Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``United States-Africa Partnership Act.'' This bill builds on the important trade and investment initiatives that were contained in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed in 2000.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expansion of AGOA that I am introducing today emphasize the need to elevate the African private sector. The AGOA legislation offers enhanced trade benefits, more U.S. private sector investment, and a higher level dialogue with African governments. It envisions a new economic partnership between the United States and African nations.

To gain these benefits, African countries are expected to undertake sustained economic reform, abide by international human rights practices, and strengthen good goverance. These standards have been used by the U.S. to stimulate reforms in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to expect that they will not be successful in Africa as well.

Private investment tends to follow good governance and economic reform, but the private sector takes cues from government policies and involvement. It is very much in our interest to play a constructive role in the evolving political and economic transition in Africa. A stable and prosperous Africa will be better equipped to cooperate on a range of shared global problems such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, narcotics, the environment and contagious diseases. African economic success also can create new markets for American exports. If jobs are created and foreign exchange is earned through enhanced exports, Africa will have greater capacity to buy goods and services from abroad. They will likely purchase machinery, electronics, financial services, agricultural products, and many other goods and services from U.S. suppliers.

If we had ignored Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s when they were at stages of economic development comparable to many African societies today, we would have missed out on enormous opportunities in East Asia. Years from now, I hope we can look back and say that we were present at a crucial juncture in Africa's growth and development and that we played a constructive role in that change.

In an effort to reverse the persistent under-performance by African economies and to stimulate American involvement in Africa, I introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States Senate in 1999. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has been a positive economic force in Africa. In 2002, 94 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries entered duty-free. The United States imported $9 billion in merchandise duty-free under AGOA in 2002, a 10 percent increase from 2001.

Imports from African countries, not counting oil, jumped 50 percent last year. In South Africa, sub-Sahara's most important economy, exports of automobiles have increased sixteen-fold in the past two years. The tiny country of Lesotho, population 2.2 million, generated $318 million in AGOA exports in 2002. New export-oriented garment factories have created 25,000 jobs. For the first time in its history, private sector manufacturing employment--thanks to trade--exceeds government employment.

Performances like this, which occurred despite the recent slowdown in world trade, are the direct result of AGOA. The legislation lets African countries export some 1,800 products duty-free, without quotas, to the United States. It is a direct response to developing countries' long-time plea; trade, not aid, is the real key to ending poverty and bringing about sustainable, long term economic growth.

Despite these signs of progress, many Africa economies remain in bad shape. Of the 64 least developed countries in the world, 38 are in Africa. Per capita output of goods and services actually dropped during the 1990s, according to the World Bank, and with only 1.4 percent of world trade in 2001, sub-Saharan Africa has been falling behind the rest of the world. During the 1990s,

global gross domestic product grew a robust 44 percent; the figure for Africa was only 8.5 percent. From 1990 to 2001, gross national income per capita in sub-Saharan Africa actually declined by .2 percent.

Africa is in need of help, and expanding AGOA should be a part of the development strategy for the continent. The experience of AGOA has taught us valuable lessons about the path to enhanced investment and economic development and has confirmed some of the key principles that proponents of market-based development have used to guide policy. First, AGOA has demonstrated that a commitment to good governance and a positive investment climate is important to economic growth. Countries such as Lesotho, which has made significant efforts in recent years to promote economic reform and stable democracy, have derived the most benefit from the AGOA provisions. Second, the experience of AGOA has demonstrated that regional integration is as essential to development as access to the U.S. and other foreign markets. Using the infrastructure and economic stability of South Africa as a base, neighboring southern African countries have worked together to take advantage of the benefits under AGOA.

AGOA should not be seen as an end in itself. Rather, it is an initial step designed to expand development and decrease poverty by promoting greater integration of Africa into the global trading community. Achieving these goals will require both enhancements to the AGOA framework and additional steps to address the compelling problems facing Africa. Our trade efforts must be part of a broader American partnership with the often-neglected countries of Africa.

This partnership starts with three issues. First, we must help address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the human tragedy that HIV/AIDS has created in Africa, the epidemic severely limits the economic growth that would reduce Africa's poverty. When workers are forced to call in sick more days than they are able to work, when government positions are experiencing regular turnover, and when scarce capital must be diverted from investment to dealing with the AIDS crisis, it is nearly impossible to build a stable economy.

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation establishing a program under which the United States will contribute $15 billion over the next 5 years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. The President signed this bill into law and has placed his prestige behind its effective implementation. It is my hope that this leadership and much needed funding will start to turn the tide in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Second, we have begun an effort to rethink the way that aid is delivered to the world's poorest countries, most of which are in Africa. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took action on the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative. This initiative would deliver up to $8 billion over the next three years to the world's poorest countries, and it would condition that aid on the development of policies by the recipient countries that will make that aid more effective. These policies include a commitment to just and democratic governance and economic freedom. The Millennium Challenge Corporation would build on the lessons of AGOA, which has demonstrated that private investment will flow to countries that build a stable, predictable investment climate. The incentives provided by Millennium Challenge Corporation dollars would help to establish conditions that will cause private investment dollars to flow to the poorest countries.

