Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Act of 2004 with my colleague, Senator Lieberman. This bill supports economic and private sector development in the countries of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 signaled a turning point in United States foreign policy. Al-Qaida and affiliated groups have established a terrorist network with linkages in Afghanistan, Pakistan, throughout the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, and around the world. The war on terrorism requires that the United States consider the Greater Middle East and Central Asia as a strategic region with its own political, economic and security dynamics. While rich in cultural, geographic and language diversity, the Greater Middle East and Central Asia face common impediments to economic development and political freedom. Although poverty and economic underdevelopment alone do not ``cause'' terrorism, the expansion of economic growth, free trade, and private sector development can contribute to an environment that undercuts radical political tendencies that give rise to terrorism. The economic problems of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia cannot be considered in isolation. We must work with the governments and peoples of the region on a cohesive program of political and economic reforms that builds a better future. We cannot lose the next generation to hopelessness and despair. Our initiatives must support progress toward market economies, enhanced trade, the development of democratic institutions, expansion of citizen-to-citizen contacts, educational reform, and private sector development. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we cannot reach the UN's goals for improving health, education, and living standards over the next 12 years ``without a strong private sector in the developing countries themselves, to create jobs and bring prosperity.'' This region needs more jobs, economic growth, a vibrant private sector, and good governance practices to help stabilize societies and lead to a stronger foundation for political reform and conflict prevention. President Bush has committed the United States to a ``forward strategy of freedom'' in the Greater Middle East to combat terrorism and encourage reform in these countries. This is a multi-layered strategy, including increased spending and support for the National Endowment for Democracy, greater emphasis on public diplomacy, and initiating programs that support political liberalization and free markets. The G-8 summit in June and other forthcoming multi-lateral forums will provide opportunities to consult with our allies on many of these issues. Similarly, Senator Dick Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for a Greater Middle East Twenty First Century Trust as part of a program of greater engagement with this region, and Senator Joseph Biden, ranking member on the committee, has proposed a Middle East Foundation to support political participation and civil society in the Middle East. Our bill deepens and expands America's commitment to economic reform and private sector development in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia by authorizing $1 billion per year for five years and creating three new multilateral mechanisms: a Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Bank to promote private sector development; a Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Foundation to implement and administer economic and political programs; and a Trust for Democracy to provide small grants to promote development of civil society. These are not traditional foreign aid programs. Our legislation seeks to help stimulate private sector development, promote strong market economies, invigorate trade relations within the region, and empower states to rebuild and open their economies. Through a combination of government initiative and flexible private sector financing, we can bring the resources and expertise needed to launch a new beginning for economic development to the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Our bill also encourages the State Department and other relevant government agencies to consider new and creative approaches to coordination of political and economic support for the region. Over the past 2 years, the United States has spent at least $120 billion on our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Investing in political and economic development is equally important in order to achieve stability in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Promoting trade and economic growth in the region complements our political and diplomatic objectives in the war on terrorism. People need hope for better lives. We cannot succeed in our war on terrorism until hope replaces despair among the next generation in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Just this week, the editorial page of the Omaha World-Herald, my State's leading newspaper, supported the Bush administration's efforts to encourage economic openness among Muslim nations. Our bill today complements these worthy initiatives. Working with our allies to encourage free market development and political liberalization in the Muslim countries of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia would create, in the World-Herald's words, ``a win-win situation'' for the United States and those Muslim countries. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of David M. McKeever, a sergeant in the United States Army. Sergeant McKeever was killed on April 5, 2004, in Baghdad, Iraq, when his Army unit was ambushed while guarding a hospital. He had 15 days left in Iraq when he was killed. He was 25 years old. Sergeant McKeever was assigned to the 1st Armored Division and had been recently promoted from the rank of specialist to sergeant. He was stationed at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, CO before later moving to the Army base at Giessen, Germany in September 2002. He was one of thousands of brave American service men and women serving in Iraq who confront danger every day. Their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted. His wife, Niki, grew up in Kearney, NE. Last October, Sergeant McKeever, a Buffalo, NY native, visited family in Kearney while on leave. Sergeant McKeever leaves behind his wife; son, Dylan, now 1 year old; parents, David T. and Carol of Buffalo; brother, Thomas; and four older sisters. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them at this difficult time. America is proud of David M. McKeever's service and mourns his loss. Sergeant McKeever will be buried in Kearney. He will be remembered as a dedicated soldier with an optimistic outlook on life. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sergeant McKeever. u.s. army pfc cleston c. raney

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Jack Smith, distinguished Vietnam veteran and former ABC News Correspondent. Jack Smith died on April 7 at the age of 58 at a hospital in Greenbrea, CA. He had been struggling with cancer for the past year. Jack had a long and successful career as a Washington-based reporter for ABC News. He covered foreign wars, five presidential elections, and hosted numerous shows and documentaries. His thoughtful reporting and dedication to journalism ranks Jack Smith high in the history of news reporters. Jack was wounded during the 1965 battle of Ia Drang Valley. He was decorated with the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart for his bravery. His experiences in the Vietnam War prompted him to speak and report extensively on the war and its aftermath. He was a man of great integrity who never faltered on his commitment to demonstrate accurately and honestly the historic events of our time. Jack Smith leaves behind his wife, Pamela Peffer; a son, Alexander Smith; two stepchildren, Aidan McTighe and Matthew McTighe; his mother, Benedicte Smith; and a sister. Jack was the son of legendary reporter Howard K. Smith. For his service to his country during the Vietnam War and excellence in journalism, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Jack Smith.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Act of 2004 with my colleague, Senator Lieberman. This bill supports economic and private sector development in the countries of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 signaled a turning point in United States foreign policy. Al-Qaida and affiliated groups have established a terrorist network with linkages in Afghanistan, Pakistan, throughout the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, and around the world. The war on terrorism requires that the United States consider the Greater Middle East and Central Asia as a strategic region with its own political, economic and security dynamics. While rich in cultural, geographic and language diversity, the Greater Middle East and Central Asia face common impediments to economic development and political freedom. Although poverty and economic underdevelopment alone do not ``cause'' terrorism, the expansion of economic growth, free trade, and private sector development can contribute to an environment that undercuts radical political tendencies that give rise to terrorism. The economic problems of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia cannot be considered in isolation. We must work with the governments and peoples of the region on a cohesive program of political and economic reforms that builds a better future. We cannot lose the next generation to hopelessness and despair. Our initiatives must support progress toward market economies, enhanced trade, the development of democratic institutions, expansion of citizen-to-citizen contacts, educational reform, and private sector development. