Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as my father always said, there are two types of people, talkers and doers. Anyone who knows Robert Ingram will agree with me that he is a ``doer extraordinaire.'' Bob, of course, is the distinguished Chief Operating Officer and President, Pharmaceutical Operations of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK. A few weeks ago, October 15, Bob announced his intention to retire at year's end from his daily responsibilities as the second-highest executive officer at GSK, the world's premier pharmaceutical company. Through the years, GSK and more importantly, countless people around the world have benefitted immeasurably from Bob Ingram's compassion, energy, vision and intelligence. In recent years, many politicians have engaged in a virtual sport, unjustifiably criticizing pharmaceutical companies and the senior executives who lead them. Thankfully, the American people have seen though many of these attacks for what they are, political expediency. Americans are sophisticated enough to know that politicians do not develop life-saving and life-improving medications. Rather, it is the research-based pharmaceutical and biotech industries that invest billions of dollars each year to develop products that both extend our lives and improve the quality of life for billions of citizens around the world. Bob Ingram has served as a beacon, consistently, respectfully and thoughtfully explaining the public health tradeoffs involved in implementing proposed new pharmaceutical regulations. It would be impossible to overstate his enormous contribution to reasoned discourse on this critical subject. Bob Ingram has long understood that the ultimate victims of an inefficient and unproductive industry are the patients who will lack a safe and effective pharmaceutical therapy for the ailment that afflicts them not the pharmaceutical companies or their stockholders as some would have you believe. Compassion requires that one stand up in support of what is proper. The measure of a leader is that he is willing to do so when that view is not popular. Bob Ingram has worked tirelessly as such a leader. Fortunately, Bob's retirement from his day to day responsibilities at GSK will not mean that he is retiring from his role as an effective and outspoken advocate for the industry. Softening the blow somewhat is the knowledge that Bob will continue to fight for the well-being of patients as GSK's representative to the board of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturer's Association. Bob, his dear wife Jeannie, and GSK employees have long been involved in promoting service to others. Together with GSK's Chief Executive Officer, JP Garnier, Bob Ingram has done much to ensure that GSK serves as a global leader, launching effective medical programs that benefit millions of people throughout the world. The Orange Card discount program is a prime example of GSK's responsiveness and industry leadership in the United States. Through GSK's Global Community Partnership programs, the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis, a 20-year initiative to contribute hundreds of millions of doses of medication to rid the world of LF, the world's most disfiguring and disabling disease, contributions of HIV/AIDS and anti-malarial medications as well as numerous other global, national, state and local initiatives, GSK employees have contributed greatly to the improvement of the human condition and human spirit. Bob's life is a testament to the importance of setting the right priorities. He is a success professionally because his actions have demonstrated an extraordinary sense of personal responsibility to the improvement of the lives of others less fortunate. Raised in rural Illinois, Bob Ingram is highly respected as one of North Carolina's leading citizens. He has devoted countless thousands of hours to worthy civic, community and professional organizations. For example, Bob led GSK's effort to provide a founders grant to the Emily Krzyzewski Durham family community center, he supported the Durham hill learning center and has helped numerous other local civic organizations around North Carolina. The list of worthy national causes Bob has generously helped is so extensive that I will not attempt to recite them all. Bob's role as Chair of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, his Presidency of the American Cancer Society Foundation, and his leadership in the fight to find a cure for cystic fibrosis, CF, merit particular note. These past several years, Dot Helms and I have considered ourselves fortunate to call Bob and Jeannie Ingram our friends. I am grateful for the positive contributions Bob has made during his tenure at GSK. His advice and support have been invaluable. His dedication to ensuring that people everywhere can benefit from advanced pharmaceutical therapies and his commitment to innovative programs that expand access to pharmaceuticals will continue to pay dividends to literally billions of people throughout the world for many years to come. Bob has achieved a remarkable, and I hope unfinished, legacy. I ask unanimous consent that a transcript of Bob Ingram's comments at the National Press Club on July 18, 2002 and an article entitled ``A Retirement that hurts RTP'' from the October 16, 2002 edition of the Raleigh News and Observer be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, I introduced the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, along with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. Having now been passed by both Houses of Congress, this bill is expected soon to be signed by the President. The Helms-Leahy bill is the result of a sustained and arduous negotiating process involving numerous stakeholders. Its enactment enables small Internet radio services and the recording industry, if they both choose, to settle their longstanding disputes regarding the amount of royalties webcasters must pay in order to perform sound recordings over the Internet. This consensus legislation will bring much-needed stability to the emerging webcasting industry by permitting small commercial webcasters to establish with final certainty their financial obligations, thereby enabling entrepreneurs to secure additional venture capital and to avoid bankruptcy in many cases. Moreover, as enacted, this bill will ensure that privately negotiated settlements will not be enacted into positive law, thereby negatively impacting, either directly or indirectly, any industry or entity that does not or cannot yet settle their liabilities for these royalties. Finally, this bill will require artists to be paid directly their congressionally mandated share of performance royalties, so that there will no longer be any risk that record companies with disproportionate bargaining leverage will, by contract, squeeze recording artists out of their fair share. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, DMCA, required, for the first time, users of music recordings to pay performance royalties to owners of copyrights in sound recordings. The creation of this new performance royalty represented a dramatic reversal of decades of U.S. public policy. Prior precedent had established that performances of sound recordings on traditional broadcast radio were not deemed to result in liability for performance royalties to sound recording copyright owners because it was those very same performances that introduced songs to the listening public, thereby promoting sales of sound recordings and generating revenue for copyright owners and recording artists. Notwithstanding this longstanding precedent, the DMCA required Internet radio services to pay sound recording performance royalties and determined that the royalties should be set by a panel or arbitrators, known as the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel or CARP. Unfortunately, the arbitration process has become too lengthy, too technical, and too expensive for many stakeholders. As a result, thousands of small commercial webcasters, broadcasters, noncommercial webcasters, college radio stations and hobbyists have been effectively denied the opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was because these smaller interests were not adequately represented in the CARP proceeding that the resultant royalty was so high and the rate structure so inflexible that the majority of small webcasters feared that it would lead to their demise? As the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated at a May 2002 hearing on this subject, Congress did not