Floor Statements

Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, the Library of Congress, LOC, diligently works to keep the Congress fully informed on a plethora of issues. Today I would like to highlight the important work of a component of the LOC that is less known to colleagues, and that is its operation in Southeast Asia. The work of this regional operation immensely contributes to U.S. understanding of Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, China and India, thereby facilitating our foreign policy objectives.

The LOC office is one of six overseas offices operated by the Overseas Operations Division of the LOC. Staff to the overseas offices ``acquire, catalog, preserve and distribute library and research materials . . . and provide assistance to the U.S. Congress.''

For too many Americans, Southeast Asia is a distant unknown. In reality, the region is of significant economic importance to the American people. The approximately 580-million citizens--and consumers--of the 10 nations comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, represent the fourth largest market for American exports.

Based in Jakarta, the mission of the LOC regional operation is diverse. Primary among its responsibilities is to provide research and information services to the U.S. Congress and the Congressional Research Service. Jakarta LOC staff also manage the Cooperative Acquisitions Program, CAPSEA, whereby they acquire materials from countries in the region on behalf of the LOC and member institutions, which

include 30 U.S. research libraries and 10 international research libraries.

It is important to note the ongoing, extensive assistance the Senate Foreign Relations Committee receives from the Jakarta LOC office. Research and preparation for committee projects on issues ranging from global food security, to international trade, nonproliferation, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, EITI, counterterrorism and human trafficking, have been augmented by the diligent efforts of LOC staff in Jakarta and elsewhere in the region.

The Jakarta LOC office ensures that the U.S. Congress and the Congressional Research Service have up-to-date legal and legislative regional information, and it assists other U.S. Government agencies in providing and sharing open source information as well as acquiring publications.

The Jakarta LOC office has also worked with the House Democracy Partnership, HDP, and The Asia Foundation to create a legislative library for the National Parliament of Timor-Leste and to train the library staff, and is cooperating with the HDP to develop a parliamentary research service and an improved information technology system there.

Indonesia is a young democracy. Its Parliament is confronted with many challenges, including the development of its own operational and staff infrastructure. The LOC office in Jakarta serves as a bridge facilitating communications and meetings between the staff of the U.S. Congress and the Indonesian Parliament. Our counterparts in the Indonesian Parliament have expressed appreciation for this initiative.

In conclusion, I am grateful for the assistance provided to the U.S. Senate by the Southeast Asia LOC office, and wanted to take this opportunity to openly convey my appreciation.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the important progress made by the people of Ukraine in the establishment of democratic institutions following the presidential runoff election on February 7, 2010. Voters recently elected Viktor Yanukovych as President of Ukraine in a process that international monitors declared to have generally comported with international election standards. This represents important progress towards the consolidation of democratic institutions that the U.S. has worked diligently to foster. Serving as President George W. Bush's envoy to the 2004 run-off election that resulted in what is now widely known as the ``Orange revolution,'' I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the great aspirations of the Ukrainian people for a government that responds to their needs. Given Ukraine's location on the periphery of NATO and the Russian Federation, as well as its role as the primary energy conduit to Europe, Ukraine's political development and external orientation greatly impact European security and U.S. policies in the region. A continuing partnership with the people of Ukraine and U.S. technical assistance programs on a range of issues, including nuclear security, non-proliferation, energy security, institution-building, and others, will serve to advance our vital national security interests. This U.S. engagement should also support ongoing progress by Ukraine in addressing the remaining challenges in the electoral processes as identified by international election monitoring entities. In recognition of the profound successes of U.S.-Ukrainian partnership, I am pleased to submit this resolution concerning the important progress made by the people of Ukraine in the establishment of democratic institutions.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues a statement I have prepared regarding the health care reform debate in which the Senate is currently engaged.

A majority of the Members of Congress share President Obama's humane goal that millions more Americans might enjoy health insurance coverage and that medical care to all Americans might be substantially improved. For the moment, however, President Obama and the Congress must recognize that the overwhelming demand of most Americans is that presidential and congressional leadership should focus each day on restoration of jobs, strengthening of housing opportunities, new growth in small business and large industries, and banks that are not only solvent but confident of normal lending. In essence, the task facing national leadership is truly monumental. A national and international recession has not ended and many economists predict that unemployment, which has exceeded 10 percent in the United States, will continue to grow in coming months.

The President and the current Congress have realized a final deficit for fiscal year 2009 of $1.4 trillion, with the total national debt now at $12 trillion. The appropriation bills that Congress has passed and that will make up the next fiscal year's expenditures are predicted to result in another annual deficit of more than $1 trillion. In fiscal year 2009, Medicaid spending increased by 24.6 percent to $251 billion. Spending on Food Stamps increased 41 percent to $56 billion. Unemployment benefits increased almost 155 percent to $120 billion.

Republicans and Democrats may feel that passing comprehensive health legislation before the end of the year is crucial to the success or failure of the Obama administration and/or party leadership in the Congress.

But I would suggest that successful leadership will be defined, now and historically, by success in bringing a horrendous economic recession to an end, bringing new strength to our economy, and providing vital leadership in international relations as we hope to bring conflicts under control and in some cases, to conclusion.

I appreciate that President Obama has strongly argued that comprehensive health care legislation is an important component to reducing federal deficit spending. He has contended that failure to pass this legislation will increase deficits now and for many years to come. I disagree with the President.

After the economic recession in our country comes to a conclusion, a high priority may be extension of health insurance coverage and reform of many health care practices. When such changes occur, they are likely to be expensive and Americans will need to debate, even then, their priority in comparison to many other national goals. One reason why health care is likely to remain expensive is that major advances in surgical procedures, prescription drugs, and other health care practices have prolonged the lives of tens of millions of Americans and improved the quality of those additional years. The Washington Post, in a front-page story on July 26, 2009, mentioned that ``the fight against heart disease has been slow and incremental. It's also been extremely expensive and wildly successful.'' Americans should not take for granted all of the advances in health care that have enriched our lives, but we sometimes forget that we require and even pray for much more medical progress in years to come, which is likely to be expensive.

In order to pay for the cost of the nearly $1 trillion health care legislation, several Members of Congress are suggesting new forms of taxation, reduction of payments to doctors and hospitals, and curtailment of certain types of insurance coverage. These and other suggestions may temporarily bring about cost reduction but will also have some after-effects in the overall economy. In fact, strong financial incentives may be needed to enlist men and women to enter the medical field. Failure to enlist a sufficient number of doctors could lead to rationing of service and longer lines to find someone who will give humane attention.

In the meanwhile, it is possible that the President and Members of Congress might find some inexpensive, incremental improvements that could result in a greater number of Americans being served through health insurance and more efficiently operating health care institutions. The strong desire that most of us have to continue discussing these issues and make improvements need not be postponed even as President Obama and the Congress strive for victory over a devastating national economic recession.

Because our Federal spending deficits have risen so much and are predicted to rise even more, all substantive discussions on health care and other important issues will be conducted during many years of planning and, finally, decisive action to reduce deficit spending and preserve the value and integrity of the dollar as we continue to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds sold to governments and citizens of other countries. They, too, are counting on the integrity of our dollar and our financial system to preserve the value of their financial reserves.

