Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I join Senator Baucus in introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. Our legislation would permit eligible countries in the greater Middle East to gain greater access to American markets through the duty-free treatment of certain exports, and ultimately to negotiate free trade agreements with the United States. It would condition broader trade relations on fundamental political and economic reforms, cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, among other issues, in order to promote liberalization and reform across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Free trade is a powerful tool for opening up closed societies, if leaders in the greater Middle East are willing to make necessary and overdue political and economic reforms. It is past time for nations in the region to join the global economy, and for rulers to lead increasingly restive populations in the direction of democracy and free markets.

Today, the countries of the Middle East account for a small percentage of non-energy sector trade for the United States. With the exception of oil, most Arab nations barely trade with each other, much less with the rest of the world, and many still maintain a hostile economic boycott on Israel--policies that isolate the Middle East from the global economy and perpetuate conflict instead of building prosperity. The wave of free-market reform and democratization that swept Europe, Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa in the 1980s and 1990s has left most of the Middle East untouched and unchanged.

America's interest in economic opening and political liberalization in the region requires a new level of engagement with the countries of the greater Middle East, premised on the acceleration and active implementation of a host of reforms without which prosperity and democracy are not possible. Our legislation would tie preferential trade access to American markets to progress towards adoption of these reforms, as well as meaningful progress on human rights protections, decisive movement towards democracy, full cooperation in the war on terrorism, and an end to the primary, secondary, and tertiary economic boycott of Israel.

Our bill is modeled on the success of the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Ideally, enactment of the bill we are introducing today would create a regime of duty-free trade in a number of goods from the greater Middle East. Such a trade preference program would encourage and often require eligible nations to undertake the kind of significant economic reforms that ultimately lead to free trade agreements, as President Bush has called for and which we support.

The Andean Trade Preferences Act was created to expand the economies of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. By granting duty-free and reduced rate treatment to various products from these nations, we took action to strengthen the fragile economies of the region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. It has worked. The trade agreement created new industries in the region outside of the drug trade and expanded the economies of the region which helped to create legitimate jobs. We foresee similar effects from this legislation on parts of the Middle East, if leaders have the courage and vision to complement progress on trade with internal political and economic reforms.

Reform in the Arab and Muslim worlds requires not just greater trade but accelerated political and economic liberalization, including respect for fundamental human freedom. It is my hope that the spirit and effect of our legislation will help move countries of the greater Middle East in that direction.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Baucus in introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. Our legislation would permit eligible countries in the greater Middle East to gain greater access to American markets through the duty-free treatment of certain exports, and ultimately to negotiate free trade agreements with the United States. It would condition broader trade relations on fundamental political and economic reforms, cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, among other issues, in order to promote liberalization and reform across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Free trade is a powerful tool for opening up closed societies, if leaders in the greater Middle East are willing to make necessary and overdue political and economic reforms. It is past time for nations in the region to join the global economy, and for rulers to lead increasingly restive populations in the direction of democracy and free markets.

Today, the countries of the Middle East account for a small percentage of non-energy sector trade for the United States. With the exception of oil, most Arab nations barely trade with each other, much less with the rest of the world, and many still maintain a hostile economic boycott on Israel--policies that isolate the Middle East from the global economy and perpetuate conflict instead of building prosperity. The wave of free-market reform and democratization that swept Europe, Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa in the 1980s and 1990s has left most of the Middle East untouched and unchanged.

America's interest in economic opening and political liberalization in the region requires a new level of engagement with the countries of the greater Middle East, premised on the acceleration and active implementation of a host of reforms without which prosperity and democracy are not possible. Our legislation would tie preferential trade access to American markets to progress towards adoption of these reforms, as well as meaningful progress on human rights protections, decisive movement towards democracy, full cooperation in the war on terrorism, and an end to the primary, secondary, and tertiary economic boycott of Israel.

Our bill is modeled on the success of the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Ideally, enactment of the bill we are introducing today would create a regime of duty-free trade in a number of goods from the greater Middle East. Such a trade preference program would encourage and often require eligible nations to undertake the kind of significant economic reforms that ultimately lead to free trade agreements, as President Bush has called for and which we support.

The Andean Trade Preferences Act was created to expand the economies of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. By granting duty-free and reduced rate treatment to various products from these nations, we took action to strengthen the fragile economies of the region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. It has worked. The trade agreement created new industries in the region outside of the drug trade and expanded the economies of the region which helped to create legitimate jobs. We foresee similar effects from this legislation on parts of the Middle East, if leaders have the courage and vision to complement progress on trade with internal political and economic reforms.

Reform in the Arab and Muslim worlds requires not just greater trade but accelerated political and economic liberalization, including respect for fundamental human freedom. It is my hope that the spirit and effect of our legislation will help move countries of the greater Middle East in that direction.

Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?

I do not object.

Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this amendment narrows the numbers of countries to six that would be eligible under the provisions of the bill and would modify the pending amendment to remove the restrictions that would be imposed by the pending amendment at least in the case of six nations which are our closest allies.

Last week we passed an AIDS bill through the Senate, and there were numerous amendments. One of them was a very interesting amendment because it basically protected an industry in the United States of America, thereby causing AIDS drugs to be only available at much higher prices, which then had the obvious effect of reducing the number of people who will be treated for AIDS. I forget the vote. I think it was 54 something to 40 something.

By protecting a major American industry, the pharmaceutical industry--in the estimates of some--hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will not be able to obtain a cure for AIDS because the drug money is obviously finite.

I was embarrassed by that. I think the Senator from Minnesota voted with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in his amendment of which I was a cosponsor. Basically what we are doing now is to set up protection for other industries--primarily, the defense industries in the United States--by prohibiting the United States from purchasing military equipment that is manufactured in other countries which is the effect of the Dayton amendment. It is rather remarkable because we just came out of a conflict from which we suffered Americans dead and wounded. One would think that the priority should be not where the equipment is manufactured, whether it be in the United States or England, Great Britain, one of our closest and most steadfast allies, a friend whose men and women fought alongside of ours, but the question should be, What kind of equipment can best secure victory as quickly as possible with a minimum of casualties?