intend to bankrupt small webcasters when it created this new royalty. It would be a mistake for someone to construe the Helms-Leahy bill as a criticism of the arbitrators decision. Rather, I consider this legislation to be an indictment of the process, with unintended consequences flowing from the framework that Congress set forth in the DMCA. It is impossible for arbitrators to appreciate the full implications of their determinations if significant industry participants cannot afford to appear before them or if those with disproportionate control over the outcome refuse to deal in good faith. I understand that Senator Leahy intends to pursue comprehensive CARP reform in the Judiciary Committee next Congress. Though I will no longer be serving in the U.S. Senate next year, I hope that the chairman and ranking members of both Judiciary Committees will follow through on this commitment, working constructively to quickly remedy the concerns expressed about the current CARP process. There was not time to fully reform CARP this fall but I considered it essential that Congress move swiftly to ensure that small webcasters not be bankrupted by unfair arbitration outcomes. An equally important goal was to ensure that settlement agreements negotiated by recording companies and small webcasters facing bankruptcy not unfairly impact non-participating third parties--such as larger webcasters and broadcasters, or even the recording companies. Moreover, I consider it critically important to underline that nothing in this bill should be construed as affecting the outcome of any pending litigation. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for focusing attention on this issue and commencing the process that ultimately led to the passage of this critically-needed legislation. I respect that there was a difference of opinion on the precedential value of H.R. 5469, as originally passed by the House. Nevertheless, beyond dispute is the fact that numerous stakeholders had expressed serious reservations that the original House-passed bill could unintentionally and negatively influence future rate setting proceedings. The Helms-Leahy bill removes that concern, helps ensure that small webcasters will not be forced into bankruptcy, provides non-commercial webcasters with additional flexibility, and accomplishes several other goals on which the stakeholders and the Judiciary Committee leadership could agree. The deductibility provision contained in section 5(b) of the bill is one that was viewed as important to several parties. The final provision is intended to encourage competition among agents designated to distribute royalties. While I ultimately agreed to this provision, I wish to make it clear that I would consider it unconscionable if the provision were used to justify higher royalty rates for users of sound recordings. The ability to deduct these fees is premised on a balance of interests, owners of sound recordings should not be prejudiced by a process that precludes effective legal representation, designated agents should be incentivized to quickly and fairly conclude settlement agreements rather than engage in protracted and expensive legal and arbitration proceedings, and music services and other users of sound recordings should pay a fairly negotiated fee that is not impacted by the costs of litigation, arbitration, and legal expenses incurred by the designated agents. Users already bear their own litigation, expert fee and legal representation costs for participating in the CARP process and the resources of the Copyright Office are taxed when fair settlements are not reached among the parties. In my view, the public interest would not be well served if the deductibility provision were interpreted in a manner that had the effect of diluting the payout to copyright owners, reducing the incentives for negotiating settlements, and/or increasing the fees paid by consumers for the use of sound recordings. To avoid these clearly undesirable and unintended outcomes, I believe it would be unwise to take these costs into account in any arbitration or other proceeding to set royalty fees. I expect this to be the final piece of legislation I author in my career as a United States Senator. I particularly wish to thank Senators Leahy and Hatch and their superb staffs for their expertise and assistance in ensuring the quick approval of the U.S. Senate. Additionally, I want to recognize the substantial contributions of the Senate and House leadership as well as the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, for their continued assistance and cooperation as we worked through these difficult issues over the past several weeks. Finally, I also wish to thank David Whitney, Joe Lanier, Wayne Boyles and David Crotts of my staff, the leaders of the affected industry and artist organizations who assisted me so greatly in negotiating this compromise legislation and a young lady entrepreneur of whom I am extremely proud, Deb Proctor of WCPE-FM in Raleigh, NC who first brought this issue to my attention.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, I introduced the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002, along with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. Having now been passed by both Houses of Congress, this bill is expected soon to be signed by the President. The Helms-Leahy bill is the result of a sustained and arduous negotiating process involving numerous stakeholders. Its enactment enables small Internet radio services and the recording industry, if they both choose, to settle their longstanding disputes regarding the amount of royalties webcasters must pay in order to perform sound recordings over the Internet. This consensus legislation will bring much-needed stability to the emerging webcasting industry by permitting small commercial webcasters to establish with final certainty their financial obligations, thereby enabling entrepreneurs to secure additional venture capital and to avoid bankruptcy in many cases. Moreover, as enacted, this bill will ensure that privately negotiated settlements will not be enacted into positive law, thereby negatively impacting, either directly or indirectly, any industry or entity that does not or cannot yet settle their liabilities for these royalties. Finally, this bill will require artists to be paid directly their congressionally mandated share of performance royalties, so that there will no longer be any risk that record companies with disproportionate bargaining leverage will, by contract, squeeze recording artists out of their fair share. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, DMCA, required, for the first time, users of music recordings to pay performance royalties to owners of copyrights in sound recordings. The creation of this new performance royalty represented a dramatic reversal of decades of U.S. public policy. Prior precedent had established that performances of sound recordings on traditional broadcast radio were not deemed to result in liability for performance royalties to sound recording copyright owners because it was those very same performances that introduced songs to the listening public, thereby promoting sales of sound recordings and generating revenue for copyright owners and recording artists. Notwithstanding this longstanding precedent, the DMCA required Internet radio services to pay sound recording performance royalties and determined that the royalties should be set by a panel or arbitrators, known as the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel or CARP. Unfortunately, the arbitration process has become too lengthy, too technical, and too expensive for many stakeholders. As a result, thousands of small commercial webcasters, broadcasters, noncommercial webcasters, college radio stations and hobbyists have been effectively denied the opportunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was because these smaller interests were not adequately represented in the CARP proceeding that the resultant royalty was so high and the rate structure so inflexible that the majority of small webcasters feared that it would lead to their demise? As the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated at a May 2002 hearing on this subject, Congress did not intend to bankrupt small webcasters when it created this new royalty. It would be a mistake for someone to construe the Helms-Leahy bill as a criticism of the arbitrators decision. Rather, I consider this legislation to be an indictment of the process, with unintended consequences flowing from the framework that Congress set forth in the DMCA. It is impossible for arbitrators to appreciate the full implications of their determinations if significant industry participants cannot afford to appear before them or if those with disproportionate control over the outcome refuse to deal in good faith. I understand that Senator Leahy intends to pursue comprehensive CARP reform in the Judiciary Committee next Congress. Though I will no longer be serving in the U.S. Senate next year, I hope that the chairman and ranking members of both Judiciary Committees will follow through on this commitment, working constructively to quickly remedy the concerns expressed about the current CARP process. There was not time to fully reform CARP this fall but I considered it essential that Congress move swiftly to ensure that small webcasters not be bankrupted by unfair arbitration outcomes. An equally important goal was to ensure that settlement agreements negotiated by recording companies and small webcasters facing bankruptcy not unfairly impact non-participating third parties--such as larger webcasters and broadcasters, or even the recording companies. Moreover, I consider it critically important to underline that nothing in this bill should be construed as affecting the outcome of any pending litigation. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for focusing attention on this issue and commencing the process that ultimately led to the passage of this critically-needed legislation. I respect that there was a difference of opinion on the precedential value of H.R. 5469, as originally passed by the House. Nevertheless, beyond dispute is the fact that numerous stakeholders had expressed serious reservations that the original House-passed bill could unintentionally and negatively influence future rate setting proceedings. The Helms-Leahy bill removes that concern, helps ensure that small webcasters will not be forced into bankruptcy, provides non-commercial webcasters with additional flexibility, and accomplishes several other goals on which the stakeholders and the Judiciary Committee leadership could agree. The deductibility provision contained in section 5(b) of the bill is one that was viewed as important to several parties. The final provision is intended to encourage competition among agents designated to distribute royalties. While I ultimately agreed to this provision, I wish to make it clear that I would consider it unconscionable if the provision were used to justify higher royalty rates for users of sound recordings. The ability to deduct these fees is premised on a balance of interests, owners of sound recordings should not be prejudiced by a process that precludes effective legal representation, designated agents should be incentivized to quickly and fairly conclude settlement agreements rather than engage in protracted and expensive legal and arbitration proceedings, and music services and other users of sound recordings should pay a fairly negotiated fee that is not impacted by the costs of litigation, arbitration, and legal expenses incurred by the designated agents. Users already bear their own litigation, expert fee and legal representation costs for participating in the CARP process and the resources of the Copyright Office are taxed when fair settlements are not reached among the parties. In my view, the public interest would not be well served if the deductibility provision were interpreted in a manner that had the effect of diluting the payout to copyright owners, reducing the incentives for negotiating settlements, and/or increasing the fees paid by consumers for the use of sound recordings. To avoid these clearly undesirable and unintended outcomes, I believe it would be unwise to take these costs into account in any arbitration or other proceeding to set royalty fees. I expect this to be the final piece of legislation I author in my career as a United States Senator. I particularly wish to thank Senators Leahy and Hatch and their superb staffs for their expertise and assistance in ensuring the quick approval of the U.S. Senate. Additionally, I want to recognize the substantial contributions of the Senate and House leadership as well as the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, for their continued assistance and cooperation as we worked through these difficult issues over the past several weeks. Finally, I also wish to thank David Whitney, Joe Lanier, Wayne Boyles and David Crotts of my staff, the leaders of the affected industry and artist organizations who assisted me so greatly in negotiating this compromise legislation and a young lady entrepreneur of whom I am extremely proud, Deb Proctor of WCPE-FM in Raleigh, NC who first brought this issue to my attention.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill entitled the Language Mastery Support Act of 2002. I don't expect this Senate to act on it this year, but I hope and believe it can serve as a model for the 108th Congress. This bill addresses the dangerous shortage of government officials who possess critical foreign languages skills and expert knowledge of foreign cultures. A report issue this year by the General Accounting Office concluded that foreign language skills are critical to the success of our diplomatic and intelligence agencies and that the shortage of skilled personnel has adversely affected American law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism, diplomatic and military efforts. The end of the Cold War and the rise of terrorism have exacerbated this problem because the most serious shortages involved those languages found in Asia and the Middle East. In fact, we have received warning signals. For example, the disclosure that intercepts of suspected terrorists were translated long after the events they discussed had taken place should be viewed with alarm. Even before 9/11, Senator Cochran referred to a ``crisis in federal language capabilities'' when the intelligence community disclosed that the United States could be faced with a ``technical surprise'' because thousands of foreign scientific papers could not be translated due to the lack of skilled translators. Our governments has experienced this shortage of skilled personnel going back to the beginning of the Cold War. Intermittent attempts to solve the problem over the years have left us with an accumulation of patchwork fixes. As the recent GAO report demonstrates clearly, this approach has not succeeded. It is time to take a fresh approach and seek a broader, long-term solution. This bill will establish a national program in our academic institutions that encourages students to pursue critical language skills, supports their academic careers and provides a clear employment path to Federal agencies. It does so by making maximum use of existing academic programs and facilities with minimal additional resources. Students enrolled in this program would be required to meet certain academic standards for which they would receive reasonable stipends, equivalent to those provided under the ROTC program. During the academic summers, under this legislation, participants would receive specialized training at underutilization Federal and academic facilities, instructed by a faculty composed of both Federal Government and civilian instructors. The participants could also travel to overseas posts for so-called ``immersion'' training in foreign languages and cultures at U.S. diplomatic and military facilities. At the beginning of their senior year, participants would receive offers of employment from interests Federal agencies which they must accept or reject within 30 days. This would allow their processing to be completed by the time they graduate, allowing them to enter the Federal workforce without the current delays attributable to security clearances and administrative processing. The program would be embodied in an Institute. This Institute would not be composed of bricks and mortar but of a nationwide enrollment of students at colleges and universities who would receive specialized training during their academic summers. The Institute would be run by a Chairman of the Board, appointed by the President. The Chairman would be supported by a Board composed of representatives from each of the participating Federal agencies. Staff would be minimal and provided by the participating agencies. Each agency would still be able to set its own qualifications issue its own employment offers and maintain its own security requirements. But it could do so in a manner that is competitive with private industry employment opportunities that are