[Congressional Record: October 4, 2002 (Senate)] [Page S9933-S9975] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr04oc02-76] AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ-- MOTION TO PROCEED The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 46 to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Regime in Iraq. This bipartisan resolution would enable the President to take necessary action in order to defend our Nation and our people against Iraq and any other threatening terrorist nation or organization. I believe it will pass Congress by broad bipartisan support and send a signal to the world that America stands united behind our President. This vote will be one of the most important--if not the most important--that I or any of my colleagues will ever take in Congress. Nothing is more sobering or serious than voting to send troops into battle and committing our Nation to war. As the President said the other day, war is not our first choice. In fact, it is our last choice. Having this debate and making this vote is something that none of us wants but in the end, I am afraid that we have no other choice. The case against Saddam Hussein is clear. We can no longer tolerate him and the threat that he poses not only to us, but to his neighbors, the Middle East and the entire world. To do anything else would be to repeat the mistakes of the past and to bury our heads in the sand. [[Page S9934]] After September 11, we cannot afford to simply sit on our hands. Now is the time to take bold and decisive action in our own self-defense. The arguments against Saddam Hussein are compelling, and I believe the President made a convincing case when he spoke to the United Nations about Saddam's contempt for the rest of the world. Eleven years ago after he was defeated in the Gulf War, Saddam suspended hostilities and agreed to a series of commitments to help bring peace and stability to the Middle East. He has broken each of these commitments. In 1991, U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 demanded Saddam cease repression and torture of his own people. He broke that promise. Also in 1991, the Security Council passed resolutions demanding that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Saddam Hussein broke that promise also. The U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam not only broke that promise, but he continues to harbor terrorists, including al-Qaida leaders who fled from Afghanistan. Most importantly, after the Gulf War, Iraq promised to destroy and to stop the development of weapons of mass murder and agreed to inspections by the world community. Once again, Saddam Hussein broke that promise. In fact, U.N. officials believe Iraq has produced tons of biological and chemical agents and failed to account for more than 3 metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. In 1995, Iraq finally admitted it had a nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. And up to now, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program. We know Iraq is working on rebuilding its nuclear capability. After the Gulf War, Saddam promised to allow for a vigorous series of inspections of his military programs. But for 7 years, we watched, on almost a daily basis, as the Iraqi Government bobbed and weaved and did everything in its power to delay, stop and confuse the inspectors. Finally, in 1998, Saddam kicked the United Nations Inspectors out of Iraq altogether. Once again, he broke his promise. All in all, Iraq has failed to abide by 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions. Saddam has broken his word at every opportunity. There is an old saying: ``fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' I don't see how we can let Saddam fool us again. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted. The time for inspections, diplomacy, and delay has passed. It is time for us to act. Many in Congress believe we should not use force against terrorist nations such as Iraq without approval from the United Nations or our allies. I believe this resolution takes the right approach and addresses their concerns. It says that we should do all we can to work with our friends and the United Nations to address the menace of Saddam Hussein. But it does not tie our hands and preserves our right to act in self- defense. In trying to resolve tensions with Iraq, America has gone the extra mile. And I believe that our allies and the U.N. have done so as well. We have done all that we can to ensure a peaceful resolution of disputes with Saddam. And I support Secretary Powell's continuing efforts to reach out to the security council and the rest of the world to find a way to bring peace to the Middle East without using violence. But I do not believe that in the end you can negotiate with a madman. Sooner or later, we are going to have to act, and we should pass this resolution to give the President every tool at his disposal to prevail in this struggle with evil. I know that some of my colleagues and many in the world community worry that America is acting without provocation and that we should not preemptively attack another Nation. I have to disagree with them on two grounds. First, we have already been attacked. Last September 11 was the bloodiest day in our history. We have already lost 3,000 of our friends and neighbors. Many of those involved in planning and carrying out those attacks are now living in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein has openly praised their actions. We are not acting preemptively. We are reacting to an assault on our Nation and our people. Second, in the case of Saddam Hussein, he has made it clear many, many times already that he will attack us as soon as he feels he can effectively do so. His past actions against his neighbors and even his own people prove he is a man of his word. To say now that we should wait and not act first is foolhardy and naive. In the wake of September 11, we have a choice. We can either act or we can wait and react. I do not think we should sit like children on the beach and simply wait for the tide to come in and wash us away. We should act now to protect ourselves and our Nation. Some have even made the argument that attacking Saddam would destabilize the Middle East and lead to further tensions in that sensitive part of the world. But I cannot imagine a more destabilizing and threatening menace than Saddam. This is one time where that old saying ``The devil you know is better than the devil you don't'' is wrong--dead wrong. After all, under Saddam's rule, Iraq has used nerve gas and other weapons of repression to slaughter tens of thousands of its own people. It used chemical weapons over and over during its war with Iran in the 1980s. Saddam has launched ballistic missiles at four of his neighbors-- Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. He has had his followers assassinate opponents in Iraq and abroad. During the Gulf War, his regime beat and tortured Americans and used them as ``Human Shields.'' And on almost a daily basis Iraq continues to fire missiles and artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq--no-fly zones that Saddam agreed to after the Gulf War. Looking at the evidence, I cannot imagine anything more destabilizing and threatening than the status quo. Some say wait and let the U.N. pass another resolution. They argue that more inspections and towing a tougher line against Saddam will work this time. But surely Saddam is not going to adhere to the 17th resolution after ignoring the first 16. Finally, those who make the argument about preemption say we need more proof--that we can't act first without a smoking gun. Even if they ignore all of the evidence, I would still argue that the last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun only smokes after it is fired and our goal and fight must be to prevent Saddam from firing that weapon. I have heard the arguments from the opponents of this resolution say that we should wait and deal with Saddam after the upcoming November election. They say this issue smacks of politics and that President Bush is using the war as a political tool in this next election. Some have even had harsh words for President Bush on this issue and at times I wonder who they think the real enemy is--President Bush or Saddam. I believe that politics should not be part of this debate from either party. This debate is about war and peace, not petty political squabbles. The congress should vote now and the President should act when it would be most effective to end Saddam's evil regime. I don't know if that's today, tomorrow, the day after the election, or some other time in the near future. But I will give the Commander-in-Chief and our military leaders the benefit of the doubt. What is most important is that we do this right and launch our assault when it will be most effective. The longer we wait, the more time this mad man has to hatch his evil plots. [[Page S9935]] There are risks in acting. But there are more risks in not acting. In conclusion, I urge support for the resolution. The evidence is clear. And the arguments against acting do not stand up to hard-headed reality. Saddam Hussein is a deadly threat, a threat we have ignored, put off and used every excuse for not finally dealing with for too long. We cannot afford to wait anymore. After September 11, the world has changed. It is time for us to act. It is time for us to be bold. God bless this republic and our Great People. I yield the floor. Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Resolution on Iraq Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of an alternative resolution which I will be introducing, and to explain why I believe it is the right way to go, and is a better alternative than the White House approach. At the outset, it must be noted that whatever differences there may be among us, the one thing which we can all agree upon is Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against Iran. He has launched invasions of Iran and Kuwait. For the last 11 years, he has defied the will of the entire world, as expressed in United Nations security resolutions, by refusing to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles. Another point which I believe there is a consensus on among Members of the Senate is the fact that confronting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein could lead to committing U.S. military forces, including ground forces, into combat, and that the vote we take on a resolution relating to Iraq may be the most important vote we make this year. Whether we commit our forces to attack Iraq as part of a United Nations authorized coalition, or whether we go it alone, could have immense consequences for our security and for future peace and stability in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and beyond. That is why I will be introducing an alternative resolution. The resolution agreed to between the White House and House leadership fails to address the two main problems with the original White House discussion draft. Those problems are the following: The White House approach still specifically authorizes at this time the use of force on a unilateral go-it-alone basis. That is, without Security Council authorization. Second, the White House approach authorizes the use of force beyond dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The resolution I will be introducing is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone, should go unilaterally against Iraq, should the United Nations fail to act. My alternative resolution does the following: First, it urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be destroyed; and within that same U.N. resolution authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member States to enforce such resolution in the event Iraq refuses to comply. My alternative resolution will also specifically authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms and the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with such U.N. resolution. My resolution affirms under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action. The alternative resolution which I will be introducing affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not adopt the resolution I described above. It provides further that the President report to Congress every 60 days on the status of efforts to have the U.N. Security Council adopt such a resolution, and if such a resolution is adopted, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution. Many were relieved when the President of the United States went to the United Nations and rightfully declared the Iraqi threat is ``exactly the kind of aggressive threat that the United Nations was born to confront.'' The President reminded the world that Iraqi aggression was stopped after the invasion of Kuwait ``by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.'' In calling upon the United Nations to act again, the President committed the United States to ``work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. We will work,'' the President said, ``with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.'' Acting in this manner, the President was setting in motion the same process that was used when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. At that time, then-President Bush on November 29, 1990, obtained U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of force if Iraqi forces did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. President Bush assembled a coalition of 39 nations that included Arab nations, Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The United Arab Emirates, and Muslim nations Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and our NATO ally, Turkey. The Senate and the House of Representatives passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of force to achieve implementation of the U.N. resolution on January 12, 1991, almost 7 weeks after the U.N. acted, and 3 days prior to the U.N.'s deadline. The fact the United States went to and obtained U.N. authorization for the use of force meant that, with very few exceptions, the world was united in support of the United States and against Saddam Hussein. It did not mean the United States was going to war against an Arab nation. It meant that the world community, with the participation of Arab nations, was taking action against Iraq. It did not mean the United States was going to war against a Muslim nation. It meant the world community, with the participation of Muslim nations, was going to war against Iraq. It resulted in the sharing of risks and the sharing of costs of war. Also important, the United Nations, by its approval, gave unquestioned international legitimacy to the United States-led military action. And the United States, by seeking U.N. approval, cemented the credibility and the relevancy of the United Nations. President Bush has now gone to the U.N., as his father did before him, and laid out the issues with the following words: All the world now faces a test and the United Nations, a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequences? