Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy in introducing the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 2003. This bill takes a common sense, flexible approach to the sales of food that competes with federally supported school meals, and represents one component of addressing the overall health of our Nation's children.

This year Congress will address a number of the Federal nutrition programs, including those administered through local school systems. Our Nation's schools provide our children with over 28 million federally subsidized meals each day. For some of these children, these meals provide the bulk of their nutrition needs. As a result, the meals served by schools should meet balanced nutrition standards in order to promote overall health.

Unfortunately, an increasing number of our Nation's children are becoming overweight and obese. Children who are overweight and obese are much more likely to have difficulty controlling their weight in the future, which increases their risk of medical problems such as diabetes and heart disease. In order to address this issue, Congress has a duty to analyze variables at school that affect a child's health, including foods of minimal nutritional value.

In addition to the federally subsidized foods served in our schools, many children have access to and choose to purchase competitive foods from other sources, such as vending machines. This bill asks the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate the sales of foods that are outside the Federal meal programs and issue a regulation that balances the schools' interests with that of overall childhood health. In particular, the regulation must take into consideration the financial benefits a school receives from competitive food sales, how likely a child is to make this choice instead of nutritious foods, and the nutritional needs of children according to their school grade level. This bill does not require the Secretary to implement any further restrictions than what currently exist.

I believe this bill provides a rational approach to one facet of improving the health and fitness of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy in introducing the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 2003. This bill takes a common sense, flexible approach to the sales of food that competes with federally supported school meals, and represents one component of addressing the overall health of our Nation's children.

This year Congress will address a number of the Federal nutrition programs, including those administered through local school systems. Our Nation's schools provide our children with over 28 million federally subsidized meals each day. For some of these children, these meals provide the bulk of their nutrition needs. As a result, the meals served by schools should meet balanced nutrition standards in order to promote overall health.

Unfortunately, an increasing number of our Nation's children are becoming overweight and obese. Children who are overweight and obese are much more likely to have difficulty controlling their weight in the future, which increases their risk of medical problems such as diabetes and heart disease. In order to address this issue, Congress has a duty to analyze variables at school that affect a child's health, including foods of minimal nutritional value.

In addition to the federally subsidized foods served in our schools, many children have access to and choose to purchase competitive foods from other sources, such as vending machines. This bill asks the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate the sales of foods that are outside the Federal meal programs and issue a regulation that balances the schools' interests with that of overall childhood health. In particular, the regulation must take into consideration the financial benefits a school receives from competitive food sales, how likely a child is to make this choice instead of nutritious foods, and the nutritional needs of children according to their school grade level. This bill does not require the Secretary to implement any further restrictions than what currently exist.

I believe this bill provides a rational approach to one facet of improving the health and fitness of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 2003.

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.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Charity, Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which would encourage more citizens to contribute to non-profit programs and institutions. I want to commend my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Lieberman, for introducing this important bipartisan legislation. The CARE Act is designed to promote charitable giving at a time when charities report increasing demands on their services along with a decline in contributions.

After the tragedy of September 11, charitable contributions were greatly deminished. Donations to charitable organizations dropped last year by 2.3 percent and they are lagging even further behind this year. At the same time, more people are turning to charities for help because of job lay-offs, health concerns, and the needs of our children. The tax incentives contained in the CARE Act to encourage charitable giving are needed now more than ever.

Included in this bill is language to encourage charitable giving by allowing a tax deduction for charitable giving for non-itemizers. Eighty-six million Americans do not presently itemize their deductions on their tax returns. This provision would allow for a tax deduction up to $250 for individuals and $500 for couples. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, the March of Dimes, and other charitable organizations that rely on low dollar donations believe that they will be able to generate more donations if everyone could take a deduction regardless of which form they file with the Internal Revenue Service.

The ability to roll over excess funds from Individual Retirement Accounts to a charitable organization or university is also a part of this legislation. Many organizations and universities benefit from planned gift revenues. The IRA rollover provision will allow charities to increase the number of planned gifts, while being able to diversify their planned gift portfolios.

I have been a supporter of Individual Development Accounts and was pleased that this initiative to expand these accounts is included in the bill before us. These accounts are made up of dollar-for-dollar matching contributions up to $500 from banks and community organizations to be used by lower-income working families to buy a home, start or expand a small business, or pay for college.

I believe that one of the most important provisions that has been included in this bill is the Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act. This important provision allows for expanded charitable tax deductions for contributions of food inventory to our nation's food banks. Demand on food banks has been rising, and these tax deductions would be an important step in increasing private donations to the non-profit hunger relief charities playing a critical role in meeting America's nutrition needs.