Starting with President Obama and extending to all Members of Congress, we wish that we had inherited a neutral, peaceful playing field. We have not been so fortunate. Our responsibility now is to recognize the extraordinary financial tragedy that has befallen our country and to recognize the unprecedented opportunity that we have to stop the momentum of that tragedy. We must provide valid hope of constructive vision, idealism, and change in the future. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues to tackle first things first.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Judge David Hamilton whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

I first had the pleasure of supporting David Hamilton almost 15 years ago when he was nominated to the Federal district court. I said then that ``the high quality of his education, legal experience, and character well prepare him for this position'' and expressed my belief that ``his keen intellect and strong legal background will make him a great judge.'' This confidence in David Hamilton's character and abilities was shared by all who knew him regardless of political affiliation throughout Indiana's legal and civic communities.

I have known David since his childhood. His father, the Reverend Richard Hamilton, was our family's pastor at St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis where his mother was the soloist in the choir. Knowing firsthand his family's character and commitment to service, it has been no surprise to me that David's life has borne witness to the values learned in his youth.

David graduated with honors from Pennsylvania's Haverford College, won a Fulbright Scholarship to study in Germany, and then earned his law degree at Yale. After clerking for the Seventh Circuit Court, David joined the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg where he became a partner and acquired extensive litigation experience in the Indiana and Federal judicial systems.

When our colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, was elected Governor of Indiana, he asked David to serve as his chief legal counsel. Among other achievements in that role, David supervised the overhaul of State ethics rules and guidelines and coordinated judicial and prosecutorial appointments.

In the latter capacity, David worked closely with Judge John Tinder, then a President Reagan appointee to the district bench, whom President Bush recently appointed to the Seventh Circuit with the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.

When David was nominated to the district court, Judge John Tinder wrote to me that David was ``meticulous in asking the difficult questions of and about judicial nominees.'' He said his approach to these duties ``typifies the deliberate and sensitive way in which he approaches matters in his professional life.''

The same is true of David's approach to his judicial duties. Leading members of the Indiana bar testify to his brilliance and, as important, to his character, dedication, and fairness. Geoffrey Slaughter, president of the Indiana Federalist Society, also endorsed Judge Hamilton's nomination, saying:

I regard Judge Hamilton as an excellent jurist with a

first-rate intellect. He is unfailingly polite to lawyers. He

asks tough questions to both sides, and he is very smart. His

judicial philosophy is left of center, but well within the

mainstream.

His colleagues on the Southern District of Indiana bench--a talented and exceptionally collegial group from both parties--unanimously endorse that conclusion.

I recognize some of my colleagues do not share this view. Specific charges have been levied that Judge Hamilton has used his position on the Federal courts to drive a political agenda. I believe a closer look at his record will reveal that Judge Hamilton has not been a judicial activist and has ruled objectively and within the judicial mainstream.

Upon receiving a letter from my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked Indianapolis attorney and former Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, namely, Peter Rusthoven, to review concerns raised regarding David Hamilton's nomination.

Judge Hamilton has been criticized for a speech delivered in 2003 when he cited that judges ``write a series of footnotes to the Constitution.''

It has been suggested that this comment is evidence of a judicial activist philosophy. However, Judge Hamilton never wrote that judicial decisions are an appropriate means to change the Constitution. The footnotes comment means simply that judicial decisions illustrate how the Constitution applies to particular circumstances. For example, Chief Justice Marshall's seminal Marbury v. Madison decision, establishing judicial authority to pass on the constitutionality of actions by the political branches, illustrates a vital aspect of how the Constitution applies, but does not assert judicial power to amend the Constitution, much less based on a judge's personal views.

Another charge levied is that Judge Hamilton prohibited public prayers involving Jesus Christ but allowed prayers invoking Allah. However, Judge Hamilton did not say, as some suggest, that prayers in the Indiana Legislature ``Allah'' as the Muslim deity were permissible while prayers to Jesus Christ were not. He in fact said that using Allah as a generic reference to the deity could theoretically be permissible in nonsectarian prayer, as would be true of using the word for God in any language. Judge Hamilton was clear that legislative prayer advancing the religion of Islam would be prohibited. I support a more permissive approach to public prayer than Judge Hamilton, but clearly his ruling comports with Supreme Court authority. As Justice Antonin Scalia explained, government-sponsored endorsements of religion are sectarian if they ``specify details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ.''

Also contrary to certain charges, Judge Hamilton's ruling on the issue was not reversed. The Seventh Circuit's later reversal did not involve the merits, but the separate, procedural issue of whether the taxpayer plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the legislative practice. In this case, a subsequent Supreme Court ruling created a new precedent which led to the reversal.

A similar reversal situation occurred regarding an effort to compel local officials to include a Menorah as part of a holiday display in the Indianapolis City-County Building. The Seventh Circuit opinion by Reagan appointee Judge Ripple makes this point in its opening paragraph, saying Judge Hamilton's ruling had been made ``without the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent guidance in this area.''

There have have also been claims, citing the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, that Judge Hamilton is one of the most lenient judges in his district in criminal matters. However, the Almanac cited extraordinarily high

praise for Judge Hamilton. The Almanac summary states: ``Hamilton is fair when it comes to sentencing, according to lawyers.'' Practitioners consistently stated that he is objective and shows no bias.

In demonstrating this alleged leniency, critics have cited a case in which Judge Hamilton ``used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography.'' Judge Hamilton in fact imposed the 15-year sentence required by sentencing guidelines even though he believed it excessive in the circumstances. Doing what the law requires even when a judge may personally disagree is a textbook example of judicial restraint. Further, there were, indeed, circumstances in the case that might properly be considered in a later executive clemency request, which is all that the unpublished decision was pointing out. In other cases with different circumstances, Judge Hamilton has imposed rigorous sentences for child pornography as long as 100 years.

Critics also point to another case in which they argue that Judge Hamilton disregarded an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender. In this particular case, Judge Hamilton made a mistake and has admitted it. Judge Hamilton initially imposed a 25-year sentence for drug and firearms offenses on a 55-year- old man taking into account a 10-year-old prior conviction. The issue was whether the sentence should be further enhanced based on a 35-year- old prior conviction on marijuana charges under the now repealed Federal Youth Corrections Act. Judge Hamilton now believes the Seventh Circuit was correct to apply a sentence enhancement, and he imposed a life sentence on remand.

Another complaint is that Judge Hamilton used his position to purposely delay enforcement of Indiana's informed consent abortion laws for 7 years. Judge Hamilton's analysis in the Indiana case differs from my own, but his actions were defensible in the context of what lower courts must do in the field of abortion law jurisprudence.

As those who believe Roe v. Wade was fundamentally mistaken would argue, ``undue burden'' issues of the sort Judge Hamilton and the Seventh Circuit wrestled with in the Indiana litigation are an unfortunate, inevitable consequence of what Justice Scalia has called the Supreme Court's continued effort to craft an ``abortion code'' without grounding in the text of the Constitution. Hence, it is hardly surprising that jurists will come out on different sides of undue burden inquiries. They necessarily entail judges weighing what is or is not undue by a standard that is unguided by any constitutional language. The Supreme Court itself continues to struggle to articulate tests that will elucidate this matter of law.

