Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce the introduction of the Global Food Security Act of 2009. I would like to thank my friend Senator Casey for lending his ideas and support to this bipartisan effort, and Senator Durbin for his early cosponsorship. Finally, I want to thank the members of USAID's informal food security team, who advised us on the nature of food insecurity and possible legislative solutions.

As we know, food prices started a steep climb in the fall of 2007 and continued to increase during 2008. The increases pushed an additional 75 million people into poverty. While prices have abated somewhat, millions of people still face difficulty in food access and availability, and malnutrition rates in many parts of the world remain alarmingly high. The price crisis demonstrated that there are significant structural challenges to attaining global food security. The system is vulnerable to periodic disruptions that both expose and exacerbate deeper problems.

We live in a world where nearly one billion people suffer from chronic food insecurity. When droughts occur, hurricanes hit, or other disruptions arise--creating transitory food insecurity the economic prospects of those living in or near poverty are gravely threatened. In fact, the World Food Program reports that 25,000 people die each day from malnutrition-related causes. Health experts advise us that a diverse and secure food supply has major health benefits, including increasing child survival, improving cognitive and physical development of children, and increasing immune system function including resistance to HIV/AIDS. Prolonged malnutrition in children results in stunting and cognitive difficulties that last a lifetime.

Food insecurity is a global tragedy, but it is also an opportunity for the United States. The United States is the indisputable world leader in agricultural production and technology. A more focused effort on our part to join with other nations to increase yields, create economic opportunities for the rural poor, and broaden agricultural knowledge could begin a new era in U.S. diplomacy. Such an effort could improve our broader trade relations and serve as a model for similar endeavors in the areas of energy and scientific cooperation. Achieving food security for all people also would have profound implications for peace and U.S. national security. Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.

The United States has always stood for big ideas--from the founding of the

Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy's vow to put a man on the moon. One of today's big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America's dedication to science, innovation, technology, and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles to food security.

The Global Food Security Act of 2009 is a 5-year authorization that seeks to provide solutions that will have the greatest effect. First, it creates a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security and puts that person in charge of developing a food security strategy. We call on the development of that strategy to take a whole-of-government approach and to work with other international donors, the NGO community, and the private sector. Addressing food security requires more than investing in agriculture; it also requires improvements in infrastructure, the development of markets, access to finance, and sound land tenure systems, to name just a few.

Second, the bill authorizes additional resources for agricultural productivity and rural development. U.S. foreign assistance for agriculture has declined by nearly 70 percent since the 1980s. Globally, only four percent of official development assistance from all donors is currently allocated for agriculture. This amounts to neglect of what should be considered one of the most vital sectors in the alleviation of poverty. Food shortages are likely to recur frequently if the United States and the global community fail to invest in agricultural productivity in the developing world.

Third, the bill improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that can make local and regional purchases of food, where appropriate. Funds can be used for emergency food and non-food assistance. The Government Accountability Office reports that it can often take four to six months from the time a crisis occurs until U.S. food shipments arrive. Our intention is to provide USAID with the flexibility to respond to emergencies more quickly in order to complement food aid programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

World leaders must understand that over the long term, satisfying global demand for more and better food can be achieved only by increasing yields per acre. In the 1930s, my father, Marvin Lugar, produced corn yields of approximately 40 to 50 bushels per acre. Today, the Lugar farm yields about 150 bushels per acre on the same land in Marion County, Indiana. The Green Revolution saw the introduction of high yield seeds and improved agricultural techniques that resulted in a near doubling of cereal grain production per acre over 20 years. But more recently, food production has not kept pace with population increases. By 2050, it is projected that population growth will require another doubling of food production. Unless much greater effort is devoted to this problem, the world is likely to experience more frequent and intense food crises that increase migration, stimulate conflicts and intensify pandemics.

Moreover, the task of doubling food production is likely to be complicated by the effects of climate change. The important report by Sir Nicolas Stern estimated that a 2 degree celsius increase in global temperature will cut agricultural yields in Africa by as much as 35 percent. Thus, farmers around the world will be asked to meet the demands of global demographic expansion, even as they may be contending with a degrading agricultural environment that significantly depresses yields in some regions.

Increasing acreage under production will not satisfy the growth in food demand, and these steps come with serious environmental and national security costs. We need a second green revolution that will benefit developed and developing nations alike.

Recent studies have demonstrated that funds spent in agriculture can be up to twice as beneficial to economic growth as spending in other areas. It seems, therefore, that our overall foreign aid strategy would benefit from restoring agriculture programs to their former prominence. The bill increases funding for these programs in the first year by $750 million. The increase would reach $2.5 billion in year five. Because those who subsist on less than $1 a day spend at least half their incomes on food, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, the bill highlights the need to focus on those living in extreme poverty.

In thinking about how to approach agricultural productivity, we tried to draw from the experience of U.S. land grant colleges and the contributions they have made to U.S. agriculture. The bill seeks to strengthen institutions of higher education in the areas of agriculture sciences, research and extension programs. Investments in human capital and institutional capacity are important to developing a robust agricultural sector.

Universities and research centers can play an important role in achieving technological advances that are appropriate to local conditions. As such, the bill calls for increasing collaborative research on the full range of biotechnological advances including genetically modified technologies.

I hope that our bill will begin a productive dialogue on how our government can be a more effective partner with NGOs and private actors in promoting food security. There is no good reason why nearly a billion people should be food insecure or that the world should have to endure the social upheaval and risks of conflict that this insecurity causes.

I look forward to working with colleagues to improve the U.S. and global efforts to alleviate food insecurity and advance agricultural knowledge and technology worldwide.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce the introduction of the Global Food Security Act of 2009. I would like to thank my friend Senator Casey for lending his ideas and support to this bipartisan effort, and Senator Durbin for his early cosponsorship. Finally, I want to thank the members of USAID's informal food security team, who advised us on the nature of food insecurity and possible legislative solutions.

As we know, food prices started a steep climb in the fall of 2007 and continued to increase during 2008. The increases pushed an additional 75 million people into poverty. While prices have abated somewhat, millions of people still face difficulty in food access and availability, and malnutrition rates in many parts of the world remain alarmingly high. The price crisis demonstrated that there are significant structural challenges to attaining global food security. The system is vulnerable to periodic disruptions that both expose and exacerbate deeper problems.

We live in a world where nearly one billion people suffer from chronic food insecurity. When droughts occur, hurricanes hit, or other disruptions arise--creating transitory food insecurity the economic prospects of those living in or near poverty are gravely threatened. In fact, the World Food Program reports that 25,000 people die each day from malnutrition-related causes. Health experts advise us that a diverse and secure food supply has major health benefits, including increasing child survival, improving cognitive and physical development of children, and increasing immune system function including resistance to HIV/AIDS. Prolonged malnutrition in children results in stunting and cognitive difficulties that last a lifetime.

Food insecurity is a global tragedy, but it is also an opportunity for the United States. The United States is the indisputable world leader in agricultural production and technology. A more focused effort on our part to join with other nations to increase yields, create economic opportunities for the rural poor, and broaden agricultural knowledge could begin a new era in U.S. diplomacy. Such an effort could improve our broader trade relations and serve as a model for similar endeavors in the areas of energy and scientific cooperation. Achieving food security for all people also would have profound implications for peace and U.S. national security. Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.

The United States has always stood for big ideas--from the founding of the

Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy's vow to put a man on the moon. One of today's big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America's dedication to science, innovation, technology, and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles to food security.

The Global Food Security Act of 2009 is a 5-year authorization that seeks to provide solutions that will have the greatest effect. First, it creates a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security and puts that person in charge of developing a food security strategy. We call on the development of that strategy to take a whole-of-government approach and to work with other international donors, the NGO community, and the private sector. Addressing food security requires more than investing in agriculture; it also requires improvements in infrastructure, the development of markets, access to finance, and sound land tenure systems, to name just a few.

Second, the bill authorizes additional resources for agricultural productivity and rural development. U.S. foreign assistance for agriculture has declined by nearly 70 percent since the 1980s. Globally, only four percent of official development assistance from all donors is currently allocated for agriculture. This amounts to neglect of what should be considered one of the most vital sectors in the alleviation of poverty. Food shortages are likely to recur frequently if the United States and the global community fail to invest in agricultural productivity in the developing world.

