Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, this is an unfortunate debate, and I regret that all of us are here this evening. This debate will do nothing to speed the confirmation of judges about which this session has been called to consider. It will do nothing for the economy, for health care, for education, to protect the environment, or to advance the interests of our Nation's security.

It will, however, at least in small part, bring this august body, about which we care so much, to additional disrepute with the American people, making us look ineffectual and irrelevant.

In some respects, the Senate is being reduced to something close to a farce. It is becoming rapidly not the world's greatest deliberative body but instead the world's greatest Kabuki theater, a place where speeches are given to which very few people listen, no minds are changed, and votes are then held with complete predictability of results.

The search for principled compromise, which has always been a long and honorable part, distinguishing this body from other legislative bodies, has been abandoned in favor of sterile, ideological warfare, satisfying to only the most fervent of partisans. After this debate, I suspect that the far right will be satisfied, I suspect that the far left will be satisfied, and that the rest of the American people will be left scratching their heads, wondering, what on Earth are they doing?

I am reminded of nothing quite so much as some lines from Shakespeare when he characterized another instance as: Great sound and fury that signifyeth nothing.

That is tonight's debate: Sterile, empty, barren of results.

This debate, unfortunately, is a microcosm of everything the American people have come to not like about both the Congress and Washington, DC, something that is all too often all process and partisanship, with no progress on matters of substance and importance to the American people.

Too often the American people view Washington as totally self- absorbed, indifferent to their real concerns, and ineffectual in accomplishing much of value on the things that do matter in their daily lives: Health care, jobs, education for our children and grandchildren.

We must stop this cycle of constant recrimination, a process in which the minority obstructs to gain power and then turns around and complains about obstruction once power has been obtained. It makes us all look bad.

If hypocrisy had a monetary value, we could easily erase the Federal deficit because of debates such as the one we are engaged in tonight.

What is this all about? What are the facts that the American people deserve to know? Is it true that judges are being obstructed solely because of their partisan affiliation? That obviously cannot be the case. One hundred and sixty-eight of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed. I assume that all of them, if not almost all of them, are good card-carrying Republicans or he would not have nominated them. Obviously, there cannot be some stonewall to object to Republicans being appointed to the Federal judiciary. This simply is not the case.

Are judges being rejected up to a point based solely upon ideological concerns? This also cannot possibly be the case. Of these 168 judges who have been confirmed, I assume that all, if not almost all, are in fact fairly conservative jurists, or hold out the prospect of being fairly conservative jurists. Otherwise, they would not have been nominated by this President.

So up to a point, it is obvious that conservatives are not being denied their place upon the Federal judiciary. This is all about power, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and whether the advise and consent function should be abolished whenever the Senate is controlled by the party of the President. It is all about the balance of power between the minority and the majority caucuses in this Senate and whether the right to debate should be limited in the case of judicial nominees, unlike any other business taken up by this body.

It is also about tipping the balance of power within the Federal judiciary and setting the stage for a Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by someone of even the most extreme ideological conviction and views.

Is that possibly what the Constitution had in mind when it established the right of advise and consent in this Senate? Is that something for which we should abrogate the right to unlimited debate in this Senate, selecting judicial nominees in exclusion to all other topics in this regard? Of course it is not.

We are ignoring the issues this evening that are of most importance to the balance of the American people. When I go home, I hear great talk about the economy and job losses. In the last 3 years, we in the State of Indiana have lost approximately one out of every six of our manufacturing jobs. One hundred fifty-nine thousand jobs, nonfarm jobs, have been lost during this period of time. That is what I hear people talking about. Small business men wonder how they are going to compete in the global economy today. Large business men and women wonder how they are going to make ends meet, particularly with the skyrocketing cost of health care. Many people ask how we are going to compete with China, India, and other countries that all too often seek to abuse the rules of international trade to seek unfair economic advantage. Those are the subjects we should be debating tonight.

Those are the topics that are on the minds of Hoosiers to whom I talk. Very rarely am I asked about vacancies in the Federal judiciary.

When I was returning from Indiana just last evening, one of the security guards, a gentleman who looked somewhat advanced in his years, called out to me as I was going through security, saying: Senator, what about the Medicare drug benefit? Is something going to get passed?

I said: I hope so.

He said: Well, it probably will not be structured the way it ought to be anyway.

I said: Well, I hope not. We are going to go back and see if we cannot hammer out a reasonable compromise.

I see some of my colleagues, including Senator Grassley, who are laboring mightily toward that very end, and I salute him for that. That is what we should be debating tonight, how to reconcile our differences on providing drug coverage to senior citizens who are asking about it; how to make health care available to the American people in a way that is accessible and affordable. That is what is on the minds of Hoosiers to whom I talk. That is what we should be debating this evening in this body.

What about our education standards and what about providing our children and grandchildren with access to quality affordable education? When I think about the economy of the future, more than anything else it is going to require advanced levels of education,

skill, and know-how. We are going to prepare my young sons and the rest of our children and grandchildren to have a better standard of living in a prosperous economy. It is going to be based not upon how strong they are but upon how knowledgeable they are, how well trained they are, how skilled they are. That is going to enable us to build a better economy. We are not debating that tonight.

At no point, in my recollection, have we set aside 30 hours to debate quality health care. At no point, in my recollection, have we set aside 30 hours to debate the economy or what we are going to do to create quality jobs. At no point, in my experience in the Senate, have we set aside 30 hours to talk about what we can do to debate quality education in the way we are setting aside these 30 uninterrupted hours in the wee hours of the morning. This is a clear example of misplaced priorities.

I hope this Senate will extricate itself from the morass into which we have sunk and begin to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen and women. I hope we can once again begin to address the great issues that are of concern to the American people, that press all around us--what our country can do to be more prosperous, more just and more free. Above all, I hope that we as Senators can remember why we are here, and that is not to wage war upon one another but instead to once again renew the struggle against the ancient enemies of man: Ignorance, poverty, disease. That is why we are here, not sterile ideological debates.