available to graduates, after an opportunity to evaluate potential employees throughout the course of their involvement in the Institute and with the added benefit of the financial incentive that the Institute would provide. This program will broaden the pool of available candidates for Federal employment, allow Federal agencies to compete efficiently for these skilled language specialists and make Federal employment more attractive. So far, we have avoided serious consequences from the lack of language skills in the Federal Government. This bill constitutes a new approach to this problem. It is long overdue and desperately needed. I ask that each of my colleagues give it prompt and serious consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill entitled the Language Mastery Support Act of 2002. I don't expect this Senate to act on it this year, but I hope and believe it can serve as a model for the 108th Congress. This bill addresses the dangerous shortage of government officials who possess critical foreign languages skills and expert knowledge of foreign cultures. A report issue this year by the General Accounting Office concluded that foreign language skills are critical to the success of our diplomatic and intelligence agencies and that the shortage of skilled personnel has adversely affected American law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism, diplomatic and military efforts. The end of the Cold War and the rise of terrorism have exacerbated this problem because the most serious shortages involved those languages found in Asia and the Middle East. In fact, we have received warning signals. For example, the disclosure that intercepts of suspected terrorists were translated long after the events they discussed had taken place should be viewed with alarm. Even before 9/11, Senator Cochran referred to a ``crisis in federal language capabilities'' when the intelligence community disclosed that the United States could be faced with a ``technical surprise'' because thousands of foreign scientific papers could not be translated due to the lack of skilled translators. Our governments has experienced this shortage of skilled personnel going back to the beginning of the Cold War. Intermittent attempts to solve the problem over the years have left us with an accumulation of patchwork fixes. As the recent GAO report demonstrates clearly, this approach has not succeeded. It is time to take a fresh approach and seek a broader, long-term solution. This bill will establish a national program in our academic institutions that encourages students to pursue critical language skills, supports their academic careers and provides a clear employment path to Federal agencies. It does so by making maximum use of existing academic programs and facilities with minimal additional resources. Students enrolled in this program would be required to meet certain academic standards for which they would receive reasonable stipends, equivalent to those provided under the ROTC program. During the academic summers, under this legislation, participants would receive specialized training at underutilization Federal and academic facilities, instructed by a faculty composed of both Federal Government and civilian instructors. The participants could also travel to overseas posts for so-called ``immersion'' training in foreign languages and cultures at U.S. diplomatic and military facilities. At the beginning of their senior year, participants would receive offers of employment from interests Federal agencies which they must accept or reject within 30 days. This would allow their processing to be completed by the time they graduate, allowing them to enter the Federal workforce without the current delays attributable to security clearances and administrative processing. The program would be embodied in an Institute. This Institute would not be composed of bricks and mortar but of a nationwide enrollment of students at colleges and universities who would receive specialized training during their academic summers. The Institute would be run by a Chairman of the Board, appointed by the President. The Chairman would be supported by a Board composed of representatives from each of the participating Federal agencies. Staff would be minimal and provided by the participating agencies. Each agency would still be able to set its own qualifications issue its own employment offers and maintain its own security requirements. But it could do so in a manner that is competitive with private industry employment opportunities that are available to graduates, after an opportunity to evaluate potential employees throughout the course of their involvement in the Institute and with the added benefit of the financial incentive that the Institute would provide. This program will broaden the pool of available candidates for Federal employment, allow Federal agencies to compete efficiently for these skilled language specialists and make Federal employment more attractive. So far, we have avoided serious consequences from the lack of language skills in the Federal Government. This bill constitutes a new approach to this problem. It is long overdue and desperately needed. I ask that each of my colleagues give it prompt and serious consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the current leadership in Ukraine, led by President Leonid Kuchma, has been one of unmet promises. Failed efforts at economic reform, violent repression of independent media; and a rise in government corruption and cronyism has robbed the citizens of Ukraine of the bright future they deserve. Ukraine is a vital country of 48 million people in the heart of Europe. A Europe whole, free and secure cannot be achieved without Ukraine's integration into Europe. However, I have become convinced that the actions of Ukraine's President Kuchma have demonstrated to the people of Ukraine and the world that their integration cannot be achieved with Kuchma at the helm. Secret recordings made by a former security guard, who is now seeking asylum in the United States, raise suspicions that President Kuchma had knowledge of or involvement in the brutal murder of journalist Gyorgi Gongadze. This callous act shows that he will stop at nothing to repress the opposition and independent media who challenge his control. As the United States and the international community are striving to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, evidence shows that President Kuchma approved the sale of the Kolchuga radar--an advanced system whose purpose is to threaten U.S. aircraft in violation of United Nations sanctions. The State Department recently confirmed the authenticity of an audio recording of President Kuchma approving the sale of a Kochulga radar system to Iraq in July 2000. Iraq has fired anti-aircraft missiles at coalition aircraft and while our expert pilots are trained to counter such measures, the Kolchuga radar system gives a boost to Iraqi air defenses by detecting approaching aircraft without tipping off the pilots. Ukraine remains important to the United States, we must stand firm with the people and the brave reformers who hope for a better day for Ukraine. However, President Kuchma's day has passed. He deserves nothing more than what his actions bring him, isolation. In bilateral meetings the United States should continue to meet at a ministerial level and in important multilateral organizations we should strive for the same. This includes NATO. At NATO's Prague Summit next month, the scheduled NATO-Ukraine Council meeting is an important opportunity for NATO and Ukraine to look for greater cooperation. On a range of issues, Ukraine has certain assets such as strategic lift which could be beneficial to our European NATO allies who lack such capabilities. NATO should conduct this meeting at the Ministerial level rather than at a Presidential level and send an important signal to the government of Ukraine. To do otherwise would result in President Bush sitting two seats down from a corrupt leader who is arming Iraq at a Summit which will likely focus on a possible war with Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that the following articles that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on October 9, and The Washington Post on August 8 and September 22 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield for no more than 5 minutes?

Mr. HELMS. Will the Senator yield, please? Can there be an understanding, when you have completed, that I be recognized for 5 minutes? I won't take that long. Would that be agreeable with the Senator?