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime. That test for the United Nations was laid out clearly by President Bush. Negotiations are going on now among the [[Page S9936]] permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. We all pray they will meet the test, and that is why my resolution specifically urges the Security Council to adopt, promptly, a resolution that: demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear-weapons- usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply. Congress has a test that we have to face as well, and that test, in my view, is to support the President's request to the United Nations and not to do anything that will undermine the effort to get the United Nations to do what the President has requested that they do, and that, in my judgment and I think in the judgment of most of us, they should do. In other words, if Congress endorses the use of force, even in the absence of a U.N. authorization at this time, what it does is enable the members of the Security Council to take a pass on the use of force. They can avoid taking a tough position on the basis that the United States will act no matter what the U.N. does. I think we all want the U.N. to be relevant and credible. We want the U.N. to succeed. We do not want the U.N. to be relegated to humanitarian and disaster relief and other tasks that are useful to international peace and security but are not essential. I believe if it is done wisely, we can unite not only the Congress, but ultimately the world community, on a course of action that we all seek: The elimination of Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. In other words, our focus should be on uniting the world and not dividing it. Let me say that again. I strongly believe that the test for Congress is to help the President lead and unite the world, and not divide it. The resolution the White House supports authorizes the use of military force with or without world community support. In addition to letting the members of the U.N. Security Council off the hook, the adoption of that type of resolution tells the world that the United States is ready to act unilaterally, to go it alone, and the Congress is not even willing to wait to see if the United Nations will act to follow the President's request and unite the world to enforce its resolutions before deciding we will go it alone. Moreover, by not limiting the authorization for the use of force at this time to the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, the White House resolution endorses the use of force for regime change and for a host of other purposes as minor as getting the return of Kuwaiti archives, which is a requirement of one of the U.N. resolutions which the White House resolution says we will go to war to enforce. That language saying we will use force for purposes other than the elimination of weapons of mass destruction separates us from the one nation that has been our most faithful and trusted ally, Great Britain. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear on numerous occasions that Great Britain's willingness to go to war with Iraq is to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why on Earth would we want to divorce ourselves from Great Britain? Even if we abandoned the effort to unite the world, why would we emphasize the only apparent difference that we have with Great Britain? But the most important question, in my opinion, is whether we decide to go it alone at this time, to go to war with or without the support of the world community. In my view, a go-it-alone approach, where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community, entails serious risks and could have serious consequences for us in the Middle East and around the world. It makes a difference. It makes a difference, when deciding to use force, whether or not the use of force has the support of the world community. If we go it alone, will we be able to secure the use of airbases, ports and supply bases, and overflight rights in that region? Those rights and those capabilities are so important to the success of a military operation against Saddam. If we go it alone, will there be a reduction in the broad international support for the war on terrorism, including the law enforcement, financial, and intelligence cooperation that is so essential? If we go it alone, will that destabilize an already volatile region, undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan, and possibly end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons? If we go it alone, if we go it without the support of the world community, will Saddam Hussein or his military commanders be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations in the region and against our military forces in response to our attack than would be the case if he faced a U.N.-authorized coalition, particularly if that coalition included Muslim nations as the coalition did during the gulf war? If we go it alone, will other nations view our action as a precedent for threatening unilateral military action against their neighbors in the future? If we go it alone, will we be undercutting efforts to get other countries to help us with the expensive, lengthy task of stabilizing Iraq after Saddam is removed? By seeking a U.N. resolution that will authorize U.N. member states to use force if Iraq does not comply with its terms, we are not giving the United Nations a veto. Rather, we are getting from the United Nations strength and international credibility and legitimacy, should military force be needed. The alternative resolution which I will offer is clear about the fact that we are not giving the U.N. a veto. We are just seeking support from the world community before we decide whether to go it alone. This is a similar approach to what Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently in an interview with David Frost. Prime Minister Blair is quoted as saying, ``I do not think that the U.N. will avoid the issue; but if they do, then we'll see at that time.'' In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee on September 23, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili addressed the issue of acting pursuant to a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorizes the use of force in the following manner: I am convinced that such a resolution would in fact be a powerful tool, and I say that for a number of reasons. First of all, we need to impress upon Saddam Hussein that he is not just facing the United States, but that he is facing the will of the majority of the world. We must also ensure that we have made it possible for as many of our friends and allies to join us. Some of them privately tell us they would do so, but that it's difficult for political, internal reasons, whatever, very difficult to do so without the United Nations having spoken on the issue. Some of them believe deeply that you should go to war only-- unless you're directly attacked--that you should go to war only with the sanction of the United Nations. Others just have that in their culture. Finally, I think it's important from a security point of view, because every time we undermine the credibility of the United Nations, we are probably hurting ourselves more than anyone else. We are a global Nation with global interests. And undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world. General Shalikashvili ended by stating, ``So I see nothing but value added for the United States to try our very best to get that kind of a resolution.'' General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added ``we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block.'' Those two former senior commanders were concerned, of course, not only with the diplomatic and political aspects of working through the United Nations, but also with the practical impact that not going through the United Nations would have on the actual conduct of a war. General Joseph Hoar, former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, the command with responsibility for the Middle East region, including Iraq, testified that: [[Page S9937]] And the Arab countries, while they are supporting us in private, have a serious problem in convincing their populations that this is the right thing to do. And so I believe that we have to give them top cover, as well, and we will do that with the United Nations. On an operational level, I would just point out this, that, for example, if you can't bring Saudi Arabia into the coalition to be able to use, at a minimum, air space, but, ideally air bases as well, the complications associated with carrying out a military campaign will grow exponentially. We need them. We need a broad base. We need it for the political reasons as well as the military reasons that we all understand. It will make the whole job a great deal easier. And, in the long run, as Wes (General Clark) said, in our relationship with these countries in the future, it will expedite and ease our ability to do business after the military campaign is over. General Hoar's testimony points out the practical problems that result if we are using military force against Iraq without the support of the world community. The Saudi Foreign Minister has stated that if there was a Security Council Resolution backing military action, all United Nations members would have to honor it. But he made clear that Saudi Arabia remained opposed in principle to a unilateral attack by the United States. The inability to use Saudi airspace--no less Saudi air bases--would be a major impediment to the use of military force against Iraq. The position of European allies need to be considered as well. As the Washington Post reported last Monday, a senior European official responding to the United States going it alone, said ``A lot of Europeans would feel they'd been put in an intolerable position.'' For those who would agree to participate militarily, ``it would be less a coalition of the willing than of the dragooned.'' That says a lot. It is very important that we carefully consider the short-term and the long-term effects of unilateral action by the United States, and whether we need to make a decision on that at this point when we should be pressing all of our energies for United Nations action, and--as my alternative resolution does--letting the United Nations know we are ready to enforce their resolution. My alternative resolution specifically authorizes the use of American forces in support of a United Nations resolution. My alternative doesn't wait to see what the United Nations will do. My resolution puts the focus on getting the United Nations to act, and says in advance to the United Nations that we will authorize military force and use it in support of the resolution that we are seeking. It is very different than waiting for the United Nations to act, which, in fact, is what we did during the gulf war. This body didn't vote on authorizing military force until after the United Nations authorized member states to use force. My alternative resolution is stronger than that. It is a strong message to the United Nations. We are so committed to your acting to enforce your resolution and to authorize member states to enforce those resolutions with military force--we are so committed to that course and we believe it is so important that we force Saddam Hussein to open up to inspections and to disarm, we are so committed to that--that this Congress in my alternative resolution authorizes U.S. military force now in the expectation and the hope and the belief that you as a United Nations body will authorize member nations to act. This alternative approach--called The Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002--provides for the use of force pursuant to a subsequent United Nations Security Council resolution that authorizes United Nations member states to use force. It withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone unilaterally against Iraq. It doesn't preclude that. Should the President call us back into session and seek that authority, it does not preclude that at all. If we authorize the use of our military forces on a go-it-alone basis at this time--at the time we are seeking United Nations support--we will send the wrong message to the United Nations. Telling the United Nations that, if you do not enforce your resolutions, we will, not only send an inconsistent message, but it lets the United Nations off the hook. We should be seeking to unite the world against Saddam Hussein and not divide it. The best chance of having Saddam Hussein comply is when he looks down the barrel of a gun and sees the world at the other end, and not just the United States. So our focus should be securing a United Nations resolution that can unite the world; that has the best chance of forcing compliance; that reduces the risk to our forces and to our interests throughout the world; that avoids to the maximum extent possible the negative consequences, if force is required, including the loss of cooperation on the war on terrorism; and that has the best chance of isolating Saddam Hussein rather than isolating the United States. This resolution, again, does not determine that we will not go it alone if the United Nations does not authorize the use of force. It withholds judgment on that very difficult and very different issue. But it says in that case, if the United Nations does not act, that the President can convene us quickly in order to seek authorization for going it alone should the United Nations not act in a prompt way. The vote that we take may have significant consequences for our children and our grandchildren. I believe our security is enhanced when we seek the authority and the credibility of the United Nations, and if military force is required, that it is used with the full support of the world community. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first compliment my good friend from Michigan. He is one of the more thoughtful Members of this body, addressing a very grave issue. Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002 Mr. President, as we debate the degree to which the United States and the Congress should be giving authorization to the President of the United States to commit military action, a decision which affects all of us as Americans, I also want to point out there is another group of people whom we have neglected, and that is our armed services personnel, in many of the provisions of the Tax Code. I am now going to explain several provisions of a tax bill we passed last night which will have a very direct, positive effect on millions of Americans individuals, and those are our men and women serving in our Armed Forces and our Foreign Service. For several months, the Finance Committee has been working on tax legislation that would affect the individuals who fight our country's wars. As our Nation responded to the attacks on 9/11, as military personnel went through Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and to break apart the al-Qaida network, Senator Grassley and I began looking at how the Tax Code affects those who defend our national security. We consulted first with Senator Cleland, who chairs the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. He and his staff pointed out several areas where the tax law had not kept up with changes in military compensation. We reviewed military tax legislation that was introduced by various Senators, including Senator McCain and Senator DeWine. We listened to the problems that other Senators had identified through discussions with their constituents. I went back home to my State, Montana, to Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, to meet with military leadership there. I also worked with Major General Prendergast of the Montana National Guard. He provided a great deal of assistance as we crafted this package. The Finance Committee met with the Armed Services Committee leadership, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, to discuss these proposals. The result is, last night the Senate unanimously passed the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002. I come to the Chamber today to explain this bill in a little more detail, to pay tribute to the men and women who serve in our military and Foreign Service, and to pay tribute to the Senators who helped shape this legislation. I will begin with military death gratuity payments. In 1986, the U.S. Government paid death gratuity payments to the families of military personnel who died in the line of duty. That was $3,000. Prior to 1991, none of that was taxable income to the estate. [[Page S9938]] In 1991, the Congress increased the gratuity death benefit to $6,000, and, regrettably, we failed to exclude all of that from taxable income. So $3,000 of that death gratuity was treated as taxable income. So the proposal we passed last night is one that restores the full tax exclusion of the death benefit gratuity. So now when the $6,000 is paid to the family of the deceased military personnel, all $6,000 is paid tax free. Another provision applies to the exclusion-of-gain on the sale of a principal residence. The general rule, prior to 1997, for most taxpayers, is that they would have the gain on their home excluded, so long as they replaced their home within 2 years after its sale, so long as the principal place of their residence was established 2 years after the sale. We provided a break for the military at that time, prior to 1997, and that is, the military personnel could replace their home within up to 8 years. They were given an additional 6-year period within which to replace their home and still get the full exclusion from the gain on their home. In 1997, Congress changed the law with respect to exclusion of gain on the sale of a principal residence. The new law provided that the taxpayer must live in a home for at least 2 years of the 5 years preceding the sale of that home. That has been the standard rule since 1997. The Congress, however, neglected to make this special change for our military personnel, neglecting to recognize that military personnel travel a lot more, which is not of their choice, because of their military orders as to where they are stationed. So the general rule has been the same for them, and it has made it very difficult for them, because sometimes they cannot live in their principal residence, their home, for 2 years of the preceding 5 years to get the full exclusion. So what we have done is this, essentially. We have suspended the 2 years out of 5 rule for military personnel when they are on active duty or when they are in the line of duty, stationed someplace else around the world, someplace different from their principal residence. It is suspended during that period. So when they come back to their principal residence, then the 2 out of 5 years begins to apply. So it is much more fair to military personnel now, so they will also, in effect, as with other taxpayers, be able to get the full exclusion from the sale of their principal home so long as they live there 2 of the 5 years. Another change is the Military Homeowners Assistance Program. Under current law, the homeowners in the military, who stay at a base that has changed because of BRAC--the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--sometimes experience a loss in the value of their home. The results of BRAC recommendations--they either close a military installation or substantially change a military installation--have the effect of changing the value of the home of someone in the military. Here is an example of what happens today. Let's say the value of a home prior to the BRAC decision was $140,000. Then the sale price, after the announcement of the BRAC decision, fell to $100,000; the loss, obviously, being $40,000 on that home. Currently, the U.S. Government, the military, in what is called the Military Homeowners Assistance Plan, will reimburse that person in the Army, the Air Force, the Navy. It is a formula. In this example, the reimbursement would be $30,000 out of the $40,000 loss. Unfortunately, under current law, that $30,000 law is fully taxable income to someone in the military. So what we have done is said: No, none of that military reimbursement is taxable. It is not taxable. Another change is this. We have extended the filing delay rules to contingency operations. So now it will not only be for combat zones but also for contingency operations. What does that mean? That means, when someone in the military is overseas, currently, if he or she is in a combat zone, that person gets to file a delayed filing date of 180 days after departure to file his or her tax return. We are extending this to apply to not only combat zones but also to contingency operations when military personnel are sent overseas. Next we are changing the tax treatment with respect to our Reserve officers--Army Guard, Air Guard,--when they are on reserve, when they are off in training, so that they are not penalized for the expenses they have incurred when they were in training. This is above-the-line deductions for overnight travel expenses of National Guard and Reserve members. For example, let's say Reserve Sergeant Jones--basically the rank would be E-5--is on a weekend drill. His take-home pay would be $200. His weekend drill expenses might be $65 for travel, roughly $110 for lodging, and meals for $25, also totaling $200. That is not reimbursed. That is an expense that the reservist or the person in the National Guard has to incur him or herself. That is not reimbursed. So we are saying, OK, we will take that full cost of overnight travel expenses, and that will be an above-the-line deduction from that person's taxable income. That is an above-the-line deduction. The expenses are deducted above the line. We have two more items. Another change in legislation that passed last night, essentially, is to extend the definition of Qualified Veterans' Organizations. Today, the membership test is 75 percent of the members--let's say, the American Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars,--75 percent of the membership has to be present or past military personnel. That is current law. In addition, substantially all of the members must be military or spouses or widowers of the members. The trouble is, a lot of military organizations, a lot of these organizations, veterans organizations, would like to expand the definition of membership to include ancestors and lineal descendants, and we have done that with the law that was passed last night. Finally, we are clarifying the treatment of childcare subsidies. Currently, the military reimburses half the childcare expense. That is basically a subsidy. Let's say on average a subsidized benefit for two children is $7,700. The current exclusion for childcare subsidies today is $5,000. That is the limit. No more than $5,000 can be excluded from a person's income to date generally. We are now clarifying the law so that for military personnel, the childcare subsidy portion of 50 percent is fully excluded from taxable income. I believe these changes will go a long way. I thank my colleagues for making tax law more fair to military personnel. We have neglected them over the years. This makes the laws much more fair to them. After all, they are serving us, helping make this country continue to be the greatest country on earth. We are deeply indebted to all of them. I thank Senators who helped with this legislation, provided ideas, who worked with us to make sure these are in a form that should be enacted into law. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Education Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I have every day and will every day we are in session, I will make a few remarks, and then ask unanimous consent to go to the education appropriations bill, to bring it up so we can debate it and get the funding out there for our schools. I have warned the Republican side, I said every day I am here, I am going to ask unanimous consent to bring it up. Our schools need this money. If we go to a continuing resolution, we could lose up to $1 billion in funding for special education. We could lose up to $700 million in title I so we can really help our schools truly leave no child behind. Pell grants for our kids going to college, there is an increase in the education funding bill for middle-class kids to go to college under the Pell grant system. That will not be there for them, either, if we go into a continuing resolution. Again, the Republicans are holding up funding of education. I don't know why. I have heard all these speeches about the President going around the country, banging on the podium, saying he wants the Congress to act. Well, we are here to act. We are here to move. The education funding bill passed the subcommittee unanimously. It passed the full committee unanimously. [[Page S9939]] I have tried for 2 or 3 days in a row to bring it up. Yet every time I try to bring it up, there is an objection from the Republican side to moving to the education appropriations funding bill. I will ask unanimous consent again to bring this up today. I see we don't have any Republicans on the floor right now. I see my colleague from Oregon waiting to speak also on another topic. I know Senate comity requires we have at least someone from the other side on the floor before propounding a unanimous consent request. I have said repeatedly, every day I am here I will be offering this, so it should come as no surprise to the Republicans I am trying to bring up a unanimous consent request to move to the education appropriations bill. I will hold off a couple of minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon, and then when one of the Republicans shows up on the floor, we could interrupt his speaking to move to my unanimous consent request at that point in time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus, who I know has a unanimous consent request to make at this time--and then I could follow him for my remarks--I would like to let Senator Baucus make his unanimous consent request at this time, and then per my unanimous consent request, when Senator Baucus has completed, I would then make my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3018 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3018, a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security Act; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements thereon be printed in the Record at the appropriate place. I might say before I put the question to the Chair, as Senator Harkin has said, there are no Members of the body on the other side, the Republican side, who I know, if here, would object. This has been cleared on the Democratic side. This is the Medicare give-back bill. It has been cleared on the Democratic side. I might say in all fairness--here he is. I was going to say, the failure of someone to appear is tantamount to an objection from the other side. I will repeat the request for the benefit of my good friend and colleague from Oklahoma. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3018, a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security Act, the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements thereon be printed at the appropriate place in the Record. Before putting that request to the Chair, again, I add, this has been cleared on this side. Nobody on the Democratic side objects to this unanimous consent request. So I put the request to the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might ask my friend and colleague from Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, I am just wondering--I happen to be a Member of the committee. I can't remember a markup--did we mark up this bill in committee? Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are so few days ramaining in this session that in order to help American hospitals, American doctors, beneficiaries who desperately need this bill, and with so little time remaining, as chairman of the committee I feel I have an obligation to the people of Montana to get this legislation up and passed. There are so few days remaining. We are on the Iraq resolution, which is going to take a lot of time. We are on homeland security, which is not passed. We have all the appropriations bills not passed. As a service to the people of the State of Montana, as a service to the American people, and because this is a bill Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, and I have worked out together, working with all Members of the committee, trying to find an agreement, which Senator Grassley and I do have, an agreement to the provisions of this bill, this is by far the most efficient and best way to get the help to the people in our States who need this legislation passed. Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, I am a little disgruntled. I am a Member of that committee. I had some issues. Senator Sessions wanted me to work with him to do something for the wage index for rural areas. I understand that is not in the bill. I had a provision I wanted to do dealing with the outpatient prospective payment system. I understand that is not in the bill. There was nothing done on prescription drugs. Senator Snowe and many of us wanted to do something this year. We never had a markup on that issue in the Finance Committee. So waiting until the last minute, we have known, frankly, of the necessity to do some type of adjustment. The House passed some of these provisions months ago. The Senate, to never have a markup, never to schedule one even in the Finance Committee, to debate and let all Members--not one and maybe two Members--to offer amendments, to come up with a Medicare adjustment bill, I think, is not letting the Senate work. To come up and say we introduced a bill--correct me if I am wrong, I believe it was placed on the calendar Wednesday, and on Friday they want to pass it without letting somebody offer other amendments. That is not allowing the Senate to work its will as it should. I happen to have waited many years to be on the Finance Committee. I waited for a purpose. I thought it was such a prestigious committee because it dealt with issues I like dealing with--Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Social Security, and taxes. Not to be able to do a markup on bills such as this, on which almost always we would have a markup--we would have a bipartisan consensus and maybe then it could pass by unanimous consent through the Senate. But I don't think we did anything on the wage index for rural areas or on the outpatient payment system. I know we didn't do anything on prescription drugs. So, regretfully, at this point, unless there is--I ask my colleague, how much does this bill cost? (Mrs. LINCOLN assumed the Chair.) Mr. BAUCUS. In answer to the question, my good friend knows that October 1 has come and gone. That means 15 percent of home health care provisions that we have to address--large nursing home cuts--the so- called ``cliff'' that we have to address--and teaching hospital provisions, and after October 1, we have to move. I also say to my good friend from Oklahoma that the ranking Republican on the committee and I spent a lot of time talking with staffs of Senators on both sides, including that of the Senator from Oklahoma--all Senators on the committee and their staffs. This is the bill we all agree on, Senator Grassley agreed to. This has been worked out very thoroughly, and it has been around a long time. The Senator well knows the provisions of the bill. There was a selective error on one--that is, we do address the wage index factor. Most importantly, this has to pass quickly to help our people. The cost of the bill is $43 billion over 10 years. Mr. NICKLES. It is $43 billion over 10 years. If the Senator will yield further, what is the cost over 2 or 3 years? Mr. BAUCUS. I don't have that estimate because we have been dealing with 10-year figures here. So it is calculated over 10 years. They are very good provisions. When this comes up for a vote, in whatever form, it is going to get a large vote. Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, the bill was introduced, I believe, on Monday. It was printed in the Record, I believe, on Tuesday or Wednesday. Many of us--most all Senators, including most on the Finance Committee--have not had a chance to look at the bill. I don't believe it dealt with the wage index for rural areas, at least satisfactorily to Senator Sessions and myself. I don't believe it dealt with outpatients. I know it didn't deal with prescription drugs, which Senator Sessions and others want to deal with this year. We may be willing to do something, but before we pass bills by unanimous consent--introduce bills on Wednesday and say we want to pass them Friday-- [[Page S9940]] it is going to take a little more bipartisan work. There has not been enough of that. Maybe two Senators are in agreement on this bill in the committee. But other committee members are entitled to look at it and to have some input and have a little more of a chance to figure out what is in it. To introduce a bill or have it put on the calendar Wednesday and say we want to pass it on Friday by unanimous consent, I don't think is a proper way to legislate. Also, all of us have known October 1 was fast approaching. As I mentioned before, the House passed this months ago. There is no reason, in my opinion, to not have a markup in the full committee. There is no reason in my mind. We didn't have a markup on prescription drugs in the full committee. I don't think you should disenfranchise members of the committee, some of whom have waited a long time to be a member. For those reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Mr. HARKIN. While we are waiting, Madam President-- Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I know the Senator is concerned about a couple provisions, and I would like to clarify what the costs are. There are provisions here with respect to wage index for rural hospitals. We clearly want to do the best we can, and all these provisions cost a little bit of money. The provisions suggested by Senator Sessions would cost about $10 billion over 10 years. That will be in addition to the $43 billion that is already there. For the Senator's information, we did rough calculations for 2 years, and it would be about $10 billion for the cost of the bill. Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, you estimate the cost over 2 years to be $10 billion? Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. Mr. NICKLES. Let me work with my colleague. I may be willing to come back with a counteroffer in the not too distant future, pulling in a few other members of the Finance Committee and maybe the administration. I would like to see us do something this year in this area. It is not too late. I haven't had a chance to review the proposal that the chairman is trying to pass this morning. I am happy to look at it. I am happy to look at what others are trying to do. We may make a counteroffer in the not too distant future. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2766 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized. Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, turn to the consideration of S. 2766, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--the majority leader has the right to move to any bill he wants to move to. It is one of the prerogatives of the majority leader. If he wishes to move to the Labor-HHS bill, he has to set aside a few other bills. I happen to think we should finish the appropriations bill we started a month ago, the Department of Interior bill. If he really wants to move off the Interior bill and go to Labor-HHS, the majority leader can do that. I don't know what kind of games are being played. People are running to the floor saying, ``I want to pass this bill,'' and it never was marked up in committee or ``I want to pass this,'' and we want to do unemployment compensation. And some people said on the floor, oh, it is a straight extension, but it costs about three times as much as a straight extension. I have not figured out all the differences, but we find out it is much more expensive. It is not a good way to legislate. They say we are going to pass unemployment compensation legislation, and it was estimated by the proponents that it might cost $10 billion or $12 billion. Now I get estimates it is going to cost $18 billion. The proposal was made a moment ago to do Medicare adjustment, and the cost was estimated by the proponents at $43 billion. I have not even had a chance to look at it. So one proposal was $17 billion, dealing with unemployment. I guess this proposal by the chairman of the Finance Committee is $43 billion, and that is $60 billion. Most of the expenses are over the first couple of years, certainly on unemployment compensation, and I would think on the Medicare adjustment bill as well. And then on successive actions we have people running to the floor saying: I want to pass a unanimous consent, and I hope a Republican will object, and then we can say we didn't pass that bill because a Republican objected--not telling people, wait a minute, did these things go through committee? Do we have an idea how much they cost? That is a pretty crummy way to legislate. The fiscal year just began October 1, but we didn't know it was going to come, so we will go to the floor. I have made umpteen speeches this month as to why are we not marking up bills and passing the Interior bill. We should have passed the Interior bill in 2 days. We got stuck on a provision dealing with fire management. Several Senators said they wanted to have flexibility on how to deal with fire in their own States. The Senator from South Dakota got a fix in for his State. They are able to do it in South Dakota. I compliment him, but shouldn't the rest of the West be able to have fire management tools to get out some of the dead timber so they don't have such enormous fires? That is what several Senators have asked. Yet we have not even been able to get a vote on that proposal. If you were managing a bill in days past, you would have an amendment, and you would vote on it. If you didn't like it, you moved to table it. We didn't do either of those. We just let the bill amble along and take up the entire month of September. Then we have the Department of Homeland Security. I do not know if we are any closer today than we were when we started the day after Labor Day. We are on that bill now for the fifth week. People are running to the Chamber saying: We need to pass an appropriations bill; we are just going to do it by unanimous consent. That is a pretty crummy way to legislate. We did not know we were running out of time; we did not know October 1 was coming; we did not know it was the beginning of the fiscal year. There is gross ineptitude as far as management of the appropriations process and the budget process. I used to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. I still am a member of the Budget Committee. It is the first time since 1974 that we have not passed a budget. Because we did not pass a budget, unfortunately, it has really clogged up the appropriations process. Now the Interior bill is back on the calendar. We have homeland security, which the majority leader promised the President we would pass. We thought we would pass it before the August break. We have not done it, and we are well into October. Now we are on the Iraq resolution and, hopefully, we will be able to conclude that shortly. I happen to be one who wants to do the appropriations bills, but the majority leader is the one who sets the agenda, and he is the one who calls up the appropriations bills, not individual Senators calling them up and saying: I have my bill; let's pass it today. No one gets to look at it; no one gets to know how much is in it. No one gets to know whether it is signable or not. The bill the chairman of the Finance Committee is promoting today has a lot of provisions that I am sure a lot of Senators want. I would like to get a bill the President will sign. I would like to get a bill that does not bust the budget. I would like to get a bill that is responsible. Maybe we can do that. I am willing to work with colleagues. But if you are going to come to the floor and pass a bill dealing with an unemployment compensation extension, it is going to take unanimous consent. We are not going to be able to pass a bill that costs $17 billion or $18 billion when we might be able to do a straight adjustment for $5 billion or $6 billion. It is the same for the Medicare adjustment bill. It is going to have to be a unanimous consent package that all people sign off on, not just two, and all members of the Finance Committee should have a chance to review it and say: Yes, this is a good package. I will work with my colleagues. We pass a lot of legislation by unanimous consent, but it takes bipartisan cooperation to do it. I do not think we have seen evidence of that enough. I [[Page S9941]] hope we will see it in the next few days as we conclude this very unproductive year in this session. Madam President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Oregon is recognized. Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana speak next to respond and then, per my unanimous consent request, I will make my comments following those of the Senator from Montana. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Objection was heard to the prior request. Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my friend. We are down to the last several days. It is important we all work together. As we all know, under Senate rules, that number 60 means a lot, particularly with so few days remaining, not knowing exactly how many days remain, but we all know there are not many of them. It is important we all work together. I thought it unfortunate the Senator used the words ``gross ineptitude'' in managing the budget process and the appropriations process. I am sure he did not really mean that because, in the spirit of comity, in working these issues out, the Senator well knows both sides are trying to work out solutions, and sometimes there are Senators on both sides who have their particular views which tend to impede or slow down the work of the majority. That happens on both sides of the aisle. I urge we work together and find ways. Honey attracts more than vinegar, we all know that. I am trying to figure out a way to get more honey around here and a little less vinegar so we can do what we all want to do. I know the Senator agrees with that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I appreciate my colleagues's remarks. He mentioned 60 as a magic number. At this point, 100 is the magic number. So it takes a lot of bipartisan work and cooperation to get things done because right now we have to do a lot of legislation by unanimous consent. I think my statement of gross ineptitude in dealing with the budget process is probably pretty accurate. I was not defining any one Senator, but we have not passed a budget. That is a pretty significant failing. We have passed one every year I have been in the Senate for the last 22 years. It is never easy but is always done. Because we did not get a budget done this year, we do not have the appropriations bills done. It has led to a whole chain of failures. This is the first year--you have to give Congress an F in the appropriations-budget process. We have not sent to the President one appropriations bill, other than a continuing resolution. Not one. I hope we can break that train. I hope we can pass several appropriations bills, certainly the Department of Defense, and I hope others, but we are going to have to move much more rapidly. The majority leader is going to have to call them up. I hope maybe we can change and have a more productive week. I hope it is just a week and not 2 weeks. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. NICKLES. Yes. Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if the Senator can make a telephone call to the other body and have them send over appropriations bills so we can pass them over here--they have not sent over appropriations bills yet--in the spirit of comity. Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to urge my friends and colleagues in the House to pass more appropriations bills, but frankly, they are reticent to do so because the Senate is working off much different numbers than the House. Always before, when we passed a budget, ultimately the House and the Senate worked off similar numbers, the same gross numbers. So there is a reason the House is reluctant to pass bills because they are going to pass them at lower figures than the Senate, and they feel as if that puts them at a disadvantage when they go to conference. I do not know that I agree with that. I know Senator Harkin was on the floor wanting to pass Labor-HHS. The House has not passed Labor- HHS. I never believed constitutionally that we had to wait on the House. Some people have made that argument, but that is not constitutional. The Senate does not have to wait on the House of Representatives to pass an appropriations bill--a tax bill, yes, not an appropriations bill. Mr. BAUCUS. That is the point I was going to make, revenue bills, yes. Appropriations bills are not required in the Constitution. However, it has been a matter of tradition for years. Mr. NICKLES. I understand. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Business of the Senate Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I had intended to talk on energy, but since our good friend, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, is here and talking about getting the important business of the Senate done in the last few days, I wish to reflect for a minute on how we are in these delays, particularly on issues such as homeland security. I note that the New York Times this morning points out that on the homeland security bill--and I am going to quote from an editorial in the New York Times: . . . the Democrats have made key concessions on personnel management for the department in recent weeks that give the administration almost everything it wants. It is clear Senators on this side are very anxious to attack the serious questions that are before this country. This editorial really sums it up. They point out literally that Democrats have practically done somersaults to address these important questions that colleagues on the other side and the administration have with respect to homeland security, and this morning in one editorial in the New York Times, they say on the other side of the aisle there is an inexcusable filibuster taking place on a measure that is of great importance to this country as we struggle to win this war against terrorism. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Impasse Over Homeland Security The prospect of war so dominates Washington that vital elements of the campaign against terrorism have fallen by the wayside. One victim is the drive to establish a new Homeland Security Department by consolidating disparate parts of the government into an agency to protect Americans from attack. Such a department has widespread support in Congress, but President Bush is foolishly holding up its creation by demanding complete freedom to hire and fire those working there. He claims that such power is needed to run the department properly. There is no basis for such a claim. Moreover, the Democrats have made key concessions on personnel management for the department in recent weeks that give the administration almost everything it wants. Yet Mr. Bush and his Republican allies are inexcusably filibustering a homeland measure that has a majority of votes in the Senate. For months after Sept. 11 last year, Mr. Bush and the Republicans adamantly opposed efforts to create a department for domestic security. When support for such a measure grew, the White House shifted tactics. Behind closed doors it wrote a bill that would give radical powers to the president to hire, fire and punish employees without due process and to hire people from the outside without respect to Civil Service rules. Since there were no consultations with the departments being consolidated, it was obvious that this demand came more from ideology than from a careful look at what was needed to run the new department. A group of conservative Democrats has joined with Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, to give Mr. Bush substantially what he wants. The bill would confer on him the power to decertify union affiliation for any federal workers because of national security concerns, but it would require him to declare that their mission had changed in a way that justified such a move. This is a wholly reasonable limitation. The bill would also give the new agency head more flexibility than now available to offer raises, shift someone's job or punish an employee. But it would also require a good-faith effort to consult with the employee or union and submit any disagreements to a federal panel whose members would all be appointed by him. In trying to eliminate even these narrow limits on presidential prerogative, Mr. Bush has accused the Democrats of putting ``special interests''--by which he means unions and workers--above the nation's security. But one might equally argue that Mr. Bush, in refusing to compromise, is making the nation's security secondary to the administration's union-busting conservatism. If the [[Page S9942]] homeland security bill goes down, it will kill not only a vital consolidation of federal agencies but also such measures as an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks and increased funding to protect container ports against possible nuclear bombs. In the waning weeks of this session, Mr. Bush should compromise for the sake of one of the nation's most urgent priorities. Energy Policy Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as our country faces the possibility of war with Iraq, one of the most patriotic steps our Nation can take is to change our energy policy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Today, more than half of our Nation's oil is imported from overseas. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would reduce threats to our Nation's economy and security, whether from enemies who would do us harm, like Saddam Hussein, or simply the greed of the OPEC cartel. If Congress passes an energy bill that truly reduces our dependence on imported oil, that would be important. It would be a strategic security action. Reducing our dependence on oil imports would clearly strengthen our energy and our national security. It would provide an additional measure of economic security. Reducing oil imports also strengthens our economy by reducing our vulnerability to shortages and price spikes. And it would be patriotic. As our Nation does face the possibility of war, this would reduce our vulnerability to one of the enemy's most powerful weapons. So far this year, the United States has been importing more than 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq. How does the energy bill currently in the House-Senate conference reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our Nation's security? The short answer is it does not do enough. The best way to reduce our dependence on imported oil is, in fact, to take specific steps that do that. That is the critical yardstick--my guess is a lot of Americans might call it a dipstick--that could be used for measuring the importance of any energy bill that Congress passes. I happen to think the best place to look for those energy savings is in the transportation sector. All the evidence shows the best place to look is in the transportation sector with the cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles all of us drive each day. By that measure, the conference has basically left us stalled by the side of the road. At a time when the fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. Think about that: At a time when fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. That is doing virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bottom line, when one looks at all of the fuel economy provisions together, as far as I can tell by the energy conference at this point, this country would actually be increasing consumption of gasoline by billions of gallons. Where is that oil going to come from to meet the increased demand for gasoline that I think will be required by the conference as the bill is written now? It is not going to come from the United States. Our Nation has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world. Almost two- thirds of the reserves come, in fact, from the Middle East. Instead of reducing dependence on foreign oil, the energy conference has adopted provisions that would increase consumption and, my guess is, increase imports from the Middle East. Better fuel economy could have saved millions of barrels of oil a day, almost as much as U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. The energy conference not only has missed the boat as far as reducing oil imports, it missed the supertanker when it failed to adopt an increased fuel economy standard. Passing the right kind of energy bill, in fact, would advance our Nation's energy security, our economic vitality, and our strategic interests. I fear Congress may pass legislation that has the word ``energy'' in the title but does little or nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That will not strengthen our national security. That will not strengthen our economic security, and it is going to send the wrong message around the world to all of those who would use oil as a weapon against the United States of America. There are those who are going to try to claim the energy bill could meet all the goals if only the Congress opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But even if Congress authorized drilling today, the oil produced would be too little too late to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Even the rosiest scenarios show if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is open to drilling, it would provide only a 6-month supply of oil, and it would take about 10 years to even do that. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is certainly a risky proposition. The U.S. Geological Survey, in their most likely scenario, estimates a profitable yield of just 2 billion barrels. If that is the case, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, at peak production, would supply no more than 1 percent of America's projected daily petroleum needs. By comparison, the National Academy of Sciences says the fuel economy savings needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be achieved using existing technologies. That is the choice, use existing technologies, technologies today that are available in Arkansas, Oregon, Montana, and around this country, something we can look to now to stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, or look at risky scenarios that do not produce a whole lot and take a long time to do it like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Our country urgently needs an energy policy that meets our national security needs and our economic needs, especially as the prospect of war with Iraq looms on the horizon. If the energy conference can produce a bill that actually does it, I think one of the most patriotic steps the Congress can take now is to pass that legislation. If Congress cannot come up with an energy bill that actually meets those challenges, maybe there should not be an energy bill at all. That is not what I want. I want a bill that takes away the weapons of those around the world who are using oil against this country. That is one of the key challenges we face. As I go home to Oregon--I am sure this is true in Arkansas, Montana, and all of our States--I see such extraordinary patriotism at this time. The people of our country understand we face extraordinary threats around the world, and I want us to come together to show that we understand how strongly we feel about the concerns of our citizens and that we identify with the patriotism that we see in our communities every day. One of the most patriotic steps that can be taken now is to change our energy policy, stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, and to actually pass energy legislation that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. negotiations regarding a u.s.-chile free trade agreement Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to discuss the trade negotiations that are currently taking place with Chile. Let me get straight to the point. We worked tirelessly this year to reinvigorate our trade agenda by passing the Trade Act of 2002. This legislation includes, as most people know, an extension of fast track negotiating authority-- something which was stalled for nearly a decade. We were able to pass that legislation only after agreeing on a delicate balance for new trade negotiations--particularly on the issues of labor and environment, investment, trade laws, and congressional consultations. The first test of this new legislation will likely be the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Those negotiations are in the final stages--and they are down to some of the most controversial issues. Let me say at the outset--I have been an advocate for trade negotiations with Chile for several years. And as recently as several weeks ago, I felt confident about this agreement. Most importantly, the President had just signed the Trade Act, which lays out Congress's goals regarding new agreements. That legislation passed with bipartisan support, particularly in the Senate. At the same time, an agreement with Chile makes sense--it is, first and foremost, an important trading partner. [[Page S9943]] Last year we exported over $3 billion worth of goods to Chile. And with an agreement, our opportunities should increase. Completing an agreement with Chile will also increase pressure on other countries in the region, particularly Brazil, to let go of their protectionist tendencies, and instead work toward their own agreements with the United States. Because a free trade agreement with Chile seemed substantively promising, I really viewed it as a major opportunity. Here is a chance, I thought, to take this great trade bill we passed, and use it to regain some momentum on trade--to move beyond the arguments of the past. I now fear that some in the administration, and frankly some of my colleagues, may be squandering this opportunity. On issues that were critical to passing this bill--congressional consultations, labor, environment, and investment--some seem bent on clawing back the progress that has been made. Let me begin with consultations, and by that I mean real congressional participation in trade policy an equal partnership. During negotiations of the trade bill, there was a clear understanding that congressional trade advisors would be able to observe negotiations. Yet just last week I sought to send one of my staff to observe--simply observe--negotiation between the U.S. and Chile. Ambassador Zoellick declined this request. The argument the administration makes is separation of powers. But, as Justice Jackson famously remarked, the Constitution ``enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.'' We need some reciprocity to make the fast track deal work. The administration when criticized about consultations seems fond of recounting a list of times they have met with Congress. But these statistics have little meaning. The test of consultations is not the number of meetings; it is the willingness to hear substantive input and have that input reflected in trade negotiations. Similarly, we in Congress certainly expect that the administration will allow us to see negotiating documents far enough in advance to have a meaningful opportunity to comment. That means there must be enough time for reasonable congressional suggestions to be incorporated into U.S. negotiating potions. In the first test, the results were mixed. On the highly charged issue of investment, a proposal was shared, but only one day before the latest round of negotiations with Chile were to begin. That is clearly not enough time to provide Congress with the opportunity to carefully consider and suggest revisions. These actions undermine confidence. Why would the administration be so concerned about Congress merely observing negotiations? Why are they reluctant to share documents with Congress that they plan to share with foreign governments? It suggests, perhaps unnecessarily that there is something to hide. The bottom line is this: There is no substitute for first-hand information. There is no substitute for seeing and evaluating events through your own eyes. And having this greater transparency in the process could have many benefits--better relations between the Hill and the White House, better agreements, and, I