Believe it or not, there is equipment that is manufactured in other countries which is superior to our own--defense equipment--not many, because there is a tremendous imbalance between the amount and kinds of equipment that is purchased by our NATO Allies as opposed to the equipment that is purchased by the United States from our NATO Allies. But there still is some. For example, body armor. Body armor is used by the police departments, border patrol, and many law enforcement agencies, but not by the American military, because it is prohibited from doing so. Yet anyone who compares that manufactured in the U.S. to that manufactured in the Netherlands will testify it is superior equipment.

What is our priority here in the Dayton amendment? Is the priority to protect an American industry, and not allow our closest allies and friends to compete to sell their products, their defense equipment, to the United States of America, as we do in their countries? Everything from F-16s, to tanks, to incredible amounts of military equipment, because of our superiority, is purchased by our NATO allies, but we are going to be prohibited from purchasing any of theirs even if, in the judgment of the men and women in the military who test these things and make the judgments, and the Secretary of Defense--we are not going to buy it even if it is better equipment because we want to protect an industry in the United States of America? We have seen this protectionism going on here in the textile industry, even though the Caribbean countries are decimated because they cannot export their product to the United States.

Here we are talking about the lives of the men and women in the military. Can we not at least allow our military to look at equipment made by our closest allies to see if it is superior; that we might want to purchase it just as they purchase massive amounts of military equipment from us? Is the Senator from Minnesota--who, unfortunately, is not on the floor to respond--more interested in protecting an industry or more interested in protecting the lives of the men and women

fighting in the military? Don't they deserve the very best equipment we can procure? I am sorry, you cannot have the following equipment which is superior to that made in Minnesota because we want an industry in Minnesota to be protected. I don't get it. Frankly, neither will the men and women in the military who are unable to function in the most effective fashion if they are deprived of the ability to procure the most effective equipment.

We are talking about not every country in the world but our closest allies; we are talking about our closest friends--those who supported us in the war on Iraq and those who even sent troops, in the case of the British, to fight alongside ours.

If the Dayton amendment is approved, no British manufacturer can compete to sell equipment to the United States military. How do you justify that if it happens to be superior equipment? In the name of protectionism, we would deprive the men and women in the military of the best equipment we can find for them to fight and risk their lives.

Well, I have a second-degree amendment that states this removal of the Buy America equipment would not apply to our six closest Allies. I hope my colleagues will see their way clear to vote in favor of it.

Let me also tell my colleagues one other practical effect. We now tell these countries that we cannot, under any circumstances, buy their equipment. These are the same countries that are buying billions of dollars of our military equipment--F-16s, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters. The list goes on and on. If you are running a company and you manufacture military equipment and you get the word that the United States, under no circumstances, will purchase it from you, what would you say about proposed purchases of American-made equipment? I think the answer is obvious. These are all freely elected governments, all governments that have to respond to their constituents. What will they say?

So the effect of this Dayton amendment, if passed, would be some $5.5 billion, which is the difference between what we buy from these countries and what they buy from us on an annual basis. I hope we will be able to adopt the substitute.

I understand my colleague's dismay and unhappiness about the performance of the French government and, to a lesser degree, the Germans and the Belgians but I also remind my colleagues there was a very large number of European countries that supported us, even in the face of public opinion which was against the government policy of supporting us in Iraq. So their support will now be rewarded by a prohibition from buying any military equipment they manufacture in their country. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it is right. Most of all, I think it is wrong if we are not going to purchase the best equipment no matter where it is produced in the world so our men and women in the military can best function in the safest and most efficient fashion.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we are waiting for the imminent return of Senator Warner so we can start a vote on the second-degree amendment. While we are waiting--F-16s: The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, United Arab Emirates; F-18s: Switzerland, Finland, Canada, and Australia; Tomahawk missiles: United Kingdom, Israel; F-15s and F-16s, AAMs, air to air missiles, 31 countries we sell those to. All of that equipment is sold to these other countries, and they are at least under the understanding that they can compete to sell some of their equipment in our Nation.

It is remarkable. I would imagine that if the Dayton amendment goes through, we will see cancellations of a number of those commitments to buy that equipment from the United States of America. No other freely elected government would do anything else.

I ask the Senator from Minnesota again the following question: If there is a country that is a close ally of ours that can produce a better piece of military equipment at a lower price, and our military decides it is the best with which we can provide our men and women in the military, would the Senator from Minnesota reject that?

Reclaiming my time, Madam President.

The Senator from Minnesota ought to read his own amendment because the effect of his amendment would be to prohibit these countries from competing to sell their military equipment in the United States of America. I think that is a great disservice to the men and women in the military, and it is protectionism at its worst.

I would hope my colleagues will vote for the second-degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is an old saying about everybody is entitled to their opinion, but not everybody is entitled to their facts. The Department of Defense, to whom we give the responsibility to carry out the procurement of weapons, says:

These flexibilities--

Which are in the bill--

are needed to counter restrictions that severely impede the

ability of the Department of Defense to promote our national

security policy that calls for standardization and

interoperability of conventional defense equipment used by

U.S. armed forces and used by the armed forces of our allies

and coalition partners. The Department of Defense should have

authority to make exceptions to these restrictions in the

interest of national security comparable to the public

interest exception authorized by the Buy America Act. By

providing these flexibilities, Congress better enables the

Department of Defense to acquire the best equipment and

technology available, promotes improved readiness and

capabilities of the U.S. armed forces, strengthens coalition

warfighting capabilities, promotes competition in contracting

needs of the U.S. armed forces. . . .

Obviously, the Department of Defense has a very different view of the impact of this legislation than the Senator from Minnesota. My colleagues can decide where the expertise lies. I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, if the pending amendment prevails, then it prevails. If the pending amendment fails, then we would be agreeable to a voice vote.

After his amendment has been second-degreed?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada if we have all of the amendments from that side which are going to be proposed?

