[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5611-5616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     FOREIGN AFFAIRS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 600) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State and international broadcasting activities 
     for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, for the Peace Corps for 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007, for foreign assistance programs 
     for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today, the Senate will be considering S. 
600, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 
2007. The Foreign Relations Committee passed this bill on March 3 by a 
vote of 18-0. This is the third successive year that the Foreign 
Relations Committee has reported out a comprehensive Foreign Affairs 
Authorization bill by a unanimous vote. We are pleased to have this 
opportunity to bring it to the floor for the Senate's consideration. I 
want to especially thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader 
for their assistance and support in bringing this measure to the floor.
  This legislation gives voice to Senate views on issues touching every 
continent--from tbe threat of terrorism and weapons of mass 
destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies 
overseas, to an increased and focused effort to spur economic growth in 
the poorest countries. It authorizes the executive branch to take 
important actions on a wide range of issues. And, it authorizes 
appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, and our 
Peace Corps volunteers, as well as the programs and policies that they 
manage on behalf of the United States.
  These people are our civilian soldiers--they pursue a bold war on 
terrorism and a noble and far-sighted battle against disease, poverty, 
and humanitarian disasters. Most work in circumstances where the threat 
level is severe. American diplomats and aid workers frequently have 
been targets of terrorism while serving overseas. But they understand 
the importance of representing the United States, and they go anyway.
  At this time in our history we are experiencing a confluence of 
foreign policy crises that is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. 
Our Nation has lived through the September 11 tragedy, and we have 
responded with a worldwide war against terrorism. We have fought wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are likely to be engaged in security 
and reconstruction efforts for years to come. We have been confronted 
by nuclear proliferation problems in North Korea and Iran that threaten 
U.S. national security and regional stability. We are continuing 
efforts to safeguard Russia's massive stockpiles of chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons and to prevent proliferation throughout 
the world. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic Alliance, even 
as we have expanded it. We are trying to respond to the AIDS pandemic 
in Africa, the natural disasters in the Indian Ocean region, and the 
man-made calamity in Sudan. We are trying to take advantage of openings 
in the Middle East peace process and spur the advance of democracy in 
many countries. Emerging powers, including China, India, and Brazil, 
may soon reconfigure the world economically and politically in ways 
that we do not yet comprehend.
  There is a tendency in the media and sometimes in this body to see 
diplomatic activities as the rival of military solutions to problems. 
We have to get beyond this simplistic formulation. We

[[Page 5612]]