believe, a better likelihood that agreements will pass. Given the benefits, I cannot for the life of me understand why the administration would not make more of an effort to engage Members of Congress early in the process. In the trade act we also hammered out a clear direction to the administration to follow the so-called Jordan standard on labor and environment issues--that is, non-derogation from existing laws and equal access to dispute settlement. Senator Grassley and I agreed on this--it was key to moving forward-- and we spelled this out very clearly in the Finance Committee report. In fact, just so everyone understands this point, let me read the exact provision in the report that Senator Grassley and I authored: The provisions on labor and environment standards are ``based upon the trade and labor and trade and environment provisions found in articles 5 and 6 of the United States- Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Those provisions (including their coverage by the Agreement's general dispute settlement procedures) have come to be known as the ``Jordan standard.'' They seek to ensure that a country does not promote exports or attract investment by lowering or relaxing the enforcement of its environmental and labor laws. The agreement with Jordan accomplishes this through several commitments, which the present bill directs negotiators to pursue in ongoing and future trade negotiations. To me, this is not ambiguous. Yet there are indications that both the administration and some of my colleagues would now like to ignore this clear direction in the Trade Act. They do so at the risk of losing support--including my support--for future agreements. Finally, let me address the issue of investment. As many will recall, this was one of the most contentious issues in the Senate debate on the trade bill. The question is, in setting rules for arbitration between investors and governments, how do we balance the interests of U.S. investors abroad with the interests of Federal, State and local regulation here at home? In the trade act, we laid out a blueprint for achieving that balance. The objectives we set in this area include: Mechanisms for prompt dismissal of frivolous claims; Clearer definitions of key terms--such as ``expropriation''--based on U.S. legal principles and practice; and The establishment of an appellate body to review arbitration decisions in investment disputes and bring coherence to the interpretation of investment provisions. I am cautiously optimistic about the administration's approach to implementing these objectives. Early consultations suggest that Congress's instructions were understood. The one issue on which I have particular concern is the appellate body. It is perhaps the most important aspect of the objective on investment. An appellate body will help ensure that erroneous conclusions of law are corrected and that text is interpreted consistently from one case to the next. Given the potential for investor suits to challenge legitimate policies designed to promote the public welfare, it is crucial that the decisions in these cases ``get it right.'' I realize that establishing an appellate body is a big task. It is something new. The closest analogy under current investor-state dispute settlement rules is what is known as ``nullification.'' In certain circumstances, a party may ask to have an arbitration award ``nullified'' by a court or other competent body. However, the standard for nullification is extraordinarily high. The question is not whether the arbitrator got it right, but rather, whether the arbitration process itself was fundamentally tainted. We need something more than nullification review. We need an institution that will take a fresh look at arbitrators' conclusions of law and decide whether they got it right. It may be that we will not be able to build a new appellate body for investor-state dispute settlement in the context of the Chile agreement over the course of the next few months. However, it is my expectation that our negotiators will continue this endeavor beyond the formal initialing of that agreement, and that they will secure Chile's commitment to that endeavor. I want to make it clear that any first steps short of true appellate review included in the U.S.-Chile Agreement should be understood as just that--first steps. The trade act's objective requires that we go further. An agreement with Chile can be one of two things--if supported by a large bipartisan majority, it can put us on the right track for other agreements--agreements with Singapore and Morocco, agreements for hemispheric free trade. It can even help us achieve success in the WTO. Or this agreement can become a political battleground--where those in Congress who were promised a partnership of equals in trade policy feel duped. Where commitments to agreements that reflect strong labor and environmental standards go unrealized. I hope that I can strongly support an agreement with Chile--I want to. And I know many of my colleagues who voted for the trade act also want to. But I [[Page S9944]] would caution the administration that they have responsibilities to Congress under this Act. And so far, they seem willing to play fast and loose with those responsibilities. I say respectfully that they continue that path at their peril. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was privileged 2 days ago to join on the floor with my esteemed colleague, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senator Bayh and Senator McCain when the four of us introduced the resolution which is the pending resolution before the body. We came together as a foursome, sort of, under the following circumstances. Senator Lieberman and I, in 1991, were the principal cosponsors of the resolution which authorized President George Herbert Walker Bush to institute the use of force with the U.S. men and women in uniform together with numbers of uniformed individuals from the coalition that he, President Bush, had put together in the fall of 1990 and early 1991. I had talked with Senators Lieberman and McCain about this forthcoming resolution, which our President requested. I happened to be among the Senate leadership in the Cabinet Room when he spoke to us about a month or so ago indicating he would want the Congress to provide a resolution, given the growing crisis that the world faces with Saddam Hussein and his threatened use of weapons of mass destruction. I think our President has shown extraordinary leadership in this crisis. I remember vividly the fall of 1990 and 1991 as the buildup was taking place. But that buildup was taking place against the background of the clear, unwarranted, blatant use of force by Saddam Hussein against the people of Kuwait. Together with a number of our colleagues, I visited that region several times. Ever so vivid is my memory of the burning oilfields, of the capital of Kuwait severely damaged. It was something that was indelibly emblazoned in my mind. The purpose of this resolution is to show the resolve of the Congress of the United States, show the resolve of other nations, not to let that happen again. People say: Where is the smoking gun? Let's hope we do not have a smoking gun. In other words, that gun will not have been fired, leaving a trail of smoke, as it was in 1990 and 1991. The rapid development of technology in the decade-plus since that conflict undergirds the decision now to bring together a coalition of nations and for the Congress to speak with one voice with our President to try to avoid a conflict. Each day, I watch our President address this issue. Wherever he is traveling in the United States, time and time again he reminds the people: The last option is the use of force and war. Throughout the history of the world, famous military leaders, George Washington and others, have said the best way to avoid war is to show clearly the preparations and the ability and the willingness to fight. Through the centuries, that has proven to be the most effective way to deter war. It is the desire of our President, it is the desire of everyone privileged to serve in the Senate, and indeed in the House of Representatives, to avoid war. But through the leadership of our President, he has brought to the attention not only of the people of the United States but to the people of the entire world the threat posed today by Saddam Hussein. The conflict in 1990-1991 was fought by Saddam Hussein and repelled by the coalition of nations led by the United States. That conflict, almost without exception, was fought with what we refer to as conventional weapons--the tanks, the artillery people, the rifles, and the hand grenades. We were fortunate in that conflict that weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical were not employed to any great extent. I say that because Saddam Hussein had those weapons strategically placed with his various elements inside Iraq and some forward-deployed cache, if he were to give the order to use them. So they were there. Indeed, the destruction of some of the cache could well have had injured some of our troops. That is still not fully known. But those weapons of mass destruction were poised and ready for use. Now we know that in the years subsequent to that conflict--once he drove the inspectors who were there in accordance with United Nations resolutions out of Iraq some 4 years ago--he has put the resources of his country behind replenishing those weapons and even building larger stocks and newer types--types that are now more easily transportable, types that can be containerized in weapons. Here we are faced with the situation of an individual who has extensively utilized in years past--not in the 1990-1991 conflict but in the war with Iran--chemical weapons. He also used those chemical weapons against elements of his own people who he was trying to repress and subject to his tyrannical regime. So there is a clear case history of the use of these weapons. There is now a clear, documented case of open intelligence that he possesses larger stocks, more versatile stocks and the ability to use them. How can this Nation and how can other nations just sit and wait? To the everlasting credit of President Bush, our President, he has alerted the world, and he has taken those steps necessary to prepare this Nation and those steps necessary to engage every possible diplomatic means to avoid conflict. That is the course of action he is embarking on now here at home and in the United Nations and foreign capitals of the world. Madam President, I have been advised that one of our colleagues has a very tight schedule to enable him to return to his State. This Senator is going to be available throughout the day. At this point in time, I would like to yield the floor as a courtesy to a colleague. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Ohio is recognized. Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for extending the courtesy to allow me to speak for about 13 minutes in regard to the resolution that is before us today. Madam President, after careful consideration, meditation and prayer to the Holy Spirit for enlightment and wisdom, I rise today in support of the resolution before us. We all recognize that the world is a very different place than it was before September 11. In spite of the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and the attacks on our Embassies in Africa, the threat of terrorism was not taken seriously enough by our country and the rest of the world. The tragic events of that day-- our 21st century Pearl Harbor changed the way that we and the rest of the world perceive terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. For America, the loss of more than 3,000 lives demanded this change and, as I said on 9/11, demanded that we ``identify those who committed these cowardly acts, as well as those who encourage them through actions or silence, and make them fully pay for their crimes.'' Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to peace in the world, to America and our interests, to regional stability, and to his own people. After briefings by the Secretary of Defense, the President's National Security Advisor, the Director of the CIA, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I am convinced that the threat is real. He has an arsenal of sophisticated chemical and biological weapons and continues to refine and manufacture them and develop ways to deliver them. He is working as if his life depended on it to acquire nuclear weapons and deliver them. He supports terrorist groups and encourages violence against Israel with cash payments to the families of suicide bombers. Although we have not connected the acts of al-Qaida and 9/11 directly with Iraq, we know that al-Qaida is present there as are representatives of other terrorist groups. [[Page S9945]] After 9/11, do we doubt that terrorist groups would turn down the opportunity to get their hands on Saddam's weapons and use them against us? It is well documented that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people and his neighbors. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, during the Iraq-Iran War Saddam used chemical weapons in August 1983, against Iranians and Kurds, resulting in 100 casualties; in October and November of 1983 against Iranians and Kurds resulting in 3,000 casualties; in February and March of 1983 against Iranians causing 2,500 casualties; in March 1984 against Iranians causing between 50 and 100 casualties; in March 1985 against Iranians causing 3,000 casualties; in February 1986 against Iranians causing 8,000-10,000 casualties; in December 1986 against Iranians causing 1,000 casualties; in April 1987 against Iranians causing 5,000 casualties; in October 1987 against Iranians causing 3,000 casualties; and in March of 1988 against Iranians and Kurds causing hundreds of casualties. And, no one needs to be reminded that he invaded a peaceful neighbor and committed countless atrocities against the people of Kuwait until the world community acted in concert to drive him out. Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community for a decade by ignoring U.N. Security Council resolutions--resolutions that required him to disclose his weapons stockpiles, to disarm, and to cut ties to terrorist groups. He has lied repeatedly and has proven beyond any possible doubt that he cannot be trusted. Moreover, by example, Iraq encourages other rogue nations and groups to follow its lead with a simple message: ``Go ahead and do what you want. The world community does not have the backbone to stop you.'' That example cannot be allowed to stand. Saddam Hussein is the neighborhood bully and only when neighbors come together and say enough is enough can he be stopped. He needs to understand that the jig is up and the world must act now together to protect the peace by confronting this bully. It is not only appropriate but essential that members of the United Nations come together to confront Saddam Hussein, and I applaud the President for challenging the United Nations to reaffirm its relevance by standing up to Iraq. Already his diplomatic efforts have produced results. If the President had not successfully crystallized international attention with his speech before the United Nations, then Iraq would not even have started talking about letting inspectors return. It is imperative that the U.N. Security Council pass a strong resolution demanding that Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions allowing for unfettered inspection without conditions, dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, and that the U.N. back up these demands with the threat of force. It is my hope and prayer that these diplomatic efforts will succeed. However, if the world is to be safe from Saddam Hussein, if we are to preserve stability in the Middle East, and if the United States is to be safe, then we--in cooperation with our allies--have to be willing to take military action if our diplomatic efforts are rebuffed. In the event that military action should be required, it should be done under the auspices of the U.N. or, in the alternative, in conjunction with our allies as we did in Operation Desert Storm. That coalition successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait and paid for $57 billion of the operation. A broad, multinational coalition will send a strong signal of international resolve not only to Saddam Hussein, but to others who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It will show that the international community will not sit idly by, but will instead come together to confront grave threats to peace and security in the world. Finally, should Saddam Hussein be removed from power as a result of military action or internal upheaval, a strong international coalition will more effectively implement peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts-- rebuilding efforts that can largely be paid for with Iraq's substantial oil resources. If we are to count on the international community's participation throughout this effort then it is imperative that we work to solidify their support from the very beginning. Let us be perfectly clear, Congress has already enacted strong legislation concerning Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House by a vote of 360-38. This legislation established that regime change is U.S. policy toward Iraq and it provided $97 million to Iraqi opposition groups. The resolution before us today puts a premium on diplomacy first but backs up words with actions if necessary. It is a significant improvement over previous versions that, frankly, failed to adequately prioritize diplomacy and the need for the U.S. to seek international cooperation. One of the concerns I have heard repeatedly from Ohioans was the fear that the U.S. would go it alone and preemptively strike Iraq without first reaching out diplomatically or engaging the international community. I would strongly oppose that course of action. The resolution before us today, in my opinion, does not allow that to happen. It makes clear the convictions of Congress that the President should exhaust all diplomatic options first, but if Iraq resists diplomatic solutions, then the President is authorized to use all necessary means to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq. In section 2, the resolution calls on the President to work with the United Nations. In section 3, the resolution allows the President to back up our diplomacy with action, defend American interests against Iraqi threats and enforce U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq. In exercising the authority under section 3, the President is required to first determine that reliance on diplomacy alone will not succeed in protecting our national security or lead to enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Also, he is required to report that determination to Congress and make regular reports on the status of any military action. This version of the resolution is an improvement over previous versions because it contains new language supporting the President's efforts in the U.N. to obtain Saddam's compliance with Security Council resolutions. It also limits and defines the scope of the authorization to use military force specifically to Iraq instead of the entire region. It limits the duration of authorization to the current and ongoing threats from Iraq and clarifies that the authorization to use force applies to the U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq. The resolution today reflects compromise, is balanced, limited in scope, and specific in its goals. Most importantly, it reflects the importance of putting diplomacy first and working with the international community to solve the Iraqi threat. Madam President, I do not take my vote on this resolution lightly and understand the enormous impact it can have on the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and their families, and on our country and the world. As Governor I served as the commander-in-chief of the Ohio National Guard during Operation Desert Storm. I attended the funerals of those that did not come back and, because my wife Janet and I have lost a child, I understand the grief of parents and have an insight into the enormous loss to surviving spouses and to their children. I also grieve for those we lost on 9/11 and for their families and I vowed that I would do all in my power to make sure that we would never have another 9/11. Madam President, I believe that voting for this resolution will help me keep my vow. I also believe that voting for this resolution will reduce the likelihood of using force. Madam President, I trust our President. He is a man of good character. He has surrounded himself with one of the most experienced, knowledgeable teams fielded by any President in my memory starting with Vice President Cheney to Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. I have been briefed by State, Defense, the CIA and the White House. I wish all Americans could have sat in on these briefings. I believe the resolution before us that was put together in bipartisan negotiations reflects the balance of power that must exist between the executive and legislative branches. It allows the [[Page S9946]] President the authority to use force but respects Congress' power to restrict that authority. It reflects the concerns of Congress that every diplomatic effort be made first and that any action take place in cooperation with the international community. May the Holy Spirit enlighten the leaders of the world to understand the true meaning of the Second Great Commandment to love they neighbor as thyself and may God continue to bless America as we go forward. Thank you, Madam President. And I thank the Senator from Virginia for allowing me to make this statement on my support of the fine resolution he has put together. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague for a very strong statement of support. I know he has reflected long and hard on this issue, and will continue to do so. He has searched his conscience, reached his decision and, in a most fitting way, concluded his remarks with prayer, which is so important as we go into these difficult times ahead. I hope at some point he might consider becoming a cosponsor of the resolution. With the resolution Senators Lieberman, Bayh, McCain and I put before the Senate, we embark on this historic debate. One of my great recollections is of the debate we had in 1991 at the time the first George Bush was President, and sought to use force. It was, with a deep sense of humility, one of the highlights of my career to have been on the floor as a comanager with then-Republican leader Senator Dole and Senator McCain, Senator Stevens, and others who were working the management side of that historic debate. On the other side of the aisle was the distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell, a lifelong friend, Senator Sam Nunn, who at that time was chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I was ranking member. They took quite a different position. The Nation experienced a very good debate by the Senate. Of course, at the conclusion of that debate, only by a mere five votes did the resolution--I won't say on our side of the aisle, but it was bipartisan--the resolution Senator Lieberman and I submitted to the Senate prevailed. We are on the threshold of another debate of similar significance and proportions. I welcome it, as do other colleagues, who at the moment do not agree with the contents of the resolution. We will see in the days to come the evolution of one of the greater debates in the contemporary history of the Senate. One of the most difficult things any of us here in Congress, indeed, any citizen of the United States, ever faces is a decision to authorize the use of the Armed Forces. I have been privileged myself to serve twice in uniform, once as a 17-year-old sailor at the concluding months of World War II. I did not go overseas at that time. Fortunately, the war was concluded rather unexpectedly. But we were prepared, my age group of 17 and 18, 19-year- olds, not unlike those today in uniform, to follow out the orders of the Commander in Chief, President Harry Truman. I have in my office today a small bronze statue of him given to me by one of the veterans' organizations as a reminder of the courage that President showed at that time in our history. When I enlisted in January 1945, the Battle of the Bulge was just completing. It was an extraordinary battle, where Hitler had thrown his last divisions against the force that crossed the Normandy beaches and had been working its way through Belgium toward Germany. I remind our audience today, in that one battle alone, 41,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or missing in action, to give the proportion of the battles that our Nation, together with Great Britain, France, and others, were engaged in in that conflict. That is in comparison to the valiant efforts of our troops today in Afghanistan, where the casualties, fortunately, are in the 100s to 200s so far in their heroic efforts to turn the tide of terrorism. It is important to remind America of the sacrifices of previous generations, as we make this difficult decision. The Battle of the Bulge was followed by United States forces in the Pacific, when the Marines and elements of the United States Army stormed Iwo Jima. That was a battle of some 6 to 7 weeks. There 21,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or missing. Again, we always have to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifices previous generations have made to enable us to be standing here today with the same courage and conviction they had to face the dangers of the world in this hour, on this day, and in the weeks and months to come. I remember so well the Korean war. Again, I had the privilege of serving in the Marines. My two periods of military service were very modest. I am always extremely humble when I am in the presence of others who served far more valiantly and displayed far more courage than I ever had the opportunity to display. I was able to serve alongside brave men and some women in both of those conflicts. Again, in the Korean war, for a brief period, I served in Korea with the First Marine Air Wing. I remember the aviators in our squadron. They flew every day. Occasionally I was in the capacity of an observer with them. Again, I don't put myself in the combat arms category because I was a staff officer. I remember they didn't come home from those missions; several in the tent in which I slept. You are mindful of the sacrifices when you have to take the personal effects of your bunkmate, wrap them in a blanket, and send them back home. So those are the things that cross my mind as I stand here today and as I will stand on this floor in the days to come as we pursue this resolution. Even though I had those modest experiences of active duty, and then, I must say, during the next major engagement, the war in Vietnam, I was privileged to serve in the Pentagon, again, alongside the brave men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who fought in that battle, several of whom are serving in this Chamber today: Senators McCain and Hagel. Those are truly warriors. But in visiting the battlefields in Vietnam in the concluding months and years after, 50,000-plus Americans were casualties in that conflict. Again, it was the courage and the resolve of that generation and previous generations that undergird the same courage and resolve that is in the Armed Forces today, if the Commander in Chief has to give the order to engage them in conflict. It is with a sense of deep emotion I deliver these remarks today in support of this resolution which I was privileged with others to draw. Senator Lott, throughout the drawing up of this resolution, has shown extraordinary leadership. His door and his office were opened. He convened from time to time small groups of Senators to sit down and gather their ideas and their thoughts. He continues to do that. Finally, the time came when the administration, working actively with the group that was drawing up the resolution, laid down a marker, and that is this resolution. My distinguished friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee on which I am privileged to serve as ranking member, Senator Levin, engaged in his debate this morning in setting forth his ideas, which are very different from mine. Perhaps there will be other Senators who will come to the floor and set forth their ideas, which could be different from this resolution. We will see how, procedurally, the Senate addresses the differing views. But I think those debates and differing views will add to the strength of the ultimate resolution, which I respectfully say to my colleagues will be passed upon with strong, bipartisan support behind the ultimate resolution and the form it takes. I believe it will remain as it is today, but I will not make a prediction as to what might occur. We must pay due respect to our colleagues who have different views. But the important thing is that the Congress speaks with one voice with our President as he proceeds to address these issues in the United Nations and as he proceeds to engage other nations' leaders to encourage them to accept the same responsibility the United States is prepared to accept in addressing the potential dangers of these weapons of mass destruction which are clearly possessed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. This is, quite literally, a decision to put our Nation's sons and daughters in harm's way. It is a decision that must never be taken lightly. It is also a decision we must be willing to make when [[Page S9947]] the security of our Nation or our vital national security interests are threatened. Today, our President and others have made it eminently clear that those interests are threatened. Another interesting bit of history is that our Republic--some 200- plus years old--has sent forth the men and women of our Nation in uniform--depending on the calculation you use--close to 100 times. Some calculations use 80, some 90, but it is roughly 100 times. The issue is often put to me as to the Constitution, which created the two coequal branches of our Government--the executive branch headed by the President of the United States, and the legislative branch composed of the two Houses of Congress, coequal