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that we cannot reach the UN's goals for improving health, education, and living standards over the next 12 years ``without a strong private sector in the developing countries themselves, to create jobs and bring prosperity.'' This region needs more jobs, economic growth, a vibrant private sector, and good governance practices to help stabilize societies and lead to a stronger foundation for political reform and conflict prevention. President Bush has committed the United States to a ``forward strategy of freedom'' in the Greater Middle East to combat terrorism and encourage reform in these countries. This is a multi-layered strategy, including increased spending and support for the National Endowment for Democracy, greater emphasis on public diplomacy, and initiating programs that support political liberalization and free markets. The G-8 summit in June and other forthcoming multi-lateral forums will provide opportunities to consult with our allies on many of these issues. Similarly, Senator Dick Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for a Greater Middle East Twenty First Century Trust as part of a program of greater engagement with this region, and Senator Joseph Biden, ranking member on the committee, has proposed a Middle East Foundation to support political participation and civil society in the Middle East. Our bill deepens and expands America's commitment to economic reform and private sector development in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia by authorizing $1 billion per year for five years and creating three new multilateral mechanisms: a Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Bank to promote private sector development; a Greater Middle East and Central Asia Development Foundation to implement and administer economic and political programs; and a Trust for Democracy to provide small grants to promote development of civil society. These are not traditional foreign aid programs. Our legislation seeks to help stimulate private sector development, promote strong market economies, invigorate trade relations within the region, and empower states to rebuild and open their economies. Through a combination of government initiative and flexible private sector financing, we can bring the resources and expertise needed to launch a new beginning for economic development to the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Our bill also encourages the State Department and other relevant government agencies to consider new and creative approaches to coordination of political and economic support for the region. Over the past 2 years, the United States has spent at least $120 billion on our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Investing in political and economic development is equally important in order to achieve stability in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Promoting trade and economic growth in the region complements our political and diplomatic objectives in the war on terrorism. People need hope for better lives. We cannot succeed in our war on terrorism until hope replaces despair among the next generation in the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Just this week, the editorial page of the Omaha World-Herald, my State's leading newspaper, supported the Bush administration's efforts to encourage economic openness among Muslim nations. Our bill today complements these worthy initiatives. Working with our allies to encourage free market development and political liberalization in the Muslim countries of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia would create, in the World-Herald's words, ``a win-win situation'' for the United States and those Muslim countries. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for those estimated 2.3 million Americans who have lost their jobs over the past 3 years, and for those worried about keeping their jobs, economic policy is not about abstract discussions or theoretical debates. It is about finding and keeping steady work at a decent wage. It is about affordable health care, buying a home, and sending their children to college. We live in a time of dramatic historical change, a transformational period. The byproducts of such change are uncertainty, complications, instability, and danger, as well as vast opportunities. America today, as at the end of World War II, is in a position to lead and shape the direction of this 21st century change. America's economic security and prosperity cannot be separated from our leadership of the global economy. During periods of uncertainty and change, some Americans seek refuge in an insular political tradition that, in the past, has contributed to isolationism at home and instability abroad. After World War I, America pursued an isolationist foreign and trade policy that resulted in a weakened international order that led to World War II. In contrast, after World War II, America's leaders laid the foundation for the World Trade Organization and a new global political and economic order. As a result, America and much of the world have enjoyed historic peace and prosperity for more than 50 years. The recent job losses in the United States must be analyzed and understood in the context of historic increases in American worker productivity, a global decline in manufacturing employment, and the changes occurring in the global economy. Michael Porter, in his classic work, ``The Comparative Advantage of Nations,'' wrote that: A nation's standard of living in the long term depends on its ability to attain a high and rising level of productivity in the industries in which its firms compete. Between 1997 and 2002, U.S. manufacturing productivity grew by 109 percent. This remarkable increase in productivity has cost jobs in the manufacturing sector. Advances in technology lead to increases in productivity which requires fewer workers. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recently wrote that despite these trends in the manufacturing sector ``this doesn't mean that we are left with fewer jobs.'' As a matter of fact, the trend, over time, is just the opposite. Advances in technology and gains in productivity mean more jobs in high-growth, high-tech, high-paying sectors. Robert Samuelson makes the case well when he said: Manufacturing employment peaked in mid-1979 at 19.5 million; now it's 14.5 million. But over that period, total U.S. employment grew about 40 million, and manufacturing output rose more than 80%. American companies became more productive and shifted to more valuable products. The decline in employment in the manufacturing sector is a global phenomenon. The same technologies that have enhanced productivity in America's manufacturing sector are employed in the manufacturing sectors of other countries. For example, while the United States lost 22 million factory jobs between 1995 and 2002--an 11-percent decline-- Japan lost 16 percent; Brazil, 20 percent; and China, 15 percent. The trend we see in manufacturing is the same trend we had seen over the past century in agriculture. One hundred years ago, 35 percent of Americans worked on a farm or in the agricultural industry. Today, because of dramatic increases in productivity due to improving agricultural technologies, science, and research, that number is 3 percent. The globalization of technology and productivity has contributed to another related issue. Many politicians and the media have recently focused on the impact on U.S. employment of U.S. companies outsourcing manufacturing and service jobs overseas. Since March 2001, it is estimated that more than 1 million jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors have been outsourced. The U.S. economy currently has 139 million jobs and showed an increase of 97,000 jobs in January and 21,000 jobs last month. But outsourcing is not a zero sum loss for America. There are benefits for the United States. Outsourcing of some manufacturing operations has resulted in lower cost goods for U.S. businesses and consumers. The globalization of the information technology sector has resulted in a reduction of 10 to 30 percent in the price of computers and IT-related products. These reduced costs have contributed to increases of 2.5 to 2.8 percent in productivity growth in the United States and added at least $230 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product. Outsourcing cannot be understood as simply the number of jobs shipped overseas. It is more complicated. As American companies outsource jobs, there are also potential benefits to American businesses and workers. Companies can save in profit through the reduced costs gained by outsourcing some jobs. With expansion and additional revenues, more U.S. goods, services, and equipment are purchased to support those outsourced industries. This also contributes to innovation, growth, and, over time, better and more jobs for America's most competitive industries and technologies. Economic growth from outsourcing is not a zero sum gain or loss. Both sides gain. Economic growth in other nations creates markets, markets capable of purchasing more and more American goods and services. For example, Tom Friedman in a recent New York Times op-ed wrote about his visit to the 24/7 customer call center in Bangalore, India. There he observed that the computers were Compaq; the software, Microsoft; the air-conditioning, Carrier; and the drinking water distributor, Coca-Cola. And 90 percent of the company's shares were owned by U.S. investors. As attention is focused on the negative implications of outsourcing to India, often overlooked are the advantages to America's economy. American exports to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. The larger picture is instructive because it guides our policy choices. Meeting the demands of a global economy requires maintaining America's leadership in free trade, expanding programs to retrain those workers who lose their jobs, and educating the next generation of Americans about what it will take to compete in a more competitive global economy. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently remarked to the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce: The loss of jobs over the past three years is attributable largely to rapid declines in the demand for industrial goods and to outsized gains in productivity that have caused effective supply to outstrip demand. Protectionism will do little to create jobs; and if foreigners retaliate, we will surely lose more jobs. We need instead to discover the means to enhance the skills of our workforce to further open markets here and abroad to allow our workers to compete effectively in the global marketplace. The expansion of free and fair trade will continue to be the most assured path for prosperity and job creation. Trade does not cost American jobs. Free trade has been an engine of economic growth, innovation, wealth, and job creation for the United States since World War II. The value of American exports grew substantially between 1994 and 2003, from $703 billion to more than $1 trillion. More than 18 million new jobs were added to the economy because of trade. U.S. exports during the 1990s accounted for 25 percent of the growth in America's economy. Exports today support more than 12 million directly related jobs that pay as much as 18 percent more than the average national wage. In 2003, U.S. exports of advanced technology totaled $180 billion. Meanwhile, in America's high tech electronics sector, exports exceeded $100 billion annually between 1997 and 2003, showing that America continues to maintain its leadership in cutting edge technologies, a source of more and better paying jobs for Americans in the United States. American consumers and businesses also gain from trade through lower priced imports. Lower import prices mean increased purchasing power for consumers. As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick noted last year in testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance: By lowering prices through imports and increasing incomes through trade, America's newest trade agreements will build on the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round, which together already provide the average American family of four with benefits amounting to $1,300 to $2,000 each and every year. If consumers have more money, American businesses benefit from greater consumer demand, consumer demand for their businesses, their products, and their services. Businesses and entrepreneurs, therefore, have more resources to invest and spend and expand on plants, creating more jobs in the United States. Expanding free trade and fair trade also encourages foreign companies to invest and set up operations in the United States. Foreign-owned firms currently provide 6.4 million jobs throughout the United States. The North American Free Trade Agreement is testimony to the impact of expanded free trade for American jobs, growth, and prosperity. Since NAFTA's implementation, total trade among the United States, Mexico, and Canada has more than doubled from $306 billion in 1993 to $621 billion last year. That is $1.7 billion in trade every day between our trading partners to the north and south. U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico have grown from $142 billion to $263 billion over these 10 years. U.S. exports to Mexico of cars and trucks totaled about $3.3 billion in 2003. That is an increase from exports of approximately $165 million in 1993. My State of Nebraska has directly benefited from increased trade and specifically from NAFTA. Nebraska's worldwide exports in 2003 were in excess of $2.7 billion. Mexico and Canada are Nebraska's largest export markets. Nebraska's exports to Mexico and Canada in 2003 were valued at over $1.2 billion. From 1999 to 2003, Nebraska's trade with Mexico increased by 87 percent and trade with Canada by 28 percent. Americans know that changes in the global economy lead to dislocations in domestic workforces. Dislocations are painful. They are difficult. No one wants to lose a job. Americans need retraining programs and education programs that address these global economic adjustments. Former Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin has written in his recent book ``In An Uncertain World'' . . . trade must be accompanied by effective programs to help dislocated workers find new places in our economy. This is not only fair, but will contribute both to productivity and to political acceptance of trade liberalization. Many Americans who lose their jobs, especially jobs in the manufacturing sector, require assistance and retraining to find new work. In 2002, Congress spent $12 billion on 44 Federal programs, which helped 30 million Americans with job search assistance, employment counseling, and vocational training. These Federal programs include those authorized through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, the Workforce Investment Act, National Emergency Grants, and State-run worker training programs. These programs have helped and are helping displaced workers all over the country. In fiscal year 2004, approximately $1.3 billion will be spent on these benefits and programs of the TAA program alone. TAA programs have provided job training, as much as 130 weeks of unemployment compensation, monetary allowances for job searches and job relocation, tax credits for health insurance, and wage insurance. The greater longer view challenge for America is to ensure our students have prepared for the competitive global economy of the 21st century. America's universities are the best in the world. The global demand for what Secretary Reich has called the ``symbolic analytic'' sector professionals--research and development, design engineering, law, finance, medicine, and other fields--should and must remain high. It is in America's interest to maintain our leadership in these areas. As Secretary Reich puts it: America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility for all workers by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. The trends in this area should be monitored carefully. For example, in 2002, 58 percent of all degrees awarded in China were in engineering and physical sciences. In the United States, only 17 percent of degrees awarded were in these fields. America's security and vitality depend on policies that are based on the strengths of America, not its insecurities. Adjusting to the global economy requires immigration policies that consider those seeking to live and work in the United States as assets and not burdens on our national economy. Daniel Henninger recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: The global migration of human labor, on which there is little organized data, is perhaps the most powerful force on the globe today. Many politicians and commentators have portrayed immigration as a threat to American workers. But immigration is a vital part of America's strength. Throughout our history, immigration has played an important role in our economy. Free trade also directly affects American interests in promoting stability, security, and democracy in other nations. By pursuing free and fair trade, and by encouraging business and investment practices that contribute to more open societies at home and abroad, we are establishing partnerships with developed and developing nations that help make a more peaceful and prosperous world. That is in the interest of all nations, of all people, and certainly of America. Countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war with each other. We are all shareholders in this enterprise. We all have a stake in its success. American leadership in free trade will over time reduce America's security commitments abroad, allowing a reduction in American peacekeeping, nation building, and force protection, thus saving American lives and dollars. The tough economic choices ahead will require leadership, vision, and courage. American leadership in the global economy will depend on confidence at home and abroad. Investor confidence is a catalyst for job creation. Excessive Federal deficits and a looming crisis in American entitlement programs can and surely will undermine our fiscal credibility and our economic leadership. The Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 is now projected to be a half trillion dollars. In 2035, 75 million Americans will be over 65 and entitled to Social Security and Medicare. That is double the number of Americans eligible today. Where will the money come from? It will come from economic growth, which will be driven by world affairs and trade, and American international leadership. To lead in the 21st century, America must combine fiscally responsible policies with a commitment to trade. Our economic policies will influence and affect the shape of America's domestic policies and programs, as well as political reform and change throughout the world. Now is not the time to retreat from our commitment to free trade, market economies, and democratic reforms. Since World War II, America has been the primary architect and leader of a global economic order that has provided the structure for unprecedented growth and opportunity both at home and abroad. Our economic policies, like our domestic and foreign policies, are about the limitless potential of all human beings. Trade is not a guarantee; it is an opportunity--an opportunity to compete and make a better world for all people. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate resolution which designates August 16, 2004 as ``National Airborne Day.'' Our friend and former colleague, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, introduced this resolution in past years. Senator Thurmond served with the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the first airborne divisions to be organized in the U.S. Army. During a 2-year period during World War II, the regiments of the 82nd Airborne served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy, and at the Battle of the Bulge. As a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, Senator Strom Thurmond participated in the landings at Normandy in June 1944. Later this year we will celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the D-Day landings and the Battle of Bulge. On June 25, 1940, the War Department authorized the Parachute Test Platoon to experiment with the potential use of airborne troops. The Parachute Test Platoon, which was composed of 48 volunteers, performed the first official Army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. The success of the Platoon led to the formation of a large and successful airborne contingent that has served from World War II until the present. The 11th, 13th, 17th, and 101st Airborne Divisions and numerous other regimental and battalion size airborne units were also organized following the success of the Parachute Test Platoon. In the last 64 years, these airborne forces have performed in important military and peace-keeping operations all over the world, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, and it is only appropriate that we designate a day to salute the contributions they have made to this Nation. Through passage of ``National Airborne Day,'' the Senate will reaffirm our support for the members of the airborne community. I would like to thank Airborne veterans and Airborne units for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and for the ideals of duty, honor, country they embody. Airborne!

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HAGEL. The Lincoln amendment increases taxes by $60 billion over the next 5 years while purporting to help the uninsured. The budget resolution already contains a reserve fund for the uninsured. The resolution reserve fund is budget neutral and allows the chairman to change allocations for both the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an important speech given by my colleague and friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, to the Libyan People's Congress on March 3, 2004. Salam ale Qum. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you. I traveled a great distance to get here, but in so many ways, in recent years, the distance between Libya and America has seemed even greater, almost insurmountable. Now, there is real hope that we will bridge the great divide that has kept us apart. But there is still much work to be done. It is in that spirit of hope that I stand before you . . . and that I send my greetings to the Libyan people who are watching these proceedings in their homes. At the outset, let me tell you who I am and why I am here. I am a United States Senator. I represent a small portion of my country--the state of Delaware, which is located between Washington and New York. As you know, in America there are no Kings or Princes, no Lords or Dukes, no Emirs or Sultans, Like you, we fought a war against colonialism for our freedom. The central belief in our system is that each individual should have an equal opportunity to succeed. At home, I am surrounded by very strong women. A mother who instilled in her children the values of faith and community. A sister who was better at her studies than I was, and upon whose guidance our large family depends. A wife who is a respected professor in our community, not just smart, but also wise. And a daughter who knows she can be anything she wants to be. Like most of the nearly 300 million Americans whose families arrived on our shores from every corner of the globe, I was not born to wealth or stature. I was not promised anything other than the opportunity granted to every American--the opportunity to go as far as I could dream. I am sure that Libyan parents share the same hope for their children. I am sure it is a universal hope--but not one that can be realized in many countries. That's one of the things that makes my country special. I have served in the United States Senate for 31 years, elected democratically six times by the men and women of Delaware. Men and women. Young and old. Black and white, Hispanic and Asian. Christians, Jews, Hindus and yes, Arab- Americans and Muslims. You may not know that there are almost as many Muslims in the United States as there are citizens of Libya. And there are more Arab-Americans than all the people who live in Tripoli. Their votes count the same as everyone else. I belong to the Democratic party. President Bush leads the other major political party--the Republican party. But I am here not as a representative of my party . . . not as a representative of Christian-Americans . . . not as a representative of white Americans. I am here as a representative of my country who believes, along with many other Americans, that this is a moment of great possibility for Libya and for the relationship between our countries. But many of us remain skeptical. For too long, our relationship has been marked by hostility. In fact, I have a personal connection to the terrible act that set back our relations for years. I am a graduate of Syracuse University Law School. There is a wall at my school, erected to the memory of 270 people-- including 35 young students who never returned home from their studies abroad. They lost their lives when Pan Am 103 was bombed out of the sky. Thirty-five is a number, a statistic. But each of those young people had a name. Each had a mother and a father, a sister and brother, and friends who loved them--and who still suffer their loss every single day. The victims were young men and women like Ken Bissett. He was an artist and a writer. Like Eric and Jason Coker, twin brothers. Eric was studying economics. Jason wanted to be a journalist. He might have been here today, reporting on their significant event. And like a kind hearted young women named Keesha Weedon who wanted to help troubled children. Each of these young people had a past--and each had a future cut short by violence. Imagine if one of them had been your son or your daughter. Think about that for just a moment. Your government's admission of responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 was not only necessary--it was the right thing to do. And it was consistent with your traditions. In the words of the Koran: ``As for him who shall repent and believe and do right, he happily may be one of the successful.'' It appears now that your government wants to change in order to become ``one of the successful.'' Americans will never forget the past. But we cannot allow it to stop us from building a more peaceful world that can prevent such tragedies in the future. That must be the legacy of those who lost their lives, and for those who carry their memory. And so while American remain wary, we also stand ready to walk with you if you are willing to take the difficult steps necessary to rejoin the community of nations. By accepting responsibility for the past . . . agreeing to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program . . . and joining the war on terrorism . . . your government is beginning to end Libya's political and economic isolation. But what I want to say to you today is this: do not stop there. Aim higher. Go further. For centuries, the people of Libya were denied the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential. First, you were held back by outside colonizers. Then, you were led astray by misguided ideologies. The result is a great gulf between your rightful expectations and the reality of your lives. You are right to expect good schools for your children and first rate doctors for your parents. You are right to expect to own your home and to build your own business. You are right to expect newspapers with competing ideas and an internet connection in every home. You are right to expect the freedom to speak your mind without fear of being thrown in jail. So the question is: How do you make sure that history does not repeat