One illustration of that point is that five members of the full Seventh Circuit--including Judge Posner, a Reagan appointee--voted to grant rehearing en banc of the 2-1 decision reversing Judge Hamilton's ruling. Further, even in reversing, the Seventh Circuit did not hold that Judge Hamilton's fact findings were ``clearly erroneous,'' which is the pertinent appellate review standard on evidentiary questions.

The delay assertion unfairly ignores that the delay was due in very large part to litigation decisions made by the State of Indiana itself. Judge Hamilton's preliminary injunction decision in 1995 was immediately appealable by the State as a matter of right; but the State chose not to appeal. The same was true of Judge Hamilton's 1997 decision modifying that injunction; again, the State chose not to appeal. Thereafter, the State as well as the plaintiffs sought continuances of the trial, including to permit further discovery on complex statistical issues that are an aspect of the undue burden analysis. The notion that Judge Hamilton was in any way trying personally to delay the case, whether based on his personal views on any issue or for any other reason, is unfounded.

Allow me to close with a few further thoughts on our nominations process. When I introduced now Chief Justice John Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005, I expressed my concern that the Federal judiciary is seen by many as another political branch. The confirmation process is often accompanied by the same oversimplifications and distortions that are disturbing even in campaigns for offices that are, in fact, political. This phenomenon is most pronounced at the Supreme Court level, and traces to several causes that I will not try to address today. I mention this, however, to underscore my commitment to a different view of judicial nominations, which I believe comports with the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional framework.

I do not view our Federal courts as the forum for resolving political disputes that the legislative and executive branches cannot, or do not want to, resolve.

This is why I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will rule on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views. I support Judge Hamilton's nomination because he is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria.

Finally, permit me to thank my colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, on the thoughtful, cooperative, merit-driven attitude that has marked his own approach to recommending prospective judicial nominees from our State. The two most recent examples are his strong support for President Bush's nominations of Judge Tinder for the Seventh Circuit and of Judge William Lawrence for the Southern district of Indiana.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my support for Judge David Hamilton. I am hopeful that my colleagues will vote tomorrow to end debate on this important nomination.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 2727, the START I Treaty Inspections and Monitoring Protocol Continuation Act of 2009, which I introduced yesterday.

This bill provides authority that would allow the President of the United States to extend, on a reciprocal basis, privileges and immunities to Russian arms inspection teams that may come to the United States to carry out inspections permitted under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START I.

This bill is necessary because, on December 5--1 month from today-- the START I treaty will expire. This treaty, signed in 1991, is obscure to many in the Senate. Only 26 current Senators were serving at the time we voted on the resolution of ratification in October 1992. But the START I treaty has been vitally important to arms control efforts up to the present day because it contains a comprehensive verification regime that undergirds every existing United States-Russian treaty that deals with strategic arms control.

It is essential to understand that a successful arms control regime depends on much more than mutual agreement on the numbers of weapons to be eliminated. Arms control agreements also must provide for verification measures, including seemingly mundane details, such as delineating the privileges and responsibilities of verification teams operating in each other's countries, as well as the procedures for conducting those inspections.

These details require legal authorization that minimizes disputes and reinforces reciprocal expectations of how the verification regime will function. If the legal authorization for strategic arms control verification lapses, as it will in 1 month, we will be creating unnecessary risks for the national security of the United States and our working relationship with Russia.

It had been my hope that the previous and current administrations would have made substantially more progress in ensuring the continuity of the START I verification system so the legal authorities I am proposing would not be necessary. But we have reached the point where both the United States and Russia must take steps to ensure the continuity of verification mechanisms.

In 2002, the Senate considered the Moscow Treaty governing strategic nuclear forces. That treaty contained no verification mechanisms. Instead, it relied on the verification regime established in the START I treaty. During Senate consideration of the Moscow Treaty, I asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about the apparent gap in verification that could occur, given that the Moscow Treaty extends to 2012, while the START I verification provisions were set to expire on December 5, 2009, this year.

Secretary Powell stated:

It did not seem to be something that was pressing at the

moment.

He said that during negotiations on the Moscow Treaty, consideration was given to extending the START verification regime past 2009 in a separate negotiation or that the transparency measures under the Moscow Treaty could be maximized in some way to provide for enhanced verification. But Secretary Powell said, in 2002, that we had ``some 7 years to find an answer to that question.''

Likewise, Secretary Rumsfeld was questioned about the verification gap created by the 2009 expiration of START. He stated:

There is [a gap], from 2009 to 2012, exactly. But between

now and 2009 . . . there is plenty of time to sort through

what we will do thereafter. . . .Will we be able to do

something that is better than the START treaty? I hope so. Do

we have a number of years that we can work on that? Yes.

I was pleased to play a role in securing ratification of the Moscow Treaty on March 6, 2003. But, at that time Senators were led to understand the Bush administration would begin work with Russia on codifying a verification regime under the Moscow Treaty, either by continuing the START verification regime past 2009 or through other measures. Neither was accomplished.

The START treaty itself provides that the parties must meet to extend the treaty ``no later than one year before the expiration of the 15- year period'' of its duration. In 2008, we witnessed the conflict in Georgia. December 5, 2008, was the date by which the United States and Russia would have to meet to satisfy the treaty's requirements. Many worried that the atmosphere created by the Georgia situation would prevent the United States and Russia from conducting such a meeting. But to the Bush administration's credit, a meeting was held that provided us the possibility of extending the treaty. But the clock kept ticking.

I noted during Secretary Clinton's confirmation hearings, on January 13, 2009, it was vital that the START treaty be renewed. At that time, she assured the committee that ``we will have a very strong commitment to the START Treaty negotiation.'' I do not doubt that commitment. I am hopeful the capable negotiators we have deployed to Geneva will achieve a new treaty in the remaining 30 days before expiration. But even if that happens, the time required for a thorough Senate consideration of the treaty ensures that it will not be ratified before START I expires.

At the core of the START treaty rests its verification regime--a system of data exchanges and more than 80 different types of notifications covering movement, changes in status, conversion, elimination, testing, and technical characteristics of new and existing strategic offensive arms. This data is further verified through an inspection regime. The START I treaty inspection protocol permits no less than 12 different types of inspections pursuant to the treaty.

According to a fact sheet released by the Department of State in July 2009, the United States has conducted more than 600 START inspections in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. Russia has conducted more than 400 inspections in the United States. These intrusive, onsite inspections permit the United States to verify the kinds and types of Russian weapons being deployed, as well as to examine modified versions of Russia's weapons. It is this ability, in addition to our own national technical means, that gives us the capabilities and confidence to ensure effective verification of the treaty.

Some skeptics have pointed out Russia may not be in total compliance with its obligations under START. Others have expressed opposition to the START treaty on the basis that no arms control agreement is 100- percent verifiable. But such concerns fail to appreciate how much information is provided through the exchanges of data mandated by the treaty, onsite inspections, and national technical means. Our experiences, over many years, have proven the effectiveness of the treaty's verification provisions and served to build a basis for confidence between the two countries when doubts arose. The bottom line is, the United States is far safer as a result of these 600 START inspections than we would be without them.