I hope we can learn from this experience so that we will not have to repeat it. I hope we can focus on making progress, not dividing this body over the country. This aisle that separates the chairs, Republicans on one side and Democrats upon the other, gives us the opportunity to build bridges of reconciliation and understanding, forging principled compromise which has always been the hallmark of this institution. We have strayed from this heritage for too long. It is a tradition to which we must return if we are to once again recapture the confidence of the American people.

The final thing I will say is that we had an election in Indiana for our mayors this last Tuesday, a week ago yesterday. Something on the order of 20 percent of the people of my State turned out to vote for our mayors. When I had the privilege of being elected to this body in 1998, about 36 percent of the eligible voters in my State took the time to go to the polls. That is barely one out of three. In the closest Presidential election in the history of our country 2 years ago, decided finally by the Supreme Court, barely half of the American people felt connected enough to their institutions of self-governance to take even the most elementary step of citizenship--going to the polls to register their preference.

What has happened to our democracy? What has happened when 20 percent or 36 percent or a bare majority feel invested enough in the cause of shaping their own destiny to take the time to participate in our elections? If we are going to renew our democracy, if we are going to lead this country to meet the great challenges of our time, if there is one thing I am absolutely certain, it is that it will take all of us, each and every one of us from every ethnic group, racial group, gender, and walk of life.

Too many people have become disillusioned. Too many cynical, too many skeptical whether this body and their government can make a difference anymore. Events such as this debate tonight do not help.

We need to get back to the business at hand, putting before the American people an agenda of hope and opportunity so we can once again reenlist them in the cause of making this the greatest democracy known to man. That, at the end of the day, is what has brought us here. I suggest that is the business to which we must once again return.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a few remarks on behalf of myself and also the distinguished Senator from Oregon with regard to the brouhaha that has broken out over the Intelligence Committee and our inquiry into the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction and the use of intelligence information by this administration.

In many ways, it is an unfortunate debate because if there is one thing that should absolutely be above and beyond partisanship, it is the Intelligence Committee, our intelligence services, and the use to which that information is put. We need to dedicate ourselves not to scoring political points but, instead, to protecting the national interest. When we have Members' motives cast in a bad light and heated rhetoric used, it does not serve that purpose in any way whatsoever.

Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, has been doing a very admirable job. It is my strong impression that he has been pursuing his responsibilities in a bipartisan way, trying to get at the truth in a way that is consistent with the finest traditions of the Intelligence Committee.

I have never seen the report that has been alluded to. I understand it was simply a listing of possible options. And I can guarantee you that Senator Rockefeller has been under intense pressure by some others to pursue a much more partisan line of inquiry and to be much more confrontational. Instead, he has chosen to try to pursue the cooperative path first. I compliment him for that because it is exactly the course that needs to be pursued on the Intelligence Committee and in this body. Most importantly, we need to get beyond this current controversy.

I happen to think those who are watching this debate out beyond the beltway are scratching their heads and saying: There they go again. What on Earth are they doing?

We have gone to war at least in part because of the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction in the nation of Iraq. Our credibility is at stake. We need to get to the bottom of this and understand, if they do exist, what we can do to root them out and, if they do not exist, why we were led to believe they do exist. This is important to ensuring the national security interests of our country.

We also need to get to the bottom of allegations about the possible manipulation or misuse of intelligence in the runup to the war--not for the purpose of scapegoating or witch hunting but for the purposes of ensuring that in fact it never takes place.

Those in the majority shouldn't stonewall or circle the wagons, and those on our side of the aisle shouldn't engage in finger pointing and trying to score political points in a runup to a Presidential election next year. We need an objective, dispassionate search for the truth. That is what the American people deserve. It is my understanding that is what Senator Rockefeller is pursuing.

Finally, the British have some experience in this area. They have just recently gone through an inquiry of their own over what was allegedly the ``dodgy dossier.'' I think that is how it is referred to in British circles. The Prime Minister even had to offer evidence under oath as part of that inquiry.

No one is suggesting anything so intrusive on our side of the aisle. On the contrary, we would like to pursue this in a cooperative, nonpartisan manner to get at the truth, to determine whether weapons of mass destruction existed and, if not, why we were led to believe they did, and always to fairly and dispassionately analyze how information from the intelligence world was used in making the case to pursue the ouster of Saddam Hussein. That is in the national security interests of our country.

I salute Senator Rockefeller for taking the appropriate course. I hope this debate will calm down and refocus on the business at hand, which is protecting the national security of our country, rather than engaging in heated, partisan rhetoric which we have way too much of around this town and in this Chamber.

Those are my thoughts.

I again compliment Senator Rockefeller, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to bring about that kind of inquiry.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep sense of gratitude to honor the live of a brave young man from Fort Wayne, IN. Specialist Brian H. Penisten, 28 years old, died in Al Fallujah on November 2, 2003, after the Chinook helicopter he was traveling in made a crash landing. Brian joined the Army with his entire life before him. He chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world.

Brian was the seventeenth Hoosier soldier to be killed while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Brian leaves behind his father, John Penisten, his mother, Mona, his

fiancee, Johnna Loia, and his son, Trevor. Today, I join Brian's family, his friends, and the entire Fort Wayne community in mourning his death. While we struggle to bear our sorrow over his death, we can also take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer place. It is this courage and strength of character that people will remember when they think of Brian, a memory that will burn brightly during these continuing days of conflict and grief.

Before leaving to fight in Iraq, Brian Penisten told his mother that he was proud to be an American. Today, his family members him as a true American hero, and we honor the sacrifice he made while serving his country.

Brian was born on March 30, 1975. He graduated from Bishop Dwenger High School, where he was a member of the wrestling team and was undefeated through the semi-State Championship in 1993. Friends and family members remember Brian for the inner drive he demonstrated in always challenging himself to be his best at whatever task lay at hand.

After joining the Army, Brian left home to begin full-time duty at Fort Carson in Colorado. He was assigned to the 3rd Air Defense Artillery, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

As I search for words to do justice in honoring Brian's sacrifice, I am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain that the impact of Brian's actions will live on far longer than any record of these words.