in their responsibilities as it relates to the crisis we face today and the crises we have had over 200 years when about 85 times--I will use that figure--men and women have gone forth into harm's way. The interesting thing is that in article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it lays out the responsibilities of the Congress. I would like to read this: The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Then it goes on to enumerate with specificity the duties and the powers of Congress. One is to declare war. What does that mean? Well, that is the ultimate and most serious responsibility of the Congress of the United States. But as I look over those 80-plus times that the men and women of the Armed Forces have gone forward, only 4 times in the 200-plus-year history has this Congress ever declared war. My recollection is the War of 1812, and then in 1840, and--5 times--the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II--5 out of the 80- plus times that the men and women have gone forward. So why is it we are not declaring war? Well, it would take too long to engage my colleagues, in my own view, as to why we do not declare war. What we are about to do, let me say unequivocally, has the same depth of seriousness and the same depth of consequences to the men and women in the Armed Forces as does the constitutional recitation of the power to declare war. So it is an awesome one. I respect the vote of every person in this Chamber with whom, I say with a sense of humility, I have enjoyed friendships, working relationships--with some for the 24 years I have been privileged to serve here, almost a quarter century, and with others who are completing their first term, such as my colleague from Virginia, George Allen, with whom I have discussed this in great depth. He has a searching mind, is intensely interested in the points of this issue, is clearly aware of the threat to this Nation, and is strongly in favor of this resolution. But each will have their own conscience to serve. I doubt if there is a Member of this Chamber who has not spent a great deal of time already in studying the implications of this perplexing conflict that looms with Saddam Hussein, the individual, and his immediate regime--not the people of Iraq, but it is this dictator and those around him. Each of our colleagues has spent time studying this matter. We have received, in varying degrees, briefings on the facts. My long-time friend, Senator Stevens, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, and I conferred with our leadership yesterday. I think there will be a similar initiative taken by the Democratic leadership to bring others in early next week to provide further briefings, particularly in the area of intelligence. I have undertaken--I will speak for myself--to encourage the administration to see what further declassification we can make of certain facts that could be important to each Senator as he and she reach their decisions on this resolution--facts that will enable them to go back home with coequal responsibility to the duties we have in the Chamber. It is going back home--as I will do this weekend, with two scheduled meetings with people and to talk with my constituents about this resolution, but more importantly, the overall problems that face this Nation today, as posed by this arsenal of weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein. I cannot tell you the satisfaction I receive--and I think others do-- when we go back home to our communities, whether large or small--and it is not necessarily whether they are Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents; they are citizens, and they are focused on this problem. It has been my experience, in the past weeks particularly, that they are focused very intently on this problem. Many have their sons and daughters serving in uniform today. Many now recognize, in the wake of the tragedy of September 11 of last year, that we no longer as a nation enjoy the protections of being here in this country and so much of the threat being beyond the oceans. If I may, I will enter into a little personal story. My father served in World War I. He was a young doctor who served in the trenches. I proudly hang his picture on the wall of my Senate office--in uniform, in France, where he was decorated for valor and gallantry for going to the front trenches to care for the wounded--wounded himself. I remember when I was growing up and the looming clouds of war began to make an awareness in this country in the late thirties when I was a very young man and the forties that the United States could become embroiled. He, of course, having deep roots in the State of Virginia, took me on trips. We took a trip down the coastline in the area of Norfolk, VA. He wanted to show me the coastal artillery weapons. Not one of those weapons exist today, except maybe in a museum. They were enormous cannons. The whole cannon itself was probably half the width of the Senate Chamber from the barrel back to the carriage where the shell was put in the breech. My father would say: You know, son, these oceans protect us, but if an enemy were to come, this weapon fires 20 miles out to sea with enormous accuracy. This was a brilliant man, my father. He had seen war. He said: We are protected by the ocean. We are protected by our coastal defenses. He was proven wrong. In the first place, those weapons hardly ever fired. They were eventually, during World War II, melted down and the metal incorporated in more modern artillery pieces. We did, however, as a nation, experience warfare right off the coast of Virginia and other coastal States on the Atlantic coast when the German submarine force began to sink merchant ships. We were trying to supply those nations abroad in Europe that were suffering the ravages of World War I, and those ships were sunk right off the coast of Virginia. I went back with my father one time. To his astonishment, there on the beaches was scattered the debris from those sinkings. Those are memories that I cherish and I keep. I always remember those oceans have protected us--those long distances. Saddam Hussein is up to 6,000 miles away, and people in the security of our homes say: Is he really a menace to us? We will see unfold here in the days to come the story of how he can take the weapons of mass destruction, he can take some of that biological material and put it in the hands of the worldwide terrorist organization, and we only need to look at 9/11 to know that organization existed then and still, to a lesser extent, to the credit of the initiatives of our President and the men and women in the Armed Forces, it possibly is not as powerful, certainly, as al-Qaida, but it exists today. And if that technology manufactured by Saddam Hussein gets into the hands of those terrorists--and I say as strongly as we try to protect the borders of this country, we put in a lot of measures to strengthen our borders, but it is not beyond risk that material could be smuggled into this country and utilized in such a way as to cause incredible damage and destruction to human life and further complicate our ability to have a security umbrella in homeland defense to enable us to conduct our way of life, perform our work at our places of business, and to live our lives. It is very serious. This man has that material. For example, open intelligence now shows, and the experts have discussed this in the open, some of the manufacturing infrastructure of the biological and possibly chemical weapons are now on trucks, trucks of the proportions we see on the highways throughout this country; three or four of those larger trucks put together at [[Page S9948]] one location, the manufacturing capability to build--manufacture perhaps is a better word--manufacture the biological and chemicals weapons. We know it is transportable because it can move about in those trucks. He does that to provide deception and cover for his manufacturing capability. I will point out one other tragic fact. This very institution, the Congress of the United States, together with our postal system, suffered through an anthrax--that is a biological weapon--attack. To this day, no matter how hard our investigative infrastructure has worked--and they have worked hard--we do not have the full story of how that was done. The leadership of our Senate and the House of Representatives, together with our infrastructure--the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms, the medical department, Admiral Eisold--worked to enable us to as quickly as possible resume the use of the Hart Building which was closed down and took precautions in the Congress of the United States, most particularly the Senate, to carry on our business. Think of the disruption we experienced. That is the type of threat we are addressing in this resolution. That is the type of threat. In the days to come, I will have more specifics to share with my colleagues and with those who are following this debate. None of us wants to see our men and women in uniform committed to foreign battlefields. None of us seeks a war with Saddam Hussein. Our President has reiterated that almost every time he has spoken. I was privileged to be with him the other day on the steps of his office when he addressed the Nation, and I had the privilege of saying a few words in support at the time this resolution was introduced. He reminded the Nation and the world again: War, conflict is the last resort; that the strength and the resolve that we take now is the best way to avoid that conflict. There are times, again, we must be prepared and willing to resort to the use of force to protect our national security and the people of our great Nation and those of our allies. This is one of those times, critical times, in the 200-plus years of our Republic. The principal purpose of this resolution is to authorize our President to use military force if--if--he deems it necessary to remove the threat to our Nation and the world possessed by Saddam Hussein and his growing inventory of weapons of mass destruction--the chemical and biological weapons this evil man already possesses and the nuclear weapons he is racing to acquire--I repeat, working to acquire. My colleagues will recall in the early 1980s, Israel struck a bold move to bomb the plant that Saddam Hussein was utilizing at that time to build his arsenal of nuclear weapons. That set him back. I often wonder: Could we have, as a member of a coalition of nations, prevailed in the gulf war of 1990 and 1991 had that plant finally, with other elements of infrastructure, produced a nuclear weapon? Stop and think about it. That war, in terms of combat by the coalition forces, was 100 hours of vigorous fighting to repel Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait and drive them across the border of Iraq. Could we have done that war as successfully in the face of a nuclear weapon had he possessed it at that time? I remember going with other Members several days after the conclusion of the final hours of that war, visiting the battlefield on the border of Iraq strewn for miles with abandoned and burning equipment, where the Iraqi armed forces dropped their arms, fled to their homes, and the safety they felt their borders provided. Had he had a nuclear weapon at that time, they might not have turned, dropped their arms and ran. We know he is working on it. There is unquestioned evidence to show he is working to obtain that category of weapons. But the primary concern we have at the moment is he actually possesses weapons of mass destruction in the category of biological and chemical. That is irrefutable in fact. The principal purposes resolution is to authorize our President to use that force if, and I repeat, if he deems it necessary to remove the threat of those weapons for the security of our Nation and other nations. As recently as September 19 of this year, a week after President Bush addressed the United Nations, Saddam Hussein denied he has such weapons. It was clear in 1984, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran, that he had such weapons. It was clear in 1987, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own citizens in the Kurdish areas, that he had such weapons. It was clear in 1994, after UNSCOM--those are the first inspectors--had uncovered enormous stockpiles, that he had such weapons. It was clear in 1998, when Saddam Hussein expelled UNSCOM inspectors from Iraq that he had such weapons. It is clear in 2002, after 4 years without the international United Nations inspectors being able to perform their duties, that Saddam Hussein has such weapons and is urgently attempting to manufacture and acquire more, most particularly the nuclear capability of weapons. This resolution also authorizes the President to use all necessary means to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the U.N. Security Council resolutions which prohibit Iraqi support for terrorism and terrorist organizations, prohibits Saddam Hussein's repression of minorities within his country, require repatriation and accounting for prisoners of war--that is the 1990 war--which he was required to do but has defied the resolution; and return of such other property as owing to Kuwait, that small little country he so devastated in 1990-1991. Why now, is the question we hear in this debate? And I pay respect to those who raise questions because I think it is important that the toughest of questions are raised. The answer is simple. Enough is enough. In this post-9/11 world, we as a nation cannot afford to wait while this evil dictator, who terrorizes his own people and shelters those who terrorize others--just think, al-Qaida elements are now known to be within Iraq--acquires even more destructive capabilities to attack and terrorize our Nation, possibly his neighbors in the region and the entire world. Saddam Hussein brutally invaded Kuwait in August of 1990. In the ensuing Persian Gulf war, he was decisively defeated on the battlefield by the coalition of forces in that heroic battle of roughly 100 hours. In the aftermath, Saddam Hussein agreed--and the pictures are there of his representatives meeting in the desert to sign these agreements-- to comply with a number of U.N. Security Council resolutions. He was defeated. The coalition forces made a decision not to pursue the remnants of his bedraggled fleeing army into Iraq, but they decided to impose upon Saddam Hussein and his regime a very strict set of resolutions in order to prevent any comparable use of aggression by his forces beyond his borders. Almost 12 years later, we are still waiting for Iraq to comply with those international mandates. Saddam Hussein has defied the international community for far too long. Diplomatic efforts have not worked. Economic sanctions have not worked. He has skillfully figured out how to evade those sanctions, to sell on the world oil market. His nation has the second largest known reserves of petroleum, second only to Saudi Arabia, from which he can generate considerable oil revenues--and that he has done in the ensuing years, skillfully evading the United Nations clear restrictions on the use of oil revenues; diverted it away from his people, let them starve; diverted it