Testifying before the Foreign Relations Committee on the INF Treaty in 1988, Paul Nitze provided the definition of ``effective verification.'' He stated:

What do we mean by effective verification? We mean that we

want to be sure that, if the other side moves beyond the

limits of the Treaty in any militarily significant way, we

would be able to detect such a violation in time to respond

effectively and thereby deny the other side the benefit of

the violation.

In a similar vein, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates testified in 1992, when he was Director of Central Intelligence, that the START treaty was effectively verifiable and that the data it provides would give us the ability to detect militarily significant cheating.

The Senate has repeatedly expressed confidence in the START I verification procedures. It approved the START I treaty in 1992, by a vote of 93 to 6. In

1996, it approved the START II treaty, which relied on the START I verification regime, by a vote of 87 to 4. Likewise, the Moscow Treaty was approved by a vote of 95 to 0.

The current administration has employed a capable team in Geneva. Just last week, National Security Adviser Jim Jones went to Moscow to underscore the importance of achieving agreement on a successor to the START treaty. The administration has publicly stated it seeks a new treaty that will ``combine the predictability of START and the flexibility of the Moscow Treaty, but at lower numbers of delivery vehicles and their associated warheads.''

This predictability stems directly from START's verifiability.

So far, most of the public discussion surrounding a potential successor agreement has focused on further reductions in strategic nuclear weapons. Scant attention has been paid to the verification arrangements for such a follow-on agreement. Informally, we understand that we will yet again be relying on START's verification regime in the new agreement. For me, this will be the key determinant in assessing whether a follow-on agreement that comes before the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate furthers the national interest.

For the moment, we know only the outlines of such an agreement. What is certain is that after December 5, no legally binding treaty will exist that provides for onsite inspections.

My bill is not a substitute for a treaty, but without it, it is unclear how we can permit and by extension carry out any inspection activities. This might not appear troubling to some, but allowing a break in verification is not in the interests of the United States or Russia. Such a break could amplify suspicions or even complicate the conclusion of the START successor agreement.

I believe it is incumbent upon the United States and Russia to maintain mutual confidence and preserve a proven verification regime between December 5 and the entry into force of a new agreement. If we are to do so, the legal tools that are contained in the bill I have introduced are essential. There is nothing in my bill that requires the administration to admit Russian inspection teams in the absence of reciprocity by Moscow, nor does the bill expand verification beyond those already conducted under the START protocol. The authorities in the bill would terminate on June 5, 2010, or on the date of entry into force of a successor agreement to the START treaty.

We must ensure that needed verification tools will exist in the period between START's expiration and entry into force of a new treaty. I am hopeful that Congress will take action on S. 2727 in the near future and that both the Obama administration and the Russian Government will take steps to maintain inspection until ratification of a START successor agreement is completed.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to the American men and women who served their country valiantly during World War II, and to a nonprofit organization known as HonorFlight which flies surviving veterans, at no expense to themselves, to Washington, DC, to visit the World War II Memorial. I wish to have printed in the Record a letter from Scott C. Stump, a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, describing the efforts of HonorFlight which will enable two Hoosier veterans, Harvey H. Hammerlund and Joseph B. Smrt, to visit the World War II Memorial this fall.

The letter follows:

Dear Senator Lugar: During World War II, 16 million

American men and women selflessly, and unflinchingly served

our country and defended our way of life for future

generations. Now, more than 64 years since the end of that

Great War, only three million of our World War II Veterans

walk among us. Even more alarming, we are losing these

veterans at the rate of 1,000 per day, which is causing their

ranks to dwindle at an alarming rate. Now more than ever, we

need to take pause and recognize these veterans and their

contributions to making our great country what she is today.

Part of that recognition, the National World War II Monument

in Washington, DC, was completed and opened to World War II

Veterans and the public on 29 April 2004.

Since its opening, the monument has been like a shining

star, beckoning to our World Wax II Veterans. In fact, many

of those veterans have had a dream of visiting this monument

erected to the remembrance of ``The Greatest Generation.''

Unfortunately, due to health, monetary, and other

constraints, many World War II Veterans have been unable to

visit ``their'' Memorial.

In 2005 that all began to change when a non-profit

organization known as ``HonorFlight'' was born. Several

dedicated individuals had a vision to fly any and all of our

World War II Veterans to Washington, to see ``their''

Memorial, at absolutely no cost to the veterans. This

wonderful, all volunteer force, began flying in 2005 and flew

a total of 137 Veterans to see the Memorial that first year.

Now, a brief four years later, there will be a total of over

42,000 veterans who have been able to fulfill their dreams

and wishes of being able to visit Washington, DC and, most

importantly, the World War II Memorial.

I would like to publicly thank HonorFlight and their

network of dedicated volunteers for all of their efforts in

making dreams come true. I am truly humbled to be a small

part of such a great organization.

On this date, I would also like to recognize two very

special World War II Veterans who are about to embark on a

very special journey to Washington, DC. These two Hoosiers,

both from the fertile farmlands of Starke County, answered

their call to serve their country long ago, and in so doing

served with honor, dignity, and courage.

Harvey H. Hammerlund was born on 21 December 1924 in rural

Knox, Indiana. Harvey was a farm boy who enlisted in The

United States Navy on 4 January 1944. Harvey served on The

U.S.S. Urben 631 as an electrician. Harvey spent the

remainder of the war traversing the hostile enemy-laden South

Pacific. Mr. Hammerlund was discharged on 23 March 1946 at

the rank of 3rd Class Petty Officer. Harvey returned home and

was a farmer for the remainder of his working years. Harvey

was and is a leader in Starke County serving on various

boards and committees, as well as being active with V.F.W.

Post 748 in Knox. Harvey resides on his farm outside of Knox

with Dee, his wife of 59 years.

Joseph B. Smrt was born on 14 February 1916 in North

Judson, Indiana. Joe enlisted in The United States Army on 11

December 1942. Joe served in Patton's Third Army in the 94th

Division Company B 19th Engineers. Joe proudly served all

over Central Europe, including the epic ``Battle of the

Bulge'' in Belgium. Mr. Smrt was discharged on 27 December

1945 but continued serving in The U.S. Army Reserves for the

next 33 years, retiring as a Sergeant First Class. Joe worked

and continues to work as a Surveyor as his profession and

continues to be a pillar of the Starke County Community. Joe

still lives in Knox with Ursula, his wife of 58 years.

Thank you, Senator Lugar, for recognizing a great

organization and two outstanding individuals. These two men

have truly played a part in shaping the America that we know

and love today.

Sincerely,

Scott C. Stump.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn that my dear friend and mentor for the past 63 years, Jeannette Grubb, passed away on Friday, October 9, 2009, at the age of 106 years old.

