDS. Turning the tide on this crisis will require a coordinated, comprehensive, and swift response. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in backing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, during this past recess of the Senate, my wife Charlene and I received the joyous news that Elizabeth Merrell Lugar, the newborn daughter and first child of our son, David Riley Lugar, and his wife, Katherine Graham Lugar, had been born on May 25, 2004, at Sibley Memorial Hospital, Washington, DC. Elizabeth was a healthy 7 pounds, 2 ounces at birth. Lawrence Graham and Jane Graham, Charlene, and I greeted our new granddaughter and her parents at a family dinner in their McLean, VA, residence on May 31.

Katherine and David were married on June 3, 2000, in St. David's Episcopal Church, Austin, TX. Katherine, a graduate of the University of Texas, is vice president of government affairs of the National Retail Federation. David Lugar came with us to Washington, along with his three brothers, 27 years ago. He graduated from Langley High School, McLean, VA, and Indiana University and is a partner of Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Both Katherine and David are well known to many of our colleagues and their staff members.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues the names of many of the Hoosiers who made the journey from the State of Indiana to Washington, DC, to take part in the festivities this past weekend surrounding the dedication of the new World War II Memorial and in remembrance of Memorial Day.

My staff and I were pleased to have the opportunity to meet with these honorable veterans and their families and to listen to their vastly different experiences throughout World War II and henceforth. In addition, a few of these veterans were able to participate in interviews that will be submitted to the Library of Congress as part of the Veterans History Project.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following names of my constituents who visited my office on Friday, May 28, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a few highlights from the remarkable lifetime of leadership and good works displayed by Mr. Arthur Pratt, the founder and leader of Life Effectiveness Training in Indianapolis, IN.

Over the past 35 years, Mr. Pratt has been a dedicated leader in going into prisons around the country and assisting drug addicted men and women break their dependence on mind altering substances. His work has improved countless lives and the success is particularly evident in the reduced recidivism rates of the prisoners who have completed his program. His expertise and active contributions were the impetus behind legislation that I sponsored and passed requiring at least ten percent of all money allocated to Residential Substance Abuse Treatment programs to be allocated to programs in the jails.

Currently, at the age of 80, Mr. Pratt is a continual voice in advocating proven treatment service for our Nation's state and county jails. Yearly, his program provides approximately 250 alcoholics and drug addicts 90 days of treatment in Marion County Jails. Of the more than 7,000 people he has treated, over two-thirds have not been subsequently arrested. Through Life Effectiveness Training, he counters addiction and recidivism using a tested program that instills strength and confidence in their lives.

Arthur Pratt has dedicated his life to public service, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate him on his many worthwhile accomplishments.

Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education, a U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision that sent shockwaves through the educational establishment. For the first time, the highest court in the country decided that ``separate educational facilities are inherently unequal'' and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Before Brown vs. Board of Education, Indianapolis Public Schools had been forced by State law to scrap separate black and white schools. That change, however, did not necessarily result in integrated classrooms. Segregated communities left most of our schools racially homogeneous.

It was in this environment that I was elected to the Indianapolis Public School Board in 1964. Like much of the country, Indianapolis was experiencing the civil rights movement, and the Indianapolis Public Schools were in the middle of it all.

Our meetings were picketed and protested, and citizens staged ``sit- ins'' at the downtown headquarters. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on May 17, 1954, that separate but equal could not stand; yet in the 10 years that followed, IPS had not done much to integrate its schools.

To further the discussion, and to seek input on what would later become known as the Shortridge Plan; I held neighborhood meetings in school buildings around Indianapolis to discuss ideas for peacefully integrating the city schools. At one such meeting on the near Westside, participants literally picked up the furniture and threw it at each other. The police had to be called to restore order.

Later, the Shortridge Plan was adopted by the board, but not enthusiastically. Under the Shortridge Plan, IPS was to establish a college preparatory high school that would voluntarily draw the best and the brightest from all over Indianapolis, regardless of race. Some board members, and the community at large, saw this step as far too disruptive. Those individuals felt that the school board should not be involved in matters of race and sociology.