Mr. President, Mike Jendrzejczyk was an unusually decent man whose commitment to human freedom left an indelible imprint on all of us who knew him, and laid the foundation for a legacy of lasting importance to the cause of human rights in Asia and the world.

Everybody who works on Asia in Washington knew Mike, and many of us came to rely on his singular knowledge of human rights conditions across Asia, as well as his operational ability to get things done by astutely working with and through the myriad components of our government. Time and again, I found Mike to be a unique authority on the human rights agenda in Asia, and an extremely skilled advocate who was able to cajole, charm, shame, and ultimately convince his listener that a particular human rights initiative was not only a moral imperative, but would best serve the national interest. Mike's pragmatism never detracted from his high principles; on the contrary, the combination of pragmatism and principle was what led people in Government to reach out to Mike, time and again, for advice on how to advance the human rights agenda, given his unique talent for producing deliverables, in terms of policy and legislation, that advanced human freedom.

Mike was a man of unimpeachable integrity. You could trust his word and his judgment, a particularly admirable quality in Washington. He could speak to so many audiences so well: whether to Burmese dissidents, Tibetan exiles, Cambodian reformers, Chinese activists, Republicans, or Democrats, Mike had a way of engaging his listener without abandoning his trademark straight talk about practical solutions to the grave challenges that confront those who fight oppression every day. Mike had a friendly way of co-opting many of his allies, making them want to pursue the goals he had laid out, with the means he had proposed, in order to earn his respect and, as importantly, the respect associated with those causes that met with his approval.

Mike was in the process of helping my staff draft a bill related to human rights in Vietnam when we lost him. Just as he accomplished so much, Mike left behind so much more to do. I'd like to think Mike will remain a voice of conscience to each of us who had the privilege of working with him, and who found his work inspiring. Perhaps each of us will try a little harder to fill the space Mike left behind in his quest to advance the cause of basic human dignity, and hope.

There was no one like Mike. But if Mike's memory doesn't fade; if we still rhetorically fumble his amazing last name in recollecting his full life; if we each absorb a small bit of the energy that drove him; and if we are true to the principles he held so deeply, reminding us of our own obligation to uphold them as well, he will stay with us, and freedom's light will shine a little more brightly for it.

Mr. President, this amendment, like this bill, addresses a specific pandemic that demands our attention and our action. According to the most recent data available, at least 20 million people have died of HIV/AIDS globally, orphaning 14 million children. On the African continent, approximately 30 million people have the AIDS virus--3 million of whom are children under the age of 15.

In the spirit of the underlying bill, I have joined my friend Senator Kennedy in cosponsoring this amendment to ensure that this bill saves as many lives as possible. Our amendment will allow for the purchase of many more drugs to treat those suffering from HIV/AIDS, stretching the taxpayers' dollars as far and as effectively as possible.

This amendment allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to go towards the purchase of safe, but less expensive equivalent medications on the global market if they are available. It enables the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to use Federal funds to procure drugs at the lowest possible price on the global market to treat HIV/AIDS patients, provided that they are approved for treatment in the U.S.; the EU; have been selected by the World Health Organization's, WHO, Pilot Procurement Quality and Sourcing Project for HIV-related medicines; or are authorized for use by the country where the product will be used. These are the same qualifications used by the United Nations Global Fund to procure drugs.

This amendment does not give preference to a particular treatment for HIV/AIDS. Patients will not be precluded from receiving the drug treatments that are medically necessary; however, if there is a less expensive equivalent drug included in that treatment, this amendment will require the purchase of that lower-cost drug.

As a proponent of free trade and a staunch supporter of upholding our global trade obligations, I don't believe this amendment violates carefully negotiated agreements on intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organization, WTO, nor does it weaken the position of our trade representatives in future intellectual property negotiations. The language of this amendment closely tracks the most recent intellectual property rights agreements at the WTO.

I urge my colleagues to choose to make treatments available to many more people suffering from this terrible disease and vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, Senate passage of this bill authorizing the expenditure of $15 billion over 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS sends an important message: that the United States is committed not only to making this a safer world, by ending threats posed by terrorists and rogue states, but also a better, more humane world, by helping people in need in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere cope with the ravages of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The spread of HIV/AIDS, and the efforts of the international community to combat it, will be remembered by history as one of the defining issues of our time. Until recently, we have been losing the battle: the disease has infected 68 million people to date. It has already brought disaster to Africa, where AIDS has taken over 20 million lives and has surpassed malaria as the leading cause of death. UNAIDS estimates that by 2020, an additional 55

million Africans will lose their lives to the disease. There are currently 11 million AIDS orphans in Africa. Average life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is currently estimated at 47 years, but it would be 62 years in the absence of AIDS.

These numbers are staggering. The ethical implications of not doing everything in our power to slow the spread of this disease are severe. The most basic morality requires that we commit ourselves to combating HIV/AIDS everywhere. The social and political implications of allowing this disease to claim its grim toll are grave: countries cannot survive the death of a quarter or more of their populations without severe unrest, impoverishment, even radicalization and revolution. In Africa, more women are infected with HIV/AIDS than men; their central role in family life means their deaths have disproportionate effect. Millions of children cannot lose their parents without lasting damage to themselves and their societies. In many countries, the army has higher infection rates than the general population. Mass death among uniformed personnel will have profound implications for political stability and national security in these countries, as armies literally become unable to fulfill their basic duties.

As the CIA assessed in 2000 for the 20-year period through 2020,

At least some of the hardest-hit countries, initially in

sub-Saharan Africa and later in other regions, will face a

demographic catastrophe as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases

reduce human life expectancy dramatically and kill up to a

quarter of their populations over the period of this

estimate. This will further impoverish the poor, and often

the middle class, and produce a huge and impoverished orphan

cohort unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and

radicalization.

As the World Bank and others have reported, AIDS affects the most economically vibrant group within society, the working-age men and women who account for most national output. With one quarter of a country's population facing impending death, labor markets would be ravaged, the benefits of education lost, and health-care spending rationed on what should be a society's most fit citizens. Resources that would have been used for productive investments would instead be apportioned for health care, orphan care, and funerals. Decades of gains in social welfare could be rolled back. National productivity and economic growth would be set back for generations.