It is my sad duty to enter the name of Brian H. Penisten in the official record of the United States Senate for his service to this country and for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. When I think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and the unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope that families such as Brian's can find comfort in the words of the prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''

May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of my fellow

Hoosier, Congressman Frank McCloskey, who lost his battle with cancer on Sunday, November 2. Congressman McCloskey dedicated his life to serving his country and our home State of Indiana, setting an example of personal conviction and political courage throughout his years as a public servant.

Francis Xavier McCloskey was born on June 12, 1939 in Philadelphia. He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees at Indiana University in Bloomington, where he would later serve as mayor for three terms, following 4 years in the Air Force and a brief career as a newspaper reporter. During his time as mayor, McCloskey transformed Bloomington politics with his new style of leadership. He initiated a transit service and the first direct passageway through the center of Bloomington, and oversaw the formation of city boards and commissions dedicated to the environment, women and human rights.

In 1982, McCloskey was elected to the U.S. Congress from Indiana's 8th district. In a district known across the Nation for its tumultuous and closely contested races, McCloskey held his seat to serve as Congressman for six terms. During his time in office, Frank McCloskey became one of the first public servants to travel overseas and witness first hand the atrocities taking place in Bosnia. A man of great compassion and conviction, Frank McCloskey focused his career on ending the ethnic cleansing taking place in Bosnia during the 1990s. His dedication to the cause continued even after he left public office, until cancer forced him to cancel his plans to return to Bosnia and continue democratic reforms there.

The sense of loss to all those who knew Congressman Frank McCloskey is tremendous. His work in Bloomington and later in Washington inspired a generation of Hoosiers to answer the call to public service. Many of Indian's current political leaders owe their start to the example set by McCloskey, and their continued works will serve as a lasting legacy to a man who dedicated his life to serving others. He is survived by his wife, Roberta Ann Barker, and their two children, Helen and Mark.

It is my honor to enter the name of Congressman Frank McCloskey into the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Ben Nelson, Clinton, Dorgan, Ensign, Collins, Snowe, Graham of South Carolina, the distinguished Presiding Officer, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I also neglected to mention that our distinguished colleague, Byron Dorgan, is an original cosponsor of this amendment, along with the other distinguished Members I mentioned.

Mr. President, the question of Iraq has divided our Nation and this Senate for some time now. I count myself in the camp that believes removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. The evidence of torture chambers and mass graves is evidence enough for me. The fact he invaded his neighbors not once but twice and that he would surely have threatened them and the world again which would doubtless require American action at some point in the future means to me it is better to deal with him on our terms and at a time of our choosing rather than on his terms and at a time of his choosing.

Finally, the fact he previously had and used biological and chemical weapons, had a nuclear program, and would almost surely seek to reconstitute those programs, even if they had currently been destroyed and even if there is a 10-percent chance that weapons of mass death would fall into the hands of suicidal terrorists or would be used by regimes like Saddam against a peaceful world, means this is a threat best removed.

But regardless of where Members stood on the question of what to do about Iraq toward the war, we are now there. We have no choice but to succeed in our efforts toward reconstituting and rebuilding a more stable, a more democratic, and a more secure Iraq. There can be no alternative but success.

If we are not successful, the southern part of this country will probably reconstitute itself into some sort of radical Shiite state closely aligned with the nation of Iran, the foremost sponsor of terror in the world.

The northern part of what is currently Iraq would probably be first a Kurdish entity of some type followed by a Turkish invasion which would create further chaos in that part of the world.

The central part of this troubled land would undoubtedly develop into some chaotic Sunni enclave serving as a base for terror against both the United States and the rest of the peaceful world.

We must not let that happen. We must not.

I favor, along with my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment, aggressive steps to stabilize and create a free, prosperous, and diverse Iraq. This means unwavering support for security because we understand security measures are the essential prerequisite for democracy, for investments, for commerce, and for the development of civil society in Iraq. It means equally aggressive steps to restart Iraq's economy and Iraqi society, which is rebuilding schools, hospitals, roads, and many other activities.

A strong, vibrant Iraqi economy is the foundation which is essential to Iraq's stability and our ultimate withdrawal. But if this reconstruction is to succeed, it must be conducted on terms that maximize our chances of success in Iraq and terms that are fair and equitable to the American people. American perseverance and resolve is being tested in Iraq today as seldom before, and for that perserverance and resolve to be forthcoming we must base our efforts there on principles of fundamental fairness without which our efforts will be impossible to sustain.

Specifically, we have to call upon the other nations of the world to do the right thing with the Iraqi people and for themselves by forgiving the loans they extended to Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, to wipe the slate clean, and to give the Iraqi people a fresh start. It is the moral thing to do.

Particularly for countries such as France and Germany, which have previously benefited from the rest of the world's largess through the Marshall plan, they must now demonstrate similar generosity in the case of another country in need--Iraq.

If the rest of the world demanded the repayment of Nazi debt or Vichy debt, clearly that would not be tolerable. Neither are the repayments of these debts.

Second, if you do business by extending loans to dictators, you assume the risk of nonrepayment in the event those dictators are overthrown. This is truly ``odious debt,'' to use the term employed by international lawyers. The Iraqi people have a right to repudiate this debt. If they do not, the other nations that incurred it should surely do the right thing by forgiving it.

Finally, with regard to the debt forgiveness issue, if Russia, France, Germany, and the other nations insist upon repayment, then so must we. We can't possibly tolerate a situation where those who propped up the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein are repaid their debts but the American people who helped to liberate the country are repaid nothing. That would be an outrageous outcome and one our amendment will prevent through terms which I will shortly discuss.

It also gives us a seat at the table if these other nations are not willing to do the right thing, and it gives us leverage in any further debt restructuring negotiations to insist that they forgive the Iraqi people.

Our proposal gives us maximum leverage toward an equitable and fair outcome, lower debts for Iraq, a fresh start, but fairness to the American people if other nations are not willing to join us in this case.