I last saw Jean on September 12, 2009, at the rededication ceremony at Shortridge High School, and I, as well as many others, enjoyed a wonderful visit with her. As always, Jean, herself a 1920 Shortridge High School graduate, was ever enthusiastic about Shortridge and recalled memories of her time as a Shortridge student, teacher and advisor. She was a special person, a woman of faith, whose concern for others was apparent.

Jean was well-educated and prepared for the important responsibilities of teaching. As a graduate of Indiana University, she earned her bachelor of arts, and later her master's in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. I am grateful that in 1944, Jean was asked to give up teaching mathematics to become the director of publications for Shortridge, a post she held until her retirement in 1970. Jean inspired us to be better students, and focused on creative and excellent writing skills.

Jean is one of the most memorable teachers in my life. When I was a Thursday columnist for the Shortridge High School Daily Echo, she served as the faculty adviser of the publication that she also served on as a Shortridge student.

As a high school student, the opportunity to publish a column, and to know that at least a few of my classmates read what I had written, provided an unparalleled privilege. On one occasion, an unflattering column which I authored about the unhealthy habits of the basketball team was read by the Indianapolis School Board--whose members only received copies of the Thursday edition of the school paper. This incident caused a temporary shutdown of the Echo's headquarters and a sudden trip for me to the principal's office to hear the consequences that unbridled journalism could have on the school, Jean, and me.

During this traumatic experience, Jean was my heroine, and the freedom of the press prevailed.

Furthermore, Jean has always been an active member of the Shortridge High School alumni community. As publications adviser, she organized the 50th anniversary celebration of the Echo. She also has worked to gather names and contact information for the Shortridge High School Alumni Association so that each of us can stay closely in touch with our friends and classmates. Following her retirement, Jean worked with the Indiana Historical Society to compile a complete history of our alma mater.

In 2005, Jean deservedly received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indiana High School Press Association for her tireless commitment to journalistic excellence among young people, and her unwavering support of the alumni and history of Shortridge High School. On this occasion, I included remarks about Jean in the Congressional Record to honor her achievement.

Throughout my pubic service, I have enjoyed frequent communications with Jean. She was always optimistic and supportive.

She was loved and appreciated. Her friendship and compassion will be greatly missed by her many students and friends whose lives she influenced through her exemplary dedication to teaching.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for the opportunity to thank my friend, Rev. James Merrell, for opening our session with prayer this morning. He has been a very dear friend from high school days onward. We attended Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, IN. He was 2 years older than I and was already well established with the Shortridge Daily Echo, a daily high school newspaper at Shortridge, writing for the Tuesday paper. I was grateful for the opportunity to write weekly for the Thursday paper. We shared experiences with the late Jean Grubb, a distinguished teacher of journalism at our school. Then likewise we were mentored by C.C. Shoemaker, the debate coach at Shortridge High School.

Jim proceeded on to distinguished honors at Indiana University and then on to the Disciples of Christ Church in his ministry. He was most distinguished as the editor for many years of World Call and then established an additional paper at the Church of Christ on his own, The Disciple. He has been a pastor in St. Louis for many years. He has many mutual friends from Indianapolis.

I am delighted he could be a part of our session today. I greet Jim Merrell as a very dear friend, someone I respect as a clergyman, a writer, and debater. I am thankful to the Senate Chaplain for inviting him to be with us.

I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 on behalf of myself, Senator Cardin, Senator Schumer, Senator Wicker, and Senator Feingold. The Energy Security Through Transparency, ESTT, bill takes important steps towards reversing the resource curse by revealing payments made here and abroad to governments for oil, gas and minerals.

The Energy Security Through Transparency Act builds on the findings of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report entitled the ``Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse'' which noted that many resource-rich countries that should be well-off are, in fact, terribly poor. History shows that oil, gas reserves and minerals frequently can be a bane, not a blessing, for poor countries, leading to corruption, wasteful spending, military adventurism, and instability. Too often, oil money intended for a nation's poor lines the pockets of the rich, or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive investments.

A classic case is Nigeria, the eighth-largest oil exporter. Despite half a trillion dollars in revenues since the 1960s, poverty has increased, corruption is rife, and violence roils the oil-rich Niger Delta.

The ``resource curse'' affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability.

ESTT expresses the Sense of Congress that the administration should undertake to become an `implementing' country of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. EITI is a major international transparency effort which sets a global framework for companies to publish what they pay and for governments to disclose what they receive. EITI's revenue data is intended to provide citizens with basic but crucial information necessary to effectively monitor government stewardship of natural resource revenues; hold decision-makers accountable for the use of public funds; and signal investors that a given country offers a transparent, rule of law-based business environment. The Bush administration supported the EITI through its participation on the board through the initiative's critical first several years.

As an implementing country, the U.S. would commit to disclosing payments from companies for oil, gas and minerals extracted from federal lands. Norway has recently signed up to become an implementing country, along with thirty developing countries. The U.S. commitment to implementing EITI would add to our current commitment to EITI as a supporting country. This bill would ensure that not only was the U.S. promoting EITI with other countries, but that we were benefitting from the structured transparency here at home.

This bill commits the Department of Interior to disclosing extractive payments received for resources derived from federal lands. In a letter I received from Secretary Salazar on June 19, 2009, he wrote that ``the Department of the Interior is in agreement with the goals set forth in the EITI especially concerning transparency in the management of extraction of minerals from Federal Lands.'' He went on to add that ``the DOI is committed to an ongoing effort to improve the quality of our services by taking accountability for our actions and fulfilling our commitments to the public and all our customers in an open, transparent manner.''

ESTT requires companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose in their regular SEC filings their extractive payments to foreign governments for oil, gas and mining which builds on the EITI requirement that all extractive companies operating in an EITI implementing country must report their payments to the government. This would allow investors to better evaluate the potential country risk faced by companies. It would also allow people to have information about the funds sent to their governments in non-EITI implementing countries.

An issue has been raised over whether this would impose a burdensome reporting requirement on the companies and whether the payments made by companies to extractive countries are relevant to investors looking into finances of those companies. This bill would not require the companies to collect any new information, but to report publically financial figures they already maintain. Many oil companies who work in EITI countries already file this information in the form required by EITI. It is expected that the SEC will follow the reporting requirements established under EITI, which were developed in conjunction with the oil industry. The legislation also gives the SEC some discretion, which should ensure ease of compliance. Regarding materiality, many analysts say that among the root causes of the current financial crisis were a failure by investors to have access to sufficient information about their investments, and an excessive reliance on the judgments of the ratings agencies, which proved to be highly faulty. That experience argues strongly for more disclosure and information. Considering the well-established link between oil payments and the business climate, many investors might be interested in this information--particularly socially responsible investors.

This legislation also encourages the President to work with members of the G-8, G-20, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to promote similar disclosure through their exchanges and jurisdictions. As Secretary Clinton noted in her questions for the record on January 12, 2009, ``President-Elect Obama has put a high priority on promoting transparency in government more broadly. I look forward to working with the President-Elect and the Treasury Department to promote greater transparency at the G-8 and now G-20 as well.''

In developing this legislation, my staff consulted with the Security and Exchange Commission, the Treasury Department, the Interior Department, energy companies, mining companies, the industry representatives, and non-governmental organizations.

