Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the recognition, and likewise I appreciate the majority leader giving us this hour of debate, because today it is very important the Senate consider the global HIV/AIDS bill.

For the past year, intense discussions have occurred in Congress and between the executive and legislative branches on how our country can best respond to the global AIDS crisis.

In June 2002, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved an HIV/AIDS bill, initially introduced by Senators Frist and Kerry, with a large bipartisan group of co-sponsors. The Senate unanimously passed that bill. However, the House of Representatives failed to act on it before the end of the 107th Congress.

At the start of this Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee undertook at the request of the new majority leader to reintroduce the 2002 Senate-passed bill, with some minor changes requested by the Department of State. In addition, we revised portions of the bill to take account of the President's AIDS initiative outlined in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

The Committee's efforts, therefore, incorporated many of the modifications requested by the White House, including the addition of new authorities for the Special HIV/AIDS Coordinator created by our legislation last year and incorporated in the President's AIDS initiative this year.

Our efforts resulted in S. 1009, currently on the Senate calendar. Simultaneously, the House proceeded with its own bill to authorize the President's AIDS initiative. The House passed that bill last month, and it was placed on the Senate calendar.

Many Senators, including myself, come to this debate with preferences on how a bill should be structured on this subject. Nevertheless, I share the majority leader's hope that the Senate will move quickly to pass the House bill before us so that HIV/AIDS funding will not be delayed any further and so President Bush can have an AIDS initiative in hand when he travels to the G-8 summit later this month of May. The House passed their bill by a vote of 375 to 41. It is a good bill worthy of the strong bipartisan support that it received.

The United States must have partners in the effort to stop HIV/AIDS. Passage of this bill will maximize the President's ability to enlist other nations in the fight against AIDS. American leadership is as important as American contributions to this objective.

We must be mindful of the President's recent observation that, ``Time is not on our side,'' in combating this disease. The global HIV/AIDS pandemic is a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions. In Africa, nearly 10,000 people contract the HIV virus each day. The United States has a clear moral obligation, as the most powerful nation on earth, to respond generously and quickly to this crisis.

But beyond our moral obligations, we should recognize that this bill is squarely in the self-interest of the United States and the American people. If we are to protect our national security and overcome terrorism, we must devote ourselves to strengthening democracy, building free markets, and encouraging civil society in nations that otherwise might become havens or breeding grounds for terrorists. We must seek to encourage societies that can nurture and fulfill the aspirations of their citizens and deny terrorists the uncontrolled territory and abject poverty in which they thrive.

Few conditions do more harm to these objectives than the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It has imposed a crushing burden on the economies of numerous African nations; it has exacerbated undercurrents of political instability that weaken the fundamentals of responsible government; and it has destroyed millions of family units. Beyond the sick and the dead, the disease has created a generation of orphans, whose prospects for a fulfilling and productive life have been diminished by the loss of parents and other family members.

The President has recognized the urgency of moving forward at this moment in history and has announced his support very solidly. He believes we need to fulfill our altruistic role in the world and to protect U.S. national security. We must join him in this effort by passing the bill before us.

The House bill would authorize the President's Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief. This plan would provide $15 billion over the next 5 years for AIDS care, treatment and prevention in those countries already facing an AIDS crisis and in those countries that have experienced a dramatic increase in the disease.

The bill would establish the position of Coordinator for HIV/AIDS to ensure an effective approach by the various agencies of the U.S. Government involved in combating the global spread of AIDS.

The bill also would provide the President with the discretion to devote up to $1 billion a year for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. In an effort to generate foreign contributions to the global fund, the bill sets a ceiling for American contributions at one-third of total contributions. In other words, we hope to stimulate at least $2 in foreign contributions to the global fund for each

dollar contributed by the United States.

The Senate can make history this week by passing this bill and sending the measure to the President for his signature. We should do so without delay.

I add, finally, this thought to the debate. The President of the United States, during the ceremonies in which the new members of NATO were ratified by this body last week, and introduced to the public at the White House by the President, took aside Members who were there, and even at a historic moment in which we were discussing NATO, he discussed with us the HIV/AIDS legislation. He indicated that he was going to the summit of the G-8, that it is critical that other nations join us. It is critical today that we pass this legislation.

But in order for the HIV pandemic to be arrested, other nations must be involved. The President emphasized to me and to others that his own advocacy, his own power in that meeting with regard to this issue, is dependent upon having a bill. In a very pragmatic way, the President indicated the House bill, which passed by a large majority, is a good bill. I suspect if the President were to offer all of his amendments, if I were to offer those I have already suggested in the Foreign Relations Committee, likewise the distinguished ranking member, Members of the House and the Senate, who have a variety of ways in which we can improve the situation, we could have a remarkable debate. As a matter of fact, we might have a substantial study of this situation for much of the rest of this Congress. Feelings are very strong on many of these issues.

I am sensitive to this in many ways, having tried, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, from the beginning of this year, to wrestle with this very piece of legislation and how we could bring it to fulfillment.

The President's response to all of this is that the House has passed a good bill. Please pass the same bill without amendment. Please send it to me so I can sign it next week and take it in this month of May to the G-8 summit to make a powerful statement in behalf of the world and in behalf of our leadership.

That has led to my course of action in which I have indicated to my colleagues that I intend to support the President. I intend to support this bill that is before us. I will oppose amendments to the bill because that will clearly complicate the process. A conference would be required. It is not clear how rapidly the conferees could either meet or come to conclusion, and we have a recess 1 week from now, which leaves the President in limbo without a bill.