Second, we must also ask the Iraqi people to do what they can to help themselves. This is not a country that is dead broke like some in sub- Saharan Africa or Afghanistan. In fact, the nation of Iraq has great wealth. It is estimated to be $2.8 trillion to $5.1 trillion. What the nation of Iraq has is a cashflow problem, one we should be willing to help them with. But a temporary cashflow problem is no excuse for not doing what they can to help rebuild themselves to the extent they are capable and, as I have just mentioned, they have great capabilities.

This is compounded by the fact that when the Iraqis finally are able to sell oil in some quantity on the international markets, they will sell it at a price that is not set by a free market but which is instead dictated in large part by a cartel known as OPEC--giving them the ability to reap profits from that not once but twice if our loans are given first in the form of monopoly oil payments and, second, if we just give them the cash.

This is particularly inequitable if other nations do not forgive their debt and essentially contribute nothing at

all when the American taxpayers are being asked and the American consumers have been asked and required to contribute not once but twice.

Our amendment calls for three steps: First, the immediate provision of $5 billion to meet the immediate security needs of the nation of Iraq because we understand that we should err on the side of being more aggressive than less when it comes to stabilizing that country, ending the bloodshed and violence, and allowing the Iraqi people to get on with commerce, civil society, free elections, and the other things that will head them in the proper direction.

Second, we would propose providing $5 billion in terms of an immediate grant to meet the eminent reconstruction needs. The World Bank has estimated this would provide almost the entirety of the funds to be absorbed by Iraq for reconstruction over the next year. It is our proposal to err on the side of being more generous rather than less in providing the Iraqi economy with momentum, an immediate jump-start, priming the pump to get things going. The first $10 billion would be $5 billion to meet the immediate security needs of Iraq in the form of a grant, $5 billion to meet the immediate reconstruction needs, those that we envision over the next year in terms of an immediate grant.

The third provision would be in the form of a $10 billion loan for long-term reconstruction needs of the Government and the people of Iraq to be forgiven whenever the other nations of the world that extended debt to the regime of Saddam Hussein are willing to forgive up to 90 percent of those sovereign debts. Again, that will maximize and provide an incentive for those nations to do the right thing and give us a seat at the table and leverage to insist they do the right thing in the event they are dragging their feet in doing so.

Doubtless we have heard several arguments against our approach. Let me address them briefly.

First, the argument that our amendment should not be adopted because we would merely add to the already burdensome debt facing the people of Iraq estimated to be between $100 and $130 billion. Let me say clearly that, on the contrary, our approach seeks to eliminate, minimize, do away with the outstanding burdens facing the Iraqi people and gives us a seat at the table and maximum leverage to accomplish the objective to do the right thing, giving the country a free start.

Second, we have a recent example in the case of Argentina. There, a democracy with a freely elected government voluntarily incurred unsustainable debt. They chose to default recently upon their debts and were rewarded within 48 hours by a new agreement from the International Monetary Fund. Argentines are seeking up to 75-percent reduction from their creditors of their outstanding debts. In the private sector, it would be known as a cram-down. They threatened to default entirely and are now demanding the creditors forgive the loans. Surely what is good enough for the people of Argentina, who did not exercise physical adequate fiscal control over their affairs, should at least be good enough for the people of Iraq who have had the burdens imposed upon them by a tyrannical dictator.

Next, it is the principled thing to do. Surely we cannot allow a state of affairs to exist where those who helped sustain the regime of Saddam Hussein are repaid, but the American taxpayers who helped to liberate the country are not. This would be an outrageous outcome and one that our amendment seeks to prohibit.

The second argument offered against our proposal is that there is no Iraqi Government currently in power to take on these obligations. Really? Can it possibly be argued by others that the obligations of Saddam Hussein are more legitimate than the decisions undertaken by the newly empowered Iraqi Council? How can that possibly be? Is it possible to say that the obligations of Saddam Hussein should be enforced but those undertaken by the council should not? Obviously not. No one elected Saddam Hussein. How can he be given more legitimacy and more credence than the new council of the newly liberated Iraq? Obviously, that is something that cannot be allowed to happen. Our amendment is perfectly consistent with not allowing that to happen.

Finally, the new council is perfectly empowered to apply the freedom of the people of Iraq by enforcing its laws against a variety of criminal activities. They are empowered to hold elections. They are empowered to draft a constitution. How can it possibly be that they are not allowed to take out a simple loan on behalf of the people of their country? Obviously, that is an illogical inconsistency to those who adhere to the argument there is no Iraqi entity in power to take on the obligations.

Finally, we hear repeatedly the argument requiring some of these obligations to be undertaken in the form of a loan if other countries are not willing to forgive their debts. That would feed the perception alive in the Middle East and across the Islamic world that our activities in Iraq were solely about the Iraqi oil. This is a slippery and dangerous slope. If we begin to tread down that line of argument, no telling where we will end up.

For starters, this is clearly a lie. We all know it. The American people did not shed their blood in Iraq, we have not spent our treasure there to seize the Iraqi oil. This is a malicious falsehood and one that we cannot possibly allow to influence our deliberations in this great body.

Second, how can someone seriously argue that false opinions in other countries should set the public policy of a great Nation like the United States of America? What precedent would this set for this body and for our people? Should we stop the hunt for Osama bin Laden because it is popularly believed in other parts of the world that the attack on September 11 was designed as a zionist plot against our country? There have been polls on Al-Jazeera indicating a majority in some nations in that part of that world believe this canard. Should we allow that to affect the activities of our country? Obviously no. That would be outrageous.

Should we end our alliance with the State of Israel and form one with the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat because popular opinion in that part of the world would have us do so? Of course we cannot do that. The policies of the United States of America must be based upon the principles to which our great country has always adhered. We must base our policies upon the truth, upon the facts, and not the misguided beliefs of others.

We know our intentions in Iraq have always been honorable. This amendment is perfectly consistent with those intentions. Should we not do the right thing because of the misguided arguments about public opinion elsewhere in the world?