Third, we need to move forward with enhancements to AGOA itself. That is my purpose in introducing the United States Africa Partnership Act (USAPA)--also known as ``AGAO III.''' The current AGOA expires in 2008. My bill would extend AGOA benefits until 2015. This coincides with the goal of the World Trade Organizations to have a ``tariff free world'' by 2015. We should take action on this extension soon so that investors will have the certainty they need when making investment decisions involving Africa.

AGOA contains a provision that allows least developed countries (LDCs) to export capped quantities of apparel made from third country fabric to the U.S. duty free. All other countries must use U.S. or African fabric inputs in order to receive duty-free treatment. This ``special rule'' for LDCs expires on September 30, 2004. USAPA would extend this provision for four additional years until September 30, 2008.

It also would eliminate the import sensitivity test with respect to African products and nuisance provisions in the rule of origin for apparel. The AGOA rule of origin is modified so that it applies only to the essential components of apparel. USAPA also clarifies the definitions of certain fabrics for customs purposes, including hand- loomed folklore articles.

USAPA would develop initiatives to provide technical and capacity building experience. In the area of agriculture, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to increase import and export abilities in agricultural trade. It also provides that 20 full-time personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service be stationed in at least 10 AGOA eligible countries to provide technical assistance in meeting U.S. import requirements and trade capacity building.

In an effort to stimulate business partnerships, the bill I introduce today also addresses investment incentives and encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to facilitate investment in AGOA eligible countries. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek negotiations regarding tax treaties with eligible countries.

In addition, it encourages U.S. private investment in African transportation, energy and telecommunications and increases coordination between U.S. and African transportation entities to reduce transit times and costs between the United States and Africa.

Finally, the bill grants funding for the continuation of the AGOA forums and establishes an AGOA task force to facilitate the goals of the Act.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act launched an effort to formulate a new American strategy towards Africa. It sought to establish the foundation for a more mature economic relationship with those countries in Africa that undertake serious economic and political reforms. That effort was supported by virtually all sub-Saharan African nations, and it had wide support among American businesses and non- governmental organizations. We should now seize the opportunity to further integrate African countries into the world economy.

The United States-Africa Partnership Act that I introduce today recognizes the enormous potential for economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa. It embraces the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among forty-eight countries and nearly 700 million people. A stable and economically prosperous Africa can provide new partnerships that will contribute greatly to our commercial and security interests. I urge all members to support the United States-Africa Partnership Act so that we can achieve the mutual long-term benefits that it would bring to Africa and to our country.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I thank him for his leadership throughout this debate and his extraordinary contribution to our understanding. I likewise appreciate very much the testimony of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina with specific references to remarkable nominees, and the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who preceded the Senator from North Carolina, with his insightful comments.

I would like to take a slightly different approach in my speech. I believe this debate is about the thought that we ought to have a vote up or down on each nominee. That is very important to the Senate, to our country, for fairness to the nominees and to the strength of the judiciary.

It has been my privilege to serve almost 27 years, 15 of these years with a

Republican President. The custom I knew as a young Senator and now in whatever age I am at is that you have a responsibility: If you are going to make recommendations to the President of the United States, do so with care.

In the first 25 years of my career, I appointed a nominating committee in Indiana made up principally of very distinguished attorneys and judicial figures for whom I had respect and from all over my State. I knew these people commanded respect, and they were very helpful in identifying, each time a judicial vacancy occurred, several nominees.

Without fail, I presented all of these nominees to the President, and his staff sifted through them and in each case came up with one of the nominees, frequently the one recommended first by the panel I had suggested. And thank goodness, each one of these nominees had an up-or- down vote, usually a very fine consideration by the Judiciary Committee. I did not ever take that for granted, but I saw coming along the horizon a very different story in the current workings of the Judiciary Committee.

I have great respect for that committee and its members and for those who have served as chair and ranking member of the committee. I think there is a crisis in that committee which is very important for us to be thinking about. I believe that privately a good number of members in the committee on both sides of the aisle deeply regret what has been occurring in the committee.

Nevertheless, once again, on May 15, 2002, I was confronted with the news that Judge William Lee and Judge James Moody would both be retiring. I appreciated that those vacancies, two of them, were going to come in to the particular milieu about which we are now talking.

So on this occasion, I took the responsibility personally to write to the press throughout our State that we had a very substantial opportunity ahead of us. I outlined all the qualifications I could see of a Federal judge and, with great cooperation of the press, invited every well-qualified person to apply. The applications the candidates filled out consumed tens of pages, including substantial writings and often the statements they had made in their professional work.

Over the course of 4 months, ultimately 15 serious candidates emerged. I personally read all of their statements carefully. Those 15 candidates included 6 State judges, 4 U.S. magistrate judges, 2 attorneys in private practice, 1 Federal prosecutor, 1 Indiana prosecutor, and a legal professor. Their ages ranged from 35 to 61 and they represented 11 counties across our State.

After taking a hard look at all of these applications, I interviewed, over the course of an hour or 2, 5 of the nominees I thought were the most promising. In those interviews, I was interested principally in their professional skills, but likewise I had read the opinions of these nominees. I did not ask them questions on social issues in America today, on political issues, on foreign policy issues. I did ask them about their work, the characterization of how they would fulfill their responsibilities.

Following all of that, I submitted three names to the White House, and two of those persons were in fact nominated. They were Philip Simon, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the criminal division in Hammond, IN, and Theresa Springmann, a U.S. magistrate judge from Hammond, IN, this being the northern half of that State, that particular district that was involved.