Third, the bill improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that can make local and regional purchases of food, where appropriate. Funds can be used for emergency food and non-food assistance. The Government Accountability Office reports that it can often take four to six months from the time a crisis occurs until U.S. food shipments arrive. Our intention is to provide USAID with the flexibility to respond to emergencies more quickly in order to complement food aid programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

World leaders must understand that over the long term, satisfying global demand for more and better food can be achieved only by increasing yields per acre. In the 1930s, my father, Marvin Lugar, produced corn yields of approximately 40 to 50 bushels per acre. Today, the Lugar farm yields about 150 bushels per acre on the same land in Marion County, Indiana. The Green Revolution saw the introduction of high yield seeds and improved agricultural techniques that resulted in a near doubling of cereal grain production per acre over 20 years. But more recently, food production has not kept pace with population increases. By 2050, it is projected that population growth will require another doubling of food production. Unless much greater effort is devoted to this problem, the world is likely to experience more frequent and intense food crises that increase migration, stimulate conflicts and intensify pandemics.

Moreover, the task of doubling food production is likely to be complicated by the effects of climate change. The important report by Sir Nicolas Stern estimated that a 2 degree celsius increase in global temperature will cut agricultural yields in Africa by as much as 35 percent. Thus, farmers around the world will be asked to meet the demands of global demographic expansion, even as they may be contending with a degrading agricultural environment that significantly depresses yields in some regions.

Increasing acreage under production will not satisfy the growth in food demand, and these steps come with serious environmental and national security costs. We need a second green revolution that will benefit developed and developing nations alike.

Recent studies have demonstrated that funds spent in agriculture can be up to twice as beneficial to economic growth as spending in other areas. It seems, therefore, that our overall foreign aid strategy would benefit from restoring agriculture programs to their former prominence. The bill increases funding for these programs in the first year by $750 million. The increase would reach $2.5 billion in year five. Because those who subsist on less than $1 a day spend at least half their incomes on food, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, the bill highlights the need to focus on those living in extreme poverty.

In thinking about how to approach agricultural productivity, we tried to draw from the experience of U.S. land grant colleges and the contributions they have made to U.S. agriculture. The bill seeks to strengthen institutions of higher education in the areas of agriculture sciences, research and extension programs. Investments in human capital and institutional capacity are important to developing a robust agricultural sector.

Universities and research centers can play an important role in achieving technological advances that are appropriate to local conditions. As such, the bill calls for increasing collaborative research on the full range of biotechnological advances including genetically modified technologies.

I hope that our bill will begin a productive dialogue on how our government can be a more effective partner with NGOs and private actors in promoting food security. There is no good reason why nearly a billion people should be food insecure or that the world should have to endure the social upheaval and risks of conflict that this insecurity causes.

I look forward to working with colleagues to improve the U.S. and global efforts to alleviate food insecurity and advance agricultural knowledge and technology worldwide.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act of 2009, a bill to protect outstanding tropical forests and coral reefs in developing countries through Debt for Nature Swaps that then-Senator Biden and myself first passed more than ten years ago.

This bill reauthorizes a proven program which enjoys the ardent support of the Treasury Department and State Department for the third time since 1998. It will help developing countries reduce foreign debt and provide comprehensive environmental preservation programs to protect tropical forests and endangered marine habitats around the world. This bill will also serve as an important diplomatic tool to provide for our national security.

As one of the most successful U.S. conservation assistance programs, the agreements concluded under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act so far will together generate over $188 million to help conserve over 50 million acres of tropical forests in Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America. In addition, private donors, including the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International, have contributed more than $12 million to TFCA swaps, leveraging U.S. Government funds. This is an effective use of scarce Federal conservation dollars. But the rate of deforestation continues to accelerate across the globe.

This bill is an example of how we can use economic incentives and opportunities to change behavior and to influence personal and societal choices. Clearly, there are economic opportunities in clean energy sources, solar, wind and biofuels, and carbon sequestration and storage technologies. But improvements in farming and forestry practices may be among the lowest hanging fruit in the quest to deal with climate change.

During the global climate change discussions in the late 1990s in Kyoto, the concept of carbon sinks provided by forestry and agriculture was taken off the table. Last year during the Bali discussions, the topic of carbon sequestration through forestry and agricultural practices was revived. This is an important development, and it should be embraced by the United States.

Also alarming is the rapid rate of coral reef and coastal exploitation. The burden of foreign debt falls especially hard on nations with few natural resources that often resort to harvesting or otherwise exploiting coral reefs and other marine habitats to earn hard currency to service foreign debt. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 61 percent of the world's coral reefs may be destroyed by the year 2050 if the present rate of destruction continues.

The Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act expands the current tropical forest conservation programs to include the protection and conservation of these vital coral ecosystems. This legislation will make available resources for environmental stewardship that would otherwise be of the lowest priority in a developing country. It will reduce debt by investing locally in programs that will strengthen indigenous economies by creating long-term management policies that will preserve the natural resources upon which local commerce is based.

Both Indonesia and Brazil have been declared eligible for Tropical Forest Conservation Act funds. Brazil is the second most populous nation in our hemisphere. It wields enormous influence over neighboring states in South America and has expressed interest in a leading global role. It would be a diplomatic mistake to hinder our outreach to a nation on an issue--conservation--where we have mutual goals. Similarly, we should not encumber conservation cooperation with one the largest democracies in the world, Indonesia. The United States cannot afford to squander diplomatic opportunities that allow us to establish working relationships with key agencies in such strategically important nations.

This legislation has enormous consequences for the existence of critical ecosystems, the health of our planet, the livelihoods of millions of people across the globe, and even the security of Americans here at home.

I would like to provide additional information about activities under this act.

Fourteen TFCA agreements have been concluded to date in Bangladesh, El Salvador, Belize, Peru, the Philippines, Panama, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, Botswana, Costa Rica, and Jamaica. With the reauthorization of TFCA, the U.S. Government will be able to pursue agreements to conserve threatened coral reefs along with tropical forests.

The Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2009 authorizes appropriations for debt reduction for eligible countries at $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2009; $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 subject to appropriations.

First, the bill authorizes a Debt Swap option under which a third party may purchase the debt of a TFCA-eligible country in exchange for the creation of a fund to support tropical forest or coral reef conservation. The terms of the agreement are negotiated with the country, the third party and the U.S. Government.

Under this option, there may be no cost to the United States Government

because the financial assistance involved would come from nongovernmental or private entities. Third-party funding may be leveraged, in part, with U.S. Government appropriated funds.

Second, the bill authorizes a debt reduction option in which principal and interest payments due to the U.S. Government may be wholly or partially reduced. In return, the country accepts a new obligation to make payments to a conservation fund to be administered by a tropical forest or coral reef board within that country.

The bill authorizes appropriations to compensate the United States Treasury for the reduction in the revenues caused by TFCA debt treatment. However, these funds would be effectively leveraged because the amounts placed by an eligible country in its conservation fund would exceed the cost of debt reduction to the United States Treasury.

Third, under the Buy Back option, an eligible country is able to buy back its debt at its asset value in exchange for its willingness to place an additional amount based on the purchase price in local currency in a tropical forest fund.

Under this third option, there would be no cost to the United States Government since the debt is being bought back at its value as determined under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

The Tropical Forest Conservation and Coral Act applies to concessional loans made under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and credits granted under the Agricultural Trade and Assistance Act of 1954. It is consistent with established Treasury Department debt reduction practices as well as with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

Within each developing country, the conservation fund would be administered by a commission representing a majority of local nongovernmental, community development and scientific and academic organizations, representatives of the host government and a representative of the United States Government.

The conservation fund could be used to provide grants for the following purposes: to preserve, maintain or restore the tropical forest or coral reef of the beneficiary country through establishing parks and reserves; to develop and implement scientifically sound systems of natural resource management; to provide training programs to strengthen the scientific, technical and managerial capacities of individuals and organizations involved in conservation; to provide for restoration, protection and sustainable use of diverse animal and plant species; to provide research and identification of medicinal uses of tropical forest plant life to treat human diseases, illnesses, and health-related concerns; to develop and support individuals living in or near a tropical forest or coral reef, including the cultures of such individuals.

Oversight of this program would continue through multiple mechanisms including the following: funds for this program are subject to periodic formal evaluations and annual fund evaluations recently required as part of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART. TFCA Evaluation Scorecard is completed each year on each TFCA Fund. The Evaluation Scorecard was developed to provide for consistent, on-going evaluation and reporting across local TFCA programs.

Local TFCA funds are subject to regular audits. In addition, the local board or oversight committee monitors performance under each grant agreement to make sure that time schedules and other performance goals are being achieved. Grant agreements include budgets, timelines, and provisions requiring periodic progress reports from the grantee to the board.