When financial markets see stable economic growth and political organization in resource rich countries, supplies are more reliable and risk premiums factored into process at the gas pump are diminished. Information is critical to maintaining healthy economies and of healthy political systems. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 on behalf of myself, Senator Cardin, Senator Schumer, Senator Wicker, and Senator Feingold. The Energy Security Through Transparency, ESTT, bill takes important steps towards reversing the resource curse by revealing payments made here and abroad to governments for oil, gas and minerals.

The Energy Security Through Transparency Act builds on the findings of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report entitled the ``Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse'' which noted that many resource-rich countries that should be well-off are, in fact, terribly poor. History shows that oil, gas reserves and minerals frequently can be a bane, not a blessing, for poor countries, leading to corruption, wasteful spending, military adventurism, and instability. Too often, oil money intended for a nation's poor lines the pockets of the rich, or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive investments.

A classic case is Nigeria, the eighth-largest oil exporter. Despite half a trillion dollars in revenues since the 1960s, poverty has increased, corruption is rife, and violence roils the oil-rich Niger Delta.

The ``resource curse'' affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability.

ESTT expresses the Sense of Congress that the administration should undertake to become an `implementing' country of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. EITI is a major international transparency effort which sets a global framework for companies to publish what they pay and for governments to disclose what they receive. EITI's revenue data is intended to provide citizens with basic but crucial information necessary to effectively monitor government stewardship of natural resource revenues; hold decision-makers accountable for the use of public funds; and signal investors that a given country offers a transparent, rule of law-based business environment. The Bush administration supported the EITI through its participation on the board through the initiative's critical first several years.

As an implementing country, the U.S. would commit to disclosing payments from companies for oil, gas and minerals extracted from federal lands. Norway has recently signed up to become an implementing country, along with thirty developing countries. The U.S. commitment to implementing EITI would add to our current commitment to EITI as a supporting country. This bill would ensure that not only was the U.S. promoting EITI with other countries, but that we were benefitting from the structured transparency here at home.

This bill commits the Department of Interior to disclosing extractive payments received for resources derived from federal lands. In a letter I received from Secretary Salazar on June 19, 2009, he wrote that ``the Department of the Interior is in agreement with the goals set forth in the EITI especially concerning transparency in the management of extraction of minerals from Federal Lands.'' He went on to add that ``the DOI is committed to an ongoing effort to improve the quality of our services by taking accountability for our actions and fulfilling our commitments to the public and all our customers in an open, transparent manner.''

ESTT requires companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose in their regular SEC filings their extractive payments to foreign governments for oil, gas and mining which builds on the EITI requirement that all extractive companies operating in an EITI implementing country must report their payments to the government. This would allow investors to better evaluate the potential country risk faced by companies. It would also allow people to have information about the funds sent to their governments in non-EITI implementing countries.

An issue has been raised over whether this would impose a burdensome reporting requirement on the companies and whether the payments made by companies to extractive countries are relevant to investors looking into finances of those companies. This bill would not require the companies to collect any new information, but to report publically financial figures they already maintain. Many oil companies who work in EITI countries already file this information in the form required by EITI. It is expected that the SEC will follow the reporting requirements established under EITI, which were developed in conjunction with the oil industry. The legislation also gives the SEC some discretion, which should ensure ease of compliance. Regarding materiality, many analysts say that among the root causes of the current financial crisis were a failure by investors to have access to sufficient information about their investments, and an excessive reliance on the judgments of the ratings agencies, which proved to be highly faulty. That experience argues strongly for more disclosure and information. Considering the well-established link between oil payments and the business climate, many investors might be interested in this information--particularly socially responsible investors.

This legislation also encourages the President to work with members of the G-8, G-20, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to promote similar disclosure through their exchanges and jurisdictions. As Secretary Clinton noted in her questions for the record on January 12, 2009, ``President-Elect Obama has put a high priority on promoting transparency in government more broadly. I look forward to working with the President-Elect and the Treasury Department to promote greater transparency at the G-8 and now G-20 as well.''

In developing this legislation, my staff consulted with the Security and Exchange Commission, the Treasury Department, the Interior Department, energy companies, mining companies, the industry representatives, and non-governmental organizations.

When financial markets see stable economic growth and political organization in resource rich countries, supplies are more reliable and risk premiums factored into process at the gas pump are diminished. Information is critical to maintaining healthy economies and of healthy political systems. I ask for your support on passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Kerry, in introducing the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009. Our colleagues, Senators Corker, Menendez, Risch, and Cardin, join us in this effort as original cosponsors.

The role of foreign assistance in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives has come into sharper focus since 2001. President Bush elevated development as a third pillar of the U.S. National Security Strategy. President Obama pledged to double foreign assistance, and announced new initiatives on global food security and health. Secretary Clinton announced a quadrennial review of diplomacy and development. These initiatives are likely to have far reaching implications for foreign assistance policy and organization.

For development to play its full role in our national security structure, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, must be a strong agency with the resources to accomplish the missions we give it. Earlier this month, Secretary Clinton stated: ``I want USAID to be seen as the premier development agency in the world, both governmental and NGO. I want people coming here to consult with us about the best way to do anything having to do with development.'' I share the sentiments expressed by Secretary Clinton, and I have confidence in the extraordinary development expertise housed at USAID.

But during the last two decades, decision-makers have not made it easy for USAID to perform its vital function. Even as we have rediscovered the importance of foreign assistance, we find ourselves with a frail foundation to support a robust development strategy. We have increased funds for development and elevated its priority, while allowing USAID to atrophy. Many new programs have been located outside USAID with roughly two dozen departments and agencies having taken over some aspects of foreign assistance, including the Department of Defense. Each of these agencies naturally considers itself the lead agency in its sector, provoking competition among agencies rather than coordination and coherence. We do not really know whether these programs are complementary or working at cross-purposes.

USAID's staffing and expertise have declined markedly since the 1980s. There are only five engineers left; 23 education officers are tasked with overseeing different programs in 84 countries. Decisions to reorganize in pursuit of better coordination between the Department of State and USAID resulted in the latter's loss of evaluation, budget, and policy capacity. Much of the work of running America's development programs is now farmed out to private contractors.

I believe the starting point for any future design of our assistance programs and organization should not be the status quo, but rather the period in which we had a well-functioning and well-resourced aid agency. To be a full partner in support of foreign policy objectives, USAID must have the capacity to participate in policy, planning, and budgeting. The migration of these functions to the State Department has fed the impression that an independent aid agency no longer exists.

It the administration pursues the goal of doubling foreign assistance over time, it is crucial that Congress has confidence that these funds will be used efficiently. USAID must have the capacity to evaluate programs and disseminate information about best practices and methods and it must have a central role in development policy decisions.

The legislation that we introduce today promotes capacity, accountability, and transparency in U.S. foreign assistance programs. It has received strong initial support from outside groups led by the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. There are three deficiencies we are trying to address.