The plan worked because young Hoosiers responded. Before the plan was implemented, Shortridge was 90 percent African American, 10 percent Caucasian. The racial makeup of the applicants to the first entering class under the new plan was astounding: 53 percent Caucasian, 47 percent African American. In a year, the school became a national example of how young African American and Caucasian students could through their own individual choices come together to learn and study.

Unfortunately, in my second year of service on the board, polarization set in. A majority of the Board no longer felt that we should be involved in questions of race. In an election for president of the board, I lost 4-3. The issue of race, however, could not be avoided. Years later, the Federal courts implemented an involuntary busing system that forced our schools to seek some racial balance.

Brown vs. Board of Education set us, and the rest of the Nation, on an important path. While the Court opinion outlawed the notion of ``separate but equal,'' it persuaded us to address the larger issue of living together as one society. Brown v. Board of Education helped us to become a better Nation. But we still have much work to do.

Today, we face a different type of segregation; namely, the gap between those who receive a quality education and those who do not. The gap in reading achievement between blacks and whites is staggering nationally. It is 28 percentage points at the 4th-grade level. The gap in reading achievement between Hispanics and whites is also alarming nationally, 29 percentage points at the 4th-grade level. We are experiencing two education systems--separate and unequal. This is unacceptable.

The Federal Government's first major entry into public education was in 1965 when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed to provide Federal aid to school districts with large percentages of children in poverty. The intent was to help level the playing field--to give extra aid to those children most in need. Despite a discretionary funding amount of $55.6 billion in fiscal year 2004, increased from $35.6 billion in 2000, achievement gaps have remained wide.

To help close these gaps and to help ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to learn, Congress and the Administration worked together to pass the No Child Left Behind education reform act in 2002.

Under No Child Left Behind, States must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure that all students, including those who are physically disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. In addition, they must produce annual State and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about State and school progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. If corrective actions do not yield adequate progress after 5 years, schools must make dramatic changes in the management.

The idea is not to establish Federal control over the schools, but simply to push States and local school districts to take a hard look at each school's strong and weak points.

In many schools, an overall high performance has often hidden a weak performance by some student sub-groups. Because of this dynamic, the act requires that each sub-group be reported separately. Overlooking the fact that only one in six African Americans graduate with proficient reading skills is simply not acceptable.

Some have complained about the increased focus on school testing. But if we want each child to earn a meaningful high school degree, testing in lower grades is an important tool to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each school. Testing allows schools to learn which students need help and what subjects must be taught better.

We all have the same goal--to improve our schools. All students must have the opportunity to get ahead, regardless of race or residence. On May

17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that separate but equal could not stand as the law of the land. It is our job--50 years later--to make sure that we are faithful to this principle of equal opportunity. The success of all of our children and the economic future of our country depend on our determination.

Mr. President, I will use 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to address the body this morning on the importance of Senate action to confirm pending nominations for ambassadorial and other foreign affairs posts.

Together, Republicans and Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee have worked to move nominations as expeditiously as possible. During the past few weeks, the committee has held hearings and considered nominations for more than 30 such posts. As a group, these nominees received bipartisan support. Our members voted unanimously in favor of confirmation of each one at a business meeting last Thursday.

I was pleased last night when the Senate confirmed Paul Applegarth to be chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I appreciate the work of Senator Frist and Senator Daschle to move this important nomination. The launch of the Millennium Challenge Corporation presents an important opportunity for the United States to enhance the effectiveness of its development assistance. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the MCC, and having a chief executive officer in place and ready to provide leadership in this new enterprise is a vital first step to ensuring its success.

I hope the Senate will now move with some dispatch on the rest of the pending diplomatic nominees. The posts for which these individuals have been nominated hold great importance for our country. A few examples will illustrate that point.

