Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Supplemental Approps for NNSA
CHAPTER 4
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Science
For an additional amount for `Science' for emergency expenses necessary to support safeguards and security activities, $11,350,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

For an additional amount for `Weapons Activities' for emergency expenses, $138,650,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

1B) Homeland Security and Arms Control
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member. We have a very short amount of time in which to do a great deal of business. I did not wish to interrupt their work on Interior if in fact there was an amendment that was to be acted upon. I appreciate their courtesy.

   Let me make some comments about the broad question of homeland security and relate it to the discussion yesterday at the United Nations that was offered by President Bush.

   Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. DORGAN. I am pleased to yield for a question from the Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. I wish I could be on the floor to hear what the Senator has to say. I have an appointment. I have to be down below this floor at 11 o'clock, which is 1 minute or 2 from now. I will read the remarks of the Senator. I know they will be good. If I can come back before he completes his remarks, I will do that.

   Is it the understanding of the Senator that he will complete his remarks by 12 noon?

   Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

   Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

   Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have not been on the floor until now to speak about the homeland security bill and the issues surrounding that bill. I have been thinking a lot about it, as have many of my colleagues. We have had a good number of amendments, and I do not believe anyone here thinks the issue is whether we shall pass a piece of legislation dealing with homeland security. Of course we should enact a piece of legislation dealing with homeland security. We need to respond to the President's request. We will do that. The question isn't whether, the question is how.

   There are many ideas about homeland security that come from all corners of this Chamber. We ought to take the best of all of those ideas and incorporate them into this legislation.

   Yesterday the President spoke at the United Nations about the threat that comes from Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Because that also relates to the issue of homeland security, I wanted to make some comments of a general nature this morning.

   In my desk, I have a couple of pieces of materials taken from weapons that were once targeted at the United States. I ask unanimous consent to be able to show them on the floor. I am doing this for a very important reason.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this piece of material is part of a wing strut from a Backfire bomber that the Soviets used to fly. This Backfire bomber doesn't exist anymore. It wasn't shot down. It wasn't part of combat with the United States. This was sawed off of an airplane. The wings were sawed off of a Backfire bomber that used to carry nuclear weapons--presumably that would threaten our country in the middle of the Cold War. It was dismantled, sawed apart, and destroyed. And in a sense, we purchased it. We paid for it under the Nunn-Lugar program, in which we decided through arms control agreements with the Soviet Union--and then with Russia--to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and reduce the delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads, because we believed that allowed us to step back from the dangers of nuclear war.

   I hold in my hand part of a Soviet Backfire bomber that we didn't shoot down. We helped pay to saw the wings off this bomber.

   This other material is ground up copper wire that used to be in a Soviet submarine that carried nuclear missiles with warheads aimed at the United States of America. That submarine doesn't exist any longer. I am able to hold in my hand this ground up copper from that dismantled submarine because of an arms control agreement by which we negotiated with the Soviets to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and reduce the delivery vehicles for those nuclear weapons, and, therefore, have made this a safer world. A bomber and a submarine that used to carry nuclear weapons no longer exists. We have made progress.

   But there are, of course, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 nuclear weapons that continue to exist on the face of this Earth. And many in this world aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. Terrorist groups and other countries want to become part of the club that has nuclear weapons. Our children and their children are threatened by the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

   It doesn't take 100 nuclear weapons or a thousand nuclear weapons to create chaos and hysteria and concern for the future of the world. It just takes one--just one nuclear weapon.

   Today, if someone is notified that there is a nuclear weapon missing from the Russian arsenal and that has been stolen by terrorists and is put in the trunk of a rusty Yugo car on the dock at New York City, or in a container on a ship coming into the ports of Los Angeles--if just one nuclear weapon is thought to be entering this country's space, its ports, its docks, its cities--that is enough for the kind of nuclear blackmail that can cause chaos and hysteria and threaten a nuclear war.

   The President gave a very forceful speech yesterday to the United Nations. He is--and we are--concerned about Iraq and Saddam Hussein having access to weapons of mass destruction. He is--and we are--concerned about the potential of a Saddam

   Hussein getting access and acquiring a nuclear weapon.