HIV/AIDS is decimating Africa, but its next frontier lies in Eurasia. More than 7 million people in China, Russia, and India carry the disease, but as we have seen in Africa, an infection rate of that magnitude can jump into the tens of millions within a decade. As Nicholas Eberstadt has written, ``The coming Eurasian pandemic threatens to derail the economic prospects of billions and alter the global military balance.'' Africa's plight alone is reason enough to pass this bill. Given the economic size and military stature of India, China, and Russia, the world will simply not be able to ignore the consequences of the coming AIDS crisis in Eurasia.

Given the scale of human disaster and socio-political turmoil we confront from HIV/AIDS, enactment of the bill before us represents a critical step in the direction of leading the world in a common response to a crisis that affects us all. This bill nearly triples the U.S. commitment for international AIDS assistance. It targets most assistance at the 14 most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean, but can incorporate other afflicted countries if necessary. It demonstrates the United States' commitment to leading a global campaign against a disease that has already killed 25 million people.

As Uganda in particular has shown, AIDS can be managed and contained. Often the biggest challenges are political will, which has been sorely lacking in much of Africa, and government competence to effectively diagnose and treat victims, backed by a decent health care infrastructure. Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must know that we expect a level of governance, transparency, and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance.

The scale of the AIDS crisis, and the consequences of inaction in the face of a pandemic that threatens the global order, call for the type of bold leadership reflected in this bill. Our commitment must be sustained, and we must enjoy the partnership of other wealthy nations in this effort. We cannot afford to fail.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor with my colleague Senator Baucus this important amendment to S. 1054, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003. This amendment would simply add the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, as previously passed by this body, to the growth bill. This amendment is much needed tax relief for our men and women in uniform whose sacrifice and commitment are the foundation upon which the freedom we all enjoy is built. There are a number of provisions to this amendment that many of us have worked on for several years.

One of the provisions I would particularly like to highlight today is section 601. The Military Home Owners equity Act has passed this body previously on a 97-to-0 vote. This legislation would allow service members, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership--the Joint Chiefs of Staff--as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among service members and Foreign Service Officers.

This provision will not create a new tax benefit, it merely modifies current law to include the time service members are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners have lived in their primary residence. In short, this provision is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors, and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history, and unfortunately our service men and women were left out of this critical tax relief act.

The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayers had to be at least 55 years old and live in their residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.

Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must (1) own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.

I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the military and Foreign Service. Nonetheless, some service members and Foreign Service officers choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the home during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families who serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

This amendment simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that service members and Foreign Service officers will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the `no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

In the wake of September 11 and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations, in very significant numbers. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the Tax Code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.

In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the Tax Code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must ensure that the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible.

The Taxpayer's Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who

serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

I would like to thank Senator Baucus and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, for their superb effort on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Foreign Service officers. As I stated earlier, the provisions in this amendment are issues we have needed to fix for a long time. Let's get it passed this year and finally enacted into law.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2003. In 2000, we passed legislation intended to correct an injustice of not paying Navy and Marine Corps POWs for promotions while they were interned during World War II. Unfortunately, this legislation omitted an adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes were paying in 1942 dollars, roughly equating to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly compensate them for their dedicated service. This bill ensures these former WWII POW, or their surviving spouses, would receive the appropriate back pay adjusted for inflation for their military service.

Many of these WWII veterans need our help, not only to fix a discriminatory act upon Navy and Marine Corps POWs, but financially as well, since many suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving WWII POWs is now less than 1,000 and approximately 400 spouses. We can not abandon the ``greatest generation'' who are responsible for the successes and riches we currently enjoy in this great country. It would be shameful for Congress and our Nation not to compensate these veterans appropriately, as this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment of POWs.

Make no mistake,this is a readiness issue, as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from delinquent policies enacted over the years, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``inadequate military retirement benefits'' was a significant source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties.

I would like to emphasize that this year's defense authorization bill contains over $1 billion in pork--unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that deprive our military of vital funding for priority issues. With the amount of unrequested spending attached to the defense authorization bill, we could certainly find the funding for this legislation. We must fulfill our commitment to a group who we collectively owe our full support, admiration, and gratitude.

I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the World War II POW Pay Equity Act of 2003. In 2000, we passed legislation intended to correct an injustice of not paying Navy and Marine Corps POWs for promotions while they were interned during World War II. Unfortunately, this legislation omitted an adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes were paying in 1942 dollars, roughly equating to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly compensate them for their dedicated service. This bill ensures these former WWII POW, or their surviving spouses, would receive the appropriate back pay adjusted for inflation for their military service.

Many of these WWII veterans need our help, not only to fix a discriminatory act upon Navy and Marine Corps POWs, but financially as well, since many suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving WWII POWs is now less than 1,000 and approximately 400 spouses. We can not abandon the ``greatest generation'' who are responsible for the successes and riches we currently enjoy in this great country. It would be shameful for Congress and our Nation not to compensate these veterans appropriately, as this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment of POWs.

Make no mistake,this is a readiness issue, as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from delinquent policies enacted over the years, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``inadequate military retirement benefits'' was a significant source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties.

I would like to emphasize that this year's defense authorization bill contains over $1 billion in pork--unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that deprive our military of vital funding for priority issues. With the amount of unrequested spending attached to the defense authorization bill, we could certainly find the funding for this legislation. We must fulfill our commitment to a group who we collectively owe our full support, admiration, and gratitude.

I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 165, the Air Cargo Security Act. When Congress acted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, its focus was on passenger screening. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act set out a template for the screening of passengers and baggage. We deferred dealing with cargo carried on passenger airlines and on all-cargo aircraft until a review of cargo security could be undertaken. S. 165 is designed to bolster air cargo security and provides further guidance and authority to the Transportation Security Administration--TSA--to ensure continued improvement in these areas.