Among the nominees pending before the Senate is that of John Negroponte to be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. As I said at Ambassador Negroponte's nomination hearing, the post will be one of the most consequential ambassadorships in American history. The Ambassador to Iraq not only will be called upon to lead an estimated 1,700 embassy personnel--that is 1,000 Americans and 700 Iraqis--he will be the epicenter of international efforts to secure and reconstruct Iraq and provide the developing Iraqi government with the opportunity to achieve responsible nationhood.

American credibility in the world, progress in the war on terrorism, relationships with our allies, and the future of the Middle East depend on a positive outcome in Iraq. What happens there during the next 18 months almost certainly will determine whether we can begin to redirect the Middle East toward a more productive and peaceful future.

The stakes for the United States in achieving success in Iraq could not be higher.

I understand there is leadership activity that may make it possible for the ambassadorship of John Negroponte to be considered by the Senate very soon. I very much appreciate that effort.

The pending nominees also include individuals to be ambassadors to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, and Sierra Leone, each of which is struggling in the aftermath of ethnic conflict. They include nominees to be ambassadors to Poland, Romania, and Slovenia, at a time when these countries are joining the European Union and looking to deepen their ties to the United States. They include nominees to be ambassadors to Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen at a time when the United States must improve its relations and encourage democracy and reform in the greater Middle East. They include also nominees to be ambassadors to important regional anchors, such as Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, and South Korea.

The ambassadorial nominees currently awaiting Senate confirmation would represent the United States in countries with a collective population of more than 700 million people.

Foreign governments notice when U.S. ambassadorships to their countries go unfilled for lengthy periods of time. An ambassadorial absence can be read by some nations as a sign of declining American interest. The United States needs strong and effective diplomatic representation abroad to ensure cooperation in the fight against terrorism, to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to build trade and investment relationships that will strengthen our economy and advance freedom and democracy worldwide.

We also must remember that ambassadorships function not only as representation of the United States, but as managers of their embassies. Given that U.S. diplomatic missions have been terrorist targets and remain the most visible American symbol in many countries with a terrorist presence, we need leadership at these embassies. Needlessly depriving an embassy of its ambassador in a time of terrorist threat may have consequences as grave as depriving a military unit of its commander in time of conflict.

Over the years, the Senate generally has done its duty to efficiently move ambassadorial nominees. We should proceed carefully and thoughtfully when we evaluate diplomatic nominations. But we should proceed with dispatch. Nominations must not be delayed by inattention, bureaucratic arguments, or political motivations, and when our examinations are complete, we should send the nominees to their post as quickly as possible.

I am confident the Senate understands the importance of confirming nominees who will be on the front lines of efforts to advance U.S. interests around the world, and I ask all Members to join the Foreign Relations Committee in moving these nominees. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. President, in a moment I will ask for a quorum call and then shortly after that, ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back and we proceed to the question on Ambassador Negroponte.

For the moment, having given a clear signal, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I appreciate again the assistance of the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, and, for that matter, all members. Many of the members of our committee, of which the distinguished Chair is a member, have spoken today, and have indicated they plan to support John Negroponte, as I will.

I think one reason why the committee has this feeling is that we appreciate the fact he has been forthcoming in response to our questions. He understands the gravity of the situation and its complexity. He does not have a doctrinaire point of view, but clearly recognizes the political realities in Iraq, in this country, and in our international relations.

As a part of his responsibilities at the United Nations, even as we speak, he is working with other nations on behalf of the best ideals of our country, and is attempting to bring to the people in Iraq the full possibilities that might come from much more intense and favorable and constructive relations with the United States and its allies.

I was impressed in our hearing with Ambassador Negroponte, that he has been there many times before, in the sense of very difficult situations, tortuous circumstances, dangerous predicaments, ways in which he had to work with the elements of whatever administration he served, that may or may not have agreed with his point of view, but at the same time, through his experience and the gravity he brought to the issue, he was persuasive and effective.