itself and that you are not denied the opportunity to which you are entitled? Your economic potential is extraordinary because of the natural resources buried in the ground. But your national potential is limitless, because of the human resources that are spread all across this land. You have tremendous oil power. But it will only be meaningful if you use it to unleash the brain power of the Libyan people--especially the awesome potential of your youth. In fact, oil can be more of a burden than a benefit if it used as an excuse not to develop all aspects of your society . . . and if its proceeds are not widely shared and wisely invested in education, training and a strong foundation for the future. Let me offer you a concrete example. It concerns patents-- the legal protection the world gives to new ideas and inventions. They're a good measure of the quality of a country's educational system, its entrepreneurship, its innovation and its rule of law. Between 1980 and 1999, the nine leading Arab economies--each built on oil wealth-- registered a mere 370 patents in my country. During that same period, South Korea alone registered 16,328 patents. Why? In the 21st century, human resources are the true wealth of any nation. You have a historic opportunity to free those human resources to their full potential. I urge you to seize it. It may strike you as presumptuous that an American politician is offering advice that you did not seek. After all, my country has its own problems. Let me be clear: I have not come here to impose American views on you or to suggest we have all the answers. But I know that more than ever before, your fate and our future are joined. There was a time when the United States would have been satisfied with the status quo in the Middle East, North Africa and here in Libya. But the events of September 11, 2001 marked a turning point in how my country views the world, and specifically how it sees this region. Americans now understand that the promise of our time is matched by peril. Ideas and innovations can travel the planet at the stroke of a computer key, spreading progress far and wide. But the same technology and openness that power these forces of construction also enable forces of destruction. As a result, problems in any one part of our planet can plague the entire world, including the United States. There is no mountain high enough or ocean wide enough to protect us. The question for America is what, if anything, can we do about this new reality? Make no mistake: the United States will meet and defeat any threat to the safety of our people and the security of our country. We have the will and we have the way to prevail. But our physical prowess alone cannot solve the problem. We are engaged in much more than a contest of force. We are engaged in a war of ideas. I am convinced that war will be won by those who offer hope, not hatred . . . progress, not paralysis . . . a vision for the future, not an obsession with the past. Those who attacked us on September 11 were beyond the reach of reason. Their blind hatred was not the bitter fruit of poverty--they were relatively prosperous people. It was not the product of Islam--they perverted a great faith. It was not the result of American's support for Israel, as much as you may disagree with it. Osama Bin Laden almost never mentioned the Palestinian cause before attacks. His focus was his own country, Saudi Arabia. No, America's aggressors were foot soldiers in a new war pitting believers in freedom, openness, and tolerance against the forces of radical fundamentalism and regression. It is not a clash between civilizations, but within civilizations-- especially within the Arab and Muslim worlds. Today, violent radicals have turned their terror on us. But make no mistake: they regard the large majority of moderate Muslims as their enemies as well. Hundreds of Muslims were among the more than 3000 dead in the World Trade Center and the victims of attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Morocco. And if the radicals succeed, you will be their victims in another way as well, condemned to a future of hopelessness and despair. I believe that the cause of hope and the tide of history is on the side of the moderates and modernizers--in this region, in my region and around the world. Our challenge is to reject their cynicism and hatred and to build an alliance of tolerance and progress. We each have a job to do. Our job--America's job--is first and foremost to listen to you--to listen to your ideas, as well as your fears and concerns. And to do a much better job explaining our ideas and intentions. But even if we do that well, human nature is the same world wide. It is rare to feel good about your neighbor's new car when you've just lost your job. America's military might, economic power and cultural reach make us present in people's lives on every continent, in every country. Sometimes we do not recognize the conflicting emotions this can produce: respect and admiration, but also envy, resentment and fear. There will always be those who do not like specific policies we advocate or the way we pursue them. That is your right. The burden is on us to make our case . . . and to have faith in our power to persuade, not just coerce. It may surprise you that most Americans don't like the fact we're the world's sole superpower. They understand it thrusts upon them a responsibility they did not seek and would rather not bear. For example, the people I represent in Delaware understood but did not like the fact I voted to send their sons and daughters to Kosovo. They went to Kosovo to prevent the genocidal slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children by Milosevic. For better or worse, one result of our standing is that people around the world think the U.S. is both the cause of, and answer to, their concerns. I am proud that America is, more often than not, the solution rather than the problem. I am also proud of our generosity. Like your tradition of Zakat, we feel a moral obligation to share our good fortune. Every year, we send tens of billions of dollars far from our shores to help the impoverished . . . support economic development . . . combat AIDS. We should do more. We already do a lot. But it is also true that in the Middle East and North Africa, repressive political systems and closed economies generate deep anger, resentment, and extremism. I know that the United States has seemed, at best, indifferent to the plight of the oppressed and, at worst, complicit with corrupt and autocratic regimes--despite our generosity. In the past, we've justified that support in different ways: the Cold War struggle against communism . . . the preference for stability over chaos . . . the need to ensure a steady supply of oil. the tragedy of 9-11 has taught America the hard way that we cannot afford such policies. As President Bush said recently: ``stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.'' Americans of all political persuasions agree that our security requires us to more actively support your aspirations to choose your own leaders . . . to express your own opinions . . . to associate freely with others . . . to worship in peace . . . to be treated with dignity. In a word, our security requires us to more actively support your desire for liberal democracy. That is the right thing to do. And it is the surest path to realizing your potential and your dreams. Democracy is first and foremost about preventing the concentration of power into the hands of the few . . . or the one. Elections are necessary--but not enough. Democracy is about creating individual rights and building independent institutions: courts of law, political parties, a free press, transparent government, property ownership, a private sector, non-governmental organizations. It is about schools that teach tolerance to your children, and teach them to think for themselves. It is about making women genuine partners in building a modern society. Nothing about democracy is incompatible with Islam. For example, since the days of the Prophet, the shura--a council where community leaders gather to make decisions through discussion--has been a Muslim concept. I know many resist change because of the uncertainty it brings. I understand the tension people feel between holding on to traditions that are comfortable and embracing modernity. In my own country, people contend with that tension every day. For example, free trade means that Americans have more choice and pay less for the many things in our stores. But it also means American jobs are lost to countries where people are willing to work for lower pay. That has made millions of Americans--despite our prosperity-- angry and afraid. So each of us, in different ways, has to contend with powerful forces of change and the uncertainty they bring. Every nation must find its own way. Let me share with you, in all humility, the path my country has chosen and some lessons we have learned. Many see the economic, cultural and military power of the United States. What they may not understand is that those strengths flow from our democratic system, not the other way around. They flow from the freedom we afford every American to think, to question and to create. There are other paths to prosperity. South Korea once enjoyed extraordinary growth without democracy. Now, so does China. But I am convinced that in the long run, the freedoms