Let me say at the outset that Senator Hutchison has worked very hard on this bill and deserves a great deal of credit. Although this issue was one that everyone believed was very important, she and Senator Snowe introduced cargo security bills during the second session of last congress. Those bills became a base for the cargo security provisions in last year's S. 2949, the Aviation Security Improvement Act, which passed the Senate, but was not passed by the House. Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein reintroduced the air cargo provisions from last year as a stand alone bill this year.

Cargo security is one area in which we can and should be proactive to address potential problems and vulnerabilities head on. I note that TSA is already looking at improving cargo security under its mandate in

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his work on this very important legislation, for his leadership and continued voice of maturity and reason that is often needed in our discussions and debates over issues of national security.

The Senate's ratification of the NATO enlargement protocol before us represents the ultimate victory of freedom over the fear and terror that ruled Central and Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. NATO expanded eastwards in 1999 and will do so again with the Senate's consent in 2003. History will judge NATO's historic move eastwards as a final chapter in a long struggle not simply to roll back oppression but to consolidate a Europe whole and free.

The democracies of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia add a moral and strategic dimension to the alliance. The Baltics were captive nations during the cold war. Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia were subsumed into the Soviet empire, and Slovenia was a constituent part of Tito's Yugoslavia.

These nations suffered over four decades of effective foreign control and occupation. In 1989 and 1991, we celebrated their independence. Today we celebrate their secure freedom, enshrined in our great Western alliance in defense of our common values.

The Vilnius seven nations, as NATO's newest members are known, lent their moral voice to our campaign to liberate Iraq and end Saddam Hussein's tyranny. A February 5 letter from the V-7 nations, plus Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia, stated:

The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must

stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of

terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction. . .

. The clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's

regime requires a united response from the community of

democracies.

These nations share our values because they understand oppression all too well. Their voices carry special weight.

We received significant political and logistical support from the V-7 nations during the war in Iraq. NATO's new democracies provided their airspace, airfields, ports, and military personnel in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Several of these nations deployed troops to the Iraq theater. Many of NATO's newest members more resolutely and more concretely supported the military campaign in Iraq than did some of NATO's founding members. These seven democracies have also served as de facto Allies in NATO operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

NATO's enlargement serves American leadership in Europe, anchoring our commitment to security and freedom there. It welcomes into the alliance a large group of nations that resolutely support American leadership and the principles that guide it in Europe and across the world.

As we saw during the Iraq debate, a majority of Europe's leaders, including NATO's new members, supported America's determination to disarm Iraq. NATO's new members will be solid allies that will expand NATO's reach, amplify its voice, and enhance its moral authority to defend freedom, including against the threat of global terrorism.

I have had the pleasure of traveling to each of the seven new member states to review their preparations to join NATO. Like my colleagues, I have been struck by these democracies' determination to rank among our closest allies, and to see NATO membership not only as a way to guarantee their security, but to contribute to the larger struggle for freedom the West once waged on their behalf.

The success of the Prague Summit demonstrated the new NATO's shared history, shared values, shared sense of threat, and an agreed way forward in meeting those threats. This new NATO will provide a firmer foundation for peace and a more resolute defense of our values. Prague lent considerable momentum to the construction of an integrated and peaceful Europe and taught us much about our alliance.

The decisions at Prague to invite seven new members to join the alliance, create a NATO rapid reaction force, enhance military modernization and interoperability, and streamline NATO's infrastructure were tangible accomplishments that should make the alliance more capable and flexible. Rather than debating out-of-area operations, NATO forces and assets are supporting the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. The NATO-Russia Council provides a forum for security cooperation with Moscow. NATO's peacekeeping missions in the Balkans have been a success. The United States is considering a new military basing concept on the territory of new NATO Allies in southeastern Europe. NATO remains central to American interests in Europe and beyond.

This is not to suggest in any way that everything is going swimmingly within the alliance. NATO has been put at grave risk by hostile French obstructionism that is as dangerous as it is cynical.

Let me be clear: I believe the French government is pursuing a systematic campaign to undermine American leadership in Europe and the world. I believe France would ultimately like to see America's withdrawal from Europe and the replacement of an American-led NATO with an all-European army. France's active opposition to the United States within the North Atlantic Council over a period of many years, and in the daily workings of the NATO bureaucracy, make clear the French agenda to weaken NATO's foundations and make the alliance less capable of effectively meeting challenges to international security.

Officials at many levels of the French government, including President Chirac, boldly assert France's ambition to serve as a ``counterweight'' to the United States. By definition, a country can be either a counterweight or an ally, but it cannot be both. Official pronouncements by the French government, and the daily actions of France within NATO and at the Security Council, make clear that France is not an ally of the United States.

France's decision in February to block a routine request for Turkey's defense--I emphasize ``defense''--in the event of war with Iraq created the most serious internal crisis the alliance has known in a generation. France's open rejection of its commitment to a fellow NATO ally required the decision on Turkey's reinforcement to be taken in the Defense Planning Committee, which excludes France.

The Defense Planning Committee is the logical and appropriate venue for

decisions relating to the defense of NATO members to be made. France does not contribute militarily to an alliance premised on the military defense of member democracies. France has a political voice but not a military stake in NATO decision-making. Decisions relating to the military interests and defense of member states--the core of NATO's mission, and the bulk of its agenda--fall under the authority of the Defense Planning Committee. The French dilute their own influence in NATO by not participating in its military arm, and the alliance should recognize that condition of French membership by making defense decisions in a forum that reflects France's absence from NATO's military mission.

NATO did ultimately achieve a consensus in the DPC that met Turkey's defense requirements. Achieving consensus in an institutionalized forum that excludes France seems to me to have produced a better result than a divisive majority vote in the North Atlantic Council, had we shelved the consensus principle in favor of some other weighted voting mechanism, as some in the Senate have proposed.