Finally, I conclude by saying John Negroponte is not any more certain than Senator Biden or I am of precisely what is going to happen day by day in Iraq. It is a day-by-day story. And that is not all bad, in the sense that sometimes we make improvements day by day. Sometimes we are able to listen to the evidence, try to take a look at the rest of the world, talk to other people, consult more broadly.

But the fact is, I believe Ambassador Negroponte is prepared to consult. He is prepared to talk. He is prepared to open up. He is responsive to our committee, to the Senate and, I believe, to the Congress and, therefore, through us, to the American people, the people we serve.

The final point I want to make in this debate is I believe Members of the Senate are not unreasonable, I believe members of our committee are not unreasonable, in asking for discussion and consultation during these very difficult times, because the support of all of us--Democrats and Republicans, Americans--is going to be required.

I appreciate, on very short notice, the preparation for the hearing of the Ambassador. But I had the feeling he did not need much notice; that, as a matter of fact, he has been thinking about these issues for a long time. His responses indicated a degree of both maturity but, likewise, willingness to listen that I found very appealing and reassuring.

I encourage Members to vote for him so he might proceed to his duties.

Having said that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time available on our side and ask that the Chair pose the question.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Michael Mattler, a detailee on the Foreign Relations Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on this nomination.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records 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.

Madam President, the Veterans Upward Bound program has provided assistance to over 4,300 veterans in Indiana since 1979 when Vincennes University began administering the program. Now, the National Association of Veterans Upward Bound Project Personnel, NAVUBPP, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year and has asked that Wednesday, April 28, 2004, be proclaimed as National Veterans Upward Bound Day. This program, which began nationally in 1972, provides information and assistance to help low-income and first- generation college veterans access to postsecondary education.

I extend my congratulations to this organization, which celebrates its Silver Anniversary Conference on April 28, 2004.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers the Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Regarding Safeguards in the United States.

Last February, at the National Defense University, President Bush called on the Senate to ratify the U.S. Additional Protocol, and today, I am pleased to bring this resolution of ratification to the floor on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The United States signed the Additional Protocol in Vienna on June 12, 1998, and President Bush submitted it to the Senate on May 9, 2002. The State Department submitted the implementing legislation to Congress on November 19, 2003. At the administration's request, I introduced the implementing legislation in the Senate last December.

Since Senate ratification of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the NPT, in 1969, and our Voluntary Offer to accept IAEA safeguards in 1980, 188 states have now approved the NPT. The NPT and the IAEA's existing safeguards agreements sufficed to forestall nuclear weapons programs in the world's advanced industrial states, several of which were weighing the nuclear option 40 years ago. Unfortunately, the NPT and the IAEA's existing safeguards agreements have been insufficient to prevent the diversion of resources in Non-Nuclear Weapon States determined to cheat. At the same time, we have witnessed an increase in the global availability of nuclear weapons materials, reprocessing and enrichment technologies. To ensure that materials and technologies are devoted only to peaceful uses, it is in the interest of the United States that the IAEA have the power to conduct intrusive inspections and verify imports and exports of sensitive materials and equipment in states suspected of diverting resources to a weapons program. The Additional Protocol, when universally ratified and implemented by all member states of the IAEA, will not solve all of our proliferation problems, but Senate ratification will further ensure that U.S. efforts to persuade all member states to adopt the Additional Protocol will be supported by concrete U.S. action.

When the NPT was constructed, in order to gain its acceptance by states without weapons or complete fuel cycles, the world allowed for peaceful uses of the atom by states who forswore weapons. This was an outgrowth of the U.S. ``Atoms for Peace Program.'' Thus, Article IV of the NPT states:

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting

the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to

develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for

peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity

with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

Those last words, ``in conformity with Article I and II of this Treaty,'' are key in our consideration of the Additional Protocol. Non- Nuclear Weapon States under Article II of the NPT are obliged not to undertake any steps toward development of a weapon, and in so doing, secure their right to peaceful uses of the atom; peaceful uses verified by the IAEA under safeguards. When the Committee on Foreign Relations reported the NPT to the Senate in 1968, it did so with some reservations concerning this safeguards system. As the committee report noted:

[T]he implementation of the treaty raises uncertainties.