As I have traveled around Indiana, I have visited many food banks in our state. They have confirmed the results of a study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that showed demand for food at food banks has risen significantly. The success of welfare reform legislation has moved many recipients off welfare and into jobs. In many states, welfare roles have been reduced by more than half. But we need to recognize that these individuals and their families are living on modest wages. As the states' unemployment rates have risen, so has the demand placed on the food banks and soup kitchens.

According to the Conference of Mayors survey, during the last year, requests for emergency food assistance has increased one hundred percent. Forty-eight percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance are either children or their parents. The number of elderly persons requesting food assistance has increased by ninety-two percent.

Private food banks provide a key safety net against hunger. According to an August 2000 report by USDA, 31 million Americans are living on the edge of hunger.

USDA statistics show that up to 96 billion pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger.

The food bank provisions under the CARE Act would allow farmers and small business owners to take a deduction when they donate food to their community food bank. Currently this deduction is available to large corporations but not to small businesses. This approach would stimulate private charitable giving to food banks at the community level.

Each citizen can make an important contribution to the fight against hunger at a local level. I have been especially impressed by the remarkable work of food banks in Indiana. In many cases, they are partnered with churches and faith-based organizations and are making a tremendous difference in our communities. We should support this private sector activity, which not only feeds people, but also strengthens community bonds and demonstrates the power of faith, charity, and civic involvement.

I would like to thank Senators Santorum, Lieberman, Grassley, and Baucus for their efforts in helping America's charities meet their funding goals, and to those individuals who take advantage of the services provided by these groups.

Mr. President, by request, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill entitled the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.

This proposed legislation has been requested by the Department of State and I am introducing it in order that there may be a specific bill to which Members of the Senate and the public may direct their attention and comments.

I reserve my right to support or oppose this bill, as well as to make any suggested amendments to it, when the matter is considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record, together with a section-by-section analysis of the bill and the letter from the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs dated April 2, 2003.

Mr. President, by request, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill entitled the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.

This proposed legislation has been requested by the Department of State and I am introducing it in order that there may be a specific bill to which Members of the Senate and the public may direct their attention and comments.

I reserve my right to support or oppose this bill, as well as to make any suggested amendments to it, when the matter is considered by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record, together with a section-by-section analysis of the bill and the letter from the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs dated April 2, 2003.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East Ohio Street in Indianapolis, IN, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse.''

I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Byrd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Stevens, who served in the Senate with Senator Bayh during his tenure 1963-1981.

Birch Evan Bayh was born in Terre Haute in 1928. He attended the public schools; served in the United States Army 1946-1948; graduated Purdue University School of Agriculture at Lafayette in 1951; and attended Indiana State University, 1952-1953. Bayh graduated from the Indiana University School of Law in 1960; and was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1961.

He worked as a lawyer and farmer in Terre Haute, and served as a representative to the Indiana General Assembly from 1954 to 1962. In the Assembly, he rose to become minority leader in 1957 and 1961 and Speaker of the House in 1959. Senator Bayh was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962; reelected in 1968 and 1974; and served from January 3, 1963, to January 3, 1981.

I am pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate at the request of Representative Carson who introduced a bill in the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Congress.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to name the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 46 East Ohio Street in Indianapolis, IN, as the ``Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse.''

I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Byrd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Stevens, who served in the Senate with Senator Bayh during his tenure 1963-1981.

Birch Evan Bayh was born in Terre Haute in 1928. He attended the public schools; served in the United States Army 1946-1948; graduated Purdue University School of Agriculture at Lafayette in 1951; and attended Indiana State University, 1952-1953. Bayh graduated from the Indiana University School of Law in 1960; and was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1961.

He worked as a lawyer and farmer in Terre Haute, and served as a representative to the Indiana General Assembly from 1954 to 1962. In the Assembly, he rose to become minority leader in 1957 and 1961 and Speaker of the House in 1959. Senator Bayh was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962; reelected in 1968 and 1974; and served from January 3, 1963, to January 3, 1981.

I am pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate at the request of Representative Carson who introduced a bill in the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Theresa Springmann who is being considered for a position on the United States District Court of Northern Indiana.

Early last year, Judge William Lee and Judge James Moody informed me of their decisions to assume senior status after distinguished careers of public service. Both of these individuals are remarkable leaders on the Federal bench, and I applaud their leadership to Indiana and to the legal profession.

Immediately upon hearing of these decisions, I notified the White House and was asked by the President to help find the most qualified candidates to fill these two important positions in Hammond and Fort Wayne. I took this role very seriously and selected the candidates who would best serve the Northern District of Indiana.

After sharing my selections with my friend and colleague Senator Evan Bayh, I submitted the names and applications of three outstanding candidates to the White House for their consideration. The President recently selected Assistant United States Attorney Philip Simon and United States Magistrate Theresa Springmann.