It is those considerations that I hope Members will keep in mind, will understand, and will in fact support. But at least I appreciate in this opening statement an opportunity to state my own convictions, my own course of action, and the leadership, at least in this body, that I advocate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. President, let me try to describe what I believe is the lay of the land at this stage. We have had in the Foreign Relations Committee about 4 months of discussion about various ways that this issue might be approached. And that followed, as was pointed out earlier in the day in the debate, the remarkable bill that was offered by Senators Frist and Kerry last year. It passed unanimously. It did not receive consideration in the House, and it did not become law.

The issue was revived in a big way when President Bush mentioned this prominently in his State of the Union Address. President Bush not only mentioned it then, but he has been mentioning it on almost every occasion when he has met with Senators. This is very important to us, it is very important to our President, and it is very important to the world that a bill pass this evening.

The situation comes down to this. In the Foreign Relations Committee, ultimately, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, and I formulated a bill which we believed had a strong majority in our committee. We believed it had a strong majority potentially on the floor of the Senate.

The House of Representatives, in the meanwhile, under the leadership of Congressman Hyde and Congressman Lantos, has passed an excellent bill, in our judgment. We believe we could have improved upon it. The amendments that are being offered tonight all suggest they might improve upon it.

As a matter of fact, some have foreign policy objectives that I would agree with wholeheartedly. But the issue tonight comes down to this: The President of the United States has visited with me, Senator Biden, and others, as late as last Thursday--and, in fact, in Indianapolis on Tuesday. He has indicated to me he believes the only chance that he will have a bill he can sign, that he can take to the G-8 meeting that commences June 1, is if the Senate adopts the House bill without amendments, without conference, without possible parliamentary strategies that stand between the President and a bill that he will take to the G-8.

Why does he want to do that? Because he wants money from the G-8. He wants commitments. He wants somebody besides the United States in this ball game. It is very important that he succeed. This is not a peripheral item for the President. It is up front. He has appealed in every way he knows.

I have told him I will support him, and I will do the best I can to manage a bill this evening that passes that has no amendments, however meritorious, because I believe that way he will have a bill, we will have success at the G-8 and, more importantly, the people who are going to be helped will be helped as opposed to our having an extended study in which people come from the left, from the right, from the center, perfecting this and that, but we do not have a bill and our President goes to the G-8 without that momentum of support he wants.

Now, that will be the issue in my remarks on each amendment. It finally comes down to the fact that I will ask my colleagues in the Senate to defeat amendments; to pass the bill; to do so promptly; to do so tonight, so that the issue is concluded, the President is supported, and he moves on.

The President of the United States needs an opportunity to forward our cause. Please give him that opportunity. Pass a clean bill this evening. Please vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has an amendment.

I ask the Chair what the time agreement is on the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as required.

The argument against the Dorgan amendment, which I will make, is that a budget point of order clearly is applicable against this particular amendment, and at the appropriate time I will raise that budget point of order.

I say simply that the bill we are considering, which came through the House of Representatives and is the basis for our debate today, does mention food assistance, and does so generously, as a prevention technique. It is mentioned at several points throughout the legislation. So it has not been overlooked. But the amendment that is being offered by my distinguished colleague clearly approaches appropriations language, as opposed to authorization language, and clearly is in violation of the budget we have adopted. At the appropriate time, I will seek recognition to raise the budget point or order.

In addition, the fact is that once again it amends the basic bill we are attempting to pass tonight, which is very important for Members to consider.

Mr. President, as each one of us discussed amendments tonight, there are ways in which this bill could be perfected. There will be an opportunity in a humanitarian way to try to perfect our work. Our work tonight, however, is to pass this legislation so that our President has a bill at the G-8. In furtherance of that, I note that the pending amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota increases mandatory spending, and, if adopted, would cause the underlying bill to exceed the committee section 302(a) allocations. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I respectfully respond to my colleague that clearly we can pass the bill now, and that would end the session. I would hope we would do that. If Members wish to continue offering amendments, I will do the best I can to encourage each amendment be defeated so we will have a clean bill.

In any event, I hope it will not be long, and with the cooperation of all Members we can expedite it.

I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, let me clarify that if $2 billion is spent in the first year for bilateral HIV programs and if 20 percent is for prevention, only $132 million will be involved in the abstinence programs. I simply say, it is a fairly small amount.

When the President addressed this issue at the White House, he specifically said, there are three elements. There is abstinence, faithfulness, and condoms. He said all three. There is a liberal amount of money for a lot of flexibility.

I don't argue with the distinguished Senator from California. I just say essentially the language accomplishes that.

Once again, we are faced with the fact that if we are determined to amend it, we are back into the problem with the House, which debated this. This was an important part of the compromise that brought those 375 votes in favor of the bill.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, just as a matter of common sense, the U.S. Government will attempt to purchase pharmaceutical products of the highest quality at the best price. But I would just simply urge my colleagues to consider the fact that mandating this, while it appears reasonable, and has some reliance upon the World Health Organization's pilot program, we ought to recognize that the World Health Organization actually dealing in countries with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS does not guarantee the quality of the medicine. It is probably unable to do that.

The facts are--and I respect the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and, likewise, the Senator from Wisconsin; they have experience, I am sure, in the field looking at these programs--the testimony of people I have visited with at Indiana University, who have been in the field, indicates that the whole idea of the treatment is a very provisional situation.