we enjoy are a tremendous advantage in competing with other countries in the information age. Our strength also flows from the great diversity of our people. More than two centuries ago, our founders recognized that America's enduring mission would be ``to form a more perfect union''. In other words, they understood the challenge of forging a single nation from many different parts. But they were confident that in working to overcome our differences, Americans would constantly move forward. They were right. My country was born in the midst of slavery; we still struggle to overcome the legacy of racism. But we can also say that African Americans have made great strides and are making great contributions to our society. The rights we enjoy and the institutions we built give every American the power to shine a light on the mistakes we make, and to demand that they be corrected. And the rules we live by protect us from the excess of absolute power . . . and have helped us build a country where each individual has the opportunity, but not the guarantee, to achieve his or her potential. Please do not misunderstand me. I mean no disrespect. But the nations of the Arab world could be doing so much more to harness the enormous potential of their people. Consider this: the combined gross domestic product of all Arab countries in 1999 was less than that of a single European country--Spain. Think about that for a moment. And then think back a thousand years. Spain was part of a great Arab empire which encompassed most of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Why did you thrive then? It was not your armies alone. It was your ideas, your civilization, your culture, your openness. Why has this one small territory-- then called Al Andalus, now called Spain--outpaced the rest of the Arab world combined today? Don't take the answer from me. Listen to the leading Arab scholars who recently completed a remarkable study of Arab Human Development, published by the United Nations. It speaks to the need across the Arab world to make progress in three critical areas: Empowering women, spreading knowledge, and expanding freedom. This is an incredibly difficult challenge--but also an extraordinary opportunity. 70% of your population is below the age of 30. Unlocking their minds and unleashing their talents can be a deep source of strength. Bringing women into the work place will boost your economies . . . just as women leaders past and present in Pakistan . . . in Bangladesh . . . in Turkey . . . and in Indonesia energized the Muslim world's politics. Giving your people access to the internet will connect them to a vast supply of knowledge and power your progress. The United States wants to help you seize these opportunities in a spirit of cooperation. We are ready to share our experiences . . . to make investments in your economies . . . to welcome you into the international community. We are prepared to build these partnerships because it is in our interest. It is up to you to take the necessary, important, unavoidable risks. The choice is yours. You can merely survive, with an economy that generates just enough wealth to get by and a society that provides few freedoms and opportunities. Or you can thrive. I am convinced you can thrive. My conviction follows from your history. At a time when Europeans were barely emerging from the Dark Ages, the light of civilization was shinning brightly in the Arab world. Scholars outpaced their European counterparts in math, science and other disciplines of modernity. Philosophers and poets, architects and artists enlightened the world from Cairo to Baghdad to Damascus to Granada. I believe with all my heart that you can build a future as glorious as your past. And I am convinced that my country has a profound stake in your success. Let me leave you with the words of a great Arab-American poet, Gibran Khalil Gibran, that speak powerfully to this time and this challenge: ``O land veiled to our sight from ages past Which way to you? Which path? How long? How wide? What wasteland hems you in? What mountain range Enfolds your realm? Which one of us the guide? Are you our hope? Or are you a mirage? In hearts where none but fruitless quests reside . . . ``O source of knowledge where our forbears dwelt, Where truth they worshiped, beauty was their creed; Uncharted source, unknown, unreachable Whether by crested wave or racing steed, Neither in East nor West can you be found, In southern reaches nor in northern field, Not in the skies we find you, nor the seas, Nor pathless deserts which beguile our art; Deep in the soul you burst, like light, like fire, You are within my chest, my pounding heart.'' Thank you for listening.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Jack Reed in introducing legislation to increase the endstrength of the U.S. Army by 30,000 additional troops. Last month, the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker informed the Congress that the administration had approved an additional 30,000 Army troops on a ``temporary'' basis for the next 4 years. Over the last year the Congress has been expressing grave concern that our Armed Forces are too small to meet the extraordinary demands being placed on them today. Demands that will likely continue to be with us well into the future. The United States has over 125,000 troops in Iraq. Global commitments of our Armed Forces have soared since September 11, 2001. In order to prevent back-to-back deployments of our Active-Duty soldiers the Army National Guard and Army Reserve will comprise about 40 percent of the current troop rotation in Iraq. In addition to dealing with the extraordinary demands being placed on the U.S. Army, the Secretary of defense has tasked General Schoomaker to transform the Army. By some accounts this transformation will be the most significant and complex undertaking to face the Army in half a century. It will not only directly affect the Active-Duty Army, it will also change the nature of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. Secretary Ramsfeld stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Army must ``move away from the Napoleonic division structure designed for the 19th century, focusing instead on creating a 21st century `Modular Army' made up of self-contained, more self-sustaining brigades that are available to work with any division commander.'' Transformation of the Armed Forces has been a mantra of the Department of Defense. To show unwavering commitment to transformation the Secretary has created the Office of Force Transformation and a Supreme Allied Commander Transformation at NATO. Using the Quadrennial Defense Review as a compass Secretary Rumsfeld has been ``transforming'' almost everything the Pentagon does . . . including senior officer lunch rooms in the Pentagon. The transformation of the Army's Total Force will affect about 1\1/2\ million people in uniform and a significant number of DOD civilians, employers, and families. So, why will the transformation of the U.S. Army be done off budget using the emergency supplemental appropriations process? Why will some of the additional manpower that General Schoomaker needs to transform the Army and rebalance the National Guard and Army Reserve come from preventing soldiers from leaving the Army at the end of their enlistments or delaying their retirement? An action referred to by the Pentagon as ``stop loss.'' The Constitution tasks the Congress with significant responsibility regarding our national security. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power ``to provide the common defense . . . to raise and support Armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . and to make laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.'' In executing this responsibility Senator Reed and I are introducing legislation to permanently increase the endstrength of the U.S. Army by 30,000 troops. This legislation will give the Army Chief of Staff additional help he needs to fight the war on terrorism, stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, and meet the global demands being placed on the total force today. Our legislation also gives General Schoomaker the manpower ``headroom'' he has testified he needs to transform the total force . . . the Active-Duty Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. This legislation will set the U.S. Army's endstrength at 512,400, 30,000 soldiers higher than it is currently set. It is not our intention to put the Army in a position that to fund the additional troops they must deplete critical recapitalization, modernization, research, and MILCON accounts. The Department of Defense should be required to better rationalize the department budget to make U.S. Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve transformation one of the highest, fully funded, priorities of our Armed Forces.