Finally, this argument is obviously a demonstrable mathematical falsehood. This is in repayment, not a confiscation or an appropriation. If I give you $100 and say that I am going to give you $50 of it as a grant, and I am even willing to forgive the other $50 and make that a grant, if another creditor is willing to forgive $100 that he has also given you, how can that possibly be characterized as a confiscation or expropriation of your property? Obviously, it is not.

So, in conclusion, let me say our amendment provides for the aggressive help that the Iraqi people need to meet their pressing security needs. Our amendment provides for generous and substantial help to meet the pressing reconstruction burdens facing that country. It gets them on their feet, provides them with a fresh start, and primes the pump for increased commercial activity there that is important to the success of our endeavor. But it does so in a way that is consistent with the principles of fairness to the American people and in a way that maximizes the prospects from the success of these moneys in the nation of Iraq, without which this endeavor, these funds, the blood and treasure that we have expended to date, will have gone for naught. That is something we must avoid. That is something this amendment will avoid.

Therefore, I ask our colleagues' support, and I thank my cosponsors.

I am pleased to yield time to others who have so patiently waited to speak.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague for his comments and his leadership.

Mr. President, as you know, this has been a truly bipartisan undertaking by those of us who supported this effort in Iraq from the beginning, members on your side of the aisle and members on my side of the aisle.

So I commend my colleague for his leadership and his courage. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I now yield time to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. President, we are grateful for the leadership and the eloquence of our colleague from Nebraska. He was a successful businessman, an outstanding Governor, and now a very wise Member of this body. I thank him for his leadership.

I am pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

I ask my colleague: The Senator from Michigan has been waiting quite some time.

I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

If the Senator from Montana would like to follow the Senator from Michigan, I have no problem.

Yes.

That is correct.

The Senator understands the amendment perfectly. It provides an incentive for the rest of the countries to forgive their odious debt they extended to Saddam, and if they do

not, it puts our country in a position of maximum leverage to insist that they do in any debtors conference.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's question. The timekeeper informs me I don't have much time left. I will answer succinctly if the time is not deducted from our time.

The chairman of the committee, for whom I have the utmost respect with regard to his comments about the message we send, I think would agree that there is no vote we can cast tonight, or no amount of money that we can spend that could compare possibly to the message our brave men and women are giving to the Iraqi people every day with their presence and the heroic efforts they are making to rebuild that nation. I think that is eloquent testimony that far surpasses anything we might do.

To directly answer your question, my answer would be, yes, we provide an immediate $5 billion to meet every security need that has been asked for by the Iraqi government. That is over and above the $67 billion for all of the American security costs while we are there. So there is a complete grant of every security need.

With regard to the domestic reconstruction, we provide $5 billion immediately--

May I ask the question? The Senator is concerned that those who wish us ill in that part of the world may say they are winning. In what way will they say they are winning?

I will yield a minute and a half to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

How much time remains?

I thank all the cosponsors on both sides of the aisle for their support and say to my colleagues, all of us are committed to the success in Iraq. To achieve that success we must have the help of the rest the world and the help of the Iraqi people on their own behalf.

Several arguments have been offered in opposition to our amendment. Let me address them. First, there is no government in power to take on these obligations. Really? Was Saddam Hussein in power to burden the Iraqi people with these loans? I suggest the current council has at least as much legitimacy as Saddam Hussein. If his loans were legitimate, so are the actions of the council.

It is said this is a test of our resolve. That is true. But the surest way to assure the resolve of the American people is to do what is just and fair and right. How can we possibly say to the American people the French, the Germans, and the Russians may get repaid, those who propped up Saddam Hussein, but those who paid to liberate the country receive nothing. Is that fair? That would undermine the resolve.

There is a perception this is all about the oil. That is a lie. We know it is a lie. It is a demonstrable lie. I say to my colleagues, no great power, including our country, can base its policy upon falsehoods and lies. We must base our policy upon the truth and the facts. We know why we are in Iraq.

It is also said this will undermine our effort to achieve loan forgiveness. On the contrary. This will provide an incentive for others to forgive their loan and puts us in a position of maximum leverage to insist they do. If they drag their heels and refuse, it is said we will lose control of this money. No, my friends, we include a specific provision providing Ambassador Bremer with veto power over expenditures.

Finally, this is about American leadership. We lead when we do the right thing. I ask for your support for this amendment. It will accomplish our objectives in Iraq.

Mr. President, how much time does our side have?

I yield 1 minute of my time to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, it has been said that our decision tonight will determine whether America is perceived as a leader in the world. What kind of message will we send after all the dying and treasure and blood we have expended in Iraq? Can there be any doubt about American leadership and about the message we send? When we removed Saddam Hussein, America sent a message that we lead to stand for freedom--the freedom to choose your own government, the freedom to run your own economy.

Tonight, again, we lead with $72 billion free and clear in grants for the security of Iraq; further, $5 billion for the immediate reconstruction needs, free and clear to Iraq; further, $10 billion for the long-term reconstruction needs for the people of Iraq is a loan to be forgiven if the rest of the world will join us in this cause.

That is American leadership. That is the message we send. That is why we ask for your support.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will unanimously pass the Small Business Reauthorization Act. This is a critically important piece of legislation for the future of small business in America, and in turn, for our Nation's economy. Small businesses are the engines of economic growth, and they play a vital role in expanding our economy. This is something I believe in so strongly that for 2 weeks in August, I traveled across the State of

Indiana to meet with small business owners and to host a series of small business summits. The purpose of these summits was to link people looking to start or expand their small businesses with every available Federal resource that could help them fulfill their dream.

During my visits in Indiana, I saw first hand the differences small businesses can make in their communities. John Roembke, of Ossian, IN, used a Small Business Administration loan to start his manufacturing and design company nearly 30 years ago. He began as the sole employee for his company, but today he employs more than 60 Hoosiers. Each Hoosier employed at Roembke Manufacturing represents a family that has greater job security and new economic opportunities thanks to John's success and help from the SBA.