While I did not oppose the agreement reached today in the Senate creating a reporting requirement on the issues of consensus and suspension within NATO, I do not support overturning the consensus principle and creating a suspension clause because I believe it could weaken American leadership and interests in NATO while actually improving the position of France within the alliance. Replacing the consensus rule with a majority voting scheme would lead to factionalism and could result in scenarios in which the United States was outvoted, ceding our traditional leadership to others. Adopting a suspension clause would gut the heart of the alliance, the commitment to mutual defense, by introducing a reservation into the Alliance's commitment to defend an embattled democracy.

Putting the issue of the consensus rule on the agenda of the North Atlantic Council would be seen by some of our best allies as divisive. It would create a debate within the Council not about the French fifth column, but about an American proposal that would dilute the influence of other NATO partners by weakening or negating their influence in a majority voting scheme. Replacing the consensus rule with some form of majority vote could threaten the supreme national interests of any NATO member, including the United States, that might at some point find itself dissenting from a majority of NATO members on a matter vital to that country's national security. The United States would never give up its effective veto over NATO military operations, and no country that contributes militarily to the alliance could be expected to do the same by endorsing a majority voting process.

Under consensus, no vote counts more than any other, which is not true in a weighted majority voting system like that of the Security Council. Consensus helps pull allies together and gives each an equal stake in their outcomes. It prevents factionalism and the development of voting blocs that would only divide allies, not draw us together. Consensus prevents France from leading its own voting bloc in opposition to the United States. Historically, the United States has been the only NATO member whose initiatives regularly achieve consensus. Why throw away such an effective tool for U.S. leadership?

Nor would I support conditioning NATO enlargement on developing a mechanism to suspend any NATO member that fails to uphold alliance principles. Advocating a kick-out clause suggests a lack of confidence in the democratic character and commitment of our new allies. It sends exactly the wrong message to these new members: that we fear they may regress from the democratic values we have certified that they share by inviting them to join NATO, values which NATO itself protects and strengthens. Conditioning their membership with the suggestion that we do not have confidence in the longevity of their democracies seems a strange way to welcome them into our alliance.

A clause threatening any individual NATO member with expulsion would weaken the heart of the Washington Treaty by casting doubt on the commitment of the NATO Allies to come to the defense of any threatened member state. A suspension clause would effectively condition the mutual defense commitment that is at the heart of the alliance in a way that would breed insecurity and mistrust, not security and confidence, among member states. In the words of Bruce Jackson of the Project on Transitional Democracies:

A provision to expel [NATO members] would introduce a

corrosive mental reservation into the commitment to defend an

embattled democracy and would, therefore, debilitate the most

powerful military alliance ever assembled.

NATO works so well for many of the reasons the U.N. Security Council does not: it is a true community of values in which all members are democracies; consensus requires unanimity that gives all members a stake in decision-making and outcomes; the absence of majority voting or weighted voting like the Security Council does not create different classes of membership or hostile factions; and unlike the Security Council, NATO has proven time and again that it is able to effectively resist aggression and use its military and political power to expand freedom. The reason the seven new members of NATO are so keen to join the alliance underscores their clear belief it will protect their security and advance their interests. Can anyone hold the Security Council to the same standard?

NATO's value to American interests and the progress of freedom endures. NATO enlargement serves American interests by delivering seven committed treaty allies who share our perspective on the world. Enlargement serves our common values by adding to our community of allied democracies the voices and the people of countries that were long denied their free destiny. NATO's expansion moves us decisively in the direction of a Europe whole and free, one that has exorcized the ghosts of a violent past and stands with us in its commitment to human freedom.

As the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Portugal have written, ``The real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share. . . . These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever. . . . Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.'' Let that continue to be our creed in the uncertain years ahead, confident that we are stronger together than apart, that our values ennoble our common defense of them, and that we can, together, make this a safer, freer, better world. It's worth fighting for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleagues Senators Brownback, Edwards and Graham in introducing the Amateur Sports Integrity Act of 2003. This legislation would make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, or high school sports, and it would authorize appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund research into methods of detection and prevention of the use athletic performance-enhancing drugs. The bill is similar to legislation that has been reported twice in previous Congresses.

The legislation is designed to respond to a number of troubling issues plaguing amateur athletics, including a gambling epidemic among high school and college students, and a significant increase among our youth in the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements. This bill is essential to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of amateur athletics--an important institution in the social fabric of this country.

This bill would codify a recommendation made by the congressionally- created National Gambling Impact Study Commission, NGISC, to ban betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events. In the summary of its comprehensive report to Congress dated June 1999, the NGISC noted growing concern regarding increasing levels of sports wagering by high school and college students. The NGISC cites a 1996 study sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which found that of the over

200 student athletes surveyed in Division I basketball and football programs, more than one in four admitted to betting on college sports while in school.

More recently, a study conducted by the Psychology Department of Central Connecticut State University contends that the problem of gambling among college students has been relatively overlooked when studying student risk-taking behavior. The study links legal and illegal gambling by indicating that, ``it is reasonable to expect that the growth of legalized gambling over the past decade would result in an increase in student gambling and gambling problems, including students who gamble at a pathological level.'' It is important to understand that gambling is not a problem that occurs in a vacuum. The Connecticut study found that one out of nine students at four Connecticut universities suffered from a gambling problem that was ``significantly connected'' to substance and dietary problems, such as marijuana use, cigarette smoking, and binge eating and drinking.

Just as the use of performance-enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling, as it invites public speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into merely objects to be bet upon. Betting can also provide unnecessary temptation to amateur athletes to agree to point-shaving and other outcome-fixing schemes at the expense of their teammates, their fans, and their futures. Many of the same pressures that lead college players to cheat also push these young people to use performance-enhancing drugs. The combination of stresses placed on student athletes to perform athletically, handle newly-found notoriety, and pursue professional athletic careers drive many to seek an edge through the use of such substances.

Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act would ban legal gambling on amateur athletics, it may also reduce a substantial amount of illegal gambling. The relationship between legal and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which observed that ``legal sports wagering-- especially the publication in the media of Las Vegas and offshore- generated point spreads fuels a much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.''