Mr. HELMS. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I used to be a sports writer. I know what freezing the ball is doing. I ask that it be in order for me to make my short statement seated at my desk.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the most fundamental and painful of decisions--whether to authorize the President to send U.S. military personnel to war--is being confronted by the Senate today, previous days, and maybe more days. I believe the decision is in good hands. I have had the privilege of serving in this body for nearly 30 years. The men and women in this chamber are the respected servants of the American people. I have faith in my fellow Senators. For 3 days in August and 2 days in September, the Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony on the possibility of American military action against Iraq. We heard 23 witnesses, including current and former Secretaries of State, former National Security Advisors, a number of experts on Iraq from academia and from prominent research institutes, an important defector from Iraq's nuclear weapons program, retired senior level military officers, and former members of U.N. inspections teams in Iraq. The chairman of the committee, Senator Biden, deserves our thanks for conducting these hearings in a fair and comprehensive manner. The hearings established some fundamental points that deserve repeating here on the floor. First, the threat posed by the Iraqi regime to American national security is serious and growing. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified that after U.N. inspectors were banished by Iraq in 1998, ``. . . the risk that Saddam Hussein will succeed in reconstituting deliverable weapons of mass destruction has increased. It is in the interest not only of the United States but also of the entire international community to act.'' Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nationals Richard Holbrooke similarly stated: ``in my view, Saddam is even more dangerous than [former Serbian leader Slobodan] Milosevic, given his continuing quest for weapons of mass destruction. Left alone, he will only seek to become stronger.'' Now, neither of these two eminent individuals share all of President Bush's foreign policy priorities. But both concede that the threat is real, and growing. Second, three former high-ranking members of the U.N. Special Commission agreed that inspections will fail to stop Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. Charles Deulfer stated that, in his opinion, inspections ``are only a short term palliative and do not address the fundamental problem. Saddam knows this.'' Ambassador Robert Gallucci noted that ``We can assume that any regime that appeared as though it would be effective in blocking Iraqi WMD acquisition would also be resisted by Iraq. Therefore, the only way to impose such a regime short of war would be to pose to Iraq the credible alternative of a prompt invasion and regime change if the inspection regime change if the inspection regime resisted.'' Lastly, Ambassador Richard Butler, the former head of the inspections team, warned that inspections were doomed to fail if Saddam succeeds once again in what Butler calls the ``shell game--phony inspections, more deceit, more concealment.'' ``That would,'' he concluded, ``be deeply dangerous, providing an illusion of security.'' Third, a variety of witnesses, including Secretary Powell, agreed that containment of the Iraq threat, our policy since the end of Operation Desert Storm, is no longer suitable. Secretary Powell told the committee that the box that contains Saddam Hussein's murderous ambitions cannot last much longer. Secretary Powell, said, ``[Saddam] continues to bounce against the walls of that box. And one of these days he'll have a box cutter and he'll be out. And we don't want to wait and see that day.'' Ambassador Butler also suggested that containment no longer works. He told the committee, ``we also need a specific solution to the specific problems posed by this particular and, I suggest, unique outlaw.'' Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Iraqi nuclear weapons designer, all noted Saddam's absolute commitment to the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. Secretary Weinberger also noted that Saddam's ability to smuggle goods in and out of Iraq, despite U.N. sanctions, earns him billions of dollars per year--money that goes to develop weapons of mass destruction. In hearings before other committees, our able Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has pointed out that the problem is not inspections but disarmament. Saddam has succeeded in circumventing sanctions and containment to the point where we no longer have the luxury of waiting idly by while he continues to develop the means to threaten us and our allies. The President's policy is the only way to deal with Iraq today, and we are obliged to give him maximum flexibility to carry it out. Even as the President develops a coalition, we cannot yield to a few countries like China or Russia that would allow Saddam to evade full disarmament. We can no longer countenance Saddam's delays and obfuscations. The President, in his speech to the Nation Monday night, articulated a series of options to deal with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. He displayed the essence of leadership, moving forward in the face of evil. Diplomacy absent demonstrated resolve--which was our policy too often in the past--will continue to prove absolutely ineffectual. I do hope Senators will stand with the President today. He has shown the leadership necessary to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. We should demonstrate that same leadership and authorize the President to do what is now so clearly necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, but I cannot use the time now.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, throughout America's history, our Nation has been blessed with leaders of rare courage, character, and conviction. The Senate for almost half a century has been fortunate to count among its members an especially remarkable individual, Senator Strom Thurmond. Earlier, I joined in paying tribute to Senator Thurmond's unparalleled record of public service both to his country and to his beloved citizens of South Carolina. His extraordinary record of service spans almost 80 years. We should also recall another aspect of service to his country-- Senator Thurmond's heroic and selfless record of military service. His distinguished military career spanned more than three decades, commencing shortly after his 21st birthday when he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve. When he retired in 1965, Senator Thurmond had risen to the rank of Major General, the highest rank then available to a Reserve Officer. Inasmuch as he was serving as a South Carolina circuit judge at the outset of World War II, Mr. Thurmond was exempt from military service. But, then First Lieutenant Thurmond did not hesitate: he volunteered for duty the day the U.S. declared war against Germany, receiving a commission in the Active Army and becoming a member of the First U.S. Army. While serving in the European theater, Strom served in all battles of the First Army, fighting through France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. A lieutenant colonel at the time of the Normandy invasion--known forever as D-day--Strom volunteered for temporary duty with The All-American Division, North Carolina's 82nd Airborne, with whom he would land on the first day of the invasion. Senator Thurmond once recounted this experience with the 82nd: On May 23, they informed us that they needed Civil Affairs officers for temporary duty with the 82nd Airborne. Three of us volunteered. . . . On May 29, our units headed for an airfield near Newbury, where the three of us were briefed, given final instructions, and assigned to various gliders. We were to arrive with the 82nd in France on D-Day, June 6. The primary mission of the 82nd and the 101st Airborne Divisions was to keep enemy reinforcements from the invasion beaches. One fifth of the American airborne soldiers were killed or wounded that day, but we succeeded