   I don't diminish at all the concern about that. We ought to be concerned about that. We and the President are all concerned about that.

   But let us understand that the broader issue of arms control and arms reduction ought to be front and center in this Chamber. This country needs to be a leader in the world to help reduce the number of nuclear weapons and help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries.

   Regrettably, in recent years, some Members in this Chamber--and elsewhere in the Government of the United States--have expressed, if not a benign neglect, an open hostility to arms control and arms reductions.

   Let me go through a few of the things that have happened. We had a vote in this Chamber on the issue of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We should have such a treaty. After all, we don't test anymore in this country. The first George Bush Presidency said we will no longer test nuclear weapons. But this Senate voted

[Page: S8591]  GPO's PDF

   There is nothing more important, in my judgment, to the children of America and to their children and their future than dealing with this question of a nuclear threat. The Soviet Union is gone. The Cold War is over.

   The President's discussion about Saddam Hussein underscores the concern about one dictator in Iraq--an evil man in Iraq who is seeking to get nuclear weapons.

   But I am just saying that there is much more at stake than that. The Iraq situation is at stake for us, and we need to respond to that. But there is much more at stake.

   So many others want to acquire nuclear weapons. There are so many nuclear weapons around in this world. I indicated that there are somewhere between, perhaps, 25,000 and 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence. A fair number of them for a number of reasons are not very well controlled. So we need to talk in the broader context about what our responsibility is, and what our role is with respect to arms control and arms reduction in the future.

   The Senate was asked to consider the nomination of a fellow named John Holum, who the President said he wanted as senior adviser for arms control. John Holum is a remarkable American, who has had incredible experience, and he was nominated for the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He is somebody who believes in his heart that we need to pursue negotiations and efforts to achieve treaties for nuclear arms reduction and to achieve progress in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. But his nomination was blocked.

   The President sent us instead John Bolton, who doesn't have experience in arms control, who has never served in an arms control position, who has expressed disdain for arms control and those who promote it, and who expressed disdain for the United Nations. He said:

   ..... a building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

   And his nomination was approved by the Senate.

   So we have someone in this area who really isn't interested in pursuing the approach that we have used, which has been quite successful in beginning the process of reducing nuclear weapons and reducing the nuclear threat.

   We also have had discussions in recent months about perhaps developing a new type of nuclear weapon. Perhaps a nuclear weapon can be developed that will be a cave buster--some nuclear-tipped bomb that will bust into caves and be more effective in dealing with the problem that we encountered in Afghanistan where terrorists burrowed into caves.

   The minute you start talking about designing nuclear weapons--especially a little nuclear weapon with a special nuclear tip that can be used against caves--once you start talking about the potential to use nuclear weapons, the genie is out of the bottle.

   Our discussion in this country ought never to be a discussion about how to use a nuclear weapon.

   That is not what we ought to be discussing.

   We ought to be discussing our obligation to assume a world leadership position to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Do you want a future 10 years from now or 40 years from now in which 50, 75, or 100 countries, including terrorists and rogue nations, have nuclear weapons at their disposal? I don't think so.

   We have had a 50-year effort in this country--50 years--to stigmatize nuclear weapons and brand them only as a weapon of last resort. We ought not do anything to undermine that basic approach to nuclear weapons.

   We are talking about homeland security in these days. When you talk about nuclear weapons, you have to talk about homeland security against the ultimate weapon; that is, a nuclear weapon. But there are many other kinds of weapons.

   We may spend $7 to $8 billion this year, in this Congress, on a national missile defense program, trying to build a missile that has the capability of hitting a bullet with a bullet. The purpose of that is a defensive mechanism by which if a rogue nation or terrorist or some other country were able to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile against the United States, we would be able to shoot it down and prevent a nuclear attack using an ICBM.

   We will spend an enormous amount of money on that, believing that one of the threats is an intercontinental ballistic missile coming in at 14,000 miles an hour, with a nuclear warhead, sent by some rogue nation or terrorist state. It is one of the less likely threats; the Pentagon will tell you that. Rogue nations and terrorist states would have a very difficult time dealing with an ICBM, if they could acquire one in the first place.

