Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the recognition, and likewise I appreciate the majority leader giving us this hour of debate, because today it is very important the Senate consider the global HIV/AIDS bill. For the past year, intense discussions have occurred in Congress and between the executive and legislative branches on how our country can best respond to the global AIDS crisis. In June 2002, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved an HIV/AIDS bill, initially introduced by Senators Frist and Kerry, with a large bipartisan group of co-sponsors. The Senate unanimously passed that bill. However, the House of Representatives failed to act on it before the end of the 107th Congress. At the start of this Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee undertook at the request of the new majority leader to reintroduce the 2002 Senate-passed bill, with some minor changes requested by the Department of State. In addition, we revised portions of the bill to take account of the President's AIDS initiative outlined in his 2003 State of the Union Address. The Committee's efforts, therefore, incorporated many of the modifications requested by the White House, including the addition of new authorities for the Special HIV/AIDS Coordinator created by our legislation last year and incorporated in the President's AIDS initiative this year. Our efforts resulted in S. 1009, currently on the Senate calendar. Simultaneously, the House proceeded with its own bill to authorize the President's AIDS initiative. The House passed that bill last month, and it was placed on the Senate calendar. Many Senators, including myself, come to this debate with preferences on how a bill should be structured on this subject. Nevertheless, I share the majority leader's hope that the Senate will move quickly to pass the House bill before us so that HIV/AIDS funding will not be delayed any further and so President Bush can have an AIDS initiative in hand when he travels to the G-8 summit later this month of May. The House passed their bill by a vote of 375 to 41. It is a good bill worthy of the strong bipartisan support that it received. The United States must have partners in the effort to stop HIV/AIDS. Passage of this bill will maximize the President's ability to enlist other nations in the fight against AIDS. American leadership is as important as American contributions to this objective. We must be mindful of the President's recent observation that, ``Time is not on our side,'' in combating this disease. The global HIV/AIDS pandemic is a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions. In Africa, nearly 10,000 people contract the HIV virus each day. The United States has a clear moral obligation, as the most powerful nation on earth, to respond generously and quickly to this crisis. But beyond our moral obligations, we should recognize that this bill is squarely in the self-interest of the United States and the American people. If we are to protect our national security and overcome terrorism, we must devote ourselves to strengthening democracy, building free markets, and encouraging civil society in nations that otherwise might become havens or breeding grounds for terrorists. We must seek to encourage societies that can nurture and fulfill the aspirations of their citizens and deny terrorists the uncontrolled territory and abject poverty in which they thrive. Few conditions do more harm to these objectives than the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It has imposed a crushing burden on the economies of numerous African nations; it has exacerbated undercurrents of political instability that weaken the fundamentals of responsible government; and it has destroyed millions of family units. Beyond the sick and the dead, the disease has created a generation of orphans, whose prospects for a fulfilling and productive life have been diminished by the loss of parents and other family members. The President has recognized the urgency of moving forward at this moment in history and has announced his support very solidly. He believes we need to fulfill our altruistic role in the world and to protect U.S. national security. We must join him in this effort by passing the bill before us. The House bill would authorize the President's Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief. This plan would provide $15 billion over the next 5 years for AIDS care, treatment and prevention in those countries already facing an AIDS crisis and in those countries that have experienced a dramatic increase in the disease. The bill would establish the position of Coordinator for HIV/AIDS to ensure an effective approach by the various agencies of the U.S. Government involved in combating the global spread of AIDS. The bill also would provide the President with the discretion to devote up to $1 billion a year for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. In an effort to generate foreign contributions to the global fund, the bill sets a ceiling for American contributions at one-third of total contributions. In other words, we hope to stimulate at least $2 in foreign contributions to the global fund for each dollar contributed by the United States. The Senate can make history this week by passing this bill and sending the measure to the President for his signature. We should do so without delay. I add, finally, this thought to the debate. The President of the United States, during the ceremonies in which the new members of NATO were ratified by this body last week, and introduced to the public at the White House by the President, took aside Members who were there, and even at a historic moment in which we were discussing NATO, he discussed with us the HIV/AIDS legislation. He indicated that he was going to the summit of the G-8, that it is critical that other nations join us. It is critical today that we pass this legislation. But in order for the HIV pandemic to be arrested, other nations must be involved. The President emphasized to me and to others that his own advocacy, his own power in that meeting with regard to this issue, is dependent upon having a bill. In a very pragmatic way, the President indicated the House bill, which passed by a large majority, is a good bill. I suspect if the President were to offer all of his amendments, if I were to offer those I have already suggested in the Foreign Relations Committee, likewise the distinguished ranking member, Members of the House and the Senate, who have a variety of ways in which we can improve the situation, we could have a remarkable debate. As a matter of fact, we might have a substantial study of this situation for much of the rest of this Congress. Feelings are very strong on many of these issues. I am sensitive to this in many ways, having tried, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, from the beginning of this year, to wrestle with this very piece of legislation and how we could bring it to fulfillment. The President's response to all of this is that the House has passed a good bill. Please pass the same bill without amendment. Please send it to me so I can sign it next week and take it in this month of May to the G-8 summit to make a powerful statement in behalf of the world and in behalf of our leadership. That has led to my course of action in which I have indicated to my colleagues that I intend to support