have to understand that our military and our diplomats are both 
instruments of U.S. national power that depend on one another. They 
both help shape the international environment and influence the 
attitudes of governments and peoples. They both gather information and 
provide expertise that is vital to the war on terrorism. And they both 
must be unsurpassed in their capabilities, if the United States is 
going to survive and prosper.
  Americans rightly demand that U.S. military capabilities be unrivaled 
in the world. Should not our diplomatic strength meet the same test? If 
a greater commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our 
embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapon, or the spiral into 
chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the 
investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.
  In considering this legislation today, it is important to remember 
that since the end of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs Account 
frequently has suffered from inadequate funding. The American public 
generally understands that the United States reduced military spending 
in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union. Few are aware, 
however, that this peace dividend spending reduction theme was applied 
even more unsparingly to our foreign affairs programs. In constant 
dollars, the foreign affairs budget was cut in six consecutive years 
from 1992 to 1998. This slide occurred even as the United States 
sustained the heavy added costs of establishing new missions in the 
fifteen emergent states of the former Soviet Union. In constant 
dollars, the cumulative effect was a 26 percent decrease in our foreign 
affairs programs. As a percentage of GDP, this six-year slide 
represented a 36 percent cut in foreign affairs programs.
  By the beginning of the new millennium, these cuts had taken their 
toll. The General Accounting Office reported that staffing shortfalls, 
lack of adequate language skills, and security vulnerabilities plagued 
many of our diplomatic posts. In 2001 the share of the U.S. budget 
devoted to the international affairs account stood at a paltry 1.18 
percent--barely above its post-World War II low and only about half of 
its share in the mid-1980s, during the Reagan administration.
  Under President Bush, funding for the Foreign Affairs Account has 
increased substantially. The President has requested increases in each 
of the last four budgets. In this year's budget, the President has 
requested a 13 percent increase over last year's appropriated amount 
for the Foreign Affairs Account--the largest percentage increase of any 
major account in the budget. This is a tangible demonstration of the 
President's commitment to diplomatic strength. Congress must now do its 
part by providing the resources and authorities that the President 
needs to carry out an effective foreign policy.
  The bill before us preserves the funding decisions in the President's 
request. Inevitably, members will have some differences with the 
specifics of the President's request. But we should recognize that this 
bill represents a generous attempt to raise the profile and 
effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy. Those of us who have advocated funding 
increases for the 150 Account should take ``Yes'' for an answer. 
Accordingly, I believe that if amendments are offered to increase 
funding for a particular program, they should include offsets.
  The bill funds the Millennium Challenge Corporation at the 
President's requested level of $3 billion. Some have argued that the 
President should have requested $5 billion--the amount he originally 
had conceived for the corporation's third year of funding. Others have 
argued that $3 billion is too much for a new venture that is just 
getting off the ground, and that some of this money should be shifted 
to other priorities. My own view is that $3 billion is a reasonable 
amount, given the scope of the program and its potential for spurring 
democratic reforms overseas. The credibility of the program, which 
foreign nations are observing closely, would be strengthened if the 
Senate endorsed the President's funding request. For these reasons, I 
will oppose amendments that seek to use MCC funds as an offset for 
other priorities.
  This bill contains numerous policy initiatives, most notably the 
bipartisan Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act, 
which was developed in the Foreign Relations Committee and included in 
last year's bill. The bill before the Senate also includes a 10 percent 
increase in danger pay for State Department employees who serve in 
dangerous posts overseas, funding for refugee assistance, and 
provisions designed to improve protections for women, children, and 
other vulnerable populations in the context of war or disaster.
  Since the mid-1980s, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility to 
pass an Omnibus Foreign Assistance Act. Several discrete measures, such 
as the Millennium Challenge Account, the global AIDS bill, the Freedom 
Support Act, and the Support for Eastern European Democracy Act, have 
been enacted. But in the absence of a comprehensive authorization, much 
of the responsibility for providing guidance for foreign assistance 
policy has fallen to the appropriations committees. Appropriators have 
kept our foreign assistance programs going, but in many cases, they 
have had to do so without proper authorization. In some years, the 
Congress did pass a State Department authorization bill, but that bill 
only authorizes about 35 percent of the Function 150 Account. To fund 
the remaining accounts, appropriators frequently had to waive the legal 
requirement to appropriate funds only following the passage of an 
authorization bill.
  Passing a comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill is good 
politics, as well as good policy. It is good politics because it 
underscores the leadership of this Senate at a time when our country is 
in peril. It is good politics because foreign assistance is an 
instrument of national power in the war on terrorism. It is good 
politics because it recognizes that our standard of living, the 
retirements of our parents, our children's educations, advancements in 
our health care, and the security of Americans can be undermined by 
what happens overseas. It recognizes that American prosperity is far 
more likely to be sustained if we are successful in spreading 
democracy, stability, and free market principles.
  I thank the members of my committee for their hard work during the 
authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle devoted many 
hours and much thought to constructive approaches to a number of very 
difficult foreign policy questions. Although this is a new bill 
developed during the last several months, it reflects much work that 
has been done by the Committee during the previous Congress. Committee 
hearings during the last 2 years on post-conflict stabilization and 
reconstruction, U.S. policy in the Middle East, developments on the 
Korean peninsula, relations between India and Pakistan, public 
diplomacy, foreign assistance, and numerous other topics have been well 
attended. In fact, no Senate committee held as many hearings or met as 
often as the Foreign Relations Committee during the last Congress.
  I especially thank the ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Biden, for his support of this process and his 
leadership in foreign policy matters. We have agreed on the vast 
majority of provisions in this bill, and when we have disagreed, we 
have worked hard to bridge our differences and find bipartisan 
solutions. We have always shared the common goal of bringing good 
legislation to the floor for the Senate's judgment.
  It has long been my intent that the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee approach foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit. This 
legislation reflects the committee's success in that regard. 
Republicans and Democrats have worked together closely to seek 
consensus, reason together, make compromises and craft excellent 
legislation. Our committee is united in the belief that passing a 
comprehensive Foreign Affairs authorization bill will enhance U.S. 
national security.