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to implement the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) for livestock, as well as strengthen existing laws that protect against the spread of disease in livestock. Consumers in the U.S. and around the world must have confidence in our food supply. The discovery of the first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States has raised serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of current U.S. disease management measures as well as closed U.S. beef markets overseas. For years there have been efforts to develop a national animal identification plan. The National Identification Task Force was created in 2002. The task force brought together livestock industry representatives with USDA to participate in the development of a comprehensive plan known as the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). The final development and implementation of this plan is needed now to bolster confidence in the U.S. livestock industry. In a recent briefing regarding the completion of the investigation into the U.S. BSE case, Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Veterinary Officer with USDA, referring to the unfound cattle from Canada, was quoted as saying, ``Many of those animals were moved into the United States a number of years ago, and so because of that timeframe some of the paper trail has gotten cold.'' A national animal identification plan would ensure the trail would not go cold in the future. My legislation will direct USDA to focus its resources on implementing the USAIP for beef and dairy cattle to ensure a disease tracking system is in place in a timely manner. This bill also provides financial assistance to aid in the cost of producer compliance. In addition, this legislation directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen the enforcement of current livestock feed ban laws. This measure will help control disease threats to U.S. livestock, provide privacy protection for the information collected and used in the plan, and implement an effective plan for tracking animals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the authority to implement the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP) for livestock, as well as strengthen existing laws that protect against the spread of disease in livestock. Consumers in the U.S. and around the world must have confidence in our food supply. The discovery of the first case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States has raised serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of current U.S. disease management measures as well as closed U.S. beef markets overseas. For years there have been efforts to develop a national animal identification plan. The National Identification Task Force was created in 2002. The task force brought together livestock industry representatives with USDA to participate in the development of a comprehensive plan known as the United States Animal Identification Plan (USAIP). The final development and implementation of this plan is needed now to bolster confidence in the U.S. livestock industry. In a recent briefing regarding the completion of the investigation into the U.S. BSE case, Dr. Ron DeHaven, Chief Veterinary Officer with USDA, referring to the unfound cattle from Canada, was quoted as saying, ``Many of those animals were moved into the United States a number of years ago, and so because of that timeframe some of the paper trail has gotten cold.'' A national animal identification plan would ensure the trail would not go cold in the future. My legislation will direct USDA to focus its resources on implementing the USAIP for beef and dairy cattle to ensure a disease tracking system is in place in a timely manner. This bill also provides financial assistance to aid in the cost of producer compliance. In addition, this legislation directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen the enforcement of current livestock feed ban laws. This measure will help control disease threats to U.S. livestock, provide privacy protection for the information collected and used in the plan, and implement an effective plan for tracking animals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Cory R. Mracek, a fellow Nebraskan and sergeant in the United States Army. Sergeant Mracek was killed on January 27 when his patrol was attacked near Iskandariyah, Iraq. He was 26 years old. Sergeant Mracek served in the 3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based in Fort Bragg, NC. A resident of Hay Springs, NE, Sergeant Mracek was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. Sergeant Mracek enlisted in the Army after graduating from Hay Springs High School in 1995. His mother, Pat, said her son was a good soldier who ``was very proud of his country,'' and loved serving in the Armed Forces. In addition to his mother, Sergeant Mracek is survived by his father, James, and sisters, Stacy and Heather. Our thoughts and prayers are with each of them at this difficult time. Sergeant Mracek and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq and their tremendous sacrifices must never be taken for granted or forgotten. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sgt. Cory Mracek.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Dennis A. Corral, a fellow Nebraskan and Sergeant in the U.S. Army. Sergeant Corral was killed on January 1 in Baghdad, Iraq. He was 33 years old. Sergeant Corral served as a supply sergeant in Company C, 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, based in Fort Riley, KS. A resident of Kearney, NE, Sergeant Corral was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. Sergeant Corral volunteered to deploy early so that another soldier with a wife and children could spend more time at home, his mother, Yolanda, said. She described her son as always willing to ``step forward if they need help.'' In addition to his mother, Sergeant Corral is survived by his father, Victor, and brothers, Peter, Christopher, and Rodney. Our thoughts and prayers are with each of them at this difficult time. Sergeant Corral and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq and their tremendous sacrifices must never be taken for granted or forgotten. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Sergeant Dennis Corral.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of James Wolf, a fellow Nebraskan and Specialist in the United States Army. Specialist Wolf was killed on November 6, 2003, in Mosul, Iraq, when a bomb exploded near the convoy he was traveling in. He was 21 years old. Specialist Wolf was an engineer assigned to the Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 52nd Engineer Battalion of the 43rd Area Support Group, based in Fort Carson, CO. He was one of thousands of brave American service men and women serving in Iraq who confront danger everyday. Their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted. In October, Specialist Wolf spent 2 weeks of leave with his family in his hometown of Scottsbluff, NE. While there, he visited his alma mater, Scottsbluff High School, and thanked students for writing to him in Iraq. Specialist Wolf leaves behind parents, Bob and Chris; brother, David; and sisters, Elli and Rachel. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this difficult time. In Iraq, Specialist Wolf assisted with the construction of housing and schools for U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens. He will be remembered as a dedicated soldier with an optimistic outlook on life. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Specialist Wolf.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Daniel Bader, a fellow Nebraskan and staff sergeant in the United States Army. Sergeant Bader was killed on November 2 near Fallujah, Iraq when the Chinook helicopter he was aboard was shot down. Sergeant Bader was one of 15 soldiers killed and 25 wounded en route to the United States for two weeks of leave. He was 28 years old. Sergeant Bader served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry, Tiger Squadron, based in Fort Carson, CO. He was deployed to Iraq on April 4, 2003. A York, NE, native, Sergeant Bader was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. He joined the military shortly after graduating from high school and ``absolutely loved'' his career in the Army, said his wife, Tiffany. In addition to his wife, Sergeant Bader leaves behind a 14-month-old daughter, Taryn Makenzie. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both at this difficult time. Sergeant Bader and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq. Their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken fro granted. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring SGT Daniel Bader.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Daniel Bader, a fellow Nebraskan and staff sergeant in the United States Army. Staff Sergeant Bader was killed on November 2 near Fallujah, Iraq when the Chinook helicopter he was aboard was shot down. Staff Sergeant Bader was one of 16 soldiers killed and 20 wounded en route to the United States for 2 weeks of leave. He was 28 years old. Staff Sergeant Bader served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry, Tiger Squadron, based on Fort Carson, CO. He was deployed to Iraq on April 4, 2003. A York, NE native, Staff Sergeant Bader was a dedicated soldier who was committed to his family and country. He joined the military shortly after graduating from high school and ``absolutely loved'' his career in the Army, said his wife Tiffany. In addition to his wife, Staff Sergeant Bader leaves behind a 14-month-old daughter, Taryn Makenzie. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both at this difficult time. Staff Sergeant Bader and thousands of brave American service men and women confront danger every day in Iraq--their tremendous risks and sacrifices must never be taken for granted. For his service, bravery, and sacrifice, I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Staff Sergeant Daniel Bader.