the President. I intend to support this bill that is before us. I will oppose amendments to the bill because that will clearly complicate the process. A conference would be required. It is not clear how rapidly the conferees could either meet or come to conclusion, and we have a recess 1 week from now, which leaves the President in limbo without a bill. It is those considerations that I hope Members will keep in mind, will understand, and will in fact support. But at least I appreciate in this opening statement an opportunity to state my own convictions, my own course of action, and the leadership, at least in this body, that I advocate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me try to describe what I believe is the lay of the land at this stage. We have had in the Foreign Relations Committee about 4 months of discussion about various ways that this issue might be approached. And that followed, as was pointed out earlier in the day in the debate, the remarkable bill that was offered by Senators Frist and Kerry last year. It passed unanimously. It did not receive consideration in the House, and it did not become law. The issue was revived in a big way when President Bush mentioned this prominently in his State of the Union Address. President Bush not only mentioned it then, but he has been mentioning it on almost every occasion when he has met with Senators. This is very important to us, it is very important to our President, and it is very important to the world that a bill pass this evening. The situation comes down to this. In the Foreign Relations Committee, ultimately, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, and I formulated a bill which we believed had a strong majority in our committee. We believed it had a strong majority potentially on the floor of the Senate. The House of Representatives, in the meanwhile, under the leadership of Congressman Hyde and Congressman Lantos, has passed an excellent bill, in our judgment. We believe we could have improved upon it. The amendments that are being offered tonight all suggest they might improve upon it. As a matter of fact, some have foreign policy objectives that I would agree with wholeheartedly. But the issue tonight comes down to this: The President of the United States has visited with me, Senator Biden, and others, as late as last Thursday--and, in fact, in Indianapolis on Tuesday. He has indicated to me he believes the only chance that he will have a bill he can sign, that he can take to the G-8 meeting that commences June 1, is if the Senate adopts the House bill without amendments, without conference, without possible parliamentary strategies that stand between the President and a bill that he will take to the G-8. Why does he want to do that? Because he wants money from the G-8. He wants commitments. He wants somebody besides the United States in this ball game. It is very important that he succeed. This is not a peripheral item for the President. It is up front. He has appealed in every way he knows. I have told him I will support him, and I will do the best I can to manage a bill this evening that passes that has no amendments, however meritorious, because I believe that way he will have a bill, we will have success at the G-8 and, more importantly, the people who are going to be helped will be helped as opposed to our having an extended study in which people come from the left, from the right, from the center, perfecting this and that, but we do not have a bill and our President goes to the G-8 without that momentum of support he wants. Now, that will be the issue in my remarks on each amendment. It finally comes down to the fact that I will ask my colleagues in the Senate to defeat amendments; to pass the bill; to do so promptly; to do so tonight, so that the issue is concluded, the President is supported, and he moves on.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me clarify that if $2 billion is spent in the first year for bilateral HIV programs and if 20 percent is for prevention, only $132 million will be involved in the abstinence programs. I simply say, it is a fairly small amount. When the President addressed this issue at the White House, he specifically said, there are three elements. There is abstinence, faithfulness, and condoms. He said all three. There is a liberal amount of money for a lot of flexibility. I don't argue with the distinguished Senator from California. I just say essentially the language accomplishes that. Once again, we are faced with the fact that if we are determined to amend it, we are back into the problem with the House, which debated this. This was an important part of the compromise that brought those 375 votes in favor of the bill. I yield back our time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, just as a matter of common sense, the U.S. Government will attempt to purchase pharmaceutical products of the highest quality at the best price. But I would just simply urge my colleagues to consider the fact that mandating this, while it appears reasonable, and has some reliance upon the World Health Organization's pilot program, we ought to recognize that the World Health Organization actually dealing in countries with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS does not guarantee the quality of the medicine. It is probably unable to do that. The facts are--and I respect the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and, likewise, the Senator from Wisconsin; they have experience, I am sure, in the field looking at these programs--the testimony of people I have visited with at Indiana University, who have been in the field, indicates that the whole idea of the treatment is a very provisional situation. We are grasping as a world at what works. And this is why flexibility has been encouraged thus far. We also are simply up against the fact that the problem is so overwhelming that attempting to obtain pharmaceutical products from anybody around the world has been extremely difficult. And a good number of pharmaceutical companies have been prepared to make enormous price concessions. And most physicians then point out, you need a physician to help the patient make certain the doses are right, the combination of drugs is right, the discipline of dealing with this is correct. It is not a matter of mandating the lowest cost drugs, and failing to do that denying people treatment. The fact is, 80 percent of the people with AIDS in the world are getting no treatment at all. That is why we are trying to pass a bill tonight as opposed to having several months more discussion, attempting to perfect the bill. I have said from the beginning, as Dr. Frist, that all of us could perfect this bill in a number of ways. Our problem is to get a bill through two Houses now so it might be of some benefit to our President in his diplomacy and advocacy as he approaches the other wealthy countries of the world, starting at least on the first of January, if not before. Therefore, Mr. President, I am hopeful that Members understand the importance of getting drugs at the best price and mandating the highest quality and attempting to get as many companies all over the world interested in this as we can. But the amendment, it seems to me, once again, obstructs the fact of getting any bill at all, any relief for the people we are talking about. Therefore, I ask Senators to vote no.