Judge Theresa Springmann was the first woman to be made partner at Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, the largest law firm in Northwest Indiana. She followed up this distinction by becoming the first woman judicial officer in the Northern District of Indiana. Judge Springmann has served as a United States magistrate judge since March of 1995, where she has presided over 30 civil jury trials, 10 civil and criminal bench trials, and conducted over 300 settlement conferences for the district court.

She has received a number of high performance ratings throughout her tenure as a magistrate judge, including the A.V. rating from Martindale-Hubbell and the highest judicial rating from the Lake County Bar Association.

I believe that Theresa Springmann will demonstrate remarkable leadership to Northern Indiana and will appropriately uphold and defend our laws under the Constitution. I encourage my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 47th anniversary of Tunisian independence. On March 20, 1956, Tunisia took its place among the free nations of the modern era.

Shortly after Tunisia's independence, in 1957, the United States stood by Tunisia in a challenging post-independence environment. Through the pledge of economic and technical assistance, the United States helped Tunisia to achieve its national goal of a self-confident and self-sustaining modern nation.

Through the vicissitudes of history Tunisia has sustained the hardiness of its Berber forebears as Roman, Vandal, Moor and Ottoman Empires have come and gone. Each has left its cultural mark, but today Tunisia stands independent, and proud of its history. Today, Tunisia has shown its commitment to democratic ideals as a leader in the Arab world in promoting the legal and social status of women.

In this its 47th anniversary of independence, Tunisia and the United States can look back on a much longer and more important relationship. In 1797 Tunisia was among the first countries to recognize the nascent United States of America. This recognition enabled America to make its way in the international community. In the 21st century, Tunisia has also shown support for the United States in the war against terrorism, and our two nations should seek ways to enhance cooperation.

Congratulations on your 47 years of independence, and may you find that each subsequent year brings further peace and prosperity to Tunisia.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require on this initial statement.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner and Allen be added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 30.

I rise in support of this resolution thanking those nations participating with the United States in the ``Coalition to Disarm Iraq.'' I am pleased that this resolution enjoys the strong support of the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Delaware, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle.

Our resolution cites the important diplomatic initiatives originally undertaken by our allies in Europe in support of U.S. resolve to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003, the Prime Ministers of Denmark, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, and the Presidents of the Czech Republic and the Spanish Government issued a declaration stating the ``the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security.'' The declaration went on to say that ``. . . our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. . . .''

These European leaders were immediately joined by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. In a declaration of February 5, 2003, the Foreign Minister stated in part: ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.''

This is not the first time the Senate has commended the important contributions made by the leaders and Foreign Ministers of these countries, but at a time when some question international support in Iraq, we thought it important to revisit their statements of support and reiterate our gratitude.

In addition to these statements of support, our resolution identifies additional nations that have expressed their support for coalition action in Iraq. Nations around the world are providing important diplomatic and strategic support in a number of ways, including expressions of political support, overflights and basing authorization, intelligence-sharing, and other important strategies contributions. This list includes long-standing U.S. allies and relatively new partners in the war on terrorism: large nations with strong militaries and small nations who share our view of the inherent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In addition to the nations mentioned, international support grows each day. In an effort to acknowledge the contributions of each, I will list those nations who have made their contributions public to date: Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Azerbajian, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, The Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

More specifically, our resolution expresses our Nation's sincere gratitude to Australia, Denmark, Poland, and the United Kingdom, whose forces have joined with the United States in sending troops into harm's way. Each of these nation is making important contributions to coalition efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of its weapons of mass destruction. In addition, we thank the numerous other nations that are providing military and logistical support to operations in the region.

We also pay special tribute to the leaders of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Spain. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prime Minister John Howard, and President of the Spanish Government, Jose Maria Aznar, have provided courageous leadership to efforts to disarm Iraq, and the Senate of the United States commends them for their efforts and expresses its thanks.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this resolution of gratitude to our allies around the world who are supporting our efforts in Iraq in so many important ways. I am hopeful this resolution will receive the unanimous support of the Senate, to ensure a strong expression of appreciation and commendation of the important contributions by members of the international community who are making the ``Coalition to Disarm Iraq'' a success.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Delaware has pointed out, the resolution addresses very specifically the future, and I cite language from the resolution we are considering. Clause 5 says:

(5) welcomes and encourages the active involvement and

participation of these countries--

And those are the countries we have listed in the resolution--

other nations, and key international organizations in the

reconstruction and administration of Iraq after the current

conflict in Iraq;

That is an important clause. This is a resolution of commendation, of affirmation. This is our expression, as the U.S. Senate, of thanks, and we are very specific about the nature of contributions many nations have made, and their leaders specifically.