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I very much appreciate the leadership of the chairman on this issue and on this important debate. I am here this morning to discuss the United States response to global climate change. How our Nation addresses global climate change may prove to be one of the most important economic and environmental decisions of our time. As we debate the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, it is important to keep in mind this is not a debate about who is for or against the environment. There is no Member of Congress who wants dirty air, dirty water, a dirty environment, or declining standards of living for their children and grandchildren. We all agree on the need for a clean environment. We all want to leave our children a better, cleaner, more prosperous world. The debate on climate change, however, has moved beyond the Kyoto protocol. In 1997, by a 95-0 vote, this body, the Senate, adopted the Byrd-Hagel resolution which stated the United States would not sign any international treaty that excluded action on the part of developing nations or that would cause serious economic harm to the United States. However, the concerns about our climate have not abated. We should recognize the efforts of Senators McCain and Lieberman and others on this particular issue. Although I disagree with the approach they have proposed, I understand and share their concerns. It is important to keep the debate moving forward in order to develop and implement practical policies to deal with climate change. The McCain-Lieberman bill would create mandatory emissions reductions for greenhouse gasses here in this country. The consequences of such mandates are severe. This bill would raise energy prices for consumers, agricultural producers, business, and industry, and have a very negative impact on our economy. The mandates would also be very difficult to reach. The Department of Energy's own independent Energy Information Administration projects the greenhouse gas emission levels in 2010 would have to be reduced by 14 percent in order to achieve the 2000 emission level quota set by this bill, not the 1.5 percent reduction that supporters of this bill are claiming. This means utilities and manufacturers will have to find alternatives to coal, the predominant fuel used in this country. In most cases, this means switching to natural gas. That would mean higher costs for homeowners, businesses, industry, and farmers, as well as possible natural gas shortages. A fuel shift of this magnitude demanded by this bill for the utility industry would require natural gas production and pipeline capacity this country simply does not have nor will have in 2010. We have recently seen the effects of high natural gas prices in this country. A recent GAO report concluded the natural gas price fight in the years 2000 to 2002 led to a 25 percent reduction in domestic production of nitrogen fertilizer and a 43 percent in nitrogen imports. This was a significant blow to this country, especially to our agricultural producers. Record demands and higher prices for natural gas caused America's farmers and ranchers to spend an additional $1.5 billion just to plant and fertilize their crops this past spring. The question we are faced with is not whether we should take action but what kind of action would best address the climate change challenge we face now and into the future. Our actions should be focused on incentivizing and achieving voluntary emissions reductions in developing and disseminating clear technologies. I supported such actions in the past in addressing our national climate change policy: The establishment of a voluntary registry for carbon emissions reductions; tax credits for emissions reductions; and research into climate change science and carbon sequestration. Closing the gaps in our knowledge, our science, our industry, and our technology builds a solid foundation for a wise climate policy for the future. Although there are inconsistencies in the science, there has been a human impact on the Earth's atmosphere--we all accept that--and we should consider steps to mitigate that impact. The sooner we begin, the smaller and less painful the changes will have to be in the future. Global warming does not recognize national borders. The changes under consideration today are proposed solely for the United States, but our global warming policy must be broader. The United States alone cannot improve the Earth's climate. The only way forward is through international cooperation and collaboration--engaging, helping, partnering with all nations, especially developing nations. Developing nations are quickly becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gasses, but they are exempted from international agreements to reduce these emissions. There are some good reasons for this. These nations cannot achieve greenhouse gas reductions until they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy technology, and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes necessary for emissions reductions. Our partnerships with developing nations can help increase the efficiency of their energy use and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Industrialized nations must help less developed nations by sharing cleaner technology so developing countries can leapfrog over the highly polluting stages of development that the United States and other countries have already been through. The Bush administration has taken the initiative in developing these public-private partnerships and projects with all developing nations. The United States Chamber of Commerce has called for a Marshall plan for developing emissions-free technologies. Part of that plan includes the dissemination of those technologies to developing nations. This will take time. We should be thinking and planning 20 to 50 years out. By partnering with developing nations, we will export American technology and expertise, and improve all economies along the way. These are the types of plans the U.S. should be reviewing. Investments can be spread over time and gradual and effective change is the least painful to individuals, industries and nations--and it is the most lasting. It also allows all nations to participate in workable climate change policies. It is the only way to ensure both global climate change success and global prosperity. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NELSON of Florida addressed the Chair.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Tatyana Goryachova for her contributions to journalism and her strength in the face of extreme adversity. Ms. Goryachova is a Ukrainian newspaper editor who, as a result of her unbiased reporting and journalistic integrity, has suffered threats and physical assault. A free press is a defining characteristic of a democratic society. A free press in the U.S. is provided for and protected by our Constitution. In Ukraine before the fall of communism in 1991, newspapers were censored and only allowed to publish officially sanctioned positions. While a free press is taking hold in Ukraine, significant pressure remains to publish only stories favorable to government and business interests. Ms. Goryachova and her husband, Sergey Belousov, have owned and edited the Berdyansk Delovoy in Berdyansk, Ukraine since 1998. As editor, Ms. Goryachova has insisted on evenhanded coverage. The newspaper has exposed corruption in the city government and covered challengers as well as incumbents in city elections--a decision that brought her into conflict with government officials. Ms. Goryachova's professional choices have made her the subject of severe personal hardships. The Berdyansk Delovoy office was vandalized. Ms. Goryachova's life has been threatened. She was attacked and had acid thrown in her face, causing serious damage to her eyes and skin. Despite this, she has persevered and continued complete coverage at the newspaper. Ms. Goryachova found an advocate in Hal Foster, an American journalist and Omaha World-Herald correspondent she met at a journalism seminar in Kiev, Ukraine. Mr. Foster arranged to have Ms. Goryachova's eye injuries treated in the United States. He secured an anonymous benefactor who paid for her care. In addition, the Berdyansk Delovoy needed its own printing press to continue publishing. After hearing Ms. Goryachova's story, Omaha World- Herald Publisher John Gottschalk offered to donate a printing press to the newspaper. The generosity of an anonymous donor and the Omaha World-Herald has ensured that Tatyana Goryachova will have both her eyesight and a strong voice in her community. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1913 that, ``Sunlight is the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.'' Ms. Goryachova understands that exposing corruption and illuminating Ukraine's darkest corners is the surest way to end abuse and promote democracy. A free press is not only a sign of a thriving democracy, it is an important tool of democracy. Building a strong democratic tradition takes journalists and citizens like Tatyana Goryachova who are committed to transparency and integrity in government. For her commitment and sacrifices, her contributions to journalism and to democracy, Tatyana Goryachova deserves our recognition and respect.