   A far more likely prospect would be a container, on a container ship, pulling up to a dock in New York City at 3 miles an hour, with a low-yield nuclear device in the middle of a container, in the middle of a container ship.

   There are 5.7 million containers that come into this country every year to all of our ports and docks. These big ships pull up with containers stacked on top of their decks. Of the 5.7 million, 100,000 are inspected. So 5.6 million are not. I was at a dock in Seattle recently, and they had pulled off a ship container, and they were inspecting it at the Customs facility. I asked them: What is this? What is in the container?

   They said: Frozen broccoli, from Poland.

   I said: Well, do you know anything about it, the frozen broccoli from Poland?

   They said: No, but we'll show you.

   They opened up the container, pulled the bag out, and ripped it open, and, sure enough, there was broccoli from Poland.

   I said: How do you know what's in the middle of this container? You just pulled the one bag out.

   They said: Well, we don't. We just opened it to see that it was frozen broccoli from Poland.

   So we have 5.6 million containers that come into this country, and they are largely uninspected. Does anyone here not believe that port security, the security of containers, is critically important?

   Did you read the story about the fellow from the Middle East who decided to send himself to Canada, presumably with the thought of coming into the United States, and he put himself in a container? He had a cot, he had potable water, he had a

   telephone, he had a computer, he had a GPS system, he had a heater. And there he was living in a container, on a container ship, shipping himself to Toronto, Canada.

   Well, they found this guy. They thought he was a terrorist. I don't know what the disposition of that was. But think of it, how easy it is, if 5.7 million containers come into this country, and we only take a look at 100,000 of them. What is in the other 5.6 million?

   That is a big homeland security issue. What are we going to do about that?

   We have heard discussions about the potential for a dirty bomb. The National Research Council gave a long listing the other day with respect to homeland security, about our shortcomings on preparedness to defend against nuclear and dirty bomb threats, and against biological warfare.

   Here is what the report said. We have to develop vaccines for airborne pathogens--we are way behind in doing that--create better sensors and filters for dangerous chemicals; build a system to counter sabotage of the Nation's food supply; find better methods to fend off attacks on nuclear reactors, electrical power grids, and communications systems; and develop defense in depth for airport and other transportation security.

   Much of what we are talking about in the current debate about homeland security is organizational. We say, let's take a look at an organizational chart and find the boxes and evaluate how we can put all these boxes together in a different way. And so you have, at the end, 170,000 people in a new agency.

   Putting agencies together in a way in which they are better prepared to deal with homeland security makes good sense to me. But there is not a right or a wrong way to do it. There are a lot of different ideas on how it might or might not work, and we will not know, perhaps for a year or 2 or 3 or 4 years,

[Page: S8592]  GPO's PDF

   It is reasonable to ask the question, if homeland security is going to be restructured, should we consider some change to the way we use the FBI and the CIA, and the way we gather and analyze intelligence? I know there is a portion of that in this bill, and I think this is a question we have to consider carefully.

   Good intelligence is critical. I mentioned the issue of nuclear weapons. Russia, which is now the nuclear repository of the old Soviet Union, has thousands of excess nuclear weapons in storage facilities that fall far short of what we expect for decent security standards. We are told they have more than 1,000 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and at least 150 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, much of it in less than adequate storage facilities. That is enough for 80,000 nuclear weapons, by the way.

   In addition, dangerous biological pathogens are kept at scores of poorly guarded sites around the former Soviet Union.

   Tens of thousands of former Soviet Union scientists and engineers are living hand to mouth because of military downsizing and the collapse of the economy. These are people who know how to make these bombs, were involved in the development of the Soviet nuclear capability.

   We know that individuals and groups have attempted to steal uranium or plutonium from sites in the former Soviet Union dozens of times in the past 10 years.

   Former Senate Majority Leader James Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler headed a panel last year that studied the threat to our country posed by nuclear weapons, materials, and know-how in the former Soviet Union. Here is what the panel said about a scenario where a terrorist would have access to some basic material and could get the engineers and scientists to put this together:

   The national security benefits to the U.S. citizens from securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more than 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons would constitute the highest return on investment in any current U.S. national security and defense program.