We are grasping as a world at what works. And this is why flexibility has been encouraged thus far. We also are simply up against the fact that the problem is so overwhelming that attempting to obtain pharmaceutical products from anybody around the world has been extremely difficult. And a good number of pharmaceutical companies have been prepared to make enormous price concessions. And most physicians then point out, you need a physician to help the patient make certain the doses are right, the combination of drugs is right, the discipline of dealing with this is correct.

It is not a matter of mandating the lowest cost drugs, and failing to do that denying people treatment. The fact is, 80 percent of the people with AIDS in the world are getting no treatment at all. That is why we are trying to pass a bill tonight as opposed to having several months more discussion, attempting to perfect the bill. I have said from the beginning, as Dr. Frist, that all of us could perfect this bill in a number of ways. Our problem is to get a bill through two Houses now so it might be of some benefit to our President in his diplomacy and advocacy as he approaches the other wealthy countries of the world, starting at least on the first of January, if not before.

Therefore, Mr. President, I am hopeful that Members understand the importance of getting drugs at the best price and mandating the highest quality and attempting to get as many companies all over the world interested in this as we can. But the amendment, it seems to me, once again, obstructs the fact of getting any bill at all, any relief for the people we are talking about. Therefore, I ask Senators to vote no.

Senator Boxer, 10 minutes, evenly divided.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for information now on the time limits on the two amendments.

On the Dodd amendment?

Mr. President, I am unfamiliar with the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California. I have listened carefully to her argument, and obviously the bill before us addresses the needs of women and orphans in a great number of places. I must argue again, I suspect that the best in this case should not be the enemy of the better.

We have a bill here that I believe is sound on these issues. As we have admitted again and again, each one of us might perfect it in various ways. The distinguished Senator from California is attempting to do so now. But I encourage Senators to vote against the amendment for the same reasons I have encouraged Senators to vote against each of the perfecting amendments--realizing that each one of us, in the event we were to write the bill, could do better. But we have two bodies working on a procedure whereby we are on the threshold of having a significant breakthrough for the people we are attempting to assist and save.

The Senator has made an eloquent case for why we ought to have action now and ought to encourage other countries to join us. I ask Senators, once again, to oppose the Boxer amendment.

We yield back our time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I will make a short comment and yield to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

I point out, without for a moment arguing with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the urgency of Latin America, our friends right here in the Caribbean, that the language of the bill with regard to the United States coordinator does list 14 countries, but it also then has these words: ``and other countries designated by the President.''

It appears to me this language is fairly flexible. It might have been better if all of the countries had been listed, but it does enumerate the Latin American countries that the Senator from Connecticut has pointed to and gives the power of the President to designate other countries.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and then the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time on our side. Before doing so, may I clarify with the Chair that the only two remaining amendments are to be offered by the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Clinton, and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and that these will have voice votes at the conclusion of the two amendments, and then we will have final passage on a voice vote. Is that interpretation correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the only two remaining amendments be amendments of Senator Clinton and Senator Biden, with voice votes to follow, and a voice vote on final passage.

I thank the Senator.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from New York has made a very eloquent and important statement, and I appreciate it. My response has to be the one I have made throughout the evening, and that is that it is different, and it will cause conference. In my judgment, there is merit in what she has to say. That has been true of many amendments this evening. But it is something that I must oppose. I am hopeful Senators will vote no on the Clinton amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have been listening to all of this information. Let me simply say that, throughout the evening, I have asked Senators to vote against amendments. That was based upon the feelings of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, who passed the bill--namely, my friends Henry Hyde, Tom Lantos, and likewise in the course of this debate, I have mentioned conversations with the President himself, who wanted this bill unamended so there would not be a need for a conference and for difficulty. I have not been apprised by anybody at the White House, or in the House leadership, of any other situation.

I am perfectly willing to accept, on good faith, the assertions of my colleagues who have had these conversations. But for the sake of the Record, when the voice vote comes, I will vote no because I have asked my colleagues to vote no on each amendment. I will continue in that frame of mind.

But I have listened carefully and I understand what, apparently, have been conversations and agreements and I appreciate that.

I know of no reason to extend the debate, unless the majority leader has something.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their diligence and faithfulness in working to this late hour. I thank our leader, Senator Frist; likewise, Senator Daschle. I always appreciate working with my colleague, Senator Biden. We have a good relationship on the committee, and we are very appreciative that the Senate has given us this bill this evening.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight for my colleagues an important event occurring in State of Indiana the 100th anniversary of the Shelbyville-Shelby County Public Library.

The growth success of the library through the years is a testament to the dedication of the staff and to the Shelbyville-Shelby County community. In 1822, the Shelbyville-Shelby County Public Library was founded with a modest collection of a few hundred volumes. In the years and decades that followed, the collection grew to more than one hundred thousand volumes, and the facility was expanded to meet the demands of the City and County. Today, residents enjoy a state of the art institution.

I join, with my colleagues in the Senate and with State and local officials in Indiana, to congratulate everyone who has been a part of the growth of this library throughout the years and who has gathered to celebrate this impressive milestone.

Mr. President, the Senate comes together this morning to ratify the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the NATO alliance. It will be a truly historic vote in the Senate and a most important day in the histories of these nation-states. I am hopeful the Senate will support overwhelmingly this remarkable foreign policy initiative.

When President Bush made his first trip to Warsaw Europe 2 years ago, he strongly voiced in his Warsaw address the U.S. commitment to Europe generally and to NATO in particular. Now, at a moment when relations with some of our European allies are strained, a clear showing of bipartisan support for NATO enlargement takes on added importance. The affirming message of the first round of enlargement led to improved alliance capabilities and strengthened transatlantic ties. I am confident that this second round will do the same. The eyes of a hopeful and expectant world are upon us. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution of ratification.