in accomplishing our mission. After we crossed the coast line of France we were subjected to heavy anti-aircraft fire, soon thereafter the tow plane cut us loose. Well, after that, we lost altitude fast. All I could see rushing toward us were fields full of fences and trees and crooked up gliders. As we came in to land, we hit a tree and tore off one of our wings. The crash threw us into another tree, and that clipped off our other wing. What was left of us kept going until it plowed into a fence. We had crash landed into an apple orchard. We had landed within the German lines and as soon as we touched the ground we were hit with enemy fire. I headed a reconnaissance party with personnel from my glider to locate a command post. I borrowed a jeep from an officer of the 4th Infantry Division and made a reconnaissance of other nearby gliders, trying to assist injured personnel in getting to the rendevous. As soon as we had consolidated the group and set up a temporary camp, we started to dig foxholes. We were still being shelled, but not as heavily, along with [receiving] small arms fire. I had busted up my left knee when the glider had landed, so once we had taken care of more urgent matters, I had the medics patch me up. With typical humility, Senator Thurmond failed to note that he was awarded a Purple Heart for his injuries that day. In addition, he has been the recipient of numerous other decorations for heroism and valor, including 5 battle stars and 18 decorations, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star Medal with V device, the Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre. In an effort to honor all soldiers of the 82nd Airborne and to acknowledge the spirit and actions of Major General Strom Thurmond during his military career, I wrote to the Secretary of the Army this past April. My request was that Fort Bragg's new 82nd Airborne Division Strategic Deployment Facility--a key complex ensuring that Fort Bragg will serve as the Army's principal power projection platform for years to come--be named in honor of Major General Strom Thurmond. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my letter of April 19, 2002, and the Department of the Army's response of June 4, 2002, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, needless to say, I am grateful to have received the Army's positive response and in September a ceremony was held at the green ramp at Pope Air Force Base, adjacent to Fort Bragg. More than 200 gathered to dedicate a premier facility, to honor the 82nd Airborne, and to pay tribute to Major General Thurmond's exemplary contributions as a soldier and a statesman. On that occasion, many fine tributes were spoken. I was particularly moved, though, by the words of the Under Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Les Brownlee. As a result of his distinguished service as majority staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he served under both Senators Thurmond and Warner, Secretary Brownlee is well known to many Senators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Brownlee's remarks from the September 16 dedication and a copy of a document ``Thurmond Military Service Record'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, last week, several Senators spoke during morning business one day about our distinguished colleague from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond. Long before I came to the Senate, I myself spoke many times on television editorials commending Senator Thurmond. He was then, and is today, even more of a genuine American patriot than when I was in Raleigh never dreaming that I would one day be a colleague to Senator Thurmond in the Senate. Trying to capture the essence of Strom Thurmond in a relatively few words of tribute is impossible. Who can adequately describe his firm handshake, his unmistakable South Carolina cadence, or his almost superhuman capacity for work? How to convey the explosive energy Strom Thurmond has carried anytime he walks into a room? The sheer breadth of experience Strom Thurmond brings to the Senate boggles the mind: Born in 1902, he served South Carolina as State Senator, as a Circuit Judge, as Governor and as U.S. Senator. He voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932, and more than fifty years later, voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. He ran for President against Harry Truman in 1948 and actively participated in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999. When the Army told him he was too old to fight in World War II, he managed to obtain an age waiver, an age waiver, to participate in the fighting. Then, in typical Strom Thurmond fashion, he landed with the 82nd Airborne Division in Normandy on D-Day. Small wonder that Fort Bragg recently honored him by christening its newest building the Major General Strom Thurmond Strategic Deployment Facility. My simple references to Strom Thurmond's accomplishments fail to convey the historic legacy he will leave in the Senate. In 1997, Strom became the longest serving Senator in the history of the institution, but he was the quintessential Senator long before he officially assumed that honor. Senator Thurmond had great influence on my decision in 1972 to become a candidate for the Senate from North Carolina. He came to Raleigh many times urging me to run, and countless others to support me. Every time he came, he told me again that if I would just run for the Senate, he would come to North Carolina frequently to campaign for me. I decided to run because thanks to Senator Thurmond, there were many urging me to do it. And, sure enough, there he came, down from Washington to Raleigh, to help me. Again and again he came. He was a fellow Southerner, and like me, he was a Democrat who had converted to the Republican Party. In those days, there were not a lot of Republicans in North and South Carolina, but Strom was determined to change that. And I might add, parenthetically, that no single individual, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, has done more to build the Republican Party in the South than Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond knows how much I admire and respect him. He knows how grateful I am for his enormously helpful trips to North Carolina where we stood together, day after day, night after night, urging the people of North Carolina to send Helms to Washington to help Strom Thurmond. I am proud to say, that Strom Thurmond became one of the best friends I have ever had, and one of the finest men I have ever known. He tutored me in the intricacies of the Senate and its traditions, the personal dedication the job requires, and the genuine commitment Senators owe to their constituents. Some years ago, Strom paid me the ultimate honor of asking me to serve as godfather to his newborn daughter. Today, Julie Thurmond Whitmer is a beautiful young woman, and the pride I take in her is exceeded only by her father. One final note, I owe Senator Thurmond my eternal gratitude for a favor he did for me. When I arrived in the Senate, I was searching for young people to help me with my Senate responsibilities. Senator Thurmond referred a wonderfully smart, principled, and competent young lady for my staff. After 30 years of working with, and for, the irreplaceable Mrs. Pat Devine, I can genuinely say that her presence among the ``Helms Senate Family'' is the finest helping hand Strom Thurmond could possibly extend to me. Senator Thurmond watched over her protectively, and he often jokingly needled me about how I had ``stolen away his red-head''. The Senate simply will never be the same without Senator Thurmond sitting tall and straight at his desk, serving the people of South Carolina and the country he loves. He is a true friend, a great statesman, and a blessing to all who cherish the strength of statesmen like J. Strom Thurmond. He is a great patriot. He is my friend and I am his. This is a stronger and greater country because of his service and his dedication to the principles that made America great from the beginning.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Thank you.

Mr. HELMS. Thank you.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Thank you.