Our Nation's unemployment rate now stands at 6.1 percent, and in my State, there are pockets of even higher unemployment. What these areas need, and what our economy needs, is more job creation, and it is a well-known fact that three out of every four new jobs are created by our growing and innovative small businesses. Usually, the only hurdle standing between a company and its desire to expand and hire new workers is capital. Without it, our businesses starve because they cannot obtain space, equipment, tooling, and employees. With it, creative businesses can secure all of these assets, expand productivity, increase sales, add new jobs, and improve the quality of life in their communities.

The legislation we pass today will build on this kind of success, by creating jobs, improving access to capital, and strengthening crucial disaster assistance programs. Through the efforts of Chairman Snowe, Ranking Member Kerry, and my other fellow members of the Small Business Committee, the Senate has taken an important step toward reauthorizing the Small Business Administration and its important small business assistance programs for the next three years.

Today, I look forward to supporting this bill that reauthorizes the most effective capital access programs that exist today in our Federal government: the 504 and 7(a) loan guaranty programs. These two programs will provide more than $20 billion in both long and short term funding to America's small businesses each and every year of this reauthorization. In just the last three years, these SBA loan programs have created more than 500,000 new jobs nationwide. Over the past three years in Indiana, the 504 program alone has provided $125 million in capital to small businesses and created 5,000 new jobs. The employees who fill the new positions and the entrepreneurs who have expanded their businesses return millions of dollars in payroll, sales, income, and real estate taxes to the Federal, State, and local governments in every county and State each year. These programs also provide specific, critical support to businesses that are owned and operated by women, minorities, and veterans, groups that sometimes face greater difficulty in obtaining capital.

Best of all, the 504 loan program provides all of these opportunities for economic growth at no cost to the taxpayer. The 504 program is subsidy-free, financed purely by user fees that borrowers pay to finance the risk inherent in the program. The cost to the taxpayers is zero.

Even with these advantages, there are still greater needs for capital in Indiana, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which employs 580,000 Hoosiers, a higher percentage of industrial workers than any other State. The manufacturing sector is in crisis. Since July 2000, manufacturing has lost 2.6 million jobs--the largest decline during the post-World War II era. Recent job losses in manufacturing jobs represents nearly 90 percent of total U.S. job losses. Manufacturing output has shown virtually no growth since December 2001.

Manufacturing is, and will continue to be, critical to our country's overall economic growth, and for that reason, I want to help our small manufacturers that are struggling to compete with the low wages and high technology equipment used by our international competitors. In order to addresses this need, I offered an amendment during the mark-up of this bill that was graciously accepted by the Committee Chair. The provision directly address the needs of America's small manufacturers, providing them with the additional capital they need to stay competitive in both the United States and world markets.

The provision would increase the 504 maximum loan guaranty for small manufacturers to $4 million and alter the job creation capital requirements for small manufacturers, allowing small manufacturers to create one new job for each $100,000 in 504 loan guarantees. As a result of this legislation, companies will be able to obtain new equipment, become more competitive and, most importantly, hire new workers. Indiana's Certified Development Companies estimate that the bill could create between 200 and 400 additional jobs each year.

The change to the 504 loan program will allow our manufacturers to acquire more state-of-the-art equipment and technology to become more productive, and lower their operating costs. If small manufacturers are allowed to invest in state-of-the-art technology, and remain competitive with foreign competitors, this will put more hardworking Hoosiers back to work. Further, these jobs will provide higher wages and benefits than we see available in many communities today, thereby improving our quality of life.

This legislation will provide the fuel that our manufacturers need to remain competitive in world market and to create jobs for workers at home. I commend the Senate for passing this bill and hope that the Senate and the House will reconcile their differences quickly so that this critical legislation can go to the President's desk for his signature.

on-demand air service

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep sense of gratitude to honor the life of a brave young man from Hagerstown, IN. Staff Sergeant Frederick L. Miller, Jr., 27 years old, was killed in Ar Ramadi on September 20, 2003 when an explosive device hit his vehicle while he was on security patrol. Frederick joined the Army with his entire life before him. He chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world.

Frederick was the sixteenth Hoosier soldier to be killed while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He leaves behind his parents, Ann and Frederick Miller, his wife, Jamie, and two daughters, Haley and Sierra. Jamie is pregnant with the couple's third child, a boy. Today, I join Frederick's family, his friends, and the entire Hagerstown community in mourning his death. While we struggle to bear our sorrow over his death, we can also take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer place. It is this courage and strength of character that people will remember when they think of Frederick, a memory that will burn brightly during these continuing days of conflict and grief.

Frederick L. Miller, Jr., joined the Army after graduating from Richmond High School in 1994 and would have marked his eighth year of military service next month. He commanded a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in Troop K in the 3rd Squadron of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Before Iraq, he served in combat zones in Kosovo, Yugoslavia and Bosnia. Frederick was discharged after his first tour of duty, but chose to re- enlist after the September 11 attacks. His family remembers him as a true American hero, who returned to the Army during our Nation's most trying time because he felt bound by duty, and today, we honor the sacrifice he made while serving his country.

As I search for words to do justice in honoring Frederick L. Miller, Jr.'s sacrifice, I am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow his ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did there.'' This statement is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain that the impact of Frederick's actions will live on far longer than any record of these words.

It is my sad duty to enter the name of Frederick L. Miller, Jr. in the official record of the United States Senate for his service to this country and for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. When I think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and the unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope that families like Frederick's can find comfort in the words of the prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces.''

May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God bless the United States of America.

I thank my colleague from New Mexico, and I thank all Members of this body.

It is with a sense of melancholy but also gratitude that I rise today to celebrate the life of Frank O'Bannon. He died as he lived, in service to the people of the State of Indiana.

Frank O'Bannon was my friend and spent the best years of his life in public service: 18 years following in the footsteps of his father in the Indiana State Senate where he served as the leader of the Democratic Party; 8 years as lieutenant governor where we enjoyed a seamless partnership working on behalf of the people of our State, always a source of wise counsel, support, and encouragement; in these last 7 years, working on behalf of the people as Governor of the State of Indiana.