[[Page 5613]]

  I am looking forward to the debate on this bill and the constructive 
contributions of Members at this important time in our Nation's 
history.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 266

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 266.

  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the amendment to the limitation on the United 
States share of assessments for United Nations Peacekeeping operations)

       On page 55, strike lines 3 through 11.

  Mr. LUGAR. I rise to offer an amendment that strikes section 401, a 
section which establishes a permanent cap of 27.1 percent on the 
American share of cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The Helms-Biden 
legislation passed in 1999 anticipated the U.S. share of peacekeeping 
dues would decline to 25 percent in total. This remains an important 
goal of the U.S. policy toward the U.N.
  This issue has raised strong feelings on both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate the perspective of Senators who want to preserve a 27.1-
percent cap as well as those who want the cap to be reduced to the 25 
percent level in accordance with the Helms-Biden legislation. We would 
all like to see American financial responsibilities at the United 
Nations reduced.
  We should acknowledge that existing U.S. law sets 25 percent as our 
target for peacekeeping contributions. I believe we should give the 
U.S. negotiators the most leverage possible to attain the U.S. goals. 
Passing a permanent 27.1-percent cap in this bill at this moment might 
reduce that leverage.
  In coming weeks Congress will have further opportunities to work with 
President Bush to craft the most effective means possible of reducing 
the U.S. share of peacekeeping assessments. I believe this is an issue 
on which further consultation with the executive branch is certainly 
warranted. This is particularly true at a moment when the Secretary 
General has recently put forward a substantial United Nations reform 
plan, and the President's nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is 
pending before the Senate.
  After discussions with the majority leader and other Members, I have 
come to the conclusion that we will facilitate further consultations on 
the peacekeeping cap with the administration and improve prospects for 
passage of the underlying legislation if we strike this provision. 
Consequently, I am hopeful Senators will join me in passing this 
amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside in order that I may send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 267

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 267.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
     (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine)

       On page 277, after line 8, add the following:

                 TITLE XXIX--TRADE TREATMENT OF UKRAINE

     SEC. 2901. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that Ukraine has--
       (1) made considerable progress toward respecting 
     fundamental human rights consistent with the objectives of 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974;
       (2) adopted administrative procedures that accord its 
     citizens the right to emigrate, travel freely, and to return 
     to their country without restriction; and
       (3) been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of 
     emigration provisions in title IV of the Trade Act of 1974.

     SEC. 2902. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE 
                   TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO UKRAINE.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Ukraine; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Ukraine, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Ukraine, 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to 
     that country.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we all know, the recent Orange 
Revolution in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of 
democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would 
not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic 
rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their 
destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do 
the hard work of consolidating democracy.
  The purpose of the amendment is to repeal the so-called and well-
known Jackson-Vanik amendment, for it to be terminated with respect to 
Ukraine. At his appearance yesterday with President Viktor Yushchenko, 
President Bush pledged to seek the termination of Jackson-Vanik. In a 
White House statement yesterday, both Governments stated that they 
support ``immediately ending the application of Jackson-Vanik to 
Ukraine.'' We should all agree. This 31-year-old legislation is, with 
respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. I am pleased 
to offer this amendment along with Senator DeWine. And I know there 
will be others.
  Specifically, this amendment would authorize the President to 
terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, which is title IV of the 
Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to 
receive permanent normal trade relations tariff status in its trade 
with the United States. Several Members in the Senate and House have 
also introduced legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik, and these bills 
in the Senate have been pending in the committee since the start of 
this session. I am hopeful that today the Senate will agree to adopt 
this amendment.
  Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting 
Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's 
new democracy and its relationship with the United States. In February, 
along with three other Senators and six representatives, I went to 
Kiev, where we met with President Yushchenko, Prime Minister 
Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was 
struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken 
hold in Ukraine, and I know we all wish the new leaders all the best as 
they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that we