In 1992, Congress recognized the Federal interest in protecting amateur sports from the harmful effects of gambling, and prohibited state-sanctioned sports betting in the overwhelming majority of states. Although Congress ``grandfathered'' Nevada, Oregon, Montana, and Delaware, only Nevada has chosen to permit legal gambling on amateur sports. Recently, however, the gaming industry has lobbied aggressively in an effort to convince the Delaware State legislature to exploit the loophole by legalizing gambling on amateur and professional sports.

Congress must act quickly to close the loophole that currently allows just a handful of States to serve as national clearinghouses for betting on our youth. By allowing betting in any state, we send a confusing message to our youth as to whether gambling on amateur athletics is, in fact, legal or illegal. While I do not pretend that this bill solves all problems associated with gambling and the use of performance-enhancing drugs, I do believe that it will send a clear message that gambling on amateur athletics and the use of these substances is dangerous and wrong.

I urge my colleagues to respond to the pleas of prominent college presidents and coaches, and join in supporting this important measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleagues Senators Brownback, Edwards and Graham in introducing the Amateur Sports Integrity Act of 2003. This legislation would make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, or high school sports, and it would authorize appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund research into methods of detection and prevention of the use athletic performance-enhancing drugs. The bill is similar to legislation that has been reported twice in previous Congresses.

The legislation is designed to respond to a number of troubling issues plaguing amateur athletics, including a gambling epidemic among high school and college students, and a significant increase among our youth in the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements. This bill is essential to ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of amateur athletics--an important institution in the social fabric of this country.

This bill would codify a recommendation made by the congressionally- created National Gambling Impact Study Commission, NGISC, to ban betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events. In the summary of its comprehensive report to Congress dated June 1999, the NGISC noted growing concern regarding increasing levels of sports wagering by high school and college students. The NGISC cites a 1996 study sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which found that of the over

200 student athletes surveyed in Division I basketball and football programs, more than one in four admitted to betting on college sports while in school.

More recently, a study conducted by the Psychology Department of Central Connecticut State University contends that the problem of gambling among college students has been relatively overlooked when studying student risk-taking behavior. The study links legal and illegal gambling by indicating that, ``it is reasonable to expect that the growth of legalized gambling over the past decade would result in an increase in student gambling and gambling problems, including students who gamble at a pathological level.'' It is important to understand that gambling is not a problem that occurs in a vacuum. The Connecticut study found that one out of nine students at four Connecticut universities suffered from a gambling problem that was ``significantly connected'' to substance and dietary problems, such as marijuana use, cigarette smoking, and binge eating and drinking.

Just as the use of performance-enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling, as it invites public speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into merely objects to be bet upon. Betting can also provide unnecessary temptation to amateur athletes to agree to point-shaving and other outcome-fixing schemes at the expense of their teammates, their fans, and their futures. Many of the same pressures that lead college players to cheat also push these young people to use performance-enhancing drugs. The combination of stresses placed on student athletes to perform athletically, handle newly-found notoriety, and pursue professional athletic careers drive many to seek an edge through the use of such substances.

Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act would ban legal gambling on amateur athletics, it may also reduce a substantial amount of illegal gambling. The relationship between legal and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which observed that ``legal sports wagering-- especially the publication in the media of Las Vegas and offshore- generated point spreads fuels a much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.''

In 1992, Congress recognized the Federal interest in protecting amateur sports from the harmful effects of gambling, and prohibited state-sanctioned sports betting in the overwhelming majority of states. Although Congress ``grandfathered'' Nevada, Oregon, Montana, and Delaware, only Nevada has chosen to permit legal gambling on amateur sports. Recently, however, the gaming industry has lobbied aggressively in an effort to convince the Delaware State legislature to exploit the loophole by legalizing gambling on amateur and professional sports.

Congress must act quickly to close the loophole that currently allows just a handful of States to serve as national clearinghouses for betting on our youth. By allowing betting in any state, we send a confusing message to our youth as to whether gambling on amateur athletics is, in fact, legal or illegal. While I do not pretend that this bill solves all problems associated with gambling and the use of performance-enhancing drugs, I do believe that it will send a clear message that gambling on amateur athletics and the use of these substances is dangerous and wrong.

I urge my colleagues to respond to the pleas of prominent college presidents and coaches, and join in supporting this important measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I begin by congratulating Senator Allen for his very important work on this legislation. Senator Allen has long been an advocate of equal opportunity, but he has also displayed a great deal of expertise and knowledge on a number of

high-tech issues. As a member of the Commerce Committee, he has continuously displayed that leadership and worked actively, particularly on telecommunications and high-tech issues. So I commend him for his leadership and his commitment to this important legislation. He had a lot of help, but the fact is that Senator Allen was the leader in this legislation, and I thank him for his outstanding work. This legislation could provide an opportunity for those who would never have an opportunity in America to grow and to prosper and to take advantage of incredible opportunities that this legislation provides.

The Digital and Wireless Network Technology Act of 2003 would establish a $250 million per year program within the National Science Foundation for fiscal years 2004 to 2008. The purpose of the grant program is to help strengthen the ability of minority-serving institutions, which includes Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, to provide educational instructions through digital and wireless network technologies.

As we look at the scenes of the war in Iraq, we are amazed at the technological capabilities of our Armed Forces. They are able to do things that we simply were not available to do just a few years ago. Nevertheless, this superiority must be supplied with a constant supply of new technologies, which are the result of the Nation's investment in a research and development infrastructure.

During these times of economic slowdown and global threat, it is imperative that our Nation's institutions of higher education are prepared to produce a technologically advanced workforce. As the demographics of the Nation become more and more diverse, minority institutions of higher education take on an even greater importance. It is estimated that in 10 years, minorities will comprise 40 percent of the college-age Americans, the pool from which the Nation's future engineers and scientist will emerge.

Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, stated in a letter earlier this year to new members of Congress that, ``. . . American science and technology is failing to tap a vast pool of talent among our women and ethnic minorities.'' In an effort to enable the Nation to tap this underutilized pool of future engineers and scientists, it is essentially to provide assistance to minority institutions. The hundreds of MSI's should be provided with the resources to ensure that we are indeed utilizing their large student populations.