His accomplishments were many and will be everlasting in memory. His devotion to education was second to none. He fought for higher academic standards, a system of assessments to determine how children are doing toward meeting those standards, and taking aggressive steps to ensure that every child across our State would have access to the skills necessary to make the most of their God-given abilities.

He worked tirelessly first as lieutenant governor and then as Governor on behalf of a better economy, more job opportunities for the people of Indiana. Particularly during these recent difficult years he doubled his efforts to ensure that our State would be competitive with not only our neighboring States but also with those with which we compete from abroad.

Frank O'Bannon cared about a better quality of life for all Hoosiers. He work tirelessly for better health care for the citizens of our State, particularly for the young. I am so very proud the State of Indiana ranks at the top in the country in terms of how we have used the new CHIP Program to extend health care benefits to disadvantaged children across our State. I was privileged to work with him in my capacity in the Senate to ensure our State continued to receive full funding for our efforts.

Frank O'Bannon had many other important contributions in his legacy. Most recently I had a chance to visit the new White River State Park in Indianapolis and the magnificent Historical Society Center in Indianapolis where he hosted, along with our first lady, Judy O'Bannon, the other Governors from across the country to showcase the magnificent place that Indianapolis has become. The Historical Society was a wonderful setting for the Governors. We had a chance to display the finest of Hoosier heritage for the entire country.

The White River State Park will be a magnificent urban park attracting not only tourists from across the State but also business and industry as leaders of finance seek a better quality of life for their employees. His contributions to that effort were substantial, as well.

I believe Frank O'Bannon was a special man not for his material accomplishments but instead for the kind of man he was. There is an old saying that character is destiny. I believe that is true. Therefore, it is no wonder that Frank O'Bannon accomplished so much. He was a man of true and outstanding character, indeed. In all my years of association with him I never once saw him do something that was mean or petty. He understood very well that it is far better to be loved than feared. Even more, I always saw him place self-interest behind the public good, truly remarkable during an age of cynicism and skepticism about those in public life.

There is an old proverb that says the definition of a statesman is someone who plants a tree in whose shade he will never rest. Seedlings have been

planted across our State that will grow into strong oaks under which future generations will rest with ease, more secure because of the work and the legacy of Governor O'Bannon. He was a statesman, indeed.

A calling characterized all too frequently by ego and hubris, Frank O'Bannon was always humble, gentle, giving credit to others, even when he deserved the lion's share. One of his favorite pastimes was to go to his cabin in Harrison County in southern Indiana to commune with nature and watch the wildlife and experience Mother Nature. That is where Frank and Judy O'Bannon were most at home. That speaks volumes about his character, as well.

Let me say a word, too, about Judy. She was an exemplary first lady, leading our State in the celebration of the recent millennium, always concerned that our history and culture never be lost, always reaching out to those in need. She is generous of spirit. I hope her contributions to our State will continue for many, many years to come. Judy O'Bannon has done the people of our State proud.

So today, my colleagues and Mr. President, we mourn, but we can take comfort in the knowledge that our loss has been Heaven's gain, that the life and legacy of Frank O'Bannon will not end with our grieving or with my few inadequate words but will remain everlasting in the hearts of Hoosiers everywhere as long as we can still recall what makes our State such a special place.

I thank my friends and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep sense of gratitude to honor the life of a brave young man from Mitchell, IN. Army Specialist Ronald ``Ronnie'' Allen, Jr., 22 years old, was killed near Balad on August 25, 2003 when the Army unit he was riding in was struck by another vehicle. Ronnie joined the Army with his entire life before him. He chose to risk everything to fight for the values Americans hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world.

Ronnie was the 14th Hoosier soldier to be killed while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He leaves behind his mother, Jyl Harrison, and his stepfather, Derek Harrison, and their children Andrea, Nathan and Eric. Today, I join Ronnie's family, his friends, and the entire Mitchell community in mourning his death. While we struggle to bear our sorrow over his death, we can also take pride in the example he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer place. It is this courage and strength of character that people will remember when they think of Ronnie, a memory that will burn brightly during these continuing days of conflict and grief.

Ronald Allen, Jr. told his family he was proud to be serving his country in Iraq because he felt like he could make a real difference there. He told them he was proud to be a soldier and that he loved his country. Today, his family remembers him as a true American hero, and we honor the sacrifice he made while serving his country.

Ronald dreamed of joining the military as a young man and even early- enlisted in the Army during his junior year of high school. Two weeks after he graduated from Mitchell High School

in 2000, Ronald left home to begin full-time duty at Fort Carson in Colorado. He was assigned to the 502d Personnel Service Battalion, 43d Area Support Group.

As I search for words to do justice in honoring Ronald Allen, Jr.'s sacrifice, I am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain that the impact of Ronald's actions will live on far longer than any record of these words.

It is my sad duty to enter the name of Ronald Allen, Jr. in the official Record of the U.S. Senate for his service to this country and for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. When I think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and the unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope that families like Ronald's can find comfort in the words of the prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''

May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. President, I also wish today to honor the accomplishments of the Hoosier soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293d Infantry Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 152d Infantry Regiment, from the Indiana National Guard, who have become the first National Guard battalions in the Nation to receive the Combat Infantry award since the Korean war.

The Combat Infantry award is a highly coveted honor given by the Department of the Army to soldiers who have satisfactorily performed infantry duties as part of a unit that participated in ground combat. The Infantry badge honors soldiers who have operated under the worst conditions, yet still successfully performed his or her mission in a combat environment. In addition, medics who supported the soldiers will receive the Combat Medical Badge. I am immensely proud that these Indiana battalions have become the first units in more than 50 years to earn this distinction.

All members of the battalions will receive the Combat Infantry award as a symbol of our Nation's gratitude for the bravery they demonstrated and the sacrifices they and their families have made during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1st Battalion, 293d Infantry Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 152d Infantry Regiment, are the first Indiana National Guard units to go into combat since World War II. As this award recognizes, they have made an exemplary return to battle, honoring themselves and their home State of Indiana through their efforts.

