[Pages S3171-S3176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 (No. 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 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

[[Page S3172]]

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.
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

[[Page S3173]]

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 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

[[Page S3174]]

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.
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

[[Page S3175]]

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:

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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''.

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

(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.

(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''.

(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.''.

(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,''.

(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

[[Page S3176]]

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.

____________________