It is our intent to be inclusive deliberately and to indicate that we welcome the very broadest participation in the work to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Having said that, we also welcome their thoughts, their contributions, their revenues, their physical support as we think of the postwar situation. That is a very important set of situations, as a matter of fact.

I appreciate the good counsel of my colleague from Delaware when he talks not only about the inclusiveness and the need for participation along with us to share both the opportunities and the burdens but, likewise, the fact this will not happen by chance; this is going to require active American diplomacy.

I commend the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Rice, and others who have been visibly active in this role. But this is a role in which we can assist as a body in commending the nations today and through all of the contacts any of us may have with these nations to indicate ways in which they can be helpful and reasons they should be helpful.

The distinguished Senator from Delaware, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee last year, commenced hearings which he has cited today on the post-war Iraq situation. We could not have predicted last summer or last fall precisely in the circumstances, but at some point it was apparent to many of us that it would be important for those weapons of mass destruction to be found and to be destroyed. Our prayer then was that the coalition of nations in the United Nations, working through the Security Council or other groups, might, in fact, be persuasive; that declarations of the weapons would be made and that international authorities that could work with us in verifying their destruction. We are still in that quest. The large coalition we have talked about today is determined, in fact, to find the weapons and to destroy them, to rid the world of the problems of proliferation that could endanger any of the nations we are citing today, and others who have not chosen to join with us as yet.

Our resolution is not one of censure or condemnation. We are not about the job of finger-pointing and asking why or why not. We are affirmative. We are saying affirmatively, these nations have taken a stand, and we hope they will take a larger stand because there will be much work to do. We hope there will be more joining with us in an inclusive move.

As the Senator from Delaware has spoken, and I concur with him, we would include in that, as our resolution does, international organizations, our NATO allies, the United Nations, others who are very important for the future of the world in many sectors quite apart from the one we are discussing today.

Having said that, it is important that we all understand that we are going to have to stay the course with regard to operations in Iraq, both with regard to the military situation, the disarmament situation, and the reconstruction situation. That will not be easy. The expense of that, regardless of the estimates--and many learned people throughout this country and throughout various organizations have been addressing this issue, our own government has been addressing the issue because it will be soon upon us, but the necessity of staying the course is absolutely imperative not only with regard to our credibility as a nation and the welfare of the people in this country and the people of Iraq and others who are with us, but with regard to the surrounding neighborhood and everybody who may be impacted by the military action presently.

The great fear of many nations, either expressed or unexpressed, is that without extraordinary leadership and statesmanship, there will be chaos in Iraq in the postwar situation. There are many historical reasons for that which most of us have reviewed in the course of discussing Iraq.

The whole origin of current Iraq, the repression of the Kurds which did keep the peace, albeit in a very cruel and harmful way to the people who were involved in the country, and frequently with enormous loss of life to the neighbors, as Iraq and the Saddam regime invaded other countries, used weapons of mass destruction to kill hundreds of thousands of people outside of Iraq, quite apart from those he repressed within the country. This is the history of a situation that is not on the face of itself correcting, or that of a unified spirit, or with lots of basis for democratic institutions and the ways in which people might find their way automatically.

I commend the Senator from Delaware for pointing out that it is not our purpose--and we point that out in what we are saying today--to be governors of Iraq. The whole idea is Iraq for the Iraqis, for people who come forward to take leadership swiftly and surely, but with the right instincts with regard to human rights, freedom of expression, and a respect for other nations around them, and with all of the pursuits that we think are important to express up front. This is one of the basic reasons nations have joined with us, and we commend them as they commend us. This is a coalition of the willing with regard to disarmament, but it is a coalition of countries that are striving toward some common ideals as to how people should live and how they should treat each other.

We have a very large job, and I make that point now because some have charged that the future has been muted, that there is an impression that somehow or another the war will happen, hopefully will be over swiftly and surely, the disarmament will occur, and some Americans, quite apart from the coalition of the willing we have listed, may have the impression that we are going to leave. In fact, many Americans, unless we have an up front debate, may very well favor that position and say this is a dangerous part of the world.

Granted, the Iraqis have lots of problems. We are all for them working it out and doing the best they can. This is

likely to lead to the chaos that is generally feared.

Nations, not altogether cynically, advocated the continuation of the current regime because they said it would create stability. Some nations were prepared to accept tyranny because at least it brings stability. There are not going to be changes of boundaries, changes of government, people coming and going with strange doctrines. Or, from our standpoint, having watched a failed state in Afghanistan prior to the time that al-Qaida was utilizing camps, utilizing organization and finance, using that failed state as an incubator, attacked America, Iraq is a much larger country. A failed state there is conceivably an incubator for even more harm, whether it be al-Qaida or any number of other groups, some national, some unknown to us, who find sustenance, who find the possibility for proliferation of dangerous weapons and perhaps in due course weapons of mass destruction.