The reliability and thereby the credibility of international

safeguards systems is still to be determined. No completely

satisfactory answer was given to the Committee on the

effectiveness of the safeguards systems envisioned under the

treaty. But [the Committee] is equally convinced that when

the possible problems in reaching satisfactory safeguards

agreements are carefully weighed against the potential for a

worldwide mandatory safeguards system, the comparison argues

strongly for the present language of the treaty.

Today, many have come to the realization that the existing framework of the NPT, as verified by status quo safeguards, is unable to provide adequate verification of Non-Nuclear Weapon States' obligations and alert the world community to broken commitments to the IAEA and under the NPT.

I believe that acting today to ratify the Additional Protocol will put us back on the right track, a track toward complete verification and effective enforcement of Article II.

In 2003, the international community was confronted with two cases involving declared Non-Nuclear Weapon

States violating their commitments under the NPT by pursuing nuclear weapon programs.

Iran's clandestine drive toward a nuclear weapons capability was partly exposed by an Iranian resistance group and confirmed by the IAEA. Then, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom concluded separate negotiations with Tehran in which the regime agreed to abandon its uranium enrichment program and to cease all efforts to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran signed an Additional Protocol with the IAEA last December. In January, Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi appeared to hedge on Iran's commitment by suggesting that Tehran had agreed ``to the suspension, not stopping, of the uranium enrichment process.'' Then, last February, in his latest report on Iran, IAEA Director General ElBaradei noted that inspectors had found in Iran technical designs for so-called ``P-2'' centrifuges similar to those the Agency discovered in Libya, designs not declared to the IAEA. Iran has also failed to declare a pilot uranium enrichment facility, importation of many nuclear fuel cycle components, and experiments with plutonium separation.

Lastly, with regard to Iran, there are extremely disturbing press accounts of inspectors finding traces of highly enriched Uranium-235, which could have but one use, in a nuclear weapon. The United States has made no secret of our view that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

In Libya, we witnessed an important nonproliferation success. Following intense negotiations with the Bush administration and the United Kingdom, Libya admitted that it had WMD programs and agreed to abandon these efforts and work with international treaty regimes to verify Libya's commitment. I applaud President Bush and his team for a victory in the war against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Through our experience in Libya, we have learned of the extent of the nuclear proliferation network run by Pakistan's ``father of the bomb,'' A.Q. Khan. Similarly, we have also seen the dangers posed by exports of sensitive technologies by many European and Asian countries that contributed to Libya's nuclear weapons program. It is important to note in this regard how the Additional Protocol incorporates and provides for reporting on the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, NSG, Trigger List items in Annex II as well as uranium mining, enrichment and reactor activities in Annex I.

Events in Iran and Libya are important to our consideration of the Additional Protocol. In 1980, the Senate ratified the U.S. commitment to voluntarily accept safeguards to demonstrate a firm commitment to the IAEA and to the NPT. As a Nuclear Weapon State party to the NPT, the United States is not required to accept any safeguards. Our decision sent an important message to the world: the preeminent superpower, with a large civilian nuclear power industry, could accept IAEA safeguards.

The Additional Protocol seeks to fill holes in the existing patchwork of declarations and inspections. It will require the declaration of many locations and activities to the IAEA not previously required, and allow, with less than 24 hours' notice, inspections of such locations.

The United States, as a declared Nuclear Weapon State party to the NPT, may exclude the application of IAEA safeguards on its activities. Under the Additional Protocol, the United States also has the right to exclude activities and sites of direct national security significance in accordance with its National Security Exclusion contained in Article 1.b. This provision is crucial to U.S. acceptance of the Additional Protocol and provides the basis for the protection of U.S. nuclear weapons-related activities, sites, and materials as a declared nuclear power.