In fact, I have nominated a third, whom I shall not indicate in this address. But President Bush, in fact, did send those two nominees I have cited, Mr. Simon and Ms. Springmann, to the Senate.

Philip Simon, I had found and the Senate Judiciary Committee discovered, had a remarkable record as a U.S. attorney. He was chief of the criminal division and responsible for all criminal prosecution in the Northern District of Indiana. He supervised and participated in prosecutions involving large-scale drug distribution rings, illegal firearms trafficking, white-collar fraud cases, environmental crime, and mob-related racketeering cases. He was in charge of a public corruption task force in Lake County, IN, which was very vigorous. He has been the recipient of a number of awards and commendations. The mutual insurance companies of Indiana presented an award to Judge Simon for his work to combat insurance fraud. He was given the Directors Award by former Attorney General Janet Reno, the highest award given to a U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in the last administration.

Judge Springmann was the first woman to be made partner at Sprangler, Jennings & Doherty, the largest law firm in northwest Indiana. She followed this up by becoming the first woman judicial official in the Northern District of Indiana, presided over 30 civil jury trials, 10 civil and criminal bench trials, and conducted 300 settlement conferences for the district court. She received a number of commendations and the highest rating from the Lake County Bar Association.

At this point, I decided to write to Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, chairman and ranking member of the committee. Beyond that, I went to both of them for personal conversation about these nominees, to explain the procedure and my own criteria, at least, in making these suggestions to the President.

In fact, on March 12 of this year, Judge Springman and Judge Simon were given hearings; but prior to that time, I approached Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and I gave to Senator Bayh the total records of these nominees, so that he might see exactly the same applications I had examined, the same opinions. I asked him for his support of these nominees, and in fact he gave that. He appeared with me before the Judiciary Committee on behalf of these two nominees.

Perhaps we had an unusual situation in Indiana, but I point out that I was pleased the Judiciary Committee acted promptly on the nominees and the Senate did likewise. Thus, what could have been a gaping hole in the Northern District of Indiana judiciary lineup, in fact, was promptly filled, even after the departure of these two distinguished judges. Now, that will not work for every situation, and there may be occasions, as a matter of fact, when the President of the United States has nominees in mind, as he takes a look at a particular State, that the Senator from that State may not have in mind. I can conceive that my three nominees might have led to the President or his people saying: Go back and try again and see if there are not other persons among these distinguished people you have nominated who more fit the idea of what I believe ought to be on the bench in America today. I recognize that.

But it was very important to my constituents in Indiana that we have the service of these judges--continuity in that regard. It was very important that they knew the criteria, the character, the whole process, that it was totally transparent and played out over several months with an enormous amount of publicity.

Sadly enough, the Northern District of Indiana has an extraordinary number of political corruption trials going, with problems of gang- related crime from Chicago and the Illinois border, and sometimes from Michigan and through that area, which brings a total Federal emphasis quite apart from the local situations that might have been involved. These were controversial areas of turmoil, not the placid situations that more characterize my State.

This is why the selection of people in this particular business-- where there was enormous fraud, abuse, and corruption--was especially important and the civic trust in these judges is especially important. They have been serving for several months with distinction, as I anticipated they would. There was in fact a recognition at the time they were sworn in by the total community, in a very large celebration, celebrating the judiciary and the rule of law in that part of our State.

I recite all of this and have asked Senators to indulge in what amounts to maybe a parochial recitation about Indiana simply to say I believe that somehow in the workings of the Judiciary Committee and the relation of that committee with the White House and with us, there really has to be a working out of a better feel. What I suspect is occurring here is that, unfortunately, there may be individual members of the committee who have decided a way to carve out a different

function for themselves or maybe suggest a different function for the Senate.

We are all judges of the Constitution and what is proper and so forth. There are some who say, after all, a Presidential nominee for a Cabinet position is going to be bound by the term of the President. But these are lifetime officials, and we recognize that. But as the distinguished Senators who preceded me have pointed out, new Presidents come and go. The fact is that Republicans and Democrats are somehow going to have to work together year after year in an ongoing body for the continuity of our country.

What is occurring now doesn't work. Without arguing the wisdom or justice of someone holding up a nomination through a filibuster, I submit that this is not in the best interest of the Senate or our judiciary. The public doesn't like it. There may be partisan persons or people with special interests in America who do like it. Whose entire being resonates with a particular cause and they attempt to prevail upon people to stop somebody at all costs before they do harm. I understand that. We all have to deal with that.

What we are talking about today is, I hope, the continuity for the very broad number of Americans who want to have confidence in justice and confidence in us, even in a closely divided Senate, maybe in a closely divided country, and to be able to work in their interests. That is why this debate is so important--to elevate this idea not only of comity but of justice, doing the right thing to a much higher level, as opposed to the tactical advantage of filibuster, of a misuse, in my judgment, of a separation of power situation to cause harm.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate with my distinguished colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Indianapolis Public School Charity Dye Elementary 27 as a recent recipient of the prestigious No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award.

The Blue Ribbon Schools Program was established in 1982 to identify and recognize outstanding public and private schools across the United States. In keeping with the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act--the education reform bill signed into law in 2002--the requirements for this award have been strengthened and now focus more intently on student achievement results.