Mr. HELMS. God bless you. Thank you, Bob.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I want to say a word or two, and ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to make my remarks from my seat, following the remarks of Senator Sessions.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I thank all Senators who have been so kind this morning. I have been sitting here at this desk wondering who on Earth is this Helms fellow whom my colleagues keep talking about. To be sure, there are newspaper editors in North Carolina who will tell you that any kind words uttered about Jesse Helms are, at best, exaggerations. So it goes without saying that I am grateful for the generosity of my colleagues. It reminds me of the first time I came to Washington, DC to work in this Capitol Building, back in 1950. I had come to Washington with a remarkable Senator, Willis Smith, who had the highest and finest credentials as one of the Nation's leading and most respected attorneys. Senator Smith deserves a tribute all his own. He was, among other distinctions, chairman of the Board of Trustees of Duke University, and former president of the American Bar Association. I was honored that he had shown the faith in me that led him to bring me with him to Washington as his administrative assistant. The Senate was a far less hectic place during the 2\1/2\ years I worked for Senator Willis Smith, before his tragic and untimely death in 1952. All of us who worked in the Senate at that time had the privilege to know some of the true pillars of the Senate, men who were the cornerstone of America in the 20th century, among them, a special friend of mine, Richard Russell of Georgia. Senator Russell was so kind to have taken an interest in me in those years, and I vividly remember many conversations with this remarkable American. Once, he told me something, for example, that I never have forgotten. He commented: ``Jesse, a Senator who goes onto the Senate floor without knowing the rules is only half prepared. And a man who walks onto the Senate floor with command of the rules can cut Senators lacking such knowledge to ribbons.'' I never imagined that more than 20 years later, in 1972, the turn of events would lead me to be persuaded to become the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina. Nor did I ever expect to have the good fortune to win. But on election night 1972, at 9:17 p.m., Walter Cronkite came on the television and said, ``Down in North Carolina, a fellow named Jesse Helms has got himself elected to the Senate.'' So, I went off by myself and prayed for guidance. Then, after spending some time with my family, I remembered that comment by Senator Russell. I determined that I would do the best I could to learn something about rules of the Senate. It developed as soon as I was sworn into the Senate in January 1973 that I had the great fortune to have a teacher like Senator Jim Allen of Alabama. Once a week, I would go to Senator Allen's office, and he would conduct an impromptu classroom in Senate procedure. Then, as often as I could, I would come to this Chamber and preside over the Senate. So as a freshman Senator, I had a wonderful opportunity to preside over the Senate. That enabled me, working with that great man Dr. Floyd Riddick, Chief Parliamentarian of the Senate, to learn the rules backwards and forwards. True to Senator Russell's words, those rules came in handy during some spirited battles around here. And as the years went by, I won some and lost some, but I always had the comfort of knowing I had done what I thought was right in the best way I knew how. I recall the time that I mentioned the late Senator Dick Russell in debate one afternoon. Later that evening, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield thanked me for my reference to Senator Russell. Senator Mansfield mentioned that former Senators who departed by reason of death or expiration of their tenures here were often quickly forgotten. Senator Mansfield was right about this. As will be true in my case, most Senators who have completed their service will be forgotten, just as surely as others have faded into history. As I approach the end of my five terms in the Senate, I realize that being remembered isn't important. What is important is standing up for what you believe to be right, hoping that you have done everything you can to preserve the moral and spiritual principles that made America great in the first place. My father, rest his soul, was a good man who taught me many things. In my office, there is an inscription of something he told me many years ago. ``Son,'' he said, ``The Lord doesn't expect you to win. He just expects you to try.'' With the remarkable Dot Helms at my side, we have done our best to live up to my father's admonition. And while we are certainly not perfect, and we certainly haven't always had all the answers, we have the comfort of feeling that we have done the best we can. Nobody can claim to have had a better life, or to be more blessed and honored by the people of North Carolina than Dot Helms and me. Every so often, a reporter will ask me what I consider to be my legacy after 30 years in the Senate. Now ``legacy'' is a fancy word for the son of a small town police and fire chief, so I never know how to answer such a question. But there is one thing I should mention that has given me particular satisfaction during my Senate career. When I was first elected, it was, as I have mentioned, a genuine surprise. I never expected to win. And one of the things I promised myself on that November night was that I would never, ever, fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. Now the young lady who keeps track of such things in my office recently told me that I have had the chance to visit with more than 100,000 young people during my nearly 30 years in the Senate. I have been the beneficiary of the time I have spent with these young folks. It is in them that I have seen the promise of what I regard as the ``Miracle of America.'' They are bright, curious, throughly decent young folks who are committed to preserving the ideals of America as a country devoted to freedom and opportunity. As Dot Helms and I prepare to go home--this time for good--we are grateful to young people who have visited us. Dot and I are convinced that America's future is in fine hands. They are not my legacy; they are America's legacy, and I thank the Lord for them every day. I thank the Chair, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the people of North Carolina for allowing me the honor of serving in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, our friend and distinguished colleague, Strom Thurmond, has a lost a dear member of his Senate Family. Holly Richardson's courageous battle with breast cancer ended early Monday morning. I do not use the word courageous lightly; if there ever was a courageous cancer patient, it was Holly Richardson. She fought until the end and never gave up. Holly was one of the most delightful people I have ever met. She was Strom Thurmond's right, hand lady for almost 25 years and she meant so much to the entire Thurmond family. Holly's strong faith helped her immeasurably and while we all mourn her passing, we know where she is. Her obituary in this morning's Columbia, SC, newspaper, The State, poignantly describes this remarkable lady, as does the article about her in today's Charlotte Observer. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this legislation is the culmination of a bipartisan effort begun early in the 107th Congress. Senator Biden chaired our conference committee and was a tremendous leader in finalizing the bill and ensuring its bipartisan support. I thank him for his leadership of the committee and his friendship over the past 30 years. Given the strange events of the 107th Congress, this bill in fact had bipartisan authorship. We provided a first draft of this legislation to Senator Biden in May 2001, when the Senate leadership changed hands. The bill approved by the conference committee is similar to that draft in many respects. It contains important details that advance our national interest and reflect shifts in priorities that followed the terrorist attacks on our country of September 2001. The bill allows for the payment of our U.N. assessments in a manner that encourages that organization to embrace improved financial practices and to complete the reforms that were initiated at our insistence, including the critical issue of appropriate representation of American personnel in U.N. positions. This bill accomplishes a number of other important objectives. It reaffirms Congress's strong support for Israel as an important ally in a turbulent region by recognizing the right of Israel to name Jerusalem as its own capitol and by financial backing to ensure its national security. It promotes stability in the Taiwan Straits by reaffirming our insistence that any resolution of that long-standing conflict must be peaceful and based on the freely expressed assent