[[Page 5614]]

would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I 
am happy to move toward that end.
  Tomorrow, President Yushchenko will address a joint session of 
Congress, an honor which we bestow on few foreign leaders. As we have 
the privilege of welcoming this true hero of democracy, I can think of 
no better gesture than today terminating the anachronistic and 
inappropriate Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Ukraine.
  I note the presence of my most respected colleague, Senator Lugar, 
who has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us with his 
knowledge and expertise on issues of national security and foreign 
affairs and his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. I hope 
he would see his way clear to have a look at this amendment, and I 
would obviously seek his support.
  Mr. President, we who follow events in that part of the world were 
thrilled at the Orange Revolution. We saw a flawed election that was 
repudiated by the people of Ukraine in a peaceful manner. It was one of 
the remarkable events in that part of the world.
  I remind my colleagues that Ukraine is a very pivotal and important 
country in its own right, one with a tragic history of bloodshed and 
sacrifice but also, when its geostrategic location is considered, a 
very important part of the world. Dr. Henry Kissinger once was quoted 
as saying: Russia with Ukraine is a Western power, without Ukraine is 
an Eastern power.
  I fully agree with our President's stated commitment yesterday for 
repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned.
  Jackson-Vanik was a very incredibly important tool in asserting our 
support and advocacy for human rights in then-Iron-Curtain countries. I 
think it is very clear that neither Senator Jackson nor Congressman 
Vanik envisioned this anachronistic provision to apply to a country 
that is now on the verge of a functioning democracy in a free and 
exuberant nation.
  I am told by my staff that somehow the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, or probably more likely one of his zealous staffers, has 
said they would object to this provision because of the fact there are 
certain problems with intellectual property or other reasons. I would 
hope that assertion of jurisdiction, or reluctance to approve of this, 
particularly in light of this particular moment, would disappear in 
light of the priorities that this repeal of Jackson-Vanik would send as 
a sign of strong support and advocacy for democracy and process of an 
open and free society which is obviously taking place in Ukraine.
  So if there is a problem that we have with Ukraine, I would think the 
President of the United States would have articulated those views in 
his meetings with President Yushchenko yesterday. And if the President 
had a problem, he certainly would not have come out after the meeting 
and advocated the repeal of Jackson-Vanik.
  Not many Americans even know what Jackson-Vanik is. But a whole lot 
of people in these countries that this law still applies to are very 
aware of it. I think it would not only be appropriate to send a signal 
with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik as far as Ukraine is concerned, but I 
think it would be a slap in the face to the new Ukrainian Government 
and people because some committee of the Senate asserted its 
jurisdiction at a time when we should be providing as much 
encouragement as we can to the process of democracy and freedom, which 
has exhilarated all of us as we watched this marvelous transformation 
take place.
  So I urge adoption of the amendment. I hope we can dispose of the 
amendment today. If the chairman of the Finance Committee or any of his 
staff would like to debate this issue, I would be more than happy to 
engage in that at their convenience and have a recorded vote, which I 
think would carry overwhelmingly in the Senate.
  I again recognize the leadership and dedicated hard work on this 
legislation by our distinguished and respected chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona for his very thoughtful comments about my work in the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I thank him for offering this amendment.
  Let me point out, as the Senator from Arizona has already, a number 
of bills attempting to achieve repeal of Jackson-Vanik have been 
introduced in both Houses. But they have not come to conclusion, and 
apparently today that will happen.
  I am one of the authors of one of those bills, S. 632, which 
authorizes the extension of permanent normal trade relations treatment 
with Ukraine. As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, 
unfortunately Ukraine 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. 
My bill, and I believe Senator McCain's bill, would repeal permanently 
the application of Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. As has been mentioned by 
the distinguished Senator, that bill has been referred to the Finance 
Committee, which still has it under consideration.
  But I would offer this argument. In the post-Cold-War era, Ukraine 
has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the requirements for the 
lifting of Jackson-Vanik and, in addition, has expressed a strong 
desire to abide by free market principles and good governance.
  Last November 21, I served as President Bush's personal 
representative to the runoff election between Prime Minister Yanukovich 
and Viktor Yushchenko. During that visit, I promoted free and fair 
election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the 
legitimacy of the winning candidate. Unfortunately, that was not 
possible at that time. The Government of Ukraine allowed, or aided and 
abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of that 
November 21 election. It is clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich did 
not win that election.
  In response, however, the people of Ukraine rallied in the streets 
and squares and demanded justice. After tremendous international 
pressure and mediation, Ukraine repeated the runoff election. It was 
held on December 26. A newly named Central Election Commission and a 
new set of election laws led to a much improved process. International 
monitors concluded the process was generally free and fair. Viktor 
Yushchenko was inaugurated as President of, Ukraine, and tomorrow he 
will address a joint session of our Congress.
  Extraordinary events have occurred in Ukraine over the last several 
months since the December 26 election. A free press has revolted 
against Government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging 
middle class has found its political footing. A new generation has 
embraced democracy and openness. A society has rebelled against the 
illegal activities of its Government. It is in our interest to 
recognize and to protect these advances in Ukraine.
  The United States has a long record of cooperation with Ukraine 
through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act.
  Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with 
the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program, the 
United States has assisted Ukraine in eliminating this deadly arsenal 
and joining the nonproliferation treaty as a nonnuclear state.
  One of the areas where we can deepen United States-Ukraine relations 
is bilateral trade. Trade relations between the United States and 
Ukraine are currently governed by a bilateral trade agreement signed in 
1992. There are other economic agreements in place seeking to further 
facilitate economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine, 
including a bilateral investment treaty which was signed in 1996 and a 
taxation treaty signed in the year 2000. In addition, Ukraine commenced 
negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization in 
1993, further demonstrating its commitment to adhere to the free market 
principles of fair trade.