Charity Dye Elementary School is an Indianapolis inner-city school, and is the first IPS school to receive this award in nearly 20 years. While the

school faces all the same challenges as most inner-city schools, Charity Dye has shown that challenges can be overcome with hard work and dedication to the cause.

Five years ago, the percentage of third grade students who passed the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress exam at Charity Dye was 30 percent. Last year, this number was 83 percent a gain of 50 percentage points, and nearly 13 percentage points over the statewide average. This is an extraordinary turn around.

Charity Dye has made this progress by internalizing the philosophy of the No Child Left Behind Act and operating under the assumption that every child can learn, and that every child will learn.

I am very pleased to take this opportunity to applaud all the students, teachers, and administrators of Charity Dye Elementary School for their hard work and dedication to learning. I hope that the early love of learning will stay with each of the students of Charity Dye as they progress through school. And I encourage each and every one of Charity Dye's teachers, students, and administrators to keep up the excellent work.

As a former mayor of Indianapolis, I am very proud of IPS Charity Dye Elementary 27 and offer this school as a model of excellence for other schools in Indiana and across the Nation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy Reform Act.

The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself.

Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad.

Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions are actually undermining our own interests in the world.

Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems.

But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated. Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight- jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions on our own security and prosperity before we enact them.

To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American objectives.

In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority if the President determines

it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of such sanctions.

The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws.

Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort. To the extent possible, other means of persuasion and influence ought to be exhausted first; if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian population. We should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to function; our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a minimum the adverse affects to our sanctions on our friends and allies; we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or rewards; the President of the United States should always have options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to circumstance and nuance; the Congress should be vigilant by insuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law; and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and objectives.

An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests.

The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however, whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign policy will be more effective.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy Reform Act.

The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself.

Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad.

Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions are actually undermining our own interests in the world.

Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems.

But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated. Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight- jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions on our own security and prosperity before we enact them.

To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American objectives.

In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority if the President determines

it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of such sanctions.

The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws.

Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort. To the extent possible, other means of persuasion and influence ought to be exhausted first; if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian population. We should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to function; our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a minimum the adverse affects to our sanctions on our friends and allies; we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or rewards; the President of the United States should always have options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to circumstance and nuance; the Congress should be vigilant by insuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law; and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and objectives.

An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests.

The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however, whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign policy will be more effective.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank Senators Santorum and Boxer for their commitment to this bill and their bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment. A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national security interests of the United States.

On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses, we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator.

These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken for granted.

Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al- Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al- Qaida has saved American lives.''

But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and to pursue development of lethal biological agents.

Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people.

These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on the presumption that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in ``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill provides the President with the necessary flexibility.

Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq. With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further possible military action from Israel.

The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East Free Trade Agreement down the road.

In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves, the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in pursuit of a viable settlement.

The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his speech and for his thoughtful comments.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time allotted to our side on this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his important argument.

How much time remains on our side?

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.

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

Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of

the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation, and we commend and thank the Senator.

I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I compliment her and I compliment Senator Levin on this work. I am pleased to be associated with them in this amendment.

I come to this amendment from an experience serving on the Agriculture Committee throughout the 27 years of my service in the Senate and 6 years as chairman of the committee. The Agriculture Committee spent a great deal of productive time working with the CFTC to make certain that the regulatory aspects with regard to trading were as strong and as just as possible. We did so, not in a sense of being punitive with regard to new markets and new innovations to weigh in on how American enterprise might flourish, but rather to try to give confidence to hundreds of thousands of traders and beyond--the farming community in particular--of our country. That was the basis for the creation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We have had renewals of the CFTC during my tenure, and I believe we have improved upon the situation on each occasion.

Historically, energy has been exempted from CFTC regulations. I will not attempt to trace the history of why those exemptions occurred. But I will say, in the give and take of compromise as the legislation made its way through the committees of the House and the Senate, and conferences in consultation with the White House, on each occasion in which energy was about to be incorporated in a regulatory pattern, it was exempted as a final compromise in order to gain passage of legislation at one juncture or another. That turned out to be a fatal flaw.

The testimony before the Agriculture Committee, quite apart from testimony before other committees represented by the Senators here today, indicated it was not the entirety of the problem but certainly an example of the contribution of a very grave set of circumstances in which traders without particular scruples and with a minimum of regulation bankrupted each other, and unfortunately, a good number of other innocent parties in the process.

Even in the midst of all of this rubble, as we witnessed the whole thing collapsing, there were still brave spirits in committee and elsewhere who said: ``Let freedom rein; don't regulate anything that doesn't need regulating.'' But, of course, by that time, most of the market aspects of it--all the electronic aspects of it--the poles and the plugs, had literally been pulled.

I do not claim to understand the entirety of the complexities of how those markets work. At some point, if there are not people who can make good trades, you literally pull the plug and stop your electronic mechanism and the trading stops, and those who are still on the merry- go-round are out of luck.

There has always been the arguments that this is simply a subject for a few wealthy Americans to consider as they deal with each other. But that is not the case. The principal users of these markets are very wealthy people--people who ought to know better and who have proper legal or financial counsel so they don't make mistakes.

But there are other people who get involved. The ramifications of the energy markets are not just for private corporations but they branch out into services for communities and the governing systems of this country.