Mr. LUGAR. Senator Boxer, 10 minutes, evenly divided.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am unfamiliar with the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California. I have listened carefully to her argument, and obviously the bill before us addresses the needs of women and orphans in a great number of places. I must argue again, I suspect that the best in this case should not be the enemy of the better. We have a bill here that I believe is sound on these issues. As we have admitted again and again, each one of us might perfect it in various ways. The distinguished Senator from California is attempting to do so now. But I encourage Senators to vote against the amendment for the same reasons I have encouraged Senators to vote against each of the perfecting amendments--realizing that each one of us, in the event we were to write the bill, could do better. But we have two bodies working on a procedure whereby we are on the threshold of having a significant breakthrough for the people we are attempting to assist and save. The Senator has made an eloquent case for why we ought to have action now and ought to encourage other countries to join us. I ask Senators, once again, to oppose the Boxer amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. We yield back our time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will make a short comment and yield to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. I point out, without for a moment arguing with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the urgency of Latin America, our friends right here in the Caribbean, that the language of the bill with regard to the United States coordinator does list 14 countries, but it also then has these words: ``and other countries designated by the President.'' It appears to me this language is fairly flexible. It might have been better if all of the countries had been listed, but it does enumerate the Latin American countries that the Senator from Connecticut has pointed to and gives the power of the President to designate other countries. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and then the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