To allow chaos to occur would be a monumental foreign policy and security policy failure by the United States. That is why we need to be forward looking, affirmative, inclusive, signing up more partners, commending those who come as they come.

I have heard some say, the contributions of some of the countries that are listed in our resolution are very modest. In some cases, they have barely said: We are for you. We think you are on the right track. We want to identify with the United States.

They say: Where is the beef? Where are troops? Where is money? Where are supplies? Those are legitimate questions. I would simply respond for each of the nations that we list today. They have made a declaration that could be fateful with regard to those who have authority in those countries. The leaders of those countries must answer to their parliaments, to their people, to others in the press and those who play some role in public opinion. This was not a casual association or declaration. Nor will it be after the war is over, and the responsibility for Iraq comes front and center for all of us.

By ``all of us,'' I mean the countries we now have gathered together in the commendation and those, prayerfully, that will join us. That, hopefully, at some point will include all the nations of the United Nations and of NATO. It will include those that may not be with us as of this moment.

I will take at least a minute of this debate to commend our colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, simply because he was a person, in my own experience as a young person, as mayor of Indianapolis going with him to Brussels when he was a counselor to President Nixon and representing this country in a group called the Challenges for a Modern Society, as we talked about the problems of urbanization in our NATO countries, the problems of the environment, the problems of jobs for people. With Daniel Patrick Moynihan at my side, I invited the mayors of all the countries of the world to come to my city of Indianapolis in 1971, and he came.

He gave a great speech about international relations, what NATO could do. He gave it at a time that he was on the threshold, as it turned out, of going into a diplomacy as our Ambassador to India and then to the United Nations.

I remember visiting with him when he was our Ambassador. It was a year in which both of us were considering candidacies for the Senate, which, in fact, occurred in the year of 1976, successfully, for both of us. We came to this body together and served for 24 years.

Throughout that period of time, his counsel, I am sure if he were on the floor today speaking on some issue, would have been to be inclusive, to be hardheaded, to understand the facts, to understand the history, the traditions, the difficulties, sometimes the cynicism and the remorse, but also the triumphs that can come with successful diplomacy and successful international relations. Those were missions he undertook gladly on behalf of our country and finally in service with the Senate.

I mention that spirit today because I think it is appropriate. This is an important resolution. I appreciate the decision of the leadership to take it up now before this weekend, before any more time passes, even this sense of appreciation and mission and what is to follow, it seems to me, is critically important for all Americans, both to understand and then to participate in the debate which we surely will have.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor to this resolution.

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

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

I yield such time to the Senator from Virginia as he desires.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we will soon vote on the nomination of Philip Simon to be considered for a position on the United States District Court of Northern Indiana. It is because of that I rise once again to commend this remarkable jurist.

Judge William Lee and Judge James Moody informed me of their decisions to assume senior status after distinguished careers of public service. Both of these individuals are remarkable leaders on the Federal bench, and I applaud their leadership to Indiana and to the legal profession.

Immediately upon hearing of these decisions, I notified the White House and was asked by the President to help find the most qualified candidates to fill these two important positions in Hammond and Fort Wayne. I took this role very seriously and selected the candidates who would best serve the Northern District of Indiana.

After sharing my selections with my friend and colleague Senator Evan Bayh, I submitted the names and applications of three outstanding candidates to the White House for their consideration. The President recently selected Assistant United States Attorney Philip Simon and United States Magistrate Theresa Springmann.

Philip Simon has a remarkable record as an Assistant United States Attorney. As Chief of the Criminal Division, he is responsible for overseeing all criminal prosecutions in the Northern District of Indiana. He has 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. In addition, he is in charge of a public corruption task force in Lake County, Indiana.

Philip has been the recipient of a number of awards and commendations. In 1995, the Mutual Insurance Companies of Indiana presented the Sherlock Award to Philip for his work to combat insurance fraud. In 1999, Philip was given the Director's award by Janet Reno, the highest award given to an Assistant United States Attorney by the Justice Department.

Aside from his outstanding public service, he is a dedicated community leader with an interest in assisting children and families with autism.

I believe that Philip Simon will demonstrate remarkable leadership to Northern Indiana and will appropriately uphold and defend our laws under the Constitution. I encourage my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

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 ask amendment No. 400 at the desk be reported.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Biden be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I thank the cosponsors of this amendment:

Senators Biden, Feinstein, DeWine, Hagel, Chafee, Smith, Jeffords, and Kennedy.

My amendment would increase the foreign affairs account by $1.15 billion, using section 920 of the budget as an offset. This would restore foreign affairs spending to the amount requested by President Bush.