In addition, the U.S. Government uses the annual management budget provided by Congress to fund evaluations of local TFCA programs. Evaluations undertaken with these funds include local site visits to determine that activities are being carried out consistent with the terms of the TFCA agreement.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act of 2009, a bill to protect outstanding tropical forests and coral reefs in developing countries through Debt for Nature Swaps that then-Senator Biden and myself first passed more than ten years ago.

This bill reauthorizes a proven program which enjoys the ardent support of the Treasury Department and State Department for the third time since 1998. It will help developing countries reduce foreign debt and provide comprehensive environmental preservation programs to protect tropical forests and endangered marine habitats around the world. This bill will also serve as an important diplomatic tool to provide for our national security.

As one of the most successful U.S. conservation assistance programs, the agreements concluded under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act so far will together generate over $188 million to help conserve over 50 million acres of tropical forests in Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America. In addition, private donors, including the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International, have contributed more than $12 million to TFCA swaps, leveraging U.S. Government funds. This is an effective use of scarce Federal conservation dollars. But the rate of deforestation continues to accelerate across the globe.

This bill is an example of how we can use economic incentives and opportunities to change behavior and to influence personal and societal choices. Clearly, there are economic opportunities in clean energy sources, solar, wind and biofuels, and carbon sequestration and storage technologies. But improvements in farming and forestry practices may be among the lowest hanging fruit in the quest to deal with climate change.

During the global climate change discussions in the late 1990s in Kyoto, the concept of carbon sinks provided by forestry and agriculture was taken off the table. Last year during the Bali discussions, the topic of carbon sequestration through forestry and agricultural practices was revived. This is an important development, and it should be embraced by the United States.

Also alarming is the rapid rate of coral reef and coastal exploitation. The burden of foreign debt falls especially hard on nations with few natural resources that often resort to harvesting or otherwise exploiting coral reefs and other marine habitats to earn hard currency to service foreign debt. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 61 percent of the world's coral reefs may be destroyed by the year 2050 if the present rate of destruction continues.

The Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Act expands the current tropical forest conservation programs to include the protection and conservation of these vital coral ecosystems. This legislation will make available resources for environmental stewardship that would otherwise be of the lowest priority in a developing country. It will reduce debt by investing locally in programs that will strengthen indigenous economies by creating long-term management policies that will preserve the natural resources upon which local commerce is based.

Both Indonesia and Brazil have been declared eligible for Tropical Forest Conservation Act funds. Brazil is the second most populous nation in our hemisphere. It wields enormous influence over neighboring states in South America and has expressed interest in a leading global role. It would be a diplomatic mistake to hinder our outreach to a nation on an issue--conservation--where we have mutual goals. Similarly, we should not encumber conservation cooperation with one the largest democracies in the world, Indonesia. The United States cannot afford to squander diplomatic opportunities that allow us to establish working relationships with key agencies in such strategically important nations.

This legislation has enormous consequences for the existence of critical ecosystems, the health of our planet, the livelihoods of millions of people across the globe, and even the security of Americans here at home.

I would like to provide additional information about activities under this act.

Fourteen TFCA agreements have been concluded to date in Bangladesh, El Salvador, Belize, Peru, the Philippines, Panama, Guatemala, Colombia, Paraguay, Botswana, Costa Rica, and Jamaica. With the reauthorization of TFCA, the U.S. Government will be able to pursue agreements to conserve threatened coral reefs along with tropical forests.

The Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2009 authorizes appropriations for debt reduction for eligible countries at $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2009; $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 subject to appropriations.

First, the bill authorizes a Debt Swap option under which a third party may purchase the debt of a TFCA-eligible country in exchange for the creation of a fund to support tropical forest or coral reef conservation. The terms of the agreement are negotiated with the country, the third party and the U.S. Government.

Under this option, there may be no cost to the United States Government

because the financial assistance involved would come from nongovernmental or private entities. Third-party funding may be leveraged, in part, with U.S. Government appropriated funds.

Second, the bill authorizes a debt reduction option in which principal and interest payments due to the U.S. Government may be wholly or partially reduced. In return, the country accepts a new obligation to make payments to a conservation fund to be administered by a tropical forest or coral reef board within that country.

The bill authorizes appropriations to compensate the United States Treasury for the reduction in the revenues caused by TFCA debt treatment. However, these funds would be effectively leveraged because the amounts placed by an eligible country in its conservation fund would exceed the cost of debt reduction to the United States Treasury.

Third, under the Buy Back option, an eligible country is able to buy back its debt at its asset value in exchange for its willingness to place an additional amount based on the purchase price in local currency in a tropical forest fund.

Under this third option, there would be no cost to the United States Government since the debt is being bought back at its value as determined under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

The Tropical Forest Conservation and Coral Act applies to concessional loans made under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and credits granted under the Agricultural Trade and Assistance Act of 1954. It is consistent with established Treasury Department debt reduction practices as well as with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

Within each developing country, the conservation fund would be administered by a commission representing a majority of local nongovernmental, community development and scientific and academic organizations, representatives of the host government and a representative of the United States Government.

The conservation fund could be used to provide grants for the following purposes: to preserve, maintain or restore the tropical forest or coral reef of the beneficiary country through establishing parks and reserves; to develop and implement scientifically sound systems of natural resource management; to provide training programs to strengthen the scientific, technical and managerial capacities of individuals and organizations involved in conservation; to provide for restoration, protection and sustainable use of diverse animal and plant species; to provide research and identification of medicinal uses of tropical forest plant life to treat human diseases, illnesses, and health-related concerns; to develop and support individuals living in or near a tropical forest or coral reef, including the cultures of such individuals.

Oversight of this program would continue through multiple mechanisms including the following: funds for this program are subject to periodic formal evaluations and annual fund evaluations recently required as part of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART. TFCA Evaluation Scorecard is completed each year on each TFCA Fund. The Evaluation Scorecard was developed to provide for consistent, on-going evaluation and reporting across local TFCA programs.

Local TFCA funds are subject to regular audits. In addition, the local board or oversight committee monitors performance under each grant agreement to make sure that time schedules and other performance goals are being achieved. Grant agreements include budgets, timelines, and provisions requiring periodic progress reports from the grantee to the board.

In addition, the U.S. Government uses the annual management budget provided by Congress to fund evaluations of local TFCA programs. Evaluations undertaken with these funds include local site visits to determine that activities are being carried out consistent with the terms of the TFCA agreement.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to extend permanent normal trade relations to Moldova. Moldova is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. This bill would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Moldova.

Moldova is a small country located in Europe between Ukraine and Romania. Throughout the Cold War it was a part of the Soviet Union. It gained its independence from the Soviet Union on August 27, 1991. The United States has supported Moldova in its journey toward democracy and sovereignty.

The United States enjoys good relations with Moldova and has encouraged Moldovan efforts to integrate with Euro-Atlantic institutions. Moldova has been selected to participate in the Eastern Partnership, an initiative proposed by the European Union in 2008, which will facilitate the creation of free trade agreements, energy security plans, and closer economic ties between the EU and Moldova.

Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova has enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. In 2001, Moldova became a member of the World Trade Organization. Furthermore, Moldovan

President Vladimir Voronin has recently expressed his desire to sign an accord to strengthen relations between Moldova and the European Union this year. Until the United States terminates application of Jackson- Vanik on Moldova, the U.S. will not benefit from Moldova's market access commitments nor can it resort to WTO dispute resolution mechanisms. While all other WTO members currently enjoy these benefits, the U.S. does not.

The Republic of Moldova has been evaluated every year and granted normal trade relations with the United States through annual presidential waivers from the effects of Jackson-Vanik. The Moldovan constitution guarantees its citizens the right to emigrate and this right is respected in practice. Most emigration restrictions were eliminated in 1991 and virtually no problems with emigration have been reported in the 16 years since independence. More specifically, Moldova does not impose emigration restrictions on members of the Jewish community. Synagogues function openly and without harassment. As a result, the administration finds that Moldova is in full compliance with Jackson-Vanik's provisions.

Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova has enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. Parliamentary elections in 2005 and local elections in 2007 generally complied with international standards for democratic elections.

Moldova has also contributed constructively towards a resolution of the long-standing separatist conflict in the country's Transniestria region, most recently by proposing a series of confidence-building measures and working groups. In addition, trade increased between the two parties by 30 percent in 2007.

The United States and Moldova have established a strong record of achievement in security cooperation. In 1997 the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program responded to a Moldovan request for assistance. The U.S. purchased and secured 14 nuclear-capable MiG-29Cs from Moldova. These fighter aircraft were built by the former Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons. Moldova expressed concern that these aircraft were unsecure due to the lack of funds and equipment necessary to ensure they were not stolen or smuggled out of the country. Specifically, emissaries from Iran had shown great interest and had attempted to acquire the aircraft. These planes were not destroyed. They were disassembled and shipped to Wright Patterson Air Force Base because they can be used by American experts for research purposes.