The legislation before us is not the result of any special interest groups or highly financed lobbying efforts. It is based upon data provided by 80 of the 118 HBCUs in a study entitled, ``HBCU Technology Assessment Study,'' funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce and conducted by a national black college association and a minority business.

The study assessed the computing resources, networking, and connectivity of HBCUs and other institutions that provide educational services to predominately African-American populations.

The study concluded that [During this era of continuous innovation and change, continual upgrading of networking and connectivity systems is critical if HBCUs are to continue to cross the digital divide and not fall victim to it. Failure to do this may result in what is a manageable digital divide today, evolving into an unmanageable digital gulf tomorrow. Based upon testimony provided during the February hearing held by the Commerce Committee, we concluded that the findings from the study also would apply to Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities.

This legislation builds upon the work begun by Senator Cleland and many others during the last Congress. In testimony before the Commerce Committee last year, the President of the United Negro College Fund, Congressman William Gray, stated that we can ill afford to promote college graduates who enter the workforce without mastering the basic computer skills and understanding how information technology applies to their work or profession.

This point was further illuminated by the Dr. Marie McDemmond, President of Norfolk State University, when she testified at the Commerce Committee's February hearing that over 175,000 foreign nationals have come to our country in efforts to fill quality, high paying jobs in science and technology, mainly because our own workforce does not possess the skills and training necessary to fill these essential jobs.

At the same hearing, other college presidents from the Nation's HBCU's Hispanic-serving institutions and Native-American schools also testified about the daunting task of building their technology infrastructure. While these problems apply to all of our Nation's universities, they are more severe at many of our minority-serving institutions. Within the State of Arizona, for example, many of the tribal colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions are facing daily technical challenges of the new millennium. They struggle, as do many other institutions, to keep up with an ever-changing networking technology environment.

I again thank Senator Allen for his leadership on this important issue. I think he had it right when he said this bill is about closing an economic opportunity divide. In this case, it is a divide that exists primarily because of the difference in the educational base of our citizens which affects economic opportunities.

I especially thank Senator Allen for including the Hispanic and tribal institutions in this legislation. I remind my friend from Virginia that in my State of Arizona, one of the poorest areas of our Nation exists in northern Arizona on the Navajo Reservation, the largest Indian reservation by far in America. These Native Americans have been left behind, as well as have African Americans and Hispanics. I thank the Senator for including especially our Native Americans but also our Hispanic populations and institutions in this legislation.

Again, I congratulate him for his commitment in this time of economic difficulties and perhaps less opportunities, and because of that, he is making, I believe, a significant step forward.

I yield the floor.

It is all the same.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Pay Comparability Act of 2003. In 1999, the Committee on Armed Services passed landmark legislation providing significant benefits to the entire Total Force. I believe we must improve upon this legislation so that we not only eliminate ``pay comparability gap,'' but ensure that we do not recreate one in the future.

Under the 1999 legislation, military raises will exceed growth in the ECI by one-half percent per year through fiscal year 2006. However, starting in 2007, military raises will revert to being capped one-half percentage point below the ECI.

As a former ranking member and long-time member on the Personnel Subcommittee when Senator John Glenn was the chairman, my experience with capping military raises below ECI during the last three decades shows that such caps inevitably lead to significant retention problems among second-term and career service members.

Those retention problems cost our Nation more in the long run in terms of lost military experience, decreased readiness, and increased training costs. Since military pay was last comparable with private sector pay in 1982, military pay raises have lagged a cumulative 6.4 percent behind private sector wage growth--although recent efforts of the executive and legislative branches have reduced the gap significantly from its peak of 13.5 percent in 1999. Our efforts in 1999 increased pay raises, reformed the pay tables, took nearly 12,000 service members off of food stamps, and established a military Thrift Savings Plan.

We have to improve upon the 1999 law to ensure future raises track to civilian pay growth so we don't fall back into pay caps that will get us back in the negative retention/readiness cycle. Subsequent raises after 2006 must sustain full comparability with increases in the ECI. A key principal of the all volunteer force, AVF, is that military pay raises must match private sector pay growth, as measured by ECI. Our action in this area will send a strong message of support to our service men and women and their families that will continue to promote high morale, better quality-of-life, and a more ready military force.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Pay Comparability Act of 2003. In 1999, the Committee on Armed Services passed landmark legislation providing significant benefits to the entire Total Force. I believe we must improve upon this legislation so that we not only eliminate ``pay comparability gap,'' but ensure that we do not recreate one in the future.

Under the 1999 legislation, military raises will exceed growth in the ECI by one-half percent per year through fiscal year 2006. However, starting in 2007, military raises will revert to being capped one-half percentage point below the ECI.

As a former ranking member and long-time member on the Personnel Subcommittee when Senator John Glenn was the chairman, my experience with capping military raises below ECI during the last three decades shows that such caps inevitably lead to significant retention problems among second-term and career service members.

Those retention problems cost our Nation more in the long run in terms of lost military experience, decreased readiness, and increased training costs. Since military pay was last comparable with private sector pay in 1982, military pay raises have lagged a cumulative 6.4 percent behind private sector wage growth--although recent efforts of the executive and legislative branches have reduced the gap significantly from its peak of 13.5 percent in 1999. Our efforts in 1999 increased pay raises, reformed the pay tables, took nearly 12,000 service members off of food stamps, and established a military Thrift Savings Plan.

We have to improve upon the 1999 law to ensure future raises track to civilian pay growth so we don't fall back into pay caps that will get us back in the negative retention/readiness cycle. Subsequent raises after 2006 must sustain full comparability with increases in the ECI. A key principal of the all volunteer force, AVF, is that military pay raises must match private sector pay growth, as measured by ECI. Our action in this area will send a strong message of support to our service men and women and their families that will continue to promote high morale, better quality-of-life, and a more ready military force.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.