I appreciate very much those who will continue to advocate in the midst of all of the devastation which is apparent--and books are now being written about the difficulties. These books

will point out, as some already have, that the President's working group--whose members testified before the Agriculture Committee several times when I was chairman--let the markets go without regulation; and said if you have not regulated at this point, let them alone. I am here to advise the President and the member of this working group, that these markets do not work well without public confidence, and without a degree of transparency. If there is anything occurring in American financial markets now, anything encouraging to investors, it is the thought that finally many people in Government have come to their senses and realized a good number of things have been going on to undermine confidence in those markets. Those of conservative persuasion who favor the markets and believe markets work, have to take responsibility and make certain they do actually work. In order for them to work, markets must be just, and investors must understand that there are remedies, as opposed to pulling the plug, literally, and letting the trades flounder and bankruptcy ensue.

Mr. President, this is a very serious problem. I appreciate very much the persistence of the Senator from California in insisting that this issue needed to be raised again. She has raised it, and this is why I have come to the floor today in support of it.

I recognize the atmosphere in which we are involved in trying to come to grips with the Agriculture appropriation in such a short time frame. It is a necessity to complete our work.

This is not, perhaps, the most conducive manner to study this complex subject matter that Senators might require. However, I simply say, during my chairmanship, the Agriculture Committee studied this issue to a fault. Beyond circumstances I can control, I was no longer chairman, and the issue slid from the agenda. I do recall that we researched the issue, brought all the parties together, and held 2 days of study with experts on how future markets work. Many Members came to the conclusion that energy should be included, and it should be reformed. I pray that will occur.

The CFTC, I believe, is the logical repository, but I am not insistent upon that. The need for reform is at hand and this amendment advances that ball.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1974.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment that authorizes the spending contained in this appropriations bill. I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy specifically for the way in which they have worked with me throughout this year on matters pertaining to foreign policy. Our staffs have consulted closely for months, and I believe that our respective legislative efforts have been enhanced greatly by this cooperation.

My amendment is an up-to-date version of S. 925, the foreign affairs authorization bill. It contains all of the amendments included in the S. 925 Senate floor action in July. It is truly a bipartisan product. On those 3 days in July in which we debated the bill, we considered dozens of amendments from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee worked with Members on constructive legislative language to enhance the bill; various components have received unanimous committee support.

I thank almost every Member of this body who has contributed in one way or another to this amendment because the amendments of almost every Member of this body are a part of the product we are considering today. That is why it not only has enormous bipartisan support, it has pride of authorship of virtually every Senator.

In this amendment, the Senate speaks forthrightly on the foreign policy challenges that this appropriations bill addresses by setting forth funding levels for specific programs and projects. This amendment gives voice to the Senate's views on issues touching every continent, from the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, to the safety of Americans working in our embassies overseas, to the President's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which is designed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries.

My amendment authorizes appropriations for our diplomats, our foreign aid workers, our Peace Corps volunteers, many of them in harm's way. They are our civilian soldiers in the war on terrorism, and they are engaged in a noble battle against disease, poverty, and humanitarian disasters. American diplomats and aid workers have become targets in most countries and embassies around the world, but there is no shortage of recruits who want to be trained and sent abroad to do America's work.

I thank every member of my committee for their hard work during the authorization process. Members on both sides of the aisle have devoted tens of hours to developing constructive approaches to a number of very difficult foreign policy questions. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approached many foreign policy problems in a bipartisan spirit; thus, all of our authorizing legislation in S. 925 passed out of the committee by a vote of 19 to 0.

I thank and commend, once again, the distinguished ranking member of our committee, Senator Biden, for his abiding cooperation through this whole lengthy process of this year. Republicans and Democrats reasoned together and made compromises that led to excellent legislation. The members of our committee are united in our belief that the authorization bill contained in this amendment will enhance U.S. national security.

A vote for this amendment is a vote of confidence in the Senate's ability to help shape a world where peace, justice, and prosperity might prevail. This is not an academic exercise. Authorization legislation is important. If we are to have a foreign policy that has the long-term support of the American people, the Congress must be in it on the takeoffs as well as the landings. We should not be satisfied with appropriating funds after American soldiers

are on the ground. Congress must be in on the policy formulations and the fulfillment of U.S. commitments. Our role is to help make the hard decisions, not just to sign the checks after decisions are made.

Extensive hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have formed this amendment. The Senate needs the authorization process to project its voice on foreign policy and to have an impact on the direction this country takes in the world. I believe this step is especially necessary because we are now trying to accomplish our legislative work in extraordinary and dangerous times. These times demand the Senate do its duty to pass a foreign affairs authorization bill.

Up to this point, we have not done our duty. We are asking a great deal of our diplomats, our military, and the administration; and on a daily basis, Senators of both parties can be heard delivering commentary on the administration's war effort. Our responsibilities as the elected representatives of the people make such commentary relevant and expected.

Even as we perform oversight and function as loyal critics within our Government, we cannot forget we have our own responsibilities in fighting the war on terrorism. If we function merely as critics and commentators without taking the time and effort to authorize the very legislation that pertains to our Nation's security, we are failing in our duties. This simply cannot continue.