Moldova has made small, but important, troop contributions in Iraq. These contributions include significant demining capabilities and contingents of combat troops. I am pleased that the United States remains prepared to assist in weapons and ammunition disposal and force relocation assistance to help deal with the costs of military realignments in Moldova and to assist with military downsizing and reforms.

One of the areas where we can deepen U.S.-Moldovan relations is bilateral trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of emigration requirements, compliance with threat reduction and cooperation in the global war on terrorism, the products of Moldova should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik. The U.S. must remain committed and engaged in assisting Moldova in pursuing economic and development reforms. The government in Chisinau still has important work to do in these critical areas. The support and encouragement of the U.S. and the international community will be key to encouraging the Government of Moldova to take the necessary steps to initiate reform. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic and energy partnership can be made.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that we act promptly to bolster this important relationship and promote stability in this region.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to extend permanent normal trade relations to Moldova. Moldova is still subject to the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. This bill would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to Moldova.

Moldova is a small country located in Europe between Ukraine and Romania. Throughout the Cold War it was a part of the Soviet Union. It gained its independence from the Soviet Union on August 27, 1991. The United States has supported Moldova in its journey toward democracy and sovereignty.

The United States enjoys good relations with Moldova and has encouraged Moldovan efforts to integrate with Euro-Atlantic institutions. Moldova has been selected to participate in the Eastern Partnership, an initiative proposed by the European Union in 2008, which will facilitate the creation of free trade agreements, energy security plans, and closer economic ties between the EU and Moldova.

Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova has enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. In 2001, Moldova became a member of the World Trade Organization. Furthermore, Moldovan

President Vladimir Voronin has recently expressed his desire to sign an accord to strengthen relations between Moldova and the European Union this year. Until the United States terminates application of Jackson- Vanik on Moldova, the U.S. will not benefit from Moldova's market access commitments nor can it resort to WTO dispute resolution mechanisms. While all other WTO members currently enjoy these benefits, the U.S. does not.

The Republic of Moldova has been evaluated every year and granted normal trade relations with the United States through annual presidential waivers from the effects of Jackson-Vanik. The Moldovan constitution guarantees its citizens the right to emigrate and this right is respected in practice. Most emigration restrictions were eliminated in 1991 and virtually no problems with emigration have been reported in the 16 years since independence. More specifically, Moldova does not impose emigration restrictions on members of the Jewish community. Synagogues function openly and without harassment. As a result, the administration finds that Moldova is in full compliance with Jackson-Vanik's provisions.

Since declaring independence from the Soviet Union in 1992, Moldova has enacted a series of democratic and free market reforms. Parliamentary elections in 2005 and local elections in 2007 generally complied with international standards for democratic elections.

Moldova has also contributed constructively towards a resolution of the long-standing separatist conflict in the country's Transniestria region, most recently by proposing a series of confidence-building measures and working groups. In addition, trade increased between the two parties by 30 percent in 2007.

The United States and Moldova have established a strong record of achievement in security cooperation. In 1997 the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program responded to a Moldovan request for assistance. The U.S. purchased and secured 14 nuclear-capable MiG-29Cs from Moldova. These fighter aircraft were built by the former Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons. Moldova expressed concern that these aircraft were unsecure due to the lack of funds and equipment necessary to ensure they were not stolen or smuggled out of the country. Specifically, emissaries from Iran had shown great interest and had attempted to acquire the aircraft. These planes were not destroyed. They were disassembled and shipped to Wright Patterson Air Force Base because they can be used by American experts for research purposes.

Moldova has made small, but important, troop contributions in Iraq. These contributions include significant demining capabilities and contingents of combat troops. I am pleased that the United States remains prepared to assist in weapons and ammunition disposal and force relocation assistance to help deal with the costs of military realignments in Moldova and to assist with military downsizing and reforms.

One of the areas where we can deepen U.S.-Moldovan relations is bilateral trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of emigration requirements, compliance with threat reduction and cooperation in the global war on terrorism, the products of Moldova should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik. The U.S. must remain committed and engaged in assisting Moldova in pursuing economic and development reforms. The government in Chisinau still has important work to do in these critical areas. The support and encouragement of the U.S. and the international community will be key to encouraging the Government of Moldova to take the necessary steps to initiate reform. The permanent waiver of Jackson-Vanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning economic and energy partnership can be made.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that we act promptly to bolster this important relationship and promote stability in this region.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. In my judgment she is an extremely well qualified nominee who is deserving of confirmation. Her presence at the helm of the State Department could open unique opportunities for U.S. diplomacy and could bolster efforts to improve foreign attitudes toward the United States. She has longstanding relationships with many world leaders that could be put to great use in the service of our country. Her time in the Senate has given her a deep understanding of how U.S. foreign policy can be enriched by establishing a closer relationship between the executive and legislative branches. She is fully prepared to engage the world on a myriad of issues that urgently require attention.

Given Senator Clinton's remarkable qualifications, President Obama's strong confidence in her, and pressing global issues, which I do not need to enumerate, I favored having our friend confirmed yesterday by unanimous consent. Relevant points of concern about conflicts of interest arising from the fundraising of the Clinton Foundation were made during her confirmation hearing. In my judgment, only Senator Clinton and President Clinton, themselves, have the ability to avoid these problems. At the hearing, I strongly urged Senator Clinton to ensure that no conflict of interest problems arise. She stated that she would do so, and I am confident that she understands the importance of this commitment.

Nevertheless, I recognize that some colleagues who do not serve on the Foreign Relations Committee shared similar concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. They wanted an opportunity to discuss these concerns, and the Senate gives them that right. The Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate have oversight responsibility over anything that might add or detract from U.S. foreign policy. The Obama Transition and Senator Clinton implicitly recognized this Senate responsibility when they forwarded their memorandum of understanding addressing Clinton Foundation activities to the Foreign Relations Committee for its review.

I understand that the Clinton's are proud of the Clinton Foundation, and I applaud the work it has done. I also understand that the foundation is devoted to many ongoing projects and beneficiaries. President Clinton has given a great deal of time and energy to this enterprise, and he and other leaders of the foundation are reluctant to accept changes or restrictions that they perceive as potentially inhibiting its momentum.

But this understandable concern for the work of the foundation does not trump the vital business of U.S. foreign policy that will be directed by Senator Clinton. The work of the Clinton Foundation is a unique complication for Senator Clinton's service that will have to be managed with great care and transparency.

The point I attempted to make during the hearing and in other communications leading up to the hearing was that the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation. As such, it sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers or their countries. There need be no wrongdoing on the part of anyone to generate controversy or misperceptions. Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the foundation comes with the risk that it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision. Foreign perceptions are incredibly important to U.S. foreign policy, and mistaken impressions or suspicions can deeply affect the actions of foreign governments toward the United States. Moreover, we do not want our own Government's deliberations distracted by avoidable controversies played out in the media. The bottom line is that even well intentioned foreign donations carry risks for U.S. foreign policy.

At the hearing, I recommended that the only certain way to eliminate this risk would be for the Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions and rely on its large base of U.S. donors during Senator Clinton's time as Secretary of State.

Alternatively, I suggested that the Clinton Foundation could enhance public confidence and minimize risks of conflict of interest with a few additional transparency commitments, none of which would threaten the operations of the Clinton Foundation. Inconveniences for the foundation or a reduction in some types of donations that have been accepted in the past are small prices to pay when balanced against the serious business of U.S. foreign policy that affects the security of every American. If there is the slightest doubt about the appearance that a donation might create, the foundation should not take it. If there are issues about how a donation should be disclosed, the issues should be resolved by disclosing the donation sooner and with as much specificity as possible.

In particular, I suggested three additional commitments that the Clinton Foundation could make in the interest of transparency. First, all donations of $50,000 or more in a given year from any source should be disclosed immediately upon receipt, rather than waiting up to 12 months to list them in the annual disclosure. Second, pledges from foreign entities to donate more than $50,000 in the future should be disclosed both at the time the pledge is made and when the donation eventually occurs. Third, gifts of $50,000 or more from any foreign source, including individuals, should be submitted to the State Department ethics official for the same ethics review that will be applied to donations from foreign governments. This is especially important because the lines between foreign governments and foreign individuals are often blurred. For example, conflicts of interest could arise from a donation from a Gazprom executive or a member of the Saudi Royal family as easily as from the governments of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Since the inception of the Clinton Foundation in 1997, 499 donors have given $50,000 or more, an average of less than one per week. So the administrative burden of these additional transparency commitments would be minimal. But adopting them would yield substantial transparency benefits with regard to the donations that are most likely to raise issues.