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

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

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Minnesota not only on his remarkable statement, but likewise on the Minnesota miracle. The work in his State is truly a manifestation of all that can come from the legislation we are discussing today in terms of jobs, income for farmers and, most important, greater energy independence and cleaner air for our country. I am delighted to join my colleague from Minnesota in presenting and sponsoring and commending the majority leader and the minority leader for presenting this legislation to us today. I am a strong advocate of this initiative to establish a nationwide renewable fuels standard as a part of America's national energy policy. Moving from a hydrocarbon to a carbohydrate economy will increase energy independence, reduce oil imports, protect air and water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate rural economies. The renewable fuels amendment we are considering today does all of these things, which is why I regard it as an essential component of the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The renewable fuels amendment is the culmination of years of effort. As a result of the hard work, today's amendment enjoys strong support from both parties and a broad array of interest groups. Several years ago, Senator Daschle and I first introduced a bill creating a renewable fuels standard. It has been my privilege to speak with Senator Daschle for many years on behalf of this concept, in front of various groups in our country, as well as with our colleagues in the Senate. I have treasured my friendship with Senator Daschle on the Agriculture Committee of the Senate. There we have had many hearings and productive discussions. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001, the bill Senator Daschle and I introduced, represented an important step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our Nation's energy security. At the same time, this proposal went far toward protecting the environment, supporting rural economic development, and increasing the flexibility of the national fuel supply to reduce the impact of future price spikes. Last year Senator Daschle and I incorporated that legislation into the Senate Energy bill. I am hopeful this year my colleagues will again demonstrate that they appreciate the importance of the renewable fuels standard to our country, and I am confident we will do so. When reflecting back on recent history, one trend that should disturb every American is our growing dependence on oil imports. Set that trend against the many political crises erupting in oil-rich regions around the world, and it is clear our addiction to oil must be curtailed. I believe part of the answer lies with the development of cheap, plentiful, renewable sources of energy. The current tax incentive for ethanol has helped foster creation of a strong domestic renewable fuels industry. But more needs to be done to reduce the cost of ethanol production and to make the commodity more competitive with fossil fuels. It is time for a nationwide renewable fuels standard. Recent and prospective breakthroughs in genetic engineering and processing are radically changing the viability of ethanol as a transportation fuel. It is now possible to use biomass, meaning virtually any plant or plant product, to produce renewable fuels. So- called cellulosic ethanol may decisively reduce the cost of ethanol, to the point where petroleum products may soon face vigorous competition. In 1999, James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, and a consultant on many important issues, and I coauthored an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that talked about our strategic need for energy independence--at least outlined how a biomass strategy, which included ethanol from many sources, was a critical part of that strategy. In 1999, following publication of that article in Foreign Affairs, I introduced a bill that now drives many of these scientific breakthroughs. The Biomass Research and Development Act accelerated and coordinated the biomass research and development activities of Federal agencies. Soon after this bill was enacted into law as Title III of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, a bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, its competitive research and development program began accelerating production of biofuels, biochemicals, and biopower. Today's amendment will build on that initiative in a very large way by offering an incentive to producers of cellulosic ethanol. I am proud of the significant progress we have already made to support renewable fuels. We have made great strides toward strengthening our national security, improving our rural communities, and protecting our natural environment. With today's amendment, we will move still closer to a safer and more prosperous tomorrow for our country and for the world. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important initiative. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senate comes together this morning to ratify the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the NATO alliance. It will be a truly historic vote in the Senate and a most important day in the histories of these nation-states. I am hopeful the Senate will support overwhelmingly this remarkable foreign policy initiative. When President Bush made his first trip to Warsaw Europe 2 years ago, he strongly voiced in his Warsaw address the U.S. commitment to Europe generally and to NATO in particular. Now, at a moment when relations with some of our European allies are strained, a clear showing of bipartisan support for NATO enlargement takes on added importance. The affirming message of the first round of enlargement led to improved alliance capabilities and strengthened transatlantic ties. I am confident that this second round will do the same. The eyes of a hopeful and expectant world are upon us. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution of ratification. I would like to direct the attention of Senators to the balcony above where we are joined today by the Foreign Ministers of the seven aspirant states. They have come together with us today to witness our actions and to join with us on the Senate floor at the completion of the vote. At noon they will be hosted by the Secretary of State for lunch at the State Department and later by President Bush at a Rose Garden ceremony. Their presence, here today, is a personal witness to the close relationship our nations will enjoy as partners in the NATO Alliance. I thank Senators for their cooperation and ask for their support of the enlargement of the NATO allliance .