First, the evaluation of assistance programs and the dissemination of knowledge have deteriorated in the last couple of decades. While USAID was a respected voice in this regard during the 1980s, its evaluation capacity has been allowed to wither. The bill strengthens USAID's monitoring and

evaluation capacity with the creation of an internal evaluation and knowledge center. The bill also re-establishes a policy and planning bureau. It is crucial that USAID be able to fully partner with the State Department in decisions relating to development.

Second, U.S. foreign assistance programs are littered among some two dozen agencies with little or no coordination. We do not have adequate knowledge of whether programs are complementary or working at cross- purposes. The bill requires all government agencies with a foreign assistance role to make information about its activities publicly available in a timely fashion. It designates the USAID Mission Director as responsible for coordinating all development and humanitarian assistance in-country. It creates an independent evaluation and research organization that can analyze and evaluate foreign assistance programs across government.

Third, staffing and expertise at USAID have declined since the early 1990s, even as funding for foreign assistance programs has increased. This decline in capacity has resulted in other agencies stepping in to fill the gap. While Congress has begun to provide the necessary resources to rebuild this capacity, the agency does not have a human resources strategy to guide hiring and deployment decisions. The bill would require such a strategy and a high-level task force to advise on critical personnel issues. The bill also encourages increased training and inter-agency rotations to build expertise and effectiveness.

It is especially important that Congress weigh in on this issue because the Administration has yet to appoint a USAID Administrator or fill any confirmable positions in the agency. Without an Administrator in place, USAID is likely to have less of a role in the current State Department review than it should have. The State Department review process should include strong voices advocating for an independent aid agency.

Both Congress and the State Department should be offering proposals on how to improve development assistance. Our legislation does not rule out any options that the State Department may propose as a result of its review. But ultimately, Congress will have to make decisions on resources for development programs. Given budget constraints, it is essential that Congress has confidence in how development resources are spent. Building capacity at USAID will be an important part of this calculation.

The issues that we face today--from chronic poverty and hunger to violent acts of terrorism--require that we work seamlessly toward identifiable goals. I look forward to working with colleagues to improve and support the development mission that benefits our long-term security.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator John Kerry, in introducing the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009. Our colleagues, Senators Corker, Menendez, Risch, and Cardin, join us in this effort as original cosponsors.

The role of foreign assistance in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives has come into sharper focus since 2001. President Bush elevated development as a third pillar of the U.S. National Security Strategy. President Obama pledged to double foreign assistance, and announced new initiatives on global food security and health. Secretary Clinton announced a quadrennial review of diplomacy and development. These initiatives are likely to have far reaching implications for foreign assistance policy and organization.

For development to play its full role in our national security structure, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, must be a strong agency with the resources to accomplish the missions we give it. Earlier this month, Secretary Clinton stated: ``I want USAID to be seen as the premier development agency in the world, both governmental and NGO. I want people coming here to consult with us about the best way to do anything having to do with development.'' I share the sentiments expressed by Secretary Clinton, and I have confidence in the extraordinary development expertise housed at USAID.

But during the last two decades, decision-makers have not made it easy for USAID to perform its vital function. Even as we have rediscovered the importance of foreign assistance, we find ourselves with a frail foundation to support a robust development strategy. We have increased funds for development and elevated its priority, while allowing USAID to atrophy. Many new programs have been located outside USAID with roughly two dozen departments and agencies having taken over some aspects of foreign assistance, including the Department of Defense. Each of these agencies naturally considers itself the lead agency in its sector, provoking competition among agencies rather than coordination and coherence. We do not really know whether these programs are complementary or working at cross-purposes.

USAID's staffing and expertise have declined markedly since the 1980s. There are only five engineers left; 23 education officers are tasked with overseeing different programs in 84 countries. Decisions to reorganize in pursuit of better coordination between the Department of State and USAID resulted in the latter's loss of evaluation, budget, and policy capacity. Much of the work of running America's development programs is now farmed out to private contractors.

I believe the starting point for any future design of our assistance programs and organization should not be the status quo, but rather the period in which we had a well-functioning and well-resourced aid agency. To be a full partner in support of foreign policy objectives, USAID must have the capacity to participate in policy, planning, and budgeting. The migration of these functions to the State Department has fed the impression that an independent aid agency no longer exists.

It the administration pursues the goal of doubling foreign assistance over time, it is crucial that Congress has confidence that these funds will be used efficiently. USAID must have the capacity to evaluate programs and disseminate information about best practices and methods and it must have a central role in development policy decisions.

The legislation that we introduce today promotes capacity, accountability, and transparency in U.S. foreign assistance programs. It has received strong initial support from outside groups led by the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. There are three deficiencies we are trying to address.

First, the evaluation of assistance programs and the dissemination of knowledge have deteriorated in the last couple of decades. While USAID was a respected voice in this regard during the 1980s, its evaluation capacity has been allowed to wither. The bill strengthens USAID's monitoring and

evaluation capacity with the creation of an internal evaluation and knowledge center. The bill also re-establishes a policy and planning bureau. It is crucial that USAID be able to fully partner with the State Department in decisions relating to development.

Second, U.S. foreign assistance programs are littered among some two dozen agencies with little or no coordination. We do not have adequate knowledge of whether programs are complementary or working at cross- purposes. The bill requires all government agencies with a foreign assistance role to make information about its activities publicly available in a timely fashion. It designates the USAID Mission Director as responsible for coordinating all development and humanitarian assistance in-country. It creates an independent evaluation and research organization that can analyze and evaluate foreign assistance programs across government.

Third, staffing and expertise at USAID have declined since the early 1990s, even as funding for foreign assistance programs has increased. This decline in capacity has resulted in other agencies stepping in to fill the gap. While Congress has begun to provide the necessary resources to rebuild this capacity, the agency does not have a human resources strategy to guide hiring and deployment decisions. The bill would require such a strategy and a high-level task force to advise on critical personnel issues. The bill also encourages increased training and inter-agency rotations to build expertise and effectiveness.

It is especially important that Congress weigh in on this issue because the Administration has yet to appoint a USAID Administrator or fill any confirmable positions in the agency. Without an Administrator in place, USAID is likely to have less of a role in the current State Department review than it should have. The State Department review process should include strong voices advocating for an independent aid agency.

Both Congress and the State Department should be offering proposals on how to improve development assistance. Our legislation does not rule out any options that the State Department may propose as a result of its review. But ultimately, Congress will have to make decisions on resources for development programs. Given budget constraints, it is essential that Congress has confidence in how development resources are spent. Building capacity at USAID will be an important part of this calculation.

The issues that we face today--from chronic poverty and hunger to violent acts of terrorism--require that we work seamlessly toward identifiable goals. I look forward to working with colleagues to improve and support the development mission that benefits our long-term security.

Mr. President, today, Wednesday, July 22, Claude ``T'' Moorman II is being put to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. ``T'' was a remarkable scholar, athlete and physician who served his Nation with honor during the Vietnam war.

Born August 21, 1939, in Roanoke, VA, ``T'' grew up in Miami, FL, where he excelled in football, receiving both All State and All American honors while playing at Miami High School; ``T'' was a popular student who was elected student body president.