In answers to questions for the record, Senator Clinton offered no reasons why these additional disclosure items would not be beneficial. Instead, answers stated that the MOU went beyond what other spouses of cabinet officials have done to limit their Foundations and that there is no law or ethics regulations requiring further steps. These statements are true, but beside the point.

First, the issues surrounding the fundraising of the Clinton Foundation and its impact on Senator Clinton's service as Secretary of State are not primarily legal. The imperative here is protecting U.S. foreign policy, not satisfying a legal or ethical requirement. If a transparency measure would help guard against donations that could jeopardize Senator Clinton's participation in some matters, prejudice foreign opinion against U.S. policies, or generate public controversies, it should be embraced. Each proposal should be judged on its own merits, rather than rejecting suggestions on the basis that enough has been done. Is it, or is it not a good idea to subject all foreign donations greater than $50,000 to the State Department ethics review process, for example.

Second, following precedents established by other foundations is unsatisfying given that this case far exceeds previous cases in magnitude and risk. Senator Clinton will be the Secretary of State--the top foreign policy official of the United States after the President. President Clinton is one of the most recognizable personages and prolific fundraisers in the world. As an ex-President, he is regarded as having personal influence with members of our Government and other governments. Moreover, we have already seen in the December disclosure of past donors that the Clinton Foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments, government-controlled entities, foreign businesses and others who may have interests affected by State Department policy. Other cases lack this extraordinary confluence of a Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign policy, a globally recognized ex-President spouse who has raised money in every corner of the world, and a foundation that has implemented an aggressive foreign fundraising strategy.

Furthermore, we should be clear that the MOU is a negotiated, political agreement that involved both the Obama Transition and the Clinton Foundation exerting leverage and making compromises. There is nothing wrong with this. But we should not confuse it with a document produced by ethics experts seeking to construct the most effective arrangement for avoiding conflicts of interest. These negotiations produced a useful, good-faith agreement, but not one beyond improvement. It represents a beginning, not an end. Its success will require that all parties make the integrity of U.S. foreign policy their first principle of implementation.

I am hopeful that Senator Clinton and the Clinton Foundation will take time to reexamine their position on these items. If they do, I believe they will see that they could reap substantial transparency and public confidence benefits by going beyond what the MOU requires them to do. More importantly, all involved should recognize that protecting the foreign policy of the United States from conflict of interest appearances far outweighs the relatively minimal impact additional transparency measures might have on the operations of the Clinton Foundation.

Mr. President, I rise to honor my good friend and our distinguished colleague, Joe Biden, who will be ending his remarkable Senate career to assume the office of the Vice President of the United States. It has been my great privilege to serve with Joe Biden in the Senate for 32 years. He and I have served together on the Foreign Relations Committee for all of the 30 years that I have been a member of that panel. He entered the Senate as the sixth youngest person ever elected to this body, having been elected at age 29 and seated soon after he reached the constitutionally required 30 years of age. He leaves as the longest serving Senator in the history of his State and the 14th longest serving Senator in U.S. history. He has cast more Senate votes than all but nine other Senators in history.

Joe Biden comes from a modest Irish-Catholic background. He started out in Scranton, PA, where his father was a used car salesman and his mother was a homemaker. The oldest of four children, Joe and his family moved to Claymont, DE, where his father had found a better job. It may be hard for many to believe today, but as a teenager, Joe had trouble speaking because he had a stutter. But showing the grit and determination we all have come to know, he undertook to give a speech to his entire school as a way to force himself to overcome his impediment. At the University of Delaware, he majored in history and political science, and he received a law degree from Syracuse University.

He started practicing law and worked as a public defender, but perhaps because his grandfather had been a State senator in Pennsylvania, he was soon attracted to politics. At the young age of 27, he was elected to the County Council of New Castle County in Delaware. Two years later he surprised all the political experts in his State, as well as his opponent, by defeating an incumbent Senator in a presumably ``safe'' seat. The margin of victory was just over 3,000 votes, but Joe went on to increase his vote totals in subsequent reelection races

Although Joe was elected at an especially young age, it would be wrong to say that he led a charmed life. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Just weeks after his election, his wife Neilia and his youngest child Naomi were killed in a car crash while Christmas shopping. His two other children, Beau and Hunter, were critically injured. Naturally, the tragedy was devastating to Joe, and he considered dropping the Senate seat to tend to his stricken family. The distinguished majority leader at the time, Mike Mansfield, persuaded Joe to reconsider, and he took the oath of office at his sons' hospital bedside.

It was the start of a long career of dedicated service in the Senate. It also was the start of a tradition for which Joe has become famous-- his regular commute on Amtrak from Wilmington down to Washington when the Senate was in session.

When I arrived in the Senate 4 years later, Joe had already established a reputation as a dynamic presence on Capitol Hill. In 1979, I joined him on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he had become a member in 1975. We have served together ever since, and I have benefitted greatly from Joe's friendship during that time. I have always believed that foreign policy is most effective when it is done in a bipartisan manner, and in Joe I found an able partner willing to work across the aisle to achieve important victories on behalf of the country and the American people. Some of the battles have not been easy. I recall, for instance, the difficult job we had in achieving passage of the Chemical Weapons Convention during President Clinton's administration. We celebrated another major victory last year with the passage of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act. Recently, our collaboration led to the joint sponsoring and introduction of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act. We have worked closely on legislation related to Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, tropical forest conservation, international violence against women, the control of global pathogens, and numerous arms control measures.

Each of us has twice been chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and we and our staffs have worked with special purpose during those times. We share the belief that the Foreign Relations Committee occupies a special place in history and is an essential component of a successful U.S. foreign policy. It is because of Joe's wide experience, keen mind, steady hand and strong advocacy that he was chosen by our Committee colleague, Senator Obama, to be his vice presidential running mate.

While I will deeply miss working with Joe on the committee, I look forward to joining with him to achieve further accomplishments while he is vice president. Besides a new commuting routine, he will face many challenges, and I know he will gain strength from the support and affection of his family: his lovely wife Jill, their daughter Ashley, and his two sons, Beau and Hunter, as well as their five grandchildren. I wish them all the best as they begin this exciting new chapter in their lives.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the accomplishments and leadership of Dr. James Tegnelia for his service to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency--DTRA--and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. DTRA is a 2,000-member combat support agency which is charged by the Department of Defense to safeguard the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction.

I have had the pleasure of working closely with Jim and DTRA in their role as the primary implementers of the Nunn-Lugar program. I am thankful to have had such a strong ally in the fight against nuclear proliferation. The agency is an integral actor in the fight to reduce WMD proliferation worldwide and has proven to be an extraordinary source of leadership in reducing the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. James Tegnelia, of Albuquerque, NM, has served as the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency since February 2005, and will leave that post in February 2009, after 4 years of dedicated service. Dr. Tegnelia's accomplishments are as wide in scope as they are large in number, and for this we honor him today on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Tegnelia was instrumental in institutionalizing and integrating the mission of combating weapons proliferation across the Department of Defense and in guiding agency support to the global war on terrorism. The integration of Department of Defense missions in both fighting terror and WMD proliferation has allowed both agencies to share valuable resources and seek common purpose in our efforts on both important fronts.

Jim has been a tireless champion of international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and his understanding of the threat of weapons of mass destruction to our nation and U.S. interests abroad is unparalleled. This expertise and dedication manifested itself in a leadership role for the agency in the establishment of regional and global nonproliferation partnerships. Working closely with the Department of State, Dr. Tegnelia has been a vocal advocate of the President's Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, a program designed to prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from threatening the United States and its allies with the world's most deadly weapons.

I have had the opportunity to travel extensively with Dr. Tegnelia and the experts at DTRA to Nunn-Lugar dismantlement sites all over the world. I remember fondly a trip we took just 2 years ago. He joined Sam Nunn and I in celebrating the 15th anniversary of the program on a trip to Russia, Ukraine, and Albania. We enjoyed good conversation on the program's significant contributions to international security and Nunn- Lugar's future prospects in countries outside the former Soviet Union. Jim has been an immensely successful leader and colleague in the fight to keep the United States safe and secure against the threats of weapons of mass destruction. We are indebted for his service and honor his commitment to this country.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him good luck in his future endeavors and thanks for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution commemorating several remarkable milestones in the U.S.-Poland partnership. This year marks the 90th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Poland, the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright Exchange Program with Poland, and the 10th anniversary of Poland's accession to NATO.