We are engaged in a worldwide war against terrorism and a regional war against Iraq. We should grant the Commander in Chief's funding requests for the accounts that pay for our diplomats' assistance to key allies, food aid, nonproliferation efforts, public diplomacy, and other tools that will contribute to victory now and a better world later. I ask the Senate to join me in restoring the funds the President has requested.

Mr. President, I wanted to share with my colleagues the text of a speech delivered by Jurgen E. Schrempp, chairman of the Board of Management DaimlerChrysler AG, on December 2, 2002, at an event sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I had the honor and privilege of introducing Mr. Schrempp at this event, and I hope his insights about the automotive industry and about international trade will be helpful as we, as a nation, work to strengthen our economy.

The speech follows.

The Transatlantic Partnership

1. Introduction--Senator Lugar, Excellencies, Honored

guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you for your warm

welcome. Senator, may I offer my special thanks for your

thoughtful and gracious introduction. Your remarks are deeply

appreciated, coming as they do from a world leader in the

field of foreign affairs. I would also like to thank the good

people from the Center for Strategic and International

Studies--and specifically Simon Serfaty--for their hard work

in making this conference such a success. The value of the

CSIS in facilitating dialogue about what route Europe and

America should follow, to fulfill their joint destiny, is

immeasurable. It's a great pleasure--and a privilege--for me

to be with you today. It is also an opportunity to talk about

an important, visceral part of my life. That is the

relationship between Europe and the United States.

2. A personal view of the United States--I have a very

personal view of this connection. My first real contact with

America came during the early eighties. I had been appointed

chief executive of Euclid, a Daimler-Benz subsidiary

operating out of Cleveland, Ohio. The company produced really

heavy-duty trucks. And it was my first really heavy-duty job

with Daimler-Benz. In this two-year period: I discovered the

bottomless hospitality of the American people. I discovered

the extent to which my body could produce adrenaline. I came

to grips with the reality of America's leadership in world

affairs. And I became very aware of our crucial transatlantic

links! Links in which DaimlerChrysler now has an extremely

healthy self-interest! DaimlerChrysler is, after all, the

most significant German-American company.

3. America's role in Europe--From my perspective, the

positive impact of American actions on Europe is central in

much of what we, as Europeans, have become. One of the

highest points I can recall was the role played by the 41st

President of the United States, and his team, in unifying

Germany. And, of course, ending the Cold War. Never forget:

It was the Americans who stood in the vanguard against

European communism. From thousands of kilometers away across

the Atlantic! I was certainly not surprised. America's warmth

and friendship has been a given for a long time. America

helped to establish the Berlin relief-corridor after the war.

It put in place the Marshall Plan to rehabilitate Europe. And

its contribution to the wider freedoms now enjoyed by

Europeans has been enormous.

4. The high stakes of alienating the EU from the US--Ladies

and Gentlemen, Stakes are high in the complex areas of

business and political diplomacy. Especially for the United

States and Europe. More than anything, our priority must be

to establish truths about one another and build on these. One

such truth is that we are totally wedded to the cause of

democracy. We are also inextricably bound together by the

cause of those freedoms that define our civilization. These

are the values that mark us as prime custodians of the free

world. These are the values for which we are prepared to

fight!

5. Commercial interdependence is the key--But it is not

only these strong emotional ties that underpin the

transatlantic bridge. Our commercial interdependence is a

vital part of that bridge's structure. The United States and

the European Union enjoy the world's most significant

commercial relationship. They are, quite simply, each other's

largest trade and investment partners. Together the United

States and the EU account for 40 percent of world GDP as well

as 80 percent of global foreign direct investment. It

requires very little analysis to establish that this joint

relationship is essential. Yet we now need to face a sudden

and strange reality. The exceptional goodwill characterizing

our historic links is being tested. Quite seriously, I might

add.

6. The DaimlerChrysler example of excellent US/European

relations--In this regard I have a real sense of deja vu.

Mainly because of my experience at DaimlerChrysler! This

merger offers the best example of outstanding transatlantic

relations I can think of. Why do I say this? Well, shortly

after the deal, global automotive markets began to

deteriorate. The highly acclaimed ``Merger of the Century''

was suddenly under fire. But we stayed calm. We were patient.

We held our course. Above all, we believed in ourselves. We

had an unshakable sense that we should not meet operational

challenges by changing our well-defined strategy. And, by the

way, why should we have done so? Mercedes-Benz, the most

valuable automotive brand in the world, remains the ultimate

benchmark in the luxury segment. Our Commercial Vehicle

Division was--and is--by some margin, the world's market

leader in trucks, vans and buses. Therefore, we were able to

focus on our main operational challenge. That was to

implement our turnaround plan at Chrysler. Since then our

phenomenal team in Auburn Hills has made outstanding

progress. As a result, Chrysler Group earnings for the full-

year 2002 will reflect a real turnaround. And on this score,

I believe the empowering union of German and American

interests was a critical factor. It prevented a deeper

financial crisis--similar to those experienced at Chrysler in

1979 and 1991--from occurring. And Chrysler now enjoys the

same access to credit markets as the rest of our group.