I would like to direct the attention of Senators to the balcony above where we are joined today by the Foreign Ministers of the seven aspirant states. They have come together with us today to witness our actions and to join with us on the Senate floor at the completion of the vote. At noon they will be hosted by the Secretary of State for lunch at the State Department and later by President Bush at a Rose Garden ceremony. Their presence, here today, is a personal witness to the close relationship our nations will enjoy as partners in the NATO Alliance.

I thank Senators for their cooperation and ask for their support of the enlargement of the NATO allliance .

Mr. President, today the Senate has taken another step in making Europe whole and free. In June 2001, President Bush delivered a speech in Warsaw, Poland confirming that:

All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the

Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same

chance for security and freedom--and the same chance to join

the institutions of Europe.

Today the Senate ratified that vision and has voted overwhelmingly to enlarge the NATO alliance to include seven new members.

I would like to thank a number of people for their contributions to this important debate. Jessica Fugate, Kate Burns, and Mike Haltzel worked tirelessly to produce a resolution of ratification and committee report that enjoyed the unanimous support of the Foreign Relations Committee and has been ratified by the Senate. Bob Bradtke, of the Department of State; Kurt Volker, of the National Security Council, and Ian Brzezinski, of the Department of Defense; worked closely with committee staff to ensure strong administration support for the work we have completed today. Lastly, special thanks to Paul Gallis, of the Congressional Research Service, for his valuable contributions to the Committee's work and the Senate's review of the Protocols of Accession.

I especially thank the distinguished ranking member from Delaware, Senator Biden, for his cooperation and leadership on this important issue. This is the second major treaty the Foreign Relations Committee has guided to ratification in a few short months. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan partnership in the days and weeks ahead as we turn to the State Department authorization bill, the HIV/AIDS bill, and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I know unanimous consent has been granted for the Senate to stand in recess. I look forward to welcoming the foreign ministers of the countries we greet today.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Minnesota not only on his remarkable statement, but likewise on the Minnesota miracle. The work in his State is truly a manifestation of all that can come from the legislation we are discussing today in terms of jobs, income for farmers and, most important, greater energy independence and cleaner air for our country.

I am delighted to join my colleague from Minnesota in presenting and sponsoring and commending the majority leader and the minority leader for presenting this legislation to us today.

I am a strong advocate of this initiative to establish a nationwide renewable fuels standard as a part of America's national energy policy. Moving from a hydrocarbon to a carbohydrate economy will increase energy independence, reduce oil imports, protect air and water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate rural economies. The renewable fuels amendment we are considering today does all of these things, which is why I regard it as an essential component of the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

The renewable fuels amendment is the culmination of years of effort. As a result of the hard work, today's amendment enjoys strong support from both parties and a broad array of interest groups.

Several years ago, Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable fuels standard. It has been my privilege to speak with Senator Daschle for many years on behalf of this concept, in front of various groups in our country, as well as with our colleagues in the Senate. I have treasured my friendship with Senator Daschle on the Agriculture Committee of the Senate. There we have had many hearings and productive discussions. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001, the bill Senator Daschle and I introduced, represented an important step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our Nation's energy security. At the same time, this proposal went far toward protecting the environment, supporting rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price spikes. Last year Senator Daschle and I incorporated that legislation into the Senate Energy bill. I am hopeful this year my colleagues will again demonstrate that they appreciate the importance of the renewable fuels standard to our country, and I am confident we will do so.

When reflecting back on recent history, one trend that should disturb every American is our growing dependence on oil imports. Set that trend against the many political crises erupting in oil-rich regions around the world, and it is clear our addiction to oil must be curtailed. I believe part of the answer lies with the development of cheap, plentiful, renewable sources of energy. The current tax incentive for ethanol has helped foster creation of a strong domestic renewable fuels industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of ethanol production and to make the commodity more competitive with fossil fuels. It is time for a nationwide renewable fuels standard.

Recent and prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing are radically changing the viability of ethanol as a transportation fuel. It is now possible to use biomass, meaning virtually any plant or plant product, to produce renewable fuels. So- called cellulosic ethanol may decisively reduce the cost of ethanol, to the point where petroleum products may soon face vigorous competition.

In 1999, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, and a consultant on many important issues, and I coauthored an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that talked about our strategic need for energy independence--at least outlined how a biomass strategy, which included ethanol from many sources, was a critical part of that strategy.

In 1999, following publication of that article in Foreign Affairs, I introduced a bill that now drives many of these scientific breakthroughs. The Biomass Research and Development Act accelerated and coordinated the biomass research and development activities of Federal agencies. Soon after this bill was enacted into law as Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, a bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, its competitive research and development program began accelerating production of biofuels, biochemicals, and biopower. Today's amendment will build on that initiative in a very large way by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol.

I am proud of the significant progress we have already made to support renewable fuels. We have made great strides toward strengthening our national security, improving our rural communities, and protecting our natural environment.

With today's amendment, we will move still closer to a safer and more prosperous tomorrow for our country and for the world. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important initiative.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bingaman to re-introduce the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003.

The United States ranks 26th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, the worst among developed nations. Study after study shows that providing prenatal care to pregnant women reduces maternal and infant mortality and the incidence of low birth weight babies. According to the American Medical Association, ``Babies born to women who do not receive prenatal care are four times more likely to die before their first birthday.''