   In a worst case scenario, a nuclear engineer graduate with a grapefruit-sized lump of highly enriched uranium or an orange-sized lump of plutonium, together with material otherwise readily available in commercial markets, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit in a van like the one terrorist Yosif parked in the World Trade Center in 1993. The explosive effects of such a device would destroy every building in [the] Wall Street financial area and would level lower Manhattan.

   The Baker-Cutler panel recommends spending a substantial amount of money, $30 billion over 10 years--three times what the administration is proposing--to secure weapons and fissile and biological material in Russia by expanding cooperative threat reduction, which is an important part of the outgrowth of the Nunn-Lugar program, and a range of other efforts.

   So Iraq is important, but there are broader issues to consider as well.

   Incidentally, the President yesterday did the right thing by going to the United Nations and saying to the U.N.: Look, you have had resolution after resolution after resolution, and Iraq has defied you. They have failed to live up to their terms of surrender from the gulf war, and they simply thumb their nose at your resolutions.

   What the President said to the United Nations yesterday was: You had better decide whether you are going to pass resolutions and enforce them or not. And the President said: We will take this to the National Security Council.

   A lot of people were worried that he would not do that. I am glad he has. It is exactly the right step. The notion of saying we don't care what the Security Council does or what the U.N. says, that is not the way to do it. The President yesterday did the right thing. He said to the National Security Council and the United Nations: You need to begin enforcing what you are doing by resolution with respect to the country of Iraq.

   I hope the United Nations will decide to do that. My hope is we can put together a coalition through the United Nations of coercive inspections that demand and achieve the inspections necessary to make sure we are not threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   But let us agree that the problem is bigger than just Iraq, and let us decide to be a world leader in dealing with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Let's bring back the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Let's pass it. Let's send a signal to the world that we care about the chemical weapons ban, because this country wants to lead in the right direction to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

   Now, let me say a few words about the proposed Department of Homeland Security. The President says to us he wants to put this agency together, and he wants to do it in a way that he has maximum flexibility with respect to all of these workers. Whatever we do, however we do it, we will give this President very substantial flexibility. But to suggest somehow that the basic protections that workers expect and have received for many years in this Government of ours should be discarded or disallowed makes no sense.

   We propose to provide the same basic protections to workers in all of these agencies that you have for civilian workers at

   the U.S. Department of Defense. That makes good sense.

   I get tired of people saying: Federal workers, they are not worth much. They are people who can't find a job elsewhere.

   We have terrific people working for the Federal Government. We have great people in public service--not just the Federal Government, but State and local government as well.

   Among those people who filed out of the World Trade Center, we had firefighters and law enforcement officers climbing the stairs. Some of those firefighters were up on the 70th floor carrying 60-pound backpacks, climbing up as that fire was coursing through that building, knowing they were risking their lives. They were not asking about overtime or about how tough it might be, what the risk was. They were doing their jobs--wonderful, brave people. There are a lot of people like them all over this country in public service. This Government ought to say to them: We value your work. We honor your work.

   I don't want anything in this homeland security bill to in any way denigrate the work of those public employees or pull the rug out from under them. They are going to be our first defenders, the first line of defense. They are the ones who will make this work.

   We have a lot to do here. We have a government of checks and balances which requires cooperation, which requires that we work together. The President has some good ideas. I think our colleagues have good ideas. I think Senator Byrd does us a service by talking about how we put this together in the long term.

   In politics, there are always a couple of sides. Each side too often wants the other to lose. We should get the best of both rather than the worst of each. That is especially true on homeland security.

   It is up to us. The moment is now. The President is right to be talking about concern of weapons of mass destruction. But is it not just Iraq. This is a much bigger subject. We need those who now talk in the most aggressive ways about dealing with this issue to join us to develop new arms reduction strategies and to develop approaches by which the rest of the world joins us in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

2A) The China Threat
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this week, which will be one Americans remember for a long time as the anniversary of the September 11 attacks of last year, a lot of second-guessing has been going on about what we might have done differently. Part of that is based on the fact that there was a lot of evidence that the United States should have been prepared to deal with the kind of attack that occurred, even if not at that precise time and place.