Bearing in mind what happened before, I'm sure many Americans

have recently breathed a huge sigh of relief!

7. The practical results of amalgamating Daimler-Benz and

Chrysler--You may ask how we turned the corner. Firstly, we

combined the very best of our American and German heritages.

Then we unlocked the vast potential of our joint experience

by working with extraordinary commitment--and loyalty--to one

another! I can say with considerable pride that since the

merger we have built an enterprise in which America and

Germany can have great confidence. We have harmonized

processes. We have exchanged components, engines and

transmissions and other commodities. For example, we decided

that state-of-the-art five-speed automatic Mercedes-Benz

transmission units would be manufactured in Kokomo, Indiana--

Senator Lugar's home state! It was also decided that, for the

benefit of our customers, these units would go into Chrysler

vehicles. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. This

investment is only part of a 30 to 40 billion dollar, five-

year investment plan for North America. It's a plan that will

offer optimal security for more than 100,000 employees, well

into the future! I should add that, very selectively, we

already share expertise and technology for different

products. The new Chrysler Crossfire will be the first highly

visible result of this policy. It is a breathtaking coupe.

With great American design and Mercedes components. The

Crossfire will hit the markets next year. At the point

where--as we like to say--Route 66 meets the Autobahn. But

what we have built together also has substantial global

implications. We are now able to develop crucial interests in

Asia. Our significant Japanese investment in Mitsubishi

Motors and our stake in Hyundai of South Korea are such

interests. So is the dynamic commercial vehicle business

we are building in the region. Yet this is not all. China

has moved into the frame as well. Soon we will have a

meaningful, viable operation there. Which is why we can

say with pride that ours is a truly global company.

8. Lessons from the DCX experience--Ladies and gentlemen, I

would like to share with you what tough times have taught our

great company. We have learned one of life's fundamental

truths. That success and happiness depend to a great degree

on an ability to confront and solve problems. Or challenges,

as I prefer to call them. Another fact is absolutely clear to

me. Today's positive results have come because Americans and

Europeans resolved to capitalize on their differences. We did

not succumb to them. We learned a third important lesson

during the recovery process. Successful relationships need

time for constant review and reaffirmation. Right now, I

believe this is of wider and special significance. And, in

this context, I feel a strong need for a constructive ``time

out'' in the debate on relations between the US and Europe.

There is currently far too much heat and far too little light

on the subject! We need to regroup!

9. Potential points of dispute--Before we can do that,

however, we have to concede that differences have arisen. The

first area of conflict concerns trade. We are predominantly a

transatlantic company. But trade restrictions imposed on

either side of the Atlantic sometimes have really negative

results! I think, for example, of US steel tariffs, and EU

penalties in response to the FSC decision. We are simply

caught in the crossfire. And our customers as well as

employees pay the price. But my purpose in mentioning this is

not to apportion blame. It is simply to note that trade

restrictions do more harm than good. I therefore agree with

the recent statement by President Bush that there is a need

to remove tariffs. And non-tariff-based trade barriers. I

hasten to add. Let's hope the leaders in charge of trade

issues go down this road! There is a second front on which

policy differences are always aired. The conflicting views of

Europe and the US on global environmental matters have

developed into a hot topic. Finally, geopolitical issues have

arisen around national security and defense commitments.

These discordant views are not restricted to partisan

arguments. There are also internal disagreements--on both

sides of the Atlantic. And, once again, most differences tend

to be about procedure and the degree to which action is

implemented. Fundamental objectives are seldom in dispute.

10. The need for openness and honesty--However, the problem

seems to be systemic. And in the process, concerns that

originate from fear have also emerged. Fear that unilateral

rather than multi-lateral action could be taken to secure

world peace. I think particularly of polarized policies on

Iraq. But I don't want to go into detail on that. I simply

want to make one point. Among great friends, such as the US

and Europe, we are able to discuss differing views with

complete honesty. In the same vein, however, we should do

this face-to-face, and privately.

11. Call to intensify result-driven dialogue between the

two continents--On the public front there is plenty of talk.