The U.S.-Polish friendship formally began in 1919 and has endured through two world wars, the Cold War, and the emergence of a vibrant democracy after the fall of communism. This partnership has been bolstered by two unqualified successes of U.S. diplomacy. The Fulbright Exchange Program has nurtured the pursuit of higher learning for Polish and American students, professors, and researchers, for many decades offering Poles a rare window into the opportunities afforded by democratic society. Such exchanges invigorated intellectual thought and creativity in Poland, Eastern Europe, and the West and helped to hasten the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

Poland exhibited great energy in undertaking economic, political, and military reforms, and the NATO alliance was strengthened by Polish membership in 1999. Poland today remains the closest of our allies, having contributed great wherewithal to combating global terrorism and bringing stability to Afghanistan and Iraq. In recognition of the profound successes of the U.S.-Polish alliance, I am pleased to introduce this resolution congratulating the Polish people on their great accomplishments as a free democracy and expressing our country's appreciation for Poland's steadfast partnership.

I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to honor our distinguished colleague, Pete Domenici, who will be ending his historic Senate career at the end of this Congress. For the past 32 years it has been my privilege to serve with Pete Domenici in the Senate. During that time, he has epitomized devotion to public service and to his State of New Mexico. He will leave the Senate having cast more votes than all but six other Senators in the history of this body. He is the longest serving Senator in New Mexico's history, and he rightly occupies an iconic status in his home State.

Pete Domenici experienced a modest upbringing as the only son of first generation Italian immigrants. He secured his first job after college as a pitcher for the Albuquerque Dukes, then a farm team for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Following a stint as a teacher, Pete won a seat on the Albuquerque City Commission in 1966. The next year, we both became mayors of our respective cities: Pete served Albuquerque as I served Indianapolis. After 6 years in the Albuquerque City Hall, he became the first Republican to win a Senate seat from New Mexico in 38 years.

I entered the Senate in 1977, 4 years after Pete. By that time, he already was recognized as a leading Republican authority on the budget process. I looked to Pete as a mentor on the intricacies of the Federal budget, and he graciously tutored me on both substance and process. Year after year, as the lead Republican on the Budget Committee, Pete was indispensible as floor manager of the budget resolution. Frequently, when the Senate lost its way during a difficult budget debate, Senator Domenici functioned as a touchstone to bring the debate back to sober reflection and verifiable statistics. I doubt the Senate will ever experience a leader who has a more detailed command of the budget process and who could explain it with greater clarity.

It is telling that even though Pete derived much annual power from his roles as Budget chairman and Appropriations subcommittee chairman, this status did not dissuade him from proposing a reform idea that implicitly would reduce his opportunities to exercise this authority-- namely a 2-year budget cycle. I have always been impressed by his embrace of this idea, and his endorsement influenced my own support for a 2-year budget process. Senator Domenici's advocacy went against standard expectations that Members of Congress will protect their own prerogatives even if their best judgment tells them that reforms are necessary. But Pete's service in the Senate was never based upon accruing personal authority or maximizing his notoriety.

I was extremely pleased that Senator Domenici's assiduous efforts over many years were recently brought to fruition with the passage and signature into law of the Mental Health Parity Act. Pete joined the late Senator Paul Wellstone in promoting this bipartisan legislation that will ensure that health plans make mental health treatment available for those in need. It will provide parity between health insurance coverage of mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical services and help avert the development of future physical problems that could arise from untreated and increasingly debilitating psychological illness.

I am especially sad to see Pete leave because he has been an outstanding partner in work to prevent nuclear proliferation and to improve response to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. In concert with the efforts of Senator Sam Nunn and myself to establish the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program at the Department of Defense--which is aimed at securing and destroying weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union--Senator Domenici spearheaded the expansion of the Energy Department's involvement in safeguarding nuclear material. He also was an effective advocate for the role of our National Laboratories in nonproliferation work. Scientists from the National Laboratories have been on the frontlines of our engagement with the brain trust of the Soviet nuclear program. Pete understood the unique skill set possessed by our laboratories, and he made sure that they were well funded and authorized to implement numerous nonproliferation projects. Senator Domenici also joined with Senator Nunn and me to pass the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act of 1997. Long before September 11, 2001, this legislation was working to improve the capabilities of local and State first responders, especially with regard to weapons of mass destruction attacks. The experience, awareness, and structure established by this program have been valuable to our Nation's post-9/11 homeland security efforts.

The Senate will miss deeply Senator Domenici's experience displayed over 36 years. He will be remembered as a workhorse able to shoulder the daily burdens of a thousand details, but also as a thoughtful observer who saw beyond the politics of the moment to provide perspective on the direction of our country. I wish my good friend the best as he leaves the Senate to experience new adventures with his family.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Senator Dodd for his leadership in the Foreign Relations Committee as we took up this historic agreement. He and I both congratulate Prime Minister Singh, our President, President Bush, and Secretary Rice for their advocacy.

This is, indeed, a historic day and a historic moment in the relationship between the United States and India, a very important partnership for world peace.

Today we consider the United States-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. This is one of the most important strategic diplomatic initiatives undertaken in the last decade. By concluding this pact, the United States has embraced a long-term outlook that will give us new diplomatic options and improved global stability.

The legislation we are considering approves the 123 Agreement that will allow the United States to engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation with India, while protecting U.S. national security and nonproliferation efforts, as well as congressional prerogatives.

It is an opportunity to build a strategic partnership with a nation, India, that shares our democratic values and will exert increasing influence on the world stage.

Last Saturday, September 27, the House of Representatives voted 297 to 117 to approve this agreement. Senate approval would be the capstone to more than 3 years of efforts in the United States and India and around the world.

By embracing this agreement, India's leaders are seeking to open a new chapter in the United States-India relations and reverse decades of fundamental disagreement over the nonproliferation regime. India has created a new national export control system; promised to maintain its unilateral nuclear testing moratorium; pledged to work with us to stop the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies; proposed to separate its civilian and military facilities and committed to place its civilian facilities under IAEA safeguards.

If approved, an agreement will allow India to receive nuclear fuel technology and reactors from the United States, benefits that were previously denied to India because of its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The benefits of this pact are designed to be a lasting incentive for India to abstain from further nuclear weapons tests and to cooperate closely with the United States in stopping proliferation.

The 123 Agreement was submitted by President Bush on September 10, 2008. Last week, the Foreign Relations Committee voted 19 to 2 to report this bill, approving the agreement to the full Senate. The bill the House voted on Saturday was almost identical to the bill approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, 2 years ago, the Senate voted 85 to 12 to approve legislation that set the parameters for the 123 Agreement we are considering today. The House voted 359 to 68 to approve companion legislation. At the time, the Foreign Relations Committee undertook an extensive review of the agreement and its context. We held three public hearings with testimony from 17 witnesses, including our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

We received a classified briefing from Under Secretaries of State Nick Burns and Bob Joseph. Numerous briefings were held for staff with experts from the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, the intelligence community, and the National Security Council.

I submitted 174 written questions for the record to the Department of State on details of the agreement, and I posted those answers on my Web site. The 2006 legislation set the rules for today's consideration of the 123 Agreement between the United States and India.

Unlike the administration's original proposal, the Hyde Act neither restricted nor predetermined congressional action on the 123 Agreement.

We expect India to move quickly to negotiate a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA and then to seek consensus from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in accordance with the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, domestic political divisions in India led to a delay of almost 2 years.

Final action on these two tasks was not completed until earlier this month. India engaged and obtained the approval of a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA on August 1. Nuclear Suppliers Group consensus was received on September 6. Since that time, the administration and both Houses of Congress have worked diligently to evaluate the agreements, answer questions from Members of Congress, and move the process forward.

The Hyde Act required the President to report to Congress on whether India had met seven determinations which are as follows: India has provided the United States and the IAEA with a separation plan for its civilian and military facilities and filed a declaration regarding civilian facilities with the IAEA; India has concluded all legal steps prior to signature for its safeguards agreement in perpetuity with the IAEA; India and the IAEA are making substantial progress in completing

an additional protocol; India is working actively with the United States to conclude a fissile material cutoff treaty; India is working with and supporting the United States to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology; and, India is taking the necessary steps to secure nuclear materials and technology; and, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items under an exception to their guidelines.