[[Page 5615]]

  In light of its adherence to freedom of immigration requirements, 
democratic principles, compliance with threat reduction, and several 
agreements on economic cooperation, the products of Ukraine should not 
be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik.
  There are areas in which Ukraine needs to continue to improve. These 
include market access, protection of intellectual property, and 
reduction of tariffs. The United States must remain committed to 
assisting Ukraine in pursuing market economic reforms. 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 partnership can be made.
  My colleagues on the Finance Committee have committed to joining me 
in supporting this important legislation. It is essential that the 
Finance Committee and the full Senate act promptly to bolster this 
burgeoning democracy to promote stability in this region. I am most 
hopeful that in the course of the day, we will take favorable action on 
this amendment.
  For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise for the point of giving information 
to all Senators about the legislation we have in front of us. As the 
Chair has observed, several minutes have passed without activity. We 
have through staff attempted to notify all Senators who might be 
anticipating offering amendments or action on this bill. This will be 
an excellent opportunity to do so prior to the time the two party 
luncheons are held and a recess for that reason is called. We know that 
following lunch, there will be two important amendments offered, and we 
welcome those. I would like to proceed to our debate and votes, with 
disposition of amendments that are now pending.
  I simply mention, Mr. President, that I recognize, as does the Chair, 
many Senators are under some urgent requirements in terms of scheduling 
in this particular week, as we mourn the death of Pope John Paul II. 
Some Senators are contemplating potential travel to the funeral of the 
Pope. Others have other requirements. So it would be my intent, as we 
conclude these amendments that are available, to move for final passage 
of the bill, to conclude activity on this bill today and as early today 
as possible.
  My understanding is a potential debate on the Social Security issue 
will ensue at some point this evening after we have concluded 
activities on the authorization bill. So we might make that more 
readily available and that time more certain. I mention this because 
for Senators who do have amendments, even if they are not completely 
formulated, I request they bring those to the floor so that staff on 
both sides of the aisle can work through those amendments to find an 
acceptable form. It would be at least our general view of a liberal 
policy of adopting amendments that enhance the authorization process 
and do no violence at least to the foreign policy objectives of the 
United States.
  With that in mind, hopefully those listening to the debate will hear 
our plea, proceed with amendments, and help us with the activities.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Having spoken to the chairman of the committee, I ask 
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, and 277, 
                                en bloc

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send to the desk a group of amendments to 
S. 600 that have the approval of the managers of the bill. The package 
has bipartisan support. I intend to ask they be agreed to by unanimous 
consent as soon as the ranking member has joined me in the Senate.
  I have received word that the presence of the ranking member will not 
be required. Staff on both sides of the aisle have cleared these 
amendments; therefore, I ask they be agreed to en bloc by unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 268

  (Purpose: To permit grants to be used for broadcasting outside the 
                          Middle East region)

       On page 59, strike lines 16 though 25 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Authority.--Grants authorized under section 305 shall 
     be available to make annual grants to Middle East 
     Broadcasting Networks for the purpose of carrying out radio 
     and television broadcasting.
       ``(b) Function.--Middle East Broadcasting Networks shall 
     provide radio and television programming consistent with the 
     broadcasting standards and broadcasting principles set forth 
     in section 303.