After September 11, 2001, we know we need a robust civilian foreign policy capacity in addition to a strong military if we are going to shape a world that embraces democracy, tolerance, open markets, and the rule of law. But we find the State Department is stretched thin. Our public diplomacy is underfunded and unfocused on many occasions. Our foreign assistance faces constant conflicting pressures and we need to play catchup just to make sure Americans are as safe as possible in their embassy workplaces, and Americans who approach those workplaces are as safe as possible.

We have no civilian surge capacity so our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq end up doing the nonmilitary tasks that should be done by civilians. Our appropriators have been sensitive to foreign policy needs. They have carried the burden of keeping vital foreign policy programs going, but a few lines in appropriations bills are not sufficient to provide the needed direction and framework and the sustained oversight this body should be paying to our civilian foreign affairs capacity.

This year the foreign affairs authorization bill has had to overcome obstacles that have had little to do with its own merits. This authorizing amendment lays out Senate priorities for foreign affairs spending. I have resisted adding anything to it that was not approved in July in open debate and after the adoption of the dozens of amendments I talked about from virtually most, if not all, Senators on this floor. The bill exists as it emerged from the Senate floor at that time and it puts people first, as well as the safety of Americans who work around the world for us. It places a high priority on programs that help foreign governments cooperate with us in tracking down terrorists. It authorizes additional funds for security upgrades at embassies which we know are among the most threatened U.S. targets in the world. As we saw in Kenya and Tanzania, Americans serving in embassies are on the front line in the war against terrorism.

The amendment authorized an increase in danger pay for the diplomats who serve in high-risk posts. We are in a race to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the authorization of this amendment will increase our capabilities. The amendment authorizes a greater American effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Beyond the war on terrorism, the amendment places a high priority on recognizing the deep reservoir of hope for humanity that resides in the American heart. It authorizes the fulfillment of our humanitarian instincts, including programs for child survival, nutrition and health, famine assistance and the Peace Corps. It authorizes the Millennium Challenge Account, President Bush's new program to invest American development dollars where they are most likely to spur economic growth.

A lot of work has gone into the deliberations on the Millennium Challenge Account and the final product is supported by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, as well as the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. All of us now support the President's concept for creating a new means of delivering economic assistance to nations that are implementing positive and measurable economic and political reforms. We agree with the President that this and our development assistance programs are important tools in the war on terrorism. They can prevent failed states, improve our relationships with developing countries, and reduce impoverished conditions that are conducive to terrorist recruitment.

The Senate has been diligent this year in moving other foreign policy items. Among the measures we have passed are the global AIDS bill, the Moscow Treaty, NATO expansion, and the Iraq supplemental. The Senate has shown a capacity to act decisively on the Nation's foreign policy business because we recognize that in these perilous times it is our duty to do so. American national security is at risk, and as the leaders entrusted with passing legislation to keep America secure, we should include the authorization for the civilian foreign affairs agencies and their programs among our accomplishments this year.

I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Yes. I am prepared to accept the passage of the amendment by voice vote if it is the pleasure of both managers of the bill.

I move to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer amendment 1974 to that bill.

I respond to the distinguished Senator that I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes at the outset of this debate.

Mr. President, I regret that objection has been made, although I understand the reasoning of those who have made the objection.

I identified this as the State Department authorization bill, a bill that also included authorization for the money in the challenge account and, for that matter, a good number of other things that, in this particular urgent period of the war on terrorism, attempts to help brave Americans who are serving in our embassies, who are serving in humanitarian ways abroad. I need not remind the Senate that a number of these brave Americans have lost their lives in recent days and weeks. I need not remind the Senate we are at war. This is not an incidental amendment or a last-minute whim of one Senator.

Nor, for that matter, is it a particular desire of our committee-- which voted 19 to zero in behalf of some very important principles that support Americans on the civilian side of the war against terrorism--to impose our will upon the Senate. Obviously, we are not in a position to do so. But I pointed out in the days of debate on the amendment that I have offered today, there were tens of amendments offered by many Senators. A majority, I believe, of the body have tried to perfect this bill. It is not a controversial bill. It is, in fact, a statement of the best motivation, the idealism of the Senate. It is our best collective effort to try to meet an imperative in the war against terrorism.

At this point, a point of order has been raised that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. Indeed, it is. I have made a motion to waive that requirement, given what I believe is the gravity and the importance of the lives of the Americans we are trying to serve.

Members may decide that they wish to debate procedure today. And procedure in the Senate and the rules of the Senate are very important. But the rules of the Senate also permit, as one rule of the Senate, the waiver, so that authorization might occur on an appropriations bill.

Some Senators have approached me and indicated they think there is a lot of merit in the bill. As a matter of fact, some of their own work is in this bill, in this amendment I am offering. Yet at the same time, they are reluctant to vote for my waiver on this occasion, my desire to set aside rule XVI, because they believe there are, after all, many considerations the Senate might be taking up today. There is a broad gamut of domestic issues, for that matter, discussions of foreign policy--various ideas that might come to Senators that might be quite welcome to our national debate.

I do ask for consideration of the whole package of the ideas, authorizations, and support that my amendment provides the Senate today because I believe it is important to our country. I believe it is important, as a statement of who we are, that we are doing business. We might make a statement, when we have this vote, that we are prepared, really, not to do business, but in our own internal difficulties we are prepared to frustrate each other at almost every pass.