The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003 would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by providing States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP, to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birth weight babies, and to cover newborns through the first full year of life.

Current federal law allows pregnant women to receive coverage through CHIP through age 18--creating a perverse Federal incentive of covering only teenage pregnant women and cutting off that coverage once they turn 19 years of age. This legislation would eliminate this problem by allowing States to cover pregnant women through CHIP, regardless of age. This also eliminates the unfortunate separation between pregnant women and infants that has been created through CHIP, and is contrary to longstanding federal policy through programs such as Medicaid, Women with Infants and Children, WIC, Maternal and Child Health, MCH, etc.

An estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.''

Increasing the availability of affordable health care is certainly an issue of great importance to our Nation--particularly those who are uninsured. While our bill will not solve the problem of the uninsured, we believe that helping more pregnant women and babies receive care is a significant step in the right direction.

I ask our colleagues to support the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003, and help us take this important step in improving health care for the mothers of tomorrow.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bingaman to re-introduce the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003.

The United States ranks 26th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, the worst among developed nations. Study after study shows that providing prenatal care to pregnant women reduces maternal and infant mortality and the incidence of low birth weight babies. According to the American Medical Association, ``Babies born to women who do not receive prenatal care are four times more likely to die before their first birthday.''

The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003 would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by providing States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP, to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birth weight babies, and to cover newborns through the first full year of life.

Current federal law allows pregnant women to receive coverage through CHIP through age 18--creating a perverse Federal incentive of covering only teenage pregnant women and cutting off that coverage once they turn 19 years of age. This legislation would eliminate this problem by allowing States to cover pregnant women through CHIP, regardless of age. This also eliminates the unfortunate separation between pregnant women and infants that has been created through CHIP, and is contrary to longstanding federal policy through programs such as Medicaid, Women with Infants and Children, WIC, Maternal and Child Health, MCH, etc.

An estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.''

Increasing the availability of affordable health care is certainly an issue of great importance to our Nation--particularly those who are uninsured. While our bill will not solve the problem of the uninsured, we believe that helping more pregnant women and babies receive care is a significant step in the right direction.

I ask our colleagues to support the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003, and help us take this important step in improving health care for the mothers of tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, we now commence a very important debate on the NATO treaty.

On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I am pleased to bring the protocols of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 to the floor for the Senate's consideration and ratification. The protocols extending membership to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were signed on March 26, 2003, and were transmitted by President Bush to the Senate on April 10, 2003. The accession of these countries to the NATO Alliance is a tremendous accomplishment. It deserves the full support of the Senate and the governments of the other 18 NATO members.

The Foreign Relations Committee has held 10 hearings on NATO since 1999. Five of these hearings were held during the last 2 months, as we prepared for this debate on the Senate floor. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave its unanimous approval to the resolution of ratification.

I especially thank Senator Joseph Biden for his assistance in moving NATO expansion forward and for his insightful participation in the wider debate on NATO policy. The resolution of ratification before us today reflects our mutual efforts to construct a bipartisan resolution that could be broadly supported by the Senate.

During the course of the committee's consideration of the Protocols of Accession for these seven nations to join NATO, we received testimony from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith, and United States Ambassador to NATO Nick Burns. Each expressed strong support for NATO expansion. In addition to efforts undertaken in the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Levin and Warner and the Committee on Armed Services conducted two hearings examining the military implications of the treaty and shared an analysis of their findings with us. This letter has been made a part of the Record and our committee report.

When NATO was founded in 1949, its purpose was to defend Western democracies against the Soviet Union. But the demise of the Soviet Union diminished the significance of NATO's mission. We began to debate where NATO should go and what NATO should do. In early 1993, I delivered a speech calling for NATO not only to enlarge, but also to prepare to go ``out of area.'' At that time, many people were skeptical about enlarging NATO's size and mission. Those of us who believed in NATO enlargement prevailed in that debate. And I believe that events have proven us right.

As we consider this new enlargement, it is clear that the last round has been highly beneficial. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic are among the most dynamic countries in Europe. They are deeply interested in alliance matters, and they have sought to maximize their contribution to collective security. The prospect of NATO membership gave these countries the incentive to accelerate reforms, to settle disputes, and cooperate with their neighbors. Their success, in turn, has been a strong incentive for democratization and peace among Europe's other aspiring countries.

Many observers will point to the split over Iraq as a sign that NATO is failing or irrelevant. I disagree. Any alliance requires constant maintenance and adjustment, and NATO is no exception. The United States has more at stake and more in common with Europe than with any other part of the world. These common interests and shared values will sustain the alliance if governments realize the incredible resource that NATO represents. As the leader of NATO, we have no intention of shirking our commitment to Europe.

But as we attempt to mend the alliance's political divisions over Iraq, we must go one step further and ask, if NATO had been united on Iraq, could it have provided an effective command structure for the military operation that is underway now? And would allies, beyond those currently engaged in Iraq, have been willing and able to field forces that would have been significant to the outcome of the war? In other words, achieving political unity within the alliance, while important to international opinion, does not guarantee that NATO will be meaningful as a fighting alliance in the war on terror.

In the coming years, NATO will have a decide if it wants to participate in the security challenge of our time. If we do not prevent major terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, the alliance will have failed in the most fundamental sense of defending our nations and our way of life.

This reality demands that as we depend NATO, we also retool NATO, so that it can be a mechanism of burden sharing and mutual security in the war on terrorism. America is at war, and we feel more vulnerable than at any time since the end of the cold war and perhaps since World War II. We need allies to confront this threat effectively, and those alliances cannot be circumscribed by geographic boundaries.