Now, 2 weeks ago at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns, Acting Under Secretary Joan Rood, and the lead U.S. Negotiator, Richard Stratford, provided detailed analysis of the agreement. Members were able to examine the documents accompanying the 123 Agreement and ask questions of witnesses about the Hyde Act, the 123 Agreement's text, the new safeguards agreement, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group decision.

I am convinced the President has met all the required determinations under the Hyde Act. However, the congressional review of the agreement demonstrated that two issues required provisions in the legislation before us.

First, India has not identified in the text of its IAEA safeguards agreement those facilities it will place under safeguards. India has provided a plan for the separation of facilities from its nuclear weapons program to the IAEA, but the plan is nonbinding and appears outdated.

This is not what Congress understood would happen when we approved the Hyde Act. Indeed, in 2006, the administration requested bill language calling on India to file ``a declaration regarding its civil facilities with the IAEA.''

The safeguards agreement containing that declaration was to enter into force before submission of the 123 Agreement to Congress.

Under the Hyde Act, India and the IAEA must conclude:

All legal steps required prior to signature by the parties

of an agreement requiring the application of IAEA safeguards

in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA standards, principles,

and practices . . . to India's civil nuclear facilities,

materials, and programs. . . . including materials used in or

produced through the use of India's civil nuclear facilities.

The purpose of this complex provision was to secure the most complete version possible of the safeguards agreement for congressional review. We intended that it be submitted as part of the Presidential determination and waiver report required by the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, by not naming the facilities in the safeguards agreement, there is an open question as to when India will act. This has legal implications because the United States is prohibited by law and our NPT obligations from having nuclear trade with any facility not named in India's safeguards agreement.

In response to this issue, Section 104 of the bill before us requires that licenses may not be issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for transfer of nuclear fuel, equipment and technology until after the President determines and certifies to Congress that, one, the safeguards agreement approved by the IAEA Board of Governors on August 1, 2008, has entered into force; and, two, India has filed a declaration of facilities that is not materially inconsistent with the facilities and schedules described in its separation plan.

The second issue that required a new provision in this legislation is India's desire to reprocess spent nuclear fuel burned in its reactors, including fuel from the United States. Reprocessing can result in the separation of plutonium, which can be used in a nuclear weapon.

The United States permits some NPT members with long histories of strong compliance with the IAEA agreement to reprocess U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel through a process called programmatic consent.

During negotiations on the 123 Agreement, India requested programmatic consent and the United States agreed. However, the United States made programmatic consent contingent on India establishing a dedicated facility to carry out the reprocessing and an agreement on reprocessing procedures in this new facility.

During the formulations hearings, I asked Acting Under Secretary John Rood if the arrangement that would be negotiated with India to permit reprocessing would be submitted to Congress for review.

Mr. Rood stated: `` . . . yes, that's required under the Atomic Energy Act.''

Permitting spent nuclear fuel from the United States to be reprocessed in India is a complex matter that requires careful implementation. The bill before us today does not block negotiations on such arrangements with India. However, the bill does require a future administration to submit such a ``subsequent arrangement'' to Congress which would have the power to pass a resolution of disapproval.

By addressing these two important matters, I believe this legislation improves congressional oversight for future nuclear cooperation with India and corrects a problem related to the new safeguards agreement India has with the IAEA.

In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to approve the United States-India agreement. The national security and economic future of the United States will be enhanced by a strong and enduring bipartisan with India.

With a well-educated middle class that is larger than the entire U.S. population, India can be an anchor of stability in Asia and an engine of global economic growth.

Moreover, the United States has a strong interest in expanding energy cooperation with India to develop new technologies, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare for declining global fossil fuel reserves.

The United States' own energy problems will be exacerbated if we do not forge energy partnerships with India, China, and other nations experiencing rapid economic growth. This legislation will promote much closer United States-Indian relations while preserving the priority of our nonproliferation efforts. We should surely move forward now.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague Senator Dodd in rising in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senators from North Dakota and New Mexico.

I believe the bill before us today and the Hyde act passed by Congress in 2006 addressed the possibility of a future Indian nuclear test in a very clear and definitive way. I am confident the Congress has provided the necessary assurances and authorities to protect United States interests and promote strong nonproliferation policies in the event of an Indian nuclear detonation.

The amendment seeks to address a concern that the Foreign Relations Committee addressed in 2006, and last month when we voted 19 to 2 to report the legislation pending before the Senate. Both bills ensure that there is no

ambiguity about the United States's legal and policy responses to a future Indian nuclear test.

If India tests a nuclear weapon, the 123 Agreement is over. This means the President could terminate all United States nuclear cooperation with India and fully and immediately use the United States's rights to demand the return of all items previously exported to India. This would include any special nuclear material produced by India, through the use of any nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology exported or reexported to India by the United States. These steps can occur as a response to any nuclear test, including instances in which India describes its actions as being ``for peaceful purposes.''

In addition, the United States could suspend and revoke any current or pending licenses. One of the primary purposes of this agreement is to deter India from testing nuclear weapons. New Delhi has more to gain from peaceful nuclear cooperation through this agreement than in testing.

The Hyde act and the bill before us were crafted to ensure that this is the case. Indian leaders argue that they retain the right to test. This is true. They are a sovereign nation. However, India has been warned repeatedly that consequences of another nuclear test would be dire.

In 2006, Secretary Rice stated in testimony that:

We have been very clear with the Indians. Should India

test, as it has agreed not to do, or should India in any way

violate the IAEA safeguards agreements to which it would be

adhering, the deal from our point of view would at that point

be off.

In a question for the record, I asked Secretary Rice at that time what the consequences of an Indian test would be. And she noted that under existing law:

No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear

technologies shall be exported to any nonnuclear weapons

state that is found by the President to have detonated a

nuclear explosive device.

Now, under United States law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India is a nonnuclear weapons state. In 2006 the Hyde act waived the application of the sanctions in the Atomic Energy Act to events that occurred before July 2005 when President Bush and Prime Minster Singh signed the joint statement. This waiver was intended to capture India's nuclear tests of 1974 and 1998, and permit U.S.-Indian cooperation in spite of those actions.

This does not apply to future Indian actions. So if India were to test tomorrow, the waiver provided by Congress in 2006 would not apply, and nuclear cooperation could be terminated. Let me repeat that. Under a law passed 2 years ago setting the parameters for congressional consideration of this agreement, if India were to test a nuclear weapon, terminate, or abrogate IAEA safeguards, materially violate IAEA safeguards, violate an agreement for cooperation with the United States, encourage another nonnuclear weapons state to engage in proliferation activities, or engage in unauthorized proliferation of sensitive nuclear technology, the agreement and United States cooperation could be terminated.

If that is not enough to satisfy the Senators' concerns, I would direct them to article 14 of the agreement:

Should India detonate a nuclear explosive device, the

United States has the right to cease all nuclear cooperation

with India immediately, including the supply of fuel as well

as the request for the return of any items transferred from

the United States, including fresh nuclear fuel.

Under Secretary Rood stated in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on September 18, 2008 that:

Just as India has maintained its sovereign right to conduct

a test, so too have we maintained our right to take action in

response.

Under article 14, the United States can also demand the return of any nuclear materials and equipment transferred pursuant to the agreement for cooperation as well as any special nuclear material produced in India, if it detonates a nuclear explosive device. This was confirmed in response to a question posed by the House of Representatives. The administration answered that even ``the fuel supply assurances [contained in the 123 agreement] are not . . . meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of nonproliferation commitments.

The United States would be able to exercise its right under article 14 of the agreement to require the return of materials and equipment subject to the agreement after, one, giving written notice to India that the agreement is terminated and, two, ceasing all cooperation based on a determination that a mutually acceptable resolution of outstanding issues has been impossible or cannot be achieved through consultation.

Both of these actions are within the discretion of the U.S. Government and do not require Indian agreement, and both can be taken at once.

In sum, the United States-India peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement ceases if India tests. This conclusion is consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act, the Hyde Act, and article 14 of this agreement. As a result, this amendment is unnecessary. The issues it seeks to address have been remedied. I urge colleagues to vote against the amendment. The real effect of adoption of this amendment would be to, once again, delay consideration and approval of this important agreement. It is time to move forward and to vote on this legislation and start peaceful nuclear cooperation between the world's two largest democracies.