``T'' attended Duke University on a football scholarship. He served as a class officer and played football for legendary coach Bill Murray. ``T'' caught the much celebrated game winning touchdown in the 1961 Cotton Bowl, and he was elected to the All American Team. ``T'' Moorman is a member of Duke University's Athletic Hall of Fame, and in addition he was named one of Florida's All-Time Top 100 Football Players and Duke's Top 50 Athletes of the Century.

But athletic prowess is not why we honor Claude ``T'' Moorman II today at Arlington National Cemetery and here in the Senate. It is, of course, for his service to our Nation that ``T'' warrants our praise and respect.

After the cheers of Saturday college football games died down for ``T,'' he continued his education at Duke University Medical School, completing his degree in 1966 and training under another Duke legend, Dr. Lenox Baker, this time in the field of Orthopedics. In 1970, he volunteered for medical service in Vietnam, caring for our wounded soldiers. Those who called ``T'' a friend know it was this experience that shaped the character of ``T'' Moorman, and it is this service that makes ``T'' the true all- American that he was and that we honor today. ``T'' Moorman continued to serve with our military for 28 years.

Upon his return from Vietnam, ``T'' finished anesthesiology training at Emory, followed by a law degree from William and Mary in 1979. He then served with the Army Department of Legal Medicine Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington DC. Before retiring from the U.S. Army Reserves in 1998, Colonel Moorman commanded multiple U.S. Army Reserve units. Additionally, during this time he opened anesthesiology centers in Leesburg, VA, Stuart, FL, and Port St. Lucie, FL.

During the last decade of ``T''s life he fulfilled a lifelong dream of farming in Washington County, NC.

By making the choice to serve in the military during a time of war, a decision which demands and deserves our respect, those in the medical service make a choice to help their fellow man in the most difficult of situations--combat. ``T'' showed through action part of what comprised his character, morality, and strong passion for helping fellow Americans. Having been an All American Football player in college, ``T'' could have played professional football had he chosen that route. Instead, ``T'' made the most of his college career to obtain not only his undergraduate degree but additionally two medical degrees and a law degree. I think that this is an exemplary model of what a college athlete might strive to become. America certainly benefitted from ``T''s choices.

COL Claude ``T'' Moorman II will be remembered and missed by so many of the soldiers that he mended and friends and family that he humored. He will be forever celebrated and his legacy will never be forgotten.

Madam President, I am pleased to join with other Senate colleagues in honoring a loyal and talented friend, Norm Coleman. For the past 6 years, it has been my privilege to serve with him in the Senate. During that time, we have worked together on many issues, and I have witnessed with admiration his character and his dedication to the United States and to the people of Minnesota.

As a former mayor of Indianapolis, I was very pleased to welcome another former mayor to the Senate in 2003 when Norm took his seat after an election that was decided by fewer than 50,000 votes. We talked frequently about our experiences in Indianapolis and St. Paul, and we shared many perspectives on domestic policy because of this common bond. He was devoted to principles of good government that deeply informed his service in the Senate. It also was clear to me that Senator Coleman had an extremely strong commitment to constituent service that was stimulated by his service as a mayor. He understood that serving his constituents was a 24 hour-a-day job, and he threw himself into the task of serving all Minnesotans.

I am especially sad to see Norm leave the Senate because he has been an outstanding partner in the work of the Foreign Relations Committee. I encouraged him to join our committee in 2003, and he played a prominent role in our work from the day he arrived. For 6 years, I sat with Norm through hundreds of Foreign Relations Committee hearings and meetings. He was one of the most active members of the committee, and he could be counted on to bolster our debates and our efforts to achieve quorums. I greatly benefitted from the opportunity to exchange ideas with him, to compare perspectives on

our witnesses, and to develop common approaches to problems.

His impact was especially profound as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee from 2003 until 2006. He traveled frequently to Latin America and quickly developed an expertise in the region. He was an effective advocate for Plan Colombia, and he was one of our first leaders to recognize how important it was to ensure that Colombians had alternatives to economic and energy dependence on Venezuela. He performed important oversight of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the Peace Corps, and U.S. policy toward Haiti. Senator Coleman was the lead organizer of the U.S. -Chile Caucus, a group that allowed Senators to engage with Chileans to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Senator Coleman developed expertise that went well beyond Latin America. In April 2004, I chaired the Senate's first hearing that looked into the troubled Iraq Oil for Food Program. Senator Coleman took the lead from there, and as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, he conducted an extensive, 2-year investigation into corruption and mismanagement related to the Oil for Food Program. Many of his conclusions were the basis of legislation that he and I introduced in 2005--the United Nations Management, Personnel, and Policy Reform Act. Senator Coleman also was a passionate and informed advocate for U.S. programs to combat HIV/AIDS and a careful student of Middle East politics.

I know how much Norm was stimulated by the daily opportunities of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, and he made the most of them. Had he prevailed in his 2008 reelection bid, he would have been the second ranking Republican on the committee.

Senator Coleman leaves the Senate after 6 years, having established lifetime friendships. It was a special pleasure for Char and me to spend time with Norm and his wife Laurie at Aspen Institute events, giving us the opportunity to know much more about their family and life outside the Senate.

I will miss his good humor, his hard work, and his personal friendship. I have no doubts that he will continue to serve the United States and his fellow Americans in new ways, and I look forward to witnessing all that he will achieve in the future. I join the Senate in wishing him the best as he and his family move on to new adventures.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers the nomination of Harold Koh to be Legal Adviser to the Department of State. After reading his answers to dozens of questions, attending his hearing in its entirety, meeting with him privately, and reviewing his writings, I believe that Dean Koh is unquestionably qualified to assume the post for which he is nominated. He has had a distinguished career as a teacher and advocate, and he is regarded widely as one of our Nation's most accomplished experts on the theory and practice of international law. He also has served ably in our government as a Justice Department lawyer during the Reagan administration and as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 1998 to 2001.

The committee has received innumerable letters of support for the nominee attesting to his character, his love of country, and his respect for the law. He enjoys support from the lawyers with whom he has worked, as well as those including former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr--whom he has litigated against.

Both in private meetings and in public testimony, Dean Koh has affirmed that he understands the parameters of his role as State Department Legal Adviser. He understands that his role will be to provide policymakers objective advice on legal issues, not to be a campaigner for particular policy outcomes. He also has affirmed that as Legal Adviser, he will be prepared to defend the policies and interests of the U.S. Government, even when they may be at odds with positions he has taken in a private capacity. In applying laws relevant to the State Department's work, he has stated clearly that he will take account of and respect prior U.S. Government interpretations and practices under those laws, rather than considering each such issue as a matter of first impression.

Finally, I believe Dean Koh respects the role of the Senate and the Congress on international legal matters, especially treaties. He has promised to consult with us regularly and fully, not just when treaties come before the Senate, but also on the application of treaties on which the Senate has already provided advice and consent, including any proposed changes in the interpretation of such treaties.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton should be able to choose the individuals on whom they will depend for legal analysis, interpretation, and advice. Given Dean Koh's record of service and accomplishment, his personal character, his understanding of his role as Legal Adviser, and his commitment to work closely with Congress, I support his nomination and believe he is well deserving of confirmation by the Senate.

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