In our committee hearings on NATO, we have heard encouraging testimony that our allies are taking promised steps to strengthen their capabilities in such areas as heavy airlift and sealift and precision- guided munitions. We also have heard that the seven candidates for membership are developing niche military capabilities that would be useful in meeting NATO's new military demands. But clearly, much work is left to be done to transform NATO into a bulwark against terrorism. An early test will be NATO's contribution to peacekeeping and humanitarian duties in the aftermath of combat in Iraq. A strong commitment by NATO nations to this role would be an important step in healing the alliance divisions and reaffirming its relevance for the long run.

The Resolution of Ratification we are considering today includes nine declarations and three conditions. I will review each of these provisions for the benefit of the Senate:

Declaration 1 reaffirms that membership in NATO remains a vital national security interest of the United States.

Declaration 2 lays out the strategic rationale for NATO enlargement.

Declaration 3 emphasizes that upon completion of the accession process, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia will have all the rights, privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and protections of full NATO members.

Declaration 4 emphasizes the importance of European integration.

Declaration 5 reiterates NATO's ``open door'' policy, and declares that the seven new countries will not be the last invited to join the alliance.

Declaration 6 expresses the Senate's support for the Partnership for Peace.

Declaration 7 expresses support for the NATO-Russia Council established at the Prague Summit, but reinforces the Senate's view that Russia does not have a veto or vote on NATO policy.

Declaration 8 declares that the seven candidate countries have implemented mechanisms for the compensation of victims of the Holocaust and of Communism.

Declaration 9 states that the committee has maintained the constitutional role of the U.S. Senate in the treaty-making process.

Condition 1 requires the President to reaffirm understandings on the costs, benefits, and military implications of NATO enlargement.

Condition 2 requires the President to submit a report to the Congressional Intelligence Committees on the progress of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in meeting NATO security sector and security vetting standards.

Finally, Condition 3 requires the President to certify to Congress that each of the governments of the seven candidate countries is fully cooperating with the U.S. efforts to obtain the fullest accounting of captured and missing U.S. personnel from previous conflicts and the Cold War.

When President Bush made his first trip to Europe 2 years ago, he strongly voiced the U.S. commitment to Europe generally and to NATO in particular. Now at a moment when relations with some of our European allies are strained, a clear showing of bipartisan support for NATO enlargement takes on added importance. The affirming message of the first round of enlargement led to improved capabilities and strengthened transatlantic ties. I am confident that this second round will do the same. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution of ratification.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

We are pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, as much as he would require.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides during the quorum call.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I agree with the analysis of history given by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, with regard to the basic exclusion--or rather consensus and exclusion argument we are having today. He states correctly this arose the last time we discussed NATO accession. It is an important argument that has been propounded by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and others. I simply rise to say the substance of the issue is different from the procedure. In this amendment offered by the distinguished Senators, we are discussing an amendment that says:

It is the sense of the Senate that, not later than the date

that is eighteen months after the date of the adoption of

this resolution, the President should place on the agenda for

discussion at the North Atlantic Council--

(i) the NATO ``consensus rule''; and

(ii) the merits of establishing a process for suspending

the membership in NATO of a member country that no longer

complies with NATO's principles of democracy, individual

liberty, and the rule of law set forth in the preamble to the

North Atlantic Treaty.

The amendment also calls for reports on the points of view raised by our Government and, likewise, its fulfillment, with the gist of this amendment.

At the time we had Secretary Powell before the Foreign Relations Committee in one of the five hearings the committee has conducted on NATO, we requested his view on the subject of consensus and expulsion. In fact, I requested a letter from Secretary Powell, which he sent to me, and made clear as a matter of principle NATO's decisionmaking process in his judgment works well and serves the United States interests.

The Secretary affirmed that for 50 years, from the cold war to Kosovo and now Afghanistan, NATO has been able to reach consensus on critical decisions. NATO is an alliance, and no NATO member, including the United States, would agree to allow alliance decisions to be made on defense commitments without its agreement.

Regarding the suspension mechanism, the Secretary said NATO has been able to deal successfully with the rare cases in the past of problem countries, and NATO has dealt effectively with Allies that have experienced regimes that did not support NATO's democratic principles by isolating them or excluding them from sensitive discussions--just as the Senator from Delaware has illustrated.

I would add that when, at Senator Levin's request, these issues were raised by Ambassador Burns in an informal discussion within the alliance, there was no support from other members for creating a suspension mechanism or for changing the consensus rule.

Essentially, the administration preference, when we asked them with regard to this idea, is that these issues not be addressed in the resolution of ratification and certainly that they not be termed as a condition. The authors of the amendment today have not done so. This is not a condition. Therefore, there is not an argument with the administration.

The Secretary believes the questions are worthy of further study, and so do I. My own view, having listened to the testimony by Secretary Powell and then as Senator Biden suggested more recently, a visit in the Foreign Relations Committee with Secretary General Robertson of NATO and with our Ambassador, Nick Burns, is that essentially, as the Secretary's letter has pointed out, the decisionmaking process has worked well, has served the United States interests. As Senator Biden pointed out, as you look into the fine print, it might not serve our interests so well if in fact our effective veto was terminated.

Having said all of that, none of us has wisdom that is all encompassing on these issues. Times change. Senator Levin in his comments has cited some reasons and these are important to consider.