We enjoy the fact that, as a Senate, we are fairly evenly divided. Yet I pointed out on this particular bill we are not divided. So there almost has to be a very peculiar twist, it seems to me, that finds this debate whether or not we should authorize the State Department Millennial Challenge.

Beyond that, there has been perhaps a debate in the Senate throughout the year. It is an important one. It is important to be resolved constructively. There may be some Senators who would say that, by and large, it is probably useful to have authorization bills but some Senators almost in the next breath will say it is not very necessary. In other words, if in fact programs are not thought through and they are not fleshed out and there are not formats for them that, by and large, somehow we get along year by year appropriating money and adding some verbiage that gives a hint that someone authorized these expenditures along the way as well as appropriated them.

We found in July when Senator Biden and I were attempting to manage this bill that there were a lot of Senators who were in favor of what we were doing but some Senators said we have not really had our day on the floor; we have really not had a chance to offer our agenda; the reason we couldn't was because the format of the Senate always seemed to be taking up appropriations bills; and rule XVI says you cannot have authorization of general legislation. Therefore, we were cut out from any consideration of objectives which we thought were very important. As a result, we came along with an authorization bill and Senators said finally we have an authorization bill. This offers us the opportunity to pile in everything that we have.

The Senators who argued against that point of view said, no, that really wasn't what the debate on foreign policy was about. But the opposition to that was simply we understand that, but we have not had our chance and we don't see that we are going to have our chance. We don't see another authorization bill coming along the pike. Therefore, although yours will somehow disappear in the midst of all of these other discussions, that has happened for years. Very seldom do we pass authorization bills, and in the case of foreign relations, as a matter of fact, not many for many, many years.

As a result, our staff found as we approached the State Department and foreign assistance and what have you that this year there was a need for cleanup of a lot of our case activity, and we hope to do some more of that work next year. One reason for that is if you do not have authorization bills and force things to happen, no one really examines legislative language. There are a whole series of bureaucracies and responsibilities from year to year. No one pays attention and, legislatively, no one cares.

Let me say we do care. In fact, a large majority of Senators care about the content of this legislation. I believe it is very important on this occasion that my proposal to lay aside rule XVI should be adopted, and that will be our goal. I encourage an ``aye'' vote not only on the rule XVI waiver but a vote on behalf of brave Americans who this amendment supports and serves and remembers.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Let me respond as thoughtfully and calmly as I can because the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated he has been a very strong friend of American diplomacy, of our diplomats abroad, of those who are at risk presently in the war against terror. I appreciate that. I have visited with him about ways in which we could have an authorization bill for the State Department, the millennium challenge, and the other issues that were in this comprehensive Senate bill, S. 925, originally, as amended by so many Senators. The Senator's statement illustrates precisely the problem on which Senators must now vote.

That is, simply, if we are to have an authorization bill this year for the State Department, this is the opportunity. We had an opportunity in July. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts points out correctly that he and other distinguished Senators had a number of issues that they believed were important. Hate crimes and the minimum wage are two of them. And there were additional ideas that Senators wanted to present. They made the point at that time that they believed that on our side of the aisle, they had not been given an opportunity to forward their agenda, to have a time certain for clean bills.

Therefore, although in some cases they said, we regret the fact that the State Department authorization bill is likely now to be withdrawn and not to happen, essentially it hasn't happened for many years. As a matter of fact, very few authorization bills were happening. The only reason, I gather, that hate crimes and unemployment compensation came up in July was a belief on the part of proponents of those ideas that they had no other authorization bill on which to have a debate or to attach their amendments, that the appropriations procedure we are under today precluded all of that.

I ask that even those who are strong proponents of legislation dealing with the minimum wage and hate crimes support the authorization of legislation that helps civilian Americans who are at risk in the war against terror now. That is an important objective. It has not been my purpose to try to frustrate the aims of any Senator but, rather, simply on behalf of a committee that voted 19 to zero and on behalf of a Senate that approved tens of constructive amendments, to try to forward that work product while there is still an opportunity this year.

This is the moment in which Senators must make that sort of decision. Some may wish to make it on the basis of procedure or the basis of how the two parties get along with each other in the Senate. But I would plead with Senators that this is important by itself. It is an important, relevant vote for American security and American good governance.

I believe the American people respect this effort. They want us to do this. They want Senators to vote aye, even though some may say this is at least an opportunity to make points on other discussions at the expense of the totality of all of it ending up in failure.

I appreciate very much the cooperation of the managers of the bill. I thank, once again, my distinguished ranking member, Joe Biden, who has served our committee well as chairman and as a member for three decades, for all of the constructive work. I thank especially the members of the staffs on both sides of the aisle who have diligently devoted hundreds of hours of constructive work trying to reform aspects of the State Department, a bureaucracy of our Government that had not been observed and touched for a long time and which this bill, an authorization bill, has really the unique capacity to do.

For all these reasons, I ask that Senators vote aye and that we have an opportunity for this legislation to proceed.

I thank the Chair.

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, let me just say, in view of the two proposals made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I offered objection on both of these counts because I am the only Republican Senator in the Chamber. On behalf of the leadership of our party, that was my duty, given the fact that our party had not had an opportunity to consider those proposals.

I would just say, personally, I am hopeful that consideration will be given to the Senator from Massachusetts and to all Senators for proposals that are constructive. Those two have a lot of constructive emphasis, and it may well be that before March 15, the Senate will be able to entertain those motions. I hope the Senator understands my objection today. That is why I stated it as a part of this conclusion.