The battalions have been stationed in Iraq for more than 5 months. During their time in Iraq, the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293d Infantry Regiment, have provided security for the Talil Air Force Base, a key airstrip in Southern Iraq. The unit took over responsibility for the base just days after the war's deadliest battle took place on April 1 to secure control of the airstrip. The members of the 1st Battalion, 152d Infantry Regiment, have engaged in a wide range of missions, including guarding the Baghdad Airport, one of the most strategically important sites in Iraq.

I am proud to honor the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293d Infantry Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 152d Infantry Regiment. The thoughts and prayers of all Hoosiers are with them as they continue their role in rebuilding Iraq. May God watch over the soldiers as they complete their duty and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. President, I further rise today to honor the heroic service of United States Army Cpl Damien Luten, 24, of Indianapolis, IN. Corporal Luten was a member of the U.S. Army's 507th Maintenance Company, which crossed into Iraq from Kuwait on March 21, 2003, as part of a convoy supporting a patriot missile battalion, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

On March 23, 2003, the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed by Iraqi military forces and irregulars in the city of An Nasiriyah. According to the U.S. Army, Corporal Luten's convoy found itself in a desperate situation due to a navigational error caused by the combined effects of the operational pace, acute fatigue, isolation and the harsh environmental conditions. The tragic results of this error placed the soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Company in a torrent of fire from Iraqi soldiers who attacked the isolated convoy.

Eleven of the company's 33 soldiers were killed in combat or later died from injuries. Seven soldiers were captured in the attack, including PFC Jessica Lynch who was later rescued by American Marines. This toll, though devastating, may have been much greater had it not been for the valorous acts of soldiers such as Corporal Luten, who sought to protect his unit by attempting to return fire with the unit's only .50-caliber machine gun. However, the machine gun failed and as Corporal Luten was reaching for his M-16, he was wounded in the right leg by enemy fire. Corporal Luten has been awarded the Purple Heart for the wound he received in combat.

As I reflect on Corporal Luten's service, I am reminded of a quote by Douglas MacArthur:

The soldier, above all other people prays for peace, for he

must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

The United States will be eternally grateful for the courage and bravery Corporal Luten exhibited on the field of battle.

Corporal Luten is expected to return to his base in Fort Bliss, TX, where he will have at least one more surgery on his leg. This will be the ninth surgery Corporal Luten has undergone to repair his injured leg. If Corporal Luten has his way, his injury will not mark the end of his military service. He plans to re-enlist and enter the Army's Chaplain Corps when his current tour concludes in April 2004.

I know that all Hoosiers share my deep sense of pride in Corporal Luten and all of the men and women of our Armed Forces from Indiana who safeguard our freedom. My thoughts and prayers are with him as he continues his recovery and begins his new service in the Army.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of my fellow Hoosier, Senator Vance Hartke, who passed away on July 27. Senator Harke dedicated his life to serving his country and our home State of Indiana, setting an example of personal conviction and political courage throughout his 18 years as senator.

Born on May 31, 1919, Vance Hartke grew up in Stendal, IN. He attended the University of Evansville and then earned his law degree from Indiana University. Senator Hartke served 4 years as a member of the Coast Guard and as a U.S. Navy officer during World War II. Upon his return to Indiana, Hartke began practicing law in Evansville, where he was elected mayor in 1955. From there, he was elected Senator in 1958, demonstrating a work ethic on the campaign trail that is remembered by Hoosiers still today. Senator Hartke served three continuous terms as senator, the first Indiana Democrat ever to do so.

While serving as Senator, Hartke played a crucial role in requiring auto manufacturers to install seatbelts in their cars, and supported legislation that created the Head Start Program, which continues to provide early education opportunities for tens of millions of children from lower-income families. He led Senate support for Medicare, work that earned him the nickname ``Father of Medicare.'' Senator Hartke also was instrumental in creating the International Executive Service Corps, an organization modeled on the Peace Corps that sent retired U.S. business executives to developing countries to help expand their local businesses.

During a particularly trying time in our nation's history, Senator Hartke remained unafraid to take a bold stance in support of his convictions, sometimes in the face of strong opposition. He chose to speak out against the Vietnam war, knowing that doing so would cost him his friendship with President Lyndon Johnson, because Senator Hartke felt it was his moral responsibility to defend his beliefs.

However, of the many issues Senator Hartke supported during his 18 years as Senator, family members recall that one of his proudest accomplishments was his work on legislation that provided affordable treatment for kidney diseases. It was work that was largely overshadowed by his personal stances on other issues, but it led to the creation of a bill now credited with saving more than 500,000 lives.

The sense of loss to all those who knew Senator Hartke is tremendous. He is survived by his wife of 60 years, Martha, four sons, three daughters, and 16 grandchildren.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of

the Hoosier soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry from the Indian National Guard, who have become the first National Guard battalion in the Nation to receive the Combat Infantry award since World War II.

The Combat Infantry award is a highly coveted honor given by the Department of the Army to soldiers who have satisfactorily performed infantry duties as part of a unit that participated in ground combat. The Infantry badge honors soldiers who have operated under the worst conditions, yet still successfully performed his or her mission in a combat environment. In addition, medics who supported the soldiers will receive the Combat Medical Badge. I am immensely proud that it is an Indiana battalion that has become the first unit in more than 50 years to earn this distinction.

All members of the battalion will receive the Combat Infantry award as a symbol of our Nation's gratitude for the bravery they demonstrated and the sacrifices they and their families have made during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry is the first Indiana National Guard unit to go into combat since the Korean war. As this award recognizes, they have made an exemplary return to battle, honoring themselves and their home State of Indiana through their efforts.

The battalion has been stationed in Iraq for nearly 7 months. During their time in Iraq, the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry have provided security for the Talil Air Force Base, a key airstrip in Southern Iraq. The unit took over responsibility for the base just days after the war's deadliest battle took place on April 1 too secure control of the airstrip.

I am proud to honor the soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 293rd Infantry. The thoughts and prayers of all Hoosiers are with them as they continue their role in rebuilding Iraq. May God watch over the soldiers as they complete their duty and may God bless the United States of America.