                           amendment no. 269

  (Purpose: To limit the compensation paid to employees of the Middle 
                      East Broadcasting Networks)

       On page 60, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       ``(C) not more than 5 officers or employees of the Middle 
     East Broadcasting Networks may be provided a rate of basic 
     compensation at such rate authorized for Level II of the 
     Executive Schedule provided in section 5313 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and such compensation shall be subject to 
     the provisions of section 5307 of such title.


                           amendment no. 270

(Purpose: To require payments from the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
  for costs resulting from the creditable service of employees of the 
                   Middle East Broadcasting Networks)

       On page 64, strike lines 3 through 6, and insert the 
     following:
       (4) Creditable service.--
       (A) In general.--Section 8332(b)(11) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``the Middle East 
     Broadcasting Networks;'' after ``the Asia Foundation;''.
       (B) Other requirements.--With regard to creditable service 
     with the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors shall--
       (i) pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund an amount determined by the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management to be necessary to reimburse such Fund 
     for any estimated increase in the unfunded liability of such 
     Fund that results from the amendment made by subparagraph 
     (4), computed using dynamic assumptions; and
       (ii) pay the amount required by clause (i) in 5 equal 
     annual installments, together with interest on such amount 
     computed at the rate used in the computation required by such 
     clause.


                           amendment no. 271

  (Purpose: To extend the United States Advisory Commission on Public 
                         Diplomacy until 2008)

       On page 110, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 812. UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC 
                   DIPLOMACY.

       Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) is amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2005'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2008''.


                           amendment no. 272

(Purpose: To clarify Foreign Service Grievance Board procedures in the 
             case of an alleged overpayment of an annuity)

       On page 47, line 13, strike ``and'';
       On page 47, line 15, strike the period at the end and 
     insert as semicolon and ``and''.
       On page 47, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

[[Page 5616]]

       (3) by striking ``or allowances'' and inserting 
     ``allowances, or annuities''.


                           amendment no. 273

      (Purpose: To limit the availability of funds authorized for 
        contributions for international peacekeeping activities)

       On page 12, strike lines 11 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Availability of funds.--
       (A) Fiscal year 2006.--Fifteen percent of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2006 
     are authorized to remain available until September 30, 2007.
       (B) Fiscal year 2007.--Fifteen percent of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2007 
     are authorized to remain available until September 30, 2008.


                           amendment no. 274

                  (Purpose: To provide a short title)

       On page 1, after line 2, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Affairs 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007''.


                           amendment no. 275

    (Purpose: To require a determination to provide assistance for 
           destruction of small arms and related ammunition)

       Beginning on page 150, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 151, line 4, and insert the following:
       (a) Clarification of Authority.--Section 551 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2348) is amended by adding 
     at the end ``Such assistance may also include assistance for 
     demining activities, clearance of unexploded ordnance, 
     destruction of small arms and related ammunition when 
     determined to be in the national security interest of the 
     United States, and related activities, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law.''.


                           amendment no. 276

  (Purpose: To require a determination to provide assistance for the 
   safeguarding, removal, or elimination of conventional weapons and 
                          related ammunition)

       On page 272, line 15, strike ``weapons,'' and insert 
     ``weapons and related ammunition when determined to be in the 
     national security interest of the United States,''.


                           amendment no. 277

   (Purpose: To waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased 
member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such 
   member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member)

       On page 74, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 603. PASSPORT FEES.

       Section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (22 U.S.C. 214) is 
     amended in the third sentence by striking ``or from a widow, 
     widower, child, parent, brother, or sister of a deceased 
     member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the 
     grave of such member'' and inserting ``or from a widow, 
     widower, child, parent, grandparent, brother, or sister of a 
     deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to 
     visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or 
     memorial service for such member''.

  Mr. LUGAR. I simply point out these are amendments that followed the 
consideration of the bill in the Committee on Foreign Relations and 
were suggested by the administration. They have been carefully 
considered over the course of several days, and there has been 
unanimous consent on the list that was agreed to.
  I encourage Senators who have amendments, once again, to come to the 
Senate to make their presence known so we can work with them. It would 
be our hope we could accept most of those amendments or work on 
modifications so they can be part of the legislation, as has been the 
case with the package we just agreed to.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________