The second portion of the amendment we are considering now requires a certification and a report that are at best duplicative of provisions already in law. This amendment would simply delay implementation of the U.S.-India 123 agreement in order to effect requirements that have already been enacted. First, the amendment requires the President to certify to Congress that no technology, material, or equipment, nor any facility supplied by the United States to India under the 123 agreement assisted with a nuclear detonation, if one occurs in India. In my opinion, this provision is duplicative of section 104(g) of the Hyde Act passed by Congress in 2006. Under that existing law, the President is already required to report annually on whether U.S. civil nuclear cooperation with India is in any way assisting India's nuclear weapons program. This report is to include information on whether any U.S. technology has been used by India for any activity related to the research, testing, or manufacture of nuclear explosive devices. It is unclear what additional information is required by the Senator's amendment than is available each year now to Congress under the Hyde Act.

Second, the amendment requires a report on any export controls that could be used by the United States if India detonated a nuclear explosive. The purpose of the export controls would be to ensure that no U.S. materials, equipment, or technology that may be in countries other than India could be reexported by those nations to India so as to minimize all trade with India and ensure that no U.S. technology or exports contributed to their nuclear weapons program.

Again, this provision is repetitive. In 2006, Congress endorsed section 105 of the Hyde Act that created a Nuclear Export Accountability Program for all U.S. exports to India. The purpose of section 105 was to ensure that our country was taking all appropriate measures to maintain accountability of all nuclear materials, equipment, and technology sold, leased, exported, or reexported to India to ensure full implementation of the IAEA safeguards in India and U.S. compliance with article I of the NPT. The program created by the Hyde Act is a highly detailed accounting system focused on ensuring that India is complying with the relevant requirements, terms, and conditions of any licenses issued by the United States regarding exports to India. This program represents the most comprehensive and detailed system of accounting ever imposed. I believe it provides substantially the same information that is required in the Senator's amendment, without the need for a new law.

The Hyde Act also addressed the concern that other nations might continue to supply India with any technology or fuel in the event of a cutoff by the United States. Section 103 of the Hyde Act makes it the policy of the United States to strengthen the guidelines and decisions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to move other nations toward ``instituting the practice of a timely

and coordinated response by [Nuclear Suppliers Group] members to all such violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an involved recipient'' and discourage ``individual NSG members from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such time as a consensus regarding a coordinated response has been achieved.''

The conference report on the Hyde Act clearly states the definitive interpretation of that provision. It reads:

The conferees intend that the United States seek agreement

among [Nuclear Suppliers Group] members that violations by

one country of an agreement with any NSG member should result

in joint action by all members, including, as appropriate,

the termination of nuclear exports. In addition, the

conferees intend that the Administration work with individual

states to encourage them to refrain from sensitive exports.

Section 103 of the Hyde Act also made it U.S. policy to seek to prevent the transfers of nuclear equipment, material, or technology from NSG participating governments to those countries with whom nuclear commerce has been suspended or terminated pursuant to the Hyde Act, the Atomic Energy Act, or any other U.S. law.

In other words, if U.S. exports to a country were to be suspended or terminated pursuant to U.S. law, it would be U.S. policy to seek to prevent the transfer of nuclear equipment, material, or technology from other sources, including from other countries with which the United States has substantial nuclear trade.

In sum, the amendment is duplicative. The issues raised here have been thoroughly dealt with under the Hyde Act of 2006, and the legislation currently before us. As a result, the impact of this amendment would simply be to delay congressional approval of this important agreement by sending it back to the House of Representatives. I do not believe such a course serves the U.S. security interests, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask all Senators to participate in a historic moment. This is an opportunity for the United States and India to come together in a way that historically is important for the world.

India is a very important country for us, and this relationship is sealed in a very significant way by this agreement. We have tested it in the Foreign Relations Committee for 3 years, back and forth on the nonproliferation qualities. We had great testimony from our Secretary of State, strong advocacy from our President.

We ask Senators to vote on this historic moment for a partnership that will be enduring, in my judgment, and will make a big difference in the history of the world.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce the introduction of the Global Food Security Act of 2008. I would like to thank my friend Senator Casey for lending his ideas and support to this bipartisan effort. I also thank USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore, who took an early interest in potential legislation. Her leadership is very much appreciated. Finally, I want to thank the members of USAID's informal food security team, who advised us on problems and possible legislative solutions.

As we know, food prices started a steep climb in the fall of 2007 and continued to increase during the spring of this year. The crisis has abated somewhat, largely due to the drop in energy prices. Nonetheless, this episode demonstrated that there are significant structural challenges to attaining global food security. The system is vulnerable to periodic disruptions that both expose and exacerbate deeper problems.

We live in a world where nearly 1 billion people suffer from chronic food insecurity. When droughts occur, hurricanes hit, or other disruptions arise, transitory food insecurity can put as many as 100 million people at a time in grave danger. In fact, the World Food Program reports that 25,000 people die each day from malnutrition- related causes. Health experts advise us that a diverse and secure food supply has major health benefits, including increasing child survival, improving cognitive and physical development of children, and increasing immune system function including resistance to HIV/AIDS.

Food insecurity is a global tragedy, but it is also an opportunity for the U.S. The U.S. is the indisputable world leader in agricultural production and technology. A more focused effort on our part to join with other nations to increase yields, improve food distribution, and broaden agricultural knowledge could begin a new era in U.S. diplomacy. Such an effort could solidify relationships with nations where, up to now, we have had few positive contacts. It could improve our broader trade relations and serve as a model for similar endeavors in the areas of energy and scientific cooperation. Achieving food security for all people also would have profound implications for peace and U.S. national security. Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.

The U.S. has always stood for big ideas--from the founding of the Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy's vow to put a man on the moon. One of today's big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America's dedication to science, innovation, technology, and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles to food security.

The Global Food Security Act of 2008, is a 5-year authorization that seeks to provide solutions that will have the greatest effect. First, it creates a Special Coordinator for Global Food Security and puts that person in charge of developing a food security strategy. We call on the development of that strategy to take a whole-of-government approach and to work with other international donors, the NGO community, and the private sector.

Second, the bill authorizes additional resources for agricultural productivity and rural development. U.S. foreign assistance for agriculture has declined by nearly 70 percent since the 1980s. Globally, only four percent of official development assistance from all donors is allocated for agriculture. This amounts to neglect of what should be considered one of the most vital sectors in the alleviation of poverty. Food shortages are likely to recur frequently if the U.S. and the global community fail to invest in agricultural productivity in the developing world.

World leaders must understand that over the long term, satisfying global demand for more and better food can be achieved only by increasing yields per acre. In the 1930s, my father, Marvin Lugar, produced corn yields of approximately 40 to 50 bushels per acre. Today, the Lugar farm yields about 150 bushels per acre on the same land in Marion County, IN. The Green Revolution, from 1965 to 1985, saw the introduction of high yield seeds and improved agricultural techniques that resulted in a near doubling of cereal grain production per acre over 20 years. But yields may have to be doubled or tripled again.

Increasing acreage under production will not satisfy the growth in food demand, and these steps come with serious environmental and national security costs. We need a second green revolution that will benefit developed and developing nations alike.

Recent studies have demonstrated that funds spent in agriculture can be

up to four times more beneficial to economic growth than spending in other areas. It seems, therefore, that our overall foreign aid strategy would benefit from restoring agriculture programs to their former prominence. The bill increases funding for these programs in the first year by $750 million. The increase would reach $2.5 billion in year 5. Because those who subsist on less than one dollar a day spend at least half their incomes on food, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, the bill highlights the need to focus on those living in extreme poverty.

In thinking about how to approach agricultural productivity, we tried to draw from the experience of U.S. land grant colleges and the contributions they have made to U.S. agriculture. The bill creates a new program that would strengthen institutions of higher education in the areas of agriculture sciences, research and extension programs. Investments in human capital and institutional capacity are important to developing a robust agricultural sector.

Universities and research centers can play an important role in achieving technological advances that are appropriate to local conditions. As such, the bill calls for increasing collaborative research on the full range of biotechnological advances including genetically modified technologies.

Third, the bill improves the U.S. emergency response to food crises by creating a separate Emergency Food Assistance Fund that can make local and regional purchases of food, where appropriate. Funds can be used for emergency food and agricultural assistance. The Government Accountability Office reports that it can often take 4 to 6 months from the time a crisis occurs until U.S. food shipments arrive. Our intention is to provide USAID with the flexibility to respond to emergencies more quickly, without supplanting other food programs such as P.L. 480.

I hope that our bill will begin a productive dialogue on how our government can be a more effective partner with NGO and private actors in promoting food security. There is no good reason why nearly a billion people should be food insecure or that the world should have to endure the social upheaval and risks of conflict that this insecurity causes.

I look forward to working with colleagues to improve the U.S. and global efforts to alleviate food insecurity and advance agricultural knowledge and technology worldwide.

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