The Additional Protocol does not contain any new arms control or disarmament obligations for the United States. Although there are increased rights granted to the IAEA for the conduct of inspections in the United States, the administration has assured the Committee on Foreign Relations that the likelihood of an inspection occurring in the United States is very low. Nevertheless, should an inspection under the Additional Protocol be determined to be potentially harmful to U.S. national security, the United States has the right, through the National Security Exclusion, to prevent the inspection.

For the past 9 months, the majority and minority staffs of the committee have been working closely with the administration to craft a resolution of ratification that will gain broad support in the Senate. On January 29, the committee held a hearing with administration witnesses. On March 4, the resolution of ratification before the Senate today was approved at a committee business meeting by a vote of 19 to 0. I thank Senator Biden and his staff for their cooperation in this effort. I am pleased to inform all Members that the administration fully supports the committee's recommended resolution of ratification, without changes.

In sum, I believe the Additional Protocol is necessary to further ensure effective verification and enforcement of the Article II obligations of Non-Nuclear Weapon States. Continued enjoyment of Article IV rights should come only with an increase in our ability to verify compliance with obligations to the IAEA and under the NPT. I do not believe that the Additional Protocol will be a burden for the United States, given that our ratification and implementation of the Protocol does not constitute a statement about U.S. adherence to nonproliferation commitments, but rather as a demonstration of our continued leadership in furtherance of the nonproliferation objectives contained in it. It is a first step toward realization of the objectives set forth by President Bush last February.

I urge my colleagues to support the committee's resolution of ratification and to ratify the Additional Protocol.

Mr. President, today I wish to share with my colleagues the winners of the 2003-2004 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/ Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

In 1985, I joined with the Indiana Farm Bureau to sponsor an essay contest for 8th grade students in my home state. The purpose of this contest was to encourage young Hoosiers to recognize and appreciate the importance of Indiana agriculture in their lives and subsequently, craft an essay responding to the assigned theme. I, along with my friends at the Indiana Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies, am pleased with the annual response to this contest and the quality of the essays received over the years.

I congratulate Elizabeth A. Mercer, of Boone County, and Eric Webb, of Johnson County, as winners of this year's contest, and I ask that the complete text of their respective essays for the Record. Likewise, I ask that the names of all of the district and county winners of the 2003-2004 Dick Lugar/Indiana Farm Bureau/Farm Bureau Insurance Companies Youth Essay Contest.

The material follows:

Grocery Shopping Starts on Hoosier Farms

(By Elizabeth A. Mercer--Boone County)

Indiana farms have a part in many food items around the

world. Without farmers our country, even our world, would be

starving. In the past, I knew that farmers were a big part of

the ``Food Chain.'' Being a daughter of a farmer, I have

learned that farmers begin the ``Food Chain.''

Starting my journey through the grocery store, I realize

Hoosier farms are in all parts of the store. In the produce

section, Hoosier farms raise celery, carrots, broccoli,

cabbage, green beans, lettuce, peas, squash, cucumbers,

zucchini, sweet corn, apples, potatoes, watermelons,

cantaloupe, strawberries, tomatoes, and pumpkins. Produce

grown by Indiana farmers is a crop, which adds value and

income to their farming operation.

Another section of the grocery store is the meat section.

Meats produced in Indiana are beef, pork, chicken, turkey,

elk, buffalo, sheep, fish, and duck. Indiana is the number

one state in the USA for duck production.

In the baking aisle corn syrup, corn meal, and corn oil are

produced from corn of Indiana farmers. Half of Indiana's corn

is raised for animal feed. A large portion of the remainder

is used to produce high fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup is

used in soft drinks, fruit juices, sport drinks, and canned

fruits.

Indiana soybeans are processed into soybean oil. Soybean

oil is used in many baked goods such as breads, cakes, snack

cakes, chips, and cookies.

Wheat grown in Indiana is soft red winter wheat. Contrary

to popular belief, bread is not made from Indiana wheat.

Indiana wheat is used to produce pastas.

From now on, when I walk through the grocery store I will

know Hoosier farms have made a difference in the food supply

for our country and our world. I am proud to say, ``My dad is

a Hoosier farmer.''