Therefore, I come out in this discussion on the side of thought that within 18 months the United States ought to think through these arguments, ought to put them on the agenda of the North Atlantic Treaty Council for discussion. In 18 months the world may have changed a lot. Even if a discussion of them in recent months led to apparently universally negative views of our NATO allies, plus apparently a negative viewpoint of our own Secretary of State, it is conceivable that on further study, intensive study in this area, there may be some other constructive results.

I say this because I respect very deeply the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. They, too, held hearings, as I cited in my opening statement, on the NATO accession issue. They are intensely interested, as we are in the Foreign Relations Committee, and as all Members of this body are, in what is in the best interests of our country, in our military alliances, in the prosecution of peace, in those horrible instances, and in the prosecution of war.

These are serious issues, and this is perhaps an appropriate time as the body is focused on NATO to, once again, say these are discussions that have to take place from time to time. We in the United States ought to suggest that our Secretary of State take that initiative.

For these reasons, I am going to support the amendment. I hope that, as a matter of fact, it will receive a unanimous verdict of support today on the procedural issues and issues that are out there, even if all of us have fairly strong views on the substance--and that would include the administration as well as colleagues.

Madam President, I know I speak for all members of the Foreign Relations Committee in commending the Armed Services Committee for this discussion of these issues, and, most importantly, the comity between the committee members and leadership. I think that is demonstrated in our debate today on a serious issue but to one which we have come to a good conclusion.

I know of no further debate. It would be a privilege if the Chair would put the issue to us.

All on the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I yield as much time to the Senator from Texas as she may require.

Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia as much time as he might require.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to yield as much time as he requires to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Yes.

Mr. President, I know of no Senators who wish to debate. I have consulted with the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden. He knows of no Members on the Democratic side seeking time to debate and I know of no Republicans who seek further time in debate. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back on both sides.

Mr. President, my understanding, and I ask for guidance from the Chair, is that a vote on final passage of the NATO treaty will occur at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

I advise all Senators that the next action on the treaty will, in fact, be the final vote at 9:30 tomorrow. I also add as an announcement that the foreign ministers of the countries seeking ascension will be brought to the floor following the vote for presentation to Senators. That will be a prelude for a number of recognition ceremonies involving the President, the White House, and others.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for his leadership in our committee throughout the years and, likewise, specifically, on the issue of NATO that has been before the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate now begin a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``The Impact of the Global Settlement.''

The Committee will also vote on S. 709, to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Climate Change in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Hearing on S. 550, the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel II: Consuelo Maria Callahan to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Michael Chertoff to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.

Panel III: L. Scott Coogler to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, at 9 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Airland programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., on Hydrogen in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 10 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Readiness and Management programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 11:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up the Strategic Forces programs and provisions contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Paul Gallis of CRS be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on NATO.

Mr. President, now that President Bush has declared an end to combat operations in Iraq, it is important that we take a moment to pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. As we celebrate the swift and stunning victory in Iraq achieved by our men and women in uniform, we must be careful not to forget the pain and loss of those families whose loved ones fell on the field of battle.

In my home State of Indiana, seven families have suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during this relatively brief military campaign. Seven truly fine young men will not be coming home to victory parades and joyful reunions. This Nation takes rightful pride in the extraordinary accomplishments of our Armed Forces, and we rejoice that the war has come to such a quick end. But we must always temper these feelings with the knowledge that this victory did not come cheaply.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to those from Indiana who made the ultimate sacrifice in this war.

Indiana National Guard Specialist Brian Clemens of Kokomo, was the State's first casualty of this war. Specialist Clemens, who was 19, died in Kuwait on February 6--six weeks before the ground attack into Kuwait got under way. He was riding in a Humvee which overturned. He was serving with the 1st Battalion, 293d Infantry, one of two Indiana National Guard units mobilized to provide a robust force protection presence in the Persian Gulf. The units' 1,320 soldiers are guarding U.S. military installations and supply lines in Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar.

Specialist Clemens was an Eagle Scout and a graduate of Maconaquah High School, where he was a dedicated member of the wrestling team. Before being called to active duty, he was working at Wal-Mart and saving money to enroll in college. He is survived by his mother and stepfather, Cathy and Terry McCreay of Kokomo, and his father, Robert Clemens of Dayton, OH. Many of Brian's friends are still in the Persian Gulf region, and they have memorialized his death by wearing black wristbands.

Brian Clemens will be missed.

Marine Lance Corporal David Fribley, who grew up in Warsaw, IN, was killed on March 23. He was riding in an armored vehicle that encountered

a group of Iraqi soldiers waiving a white flag. The Iraqis moved close and then suddenly opened fire. A rocket-propelled grenade exploded against his vehicle and he was killed. Eight other Marines in his unit were also killed in that encounter.

Lance Corporal Fribley was 26 years old when he died. He had been a Marine for not quite a year. The middle child of Gary and Linda Fribley, he decided to enlist after 9/11 because he wanted to do something for his country. He didn't have to go. His decision came just months after he graduated from Indiana State University, and he had a good job as a recreation director in a retirement home complex.

But Lance Corporal Fribley felt he had a duty to serve his country. In high school, he had lettered in football and track all four years. One of his football coaches describes him as the poster boy for Marine Corps commercials--tall, strong and unrelenting in his work ethic.

Warsaw, IN, is a small and tightly-knit community of tree-lined streets and well-kept homes. Lance Corporal Fribley's funeral was held in the high school gym because a large crowd was expected. Every seat was filled. Many of the town's military veterans put on their old uniforms and medals and lined the streets to render a salute to David's flag-draped coffin as it passed by.