of the people of Taiwan. We have, I hope conclusively, clarified the status of the American Institute in Taiwan by requiring that the American flag be flown just as proudly over that Institute as it is over all American diplomatic facilities. The legislation recognizes the importance of maintaining pressure on the repressive Castro regime in Cuba and moves us toward the goal of liberating the Cuban people. It does this by specifically authorizing continued radio broadcasting to Cuba. The bill provides Secretary Powell with additional authorities to meet the increasing need for effective American diplomacy in the present crisis and to enhance the capacity of Diplomatic Security agents. It also makes equitable pay, personnel and travel adjustments for the benefit of State Department personnel. We also extended indefinitely the reporting requirement on international child abductions, reflecting our dissatisfaction with the lack of success in reuniting American parents with their children when they are kidnapped overseas by the other parent. We established new reporting obligations that ensure that Congress is notified when individuals who have previously engaged in terrorist activities are granted visas for entry into the United States. The progress that Russia has made toward becoming a real democracy has been painful but necessary. This bill emphasizes the establishment in Russia of a free press and the rule of law as indispensable institutions in a functioning democracy. These institutions would focus public attention on dangerous activities that are ignored or condoned by government officials. I expect that these institutions, once firmly established, would have a restraining effect on highly questionable activities, such as Russian support for the Iranian nuclear program, and help curtail the proliferation of weapons technology and expertise, nuclear know-how is just as dangerous as nuclear material. This bill also encourages the Russian Government to make serious contributions to nonproliferation efforts in order to give them a stake in these efforts and complement our efforts in Russia. The Tibet Policy Act in this bill culminates the Senate's decades- long support for the Tibetan people. It bolsters Administration efforts by specifying investment guidelines to invigorate the Tibetan economy while preserving the distinct identity of the people. Most notably, this will end any dispute over the importance of the Special Coordinator for Tibet by legally mandating such a position. The Security Assistance portion of this bill contains several important provisions, particularly those regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While I support the overarching framework of the Russian debt-for-nonproliferation provision in Title XIII, I harbor deep concerns about continued Russian proliferation to such state sponsors of terrorism as Iran. Thus, the Title includes a provision that places restriction on this debt reduction authority by requiring the President to certify that the Russian Federation has made and continues to make ``material progress'' in stemming the flow of sensitive goods, technologies, material, and know-how related to weapons of mass destruction to states that are international sponsors of terrorism. In this era of uncertainty, it is critical that we address this threat. Following in this vein, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 has been amended to require additional information be provided in required reports on transfers of weapons or weapons-related technologies to Iran. With nonproliferation and disarmament issues taking a front seat in this bill, a provision has been included to allow development assistance to be spent for the destruction of surplus stockpiles of small arms, light weapons and other munitions in developing countries. This is indeed an important activity for developing countries as they emerge from periods of civil war or ethnic conflict. The Security Assistance title of this bill also recognizes that South Asia is a critical theater of operations in our war against terrorism, and encourages the U.S. Government to continue to work on issues of nuclear and missile proliferation in this region. To this end, this section states that it shall be the policy of the United States, consistent with its obligations under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to encourage and work with the Governments of India and Pakistan to achieve a specific set of nonproliferation objectives by September 30, 2003. The Administration must continue to make this a high priority in its key foreign policy objectives. Title XI affirms strong support for the profoundly important responsibilities of the Verification and Compliance Bureau to promote compliance analysis and enforce countries' compliance with their legal and political nonproliferation commitments. The title authorizes a larger budget than requested for this Bureau, including $1.8 million for additional personnel to adequately staff the mission of this critical Bureau and to improve verification capabilities. This Bureau is essential to ensuring that treaties and agreements are more than simple parchment, and should be adequately funded to carry out its mission. Furthermore, I am happy to support a Title XII provision that provides the President with the authority to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements for post-undergraduate flying and tactical leadership training at facilities in Southwest Asia. This is critical addition for our war against terrorism, as it enables the United States to maintain a positive influence in the region and enables our forces to have access to training and range facilities. Additionally, Title XIV recognizes the important work of the Office of Defense Trade Controls, and supports additional authorities so that it can achieve a greater level of efficiency in processing munitions licenses. Finally, every Senator knows that no bill is possible without many long hours and hard work by staff. I can't tell these young men and women often enough what a great service they do for the Senate and for the country. I am particularly grateful to Patti McNerney, the Committee's Republican Staff Director, Rich Douglas, the Chief Republican Counsel, Senior Staff Members Mark Lagon and Mark Esper, Republican Counsel Jeff Gibbs, and Professional Staff Members Carolyn Leddy and Maurice Perkins. I am grateful for the work of the rest of the Committee's Republican Staff: Skip Fischer, Walter Lohman, Jed Royal, Jose Cardenas, Brian Fox, Susan Williams, David Merkel, Kelly Siekman, Sara Battaglia, Philip Griffin, Lester Munson, Kris Klaich, Hannah Williams, and Sarah Bardinelli. The cooperative efforts and hard work of the Democratic Committee staff members, especially Brian McKeon, the Committee's Chief Counsel, Ed Levine, and Jofi Joseph, as well as the current and former staff directors, Tony Blinken and Ed Hall. Last--but by no means least--I note that Art Rynearson, the Deputy Legislative Counsel of the Senate, has done his usual superb job of putting this conference report into proper legislative form. I say thank you to all. The conference report was agreed to. The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 483) was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I extend my warmest welcome to the First Lady of Taiwan, Chen Wu Sue-jen, wife of President Chen Shui-bian, who is in Washington this week to visit with some of her and her husband's many friends here. I am among the many admirers of President Chen. He is a courageous leader of his country at a very difficult time. The courage of his wife has earned for her great respect. In 1985, while supporting one of her husband's campaigns, Mrs. Chen Wu was hit by a vehicle that left her paralyzed from the waist down. That regrettable episode, believed by many to have been politically motivated, left this dear lady permanently confined to a wheelchair. The following year when her husband was imprisoned by his political foes, Mrs. Chen Wu sought election on his behalf for a seat in the national legislature. She won and served in the legislature in spite of her serious injury. This courageous lady thereby kept Chen Shui-bian's political cause in the public eye. Both before and after these events in their lives, Mrs. Chen Wu provided indispensable encouragement and support as Chen Shui-bian progressed from legislator to Taipei Mayor to President. He has called his wife his ``most important source of strength.'' First Lady Chen Wu Sue-jen was instrumental in building Taiwan's early, unequivocal and generous support for the United States and American people following the attacks on September 11, 2001. She comes to the United States this week with a message of Taiwan's continuing strong support in the war against terrorism. I know that Senators will share my appreciation for her country's friendship and solidarity. I also hope they will join in welcoming Taiwan's First Lady on the occasion of her historic visit to the United States.