Talk about how to revive transatlantic initiatives. But there

is nothing that remotely resembles implementation. Let's get

past the pussy footing! It's time for meaningful engagement

and visible, tangible results. However, this will only come

from blunt, hard-nosed implementation! In 1998, I found

myself chairing the European section of the Transatlantic

Business Dialogue. The TABD was the brainchild of the late

Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown and the former European

Commissioner, Martin Bangemann. Founded in 1995, it was

initially accepted by CEOs on both sides of the Atlantic with

some enthusiasm. I'm even able to say that we achieved some

encouraging results. But this organization, in its present

form, has been allowed to stagnate. What we now need is

dynamic interchange between the two continents. And such a

process must take place with mutual commitment and

enthusiasm from its transatlantic participants.

Particularly herby on the political side. I undertake

today that DaimlerChrysler will pursue any initiative

along these lines. Provided it leads to sensible,

intensified and result-driven work between us.

12. To keep the TABD or introduce a new process--At the

very least, we need to reinvent the TABD. Or it may be

preferable to start afresh. One thing is certain, however. We

need to engage a dynamic group of leaders who should

represent politics and business. They must select and tackle

important as well as relevant issues. And they must be

totally committed to the process of implementation. People

who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get stuck into

things! People with a can-do attitude! People not afraid of

breaking new ground! People of passion!

13. The need for a highly principled, organized mission--

Such a body would be the best platform from which to proceed.

And build on what the U.S. and Europe have thus far

accomplished together. Which is an extraordinary amount! Take

the multilateral institutions that have served us so well

over the last 50 years. NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the

World Trade Organization, and the United Nations are among

them! Quite clearly, their historic achievements signify an

important reality. Now, with the Cold War consigned

permanently to the deep freeze, some argue that we no longer

have a really big issue to unite us. That instead we hassle

over petty details. So I believe we have to find a new,

highly principled mission. One that binds our two regions

even more closely together! A mission that captures our

imagination! Along with the hearts and minds of our global

constituencies! In this connection, there are highly complex

tasks ahead of us.

14. The priorities of corporations and governments--I refer

to the finding of effective solutions for what Kofi Annan

calls ``problems without passports.'' This will demand

unusual levels of organization! It will also require great

determination--and dedicated focus. For instance, we have to

find common cause in the war against terror. But this should

primarily be directed at preventive action. Never again can

the infamy of September 11 be repeated. Joint intelligence

sharing and cooperation on the gathering of financial

intelligence would be a good start. Another constructive step

would be close cooperation on important initiatives like the

Nunn-Lugar program. This program is crucial. It offers

safeguards against nuclear and scientific material in the

former Soviet Union falling into the wrong hands. We

generally need to create fresh initiatives to neutralize any

other nuclear, biological and chemical agents of destruction.

But we need to step up investment in such programs, as well.

A second goal must be to bring democracy and economic

development to regions that have known too little of both. We

need sustainable development to lift people out of poverty

and abject subsistence. After all, half the world lives on $2

dollars a day--or less!

15. The need to safeguard and, where necessary, to rebuild

civil society--Last year I called for a concerted

international effort to rebuild civil society in broken

countries like Afghanistan. I repeat that call today. And I

do so because dysfunctional countries are much more of a

drain on global resources than those that operate

efficiently. We must therefore heed the lessons of the past.

The investment made in rebuilding Europe has been more than

repaid. In hard currency. In the fruits of stability. And--

together with the United States--in the development of the

most powerful alliance of nations the world has seen. Only

through this alliance will we be able to deal with problems

that threaten mankind.

16. Problems that endanger the human race--One such

diabolical problem is the spread of the HI Virus and AIDS.

More than 45 million people worldwide are currently infected

with the virus and face a painful, degrading death. In my

beloved South Africa this involves 25 percent of the

population! At DaimlerChrysler, combating the AIDS pandemic

is a priority. It's a priority recognized by the Global

Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS. In June this year, at a

function in New York, they acknowledged our tremendous South

African HIV/AIDS program. And when Kofi Annan handed me their

much-coveted award--for Excellence in the Workplace--I was

very proud indeed. At the same time I was appointed Chairman

of the Global Business Coalition. I welcomed this assignment

with a sense of humility--and urgency. For fighting this

dread disease--and dealing with the other problems I have

mentioned--represent the real challenges of humanity. It's

therefore high time to stop playing in the shallow end of our

global pool. We need to dive deep! But it is patently obvious

that the partnership, between the U.S. and EU is pivotal to

any prospect of real success. Together, we hold the key to

the health and wealth of the global economy. And that, Ladies

and Gentlemen, is an awesome responsibility.

17. Conclusion--We may, realistically, not be able to do

everything. But over the past 50 years, Europe and the U.S.

have changed the face of the planet. Very much for the

better! As partners, I'd back us as winners all over again.

Our common ground is solid and fertile. The challenges are

irresistible. The need for unity is more essential than ever.

The urgency that demands immediate engagement between us is

white-hot. And the time for a solemn pledge of trust in one

another is precisely right. I thank you.