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today the Senate has taken another step in making Europe whole and free. In June 2001, President Bush delivered a speech in Warsaw, Poland confirming that: All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom--and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe. Today the Senate ratified that vision and has voted overwhelmingly to enlarge the NATO alliance to include seven new members. I would like to thank a number of people for their contributions to this important debate. Jessica Fugate, Kate Burns, and Mike Haltzel worked tirelessly to produce a resolution of ratification and committee report that enjoyed the unanimous support of the Foreign Relations Committee and has been ratified by the Senate. Bob Bradtke, of the Department of State; Kurt Volker, of the National Security Council, and Ian Brzezinski, of the Department of Defense; worked closely with committee staff to ensure strong administration support for the work we have completed today. Lastly, special thanks to Paul Gallis, of the Congressional Research Service, for his valuable contributions to the Committee's work and the Senate's review of the Protocols of Accession. I especially thank the distinguished ranking member from Delaware, Senator Biden, for his cooperation and leadership on this important issue. This is the second major treaty the Foreign Relations Committee has guided to ratification in a few short months. I look forward to continuing our bipartisan partnership in the days and weeks ahead as we turn to the State Department authorization bill, the HIV/AIDS bill, and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Mr. President, I know unanimous consent has been granted for the Senate to stand in recess. I look forward to welcoming the foreign ministers of the countries we greet today.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bingaman to re-introduce the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003. The United States ranks 26th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, the worst among developed nations. Study after study shows that providing prenatal care to pregnant women reduces maternal and infant mortality and the incidence of low birth weight babies. According to the American Medical Association, ``Babies born to women who do not receive prenatal care are four times more likely to die before their first birthday.'' The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003 would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by providing States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP, to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birth weight babies, and to cover newborns through the first full year of life. Current federal law allows pregnant women to receive coverage through CHIP through age 18--creating a perverse Federal incentive of covering only teenage pregnant women and cutting off that coverage once they turn 19 years of age. This legislation would eliminate this problem by allowing States to cover pregnant women through CHIP, regardless of age. This also eliminates the unfortunate separation between pregnant women and infants that has been created through CHIP, and is contrary to longstanding federal policy through programs such as Medicaid, Women with Infants and Children, WIC, Maternal and Child Health, MCH, etc. An estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.'' Increasing the availability of affordable health care is certainly an issue of great importance to our Nation--particularly those who are uninsured. While our bill will not solve the problem of the uninsured, we believe that helping more pregnant women and babies receive care is a significant step in the right direction. I ask our colleagues to support the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003, and help us take this important step in improving health care for the mothers of tomorrow.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Bingaman to re-introduce the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003. The United States ranks 26th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, the worst among developed nations. Study after study shows that providing prenatal care to pregnant women reduces maternal and infant mortality and the incidence of low birth weight babies. According to the American Medical Association, ``Babies born to women who do not receive prenatal care are four times more likely to die before their first birthday.'' The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003 would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by providing States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP, to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birth weight babies, and to cover newborns through the first full year of life. Current federal law allows pregnant women to receive coverage through CHIP through age 18--creating a perverse Federal incentive of covering only teenage pregnant women and cutting off that coverage once they turn 19 years of age. This legislation would eliminate this problem by allowing States to cover pregnant women through CHIP, regardless of age. This also eliminates the unfortunate separation between pregnant women and infants that has been created through CHIP, and is contrary to longstanding federal policy through programs such as Medicaid, Women with Infants and Children, WIC, Maternal and Child Health, MCH, etc. An estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.'' Increasing the availability of affordable health care is certainly an issue of great importance to our Nation--particularly those who are uninsured. While our bill will not solve the problem of the uninsured, we believe that helping more pregnant women and babies receive care is a significant step in the right direction. I ask our colleagues to support the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2003, and help us take this important step in improving health care for the mothers of tomorrow.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``The Impact of the Global Settlement.'' The Committee will also vote on S. 709, to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

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

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Panel II: Consuelo Maria Callahan to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Michael Chertoff to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. Panel III: L. Scott Coogler to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama.

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

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

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

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