Once again, I am hopeful that Senators will vote constructively in favor of the foreign relations bill.

I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Mattler, a detailee from the State Department to the Foreign Relations Committee staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of this amendment.

Mr. President, I hereby provide notice that I intend to move to suspend rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate during the Senate's consideration of H.R. 2800 in order to offer the amendment No. 1974 to that bill.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, today I rise to commend to Senators the Report of the National Commission on U.S.-Indonesian Relations issued today by the United States-Indonesia Society. This report is the culmination of more than one year of work by the Commission, whose co- chairs are former Secretary of State George Shultz, my fellow Hoosier and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, and George Russell, Chairman Emeritus of the Frank Russell Company.

This report will be an important point of reference for members of Congress and the public as a whole as the future course of Indonesia- U.S. relations is debated. I, for one, believe that the significance of Indonesia to Asia and to the world is often underappreciated. A relatively new democracy, Indonesia is home to the world's largest Muslim population and overall is the world's fourth most populous nation. The U.S. trade deficit with Indonesia is decreasing. U.S. exports of goods to Indonesia in 2002 were $2.6 billion, up 2.4 percent from the previous year and U.S. imports from Indonesia were $9.6 billion, down 4.6 percent from 2001.

The Commission's report examines the U.S.-Indonesia relationship and outlines policies and programs that ``will help strengthen the nation's prospects for success.'' Education, democratization, economic growth and security are areas for emphasis highlighted by the Commission.

The report goes into considerable detail about many aspects of life inside Indonesia, citing the challenges and hopes of this fellow democracy. For example, the report notes that the roles of the military and police are changing, with the goal of the Indonesian government being to make the police, rather than the military, fully responsible for internal security.

Important reference is made to ongoing conflict in the province of Aceh as well as unrest in Papua connected to issues surrounding the special autonomy law. Of special significance to justice-seeking citizens in the United States and Indonesia, the Commission highlighted the need for a full and thorough investigation into the murder of an Indonesian and two Americans, and the wounding of eight others in an ambush last year near Timika in Papua.

My purpose today is not to concur in all of the report's findings, but rather to recommend it to my colleagues as a helpful point of reference in future deliberations by this body on a wide range of issues regarding Indonesia.

Those Members interested in viewing the full report may contact the United States--Indonesia Society for a copy. I conclude my remarks by commending the ongoing work of Paul Cleveland, President of the United States--Indonesia Society and Edward Masters, Co-Chair of the Society's Board of Trustees for their tireless and outstanding commitment to stronger Indonesia--U.S. relations.

I ask unanimous consent to print the Executive Summary in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Senator Bingaman, the Prevent Pre- maturity and Improve Child Health Act.

Pre-maturity has been escalating steadily and alarmingly over the past two decades. Between 1981 and 2001, the rate of premature births rose from 9.4 percent to 11.9 percent, an increase of more than 27 percent. In 2001, more than 476,000 babies were born prematurely.

Pre-maturity is the leading cause of infant death in the first month of life. Babies born too early are more likely than full-term infants to face serious multiple health problems following delivery. the health problems facing many of these children include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. If we are able to reduce the number of premature births we will be able to improve the health of hundreds of thousands of infants born each year.

The goal of the ``Prevent Pre-maturity and Improve Child Health Act'' is

to give States increased flexibility and the Federal resources needed to improve access to prenatal care for low-income pregnant women and their children.

Among other things, the bill allows States the option of covering legal immigrant pregnant women under Medicaid. It also promotes new programs and more coverage for tobacco cessation in Medicaid, and Maternal Child Health block grant programs, and allows States the option of providing wrap-around SCHIP coverage for special needs children who have another source of health insurance.

Our bill has the potential to make a real difference in many lives. I am pleased that we are able to introduce this bill in conjunction with the March of Dimes kick off of their new campaign on pre-maturity awareness and hope that our colleagues will consider joining us in this effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Lincoln and Senator Bingaman, the Prevent Pre- maturity and Improve Child Health Act.

Pre-maturity has been escalating steadily and alarmingly over the past two decades. Between 1981 and 2001, the rate of premature births rose from 9.4 percent to 11.9 percent, an increase of more than 27 percent. In 2001, more than 476,000 babies were born prematurely.

Pre-maturity is the leading cause of infant death in the first month of life. Babies born too early are more likely than full-term infants to face serious multiple health problems following delivery. the health problems facing many of these children include cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. If we are able to reduce the number of premature births we will be able to improve the health of hundreds of thousands of infants born each year.

The goal of the ``Prevent Pre-maturity and Improve Child Health Act'' is

to give States increased flexibility and the Federal resources needed to improve access to prenatal care for low-income pregnant women and their children.

Among other things, the bill allows States the option of covering legal immigrant pregnant women under Medicaid. It also promotes new programs and more coverage for tobacco cessation in Medicaid, and Maternal Child Health block grant programs, and allows States the option of providing wrap-around SCHIP coverage for special needs children who have another source of health insurance.

Our bill has the potential to make a real difference in many lives. I am pleased that we are able to introduce this bill in conjunction with the March of Dimes kick off of their new campaign on pre-maturity awareness and hope that our colleagues will consider joining us in this effort.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.