David Fribley will be missed.

Army Specialist Gregory Sanders, of Hobart, IN, was killed by a sniper's bullet on March 24. He was a tank crewman assigned to the Third Infantry Division. Greg was 19 when he died. Specialist Sanders joined the Army shortly after graduating from Hobart High School, where he had been captain of the cross-country team. He had always wanted to be in the military, just like his dad, Richard, who died of a heart attack when Specialist Sanders was 15.

His mother, Leslie Sanders, told the local newspaper her earliest memory of her son was watching him play in a backyard sandbox with plastic toy soldiers. Dig a little and you can still find some of his soldiers. It was only 12 years ago. When residents of the town of Hobart learned of his death, they conducted a special candlelight service in his memory in front of the Doughboy Statue in the center of town. They laid flowers, candles, ribbons and wreaths all around the statue, creating an impromptu monument to the town's fallen soldier.

Specialist Sanders leaves behind a wife, Ruthann, and a 14-month-old daughter, Gwendolyn. He was buried in Calumet Park Cemetery near Merrillville next to his father.

Greg Sanders will be missed.

Specialist William A. Jeffries of the Indiana National Guard died March 31 after falling ill in Kuwait, where his unit was guarding U.S. military bases. He was 39 years old. Doctors told his family he died in a Navy hospital in Spain of a pulmonary embolism and acute pancreatitis.

Specialist Jeffries lived in Evansville, IN, with his wife, B.J. Unusually tall at 6-foot-5, he was known for his gentle nature. He had graduated from Reitz High School in 1982 and then served 10 years on active duty in the Air Force. Many of Indiana's National Guard members have prior service. Not only do they continue serving their country in uniform, but they find a camaraderie that just does not exist in civilian life.

Indiana is very proud of the contribution its National Guard units are making to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specialist Jeffries' unit was one of two Indiana National Guard infantry battalions mobilized to provide a robust force protection presence in the Persian Gulf. The units' 1,320 soldiers are guarding U.S. military installations and supply lines in Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar.

Just before his battalion departed for Kuwait, Specialist Jeffries was given emergency leave to attend the funeral of his father, Kenneth. Although it was a sad occasion, it brought him together with his mother, Marie, and five older brothers for the first time in many years.

William Jeffries will be missed.

Marine Sergeant Duane Rios of Griffith, IN, was killed on April 4 during a firefight on the outskirts of Baghdad. He was 25 years old and the leader of a squad of combat engineers trained to do such things as build roads and bridges, clear minefields and handle explosives.

Sergeant Rios joined the Marines after graduating from Griffith High School in 1996, and he thrived on the experience. He and his wife, Erica, who had been his high school sweetheart, were making a good life together in San Clemente, CA, close to Camp Pendleton where he was stationed.

During his high school years in Griffith, Sergeant Rios lived with his late grandmother. He was a popular student remembered by his teachers as having an infectious smile. He last spoke to Erica by telephone the day after Valentine's Day. He told her he loved her and missed her and that the only other thing he needed was a hot shower.

On the day of his funeral in Griffith, some 500 mourners gathered at St. Mary Roman Catholic Church. Many had to stand outside. The Griffith and Highland fire departments unfurled a giant American Flag across Broad Street, and police from departments all across northwest Indiana took part in the funeral procession.

Duane Rios will be missed.

Army Private First Class Jason M. Meyer, whose father, Loren Meyer, lives in South Bend, died on April 8 from wounds suffered during the fighting at Baghdad International Airport. Army investigators believe he was struck by an errant round fired from an Abrams tank. The round struck a building and ricocheted into his vehicle.

PFC Meyer, 23, died one week after he and his wife, Melissa, had marked their first wedding anniversary. He was a combat engineer with Bravo Company, 11th Engineers, 3rd Infantry Division, and drove an armored personnel carrier during the division's now famous lightning drive from Kuwait to Baghdad.

In 1999, PFC Meyer graduated from high school in Howell, MI, where he lived with his mother, Kathleen Worthington, and joined the Army two years later. He met his wife at a Halloween corn maze three years ago. She told a local newspaper that she will remember her husband for his ever-present sense of humor, which always kept her laughing. The last time she talked to him was by telephone was in late February while his unit was in Kuwait. He reported that he and his buddies had adopted a three-foot lizard as their pet, and that they were feeding it Meals Ready to Eat.

Jason was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. During the ceremony Melissa was presented with her husband's Purple Heart and Bronze Star medals.

Jason Meyer will be missed.

Army Reserve Specialist Roy Buckley of Portage died on April 22 from injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident in Baghdad. A fuel truck driver, he was less than a month away from his 25th birthday when he died.

He was a member of the 685th Transportation Company of Hobart, IN, whose 170 members, mostly heavy truck drivers, were mobilized to provide support for the 3rd Infantry Division. In civilian life, he worked at Midwest Steel, and his goal was to become a police officer.

Specialist Buckley was engaged to another member of his Army Reserve unit, Jenina Bellina, and they planned to marry soon after they returned from the Persian Gulf.

He had called his mother, Janie Espinoza, on Easter Sunday and speculated that he might even be home to see her by Mother's Day. In addition to his mother, he is survived by two brothers, a sister and a 6-year-old daughter.

Roy Buckley will be missed.

Our hearts go out to all of these families. We shall all mourn for the loss of these seven fine young men. It is my hope that these families will take comfort in knowing that their young men gave their lives to a noble and worthy cause--freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and making the world a safer place for all Americans.