   I think history will show, notwithstanding all of the evidence, it would have been very difficult for us to actually defend against those attacks, but it should not dissuade us from acting on similar evidence in the future.

   I fear there is another situation developing which, both because we are focused on the war on terror and because it presents us with some unpleasant choices about what to do, is creating a similar situation where there is evidence that we should be paying attention to a problem, but either because we do not want to deal with it or because there is a lack of consensus about how to deal with it, the United States is not taking adequate precautions or taking adequate steps to deal with the situation.

   What I have in mind is a concern that has been now discussed in two very recently released Government reports on the threat that is posed by the nation of China against the United States.

   The first, produced by the congressionally-mandated United States-China Security Review Commission, offers a sobering analysis of the national security implications of the economic relationship between our two countries. It flatly states that trade alone has failed to bring about serious political change in China.

   The second, the Defense Department's annual report on the military power of the People's Republic of China, paints an unsettling picture of China's military buildup, the main objective of which is to prepare that country for a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, and to counter potential U.S. intervention in the conflict.

   Proponents of unconditional engagement with China opine that the Chinese people's access to the Internet, modern telecommunications, and free trade will make that country a more free and open society. They suggest that entrenched vestiges of the Communist system will eventually fade away as new leaders, who are committed to capitalism, take the reins of power. In other words, economic freedom will invariably translate into political freedom, and democracy will be the clear result.

   But, particularly with the release of these two reports, it seems more and more clear that China's willingness to engage in the world economy has not translated into evolution toward democracy. Indeed, the United States-China Security Review Commission concluded that:

   ..... Trade and economic liberalization have not led to the extent of political liberalization much hoped for by U.S. policymakers. The Chinese government has simultaneously increased trade and aggressively resisted openness in politically sensitive areas such as the exercise of religious, human, and worker rights.

   Consider, for example, Chinese Government control over the Internet. While many expected that access to the Internet would facilitate the influx of Western ideas and values, the Commission stated that those hopes ``have yet to be realized.'' Indeed, Beijing has passed sweeping regulations in the past two years that prohibit news and commentary on Internet sites in China that is not state-sanctioned. The Commission noted that China has even convinced American companies like Yahoo! to assist in its censorship efforts, and others, like America Online, to leave open the possibility of turning over names, e-mail addresses, or records of political dissidents if the Chinese government demands them.

   It is impossible to predict China's future. That country has embarked on an uncertain path, opening its economy while simultaneously attempting to strengthen the Communist Party's political and social control. The consequences, given that Chinese policies run directly counter to U.S. national security interests, are potentially grave. Thus, the Commission established benchmarks against which Beijing's future progress can be measured, including China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; its cozy relationships with terrorists states like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; its bellicose posture toward Taiwan; and its pursuit of asymmetric warfare capabilities to counter U.S. military capabilities.

   China's proliferation of technology and components for ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction to terrorist-sponsoring states--including North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan--is of serious concern. The Commission found that, despite numerous bilateral and multilateral pledges to halt that proliferation, ``Chinese proliferation and cooperation with [such] states has continued unabated.''

   Just in the past year, the administration has sanctioned Chinese entities three times for their proliferation to Iran of equipment and materials used to make chemical and biological weapons. Yet these sanctions are unlikely to curb China's proliferation activities. As the Commission concludes, ``Current U.S. sanctions policies to deter and reform Chinese proliferation practices have failed and need immediate review and overhaul.''

   The Commission recommended that the United States expand the use of economic sanctions to apply against entire countries, rather than just individual entities. Suggested sanctions include import and export limitations, restrictions on the access of foreign entities to American capital markets, restrictions on direct foreign investments in an offending country, and restrictions on science and technology cooperation.

   I should note that these measures are very similar to those proposed by my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator THOMPSON, in 2000 during the debate on granting China permanent normal trade status. His amendment, which I strongly supported, was rejected by this body.

   As to Taiwan, Beijing is deadly serious about pursuing unification--through force, if necessary--with our long-standing, democratic ally. The Chinese military is actively pursuing capabilities and strategies that it would need to accomplish that task, and according to the Commission, it is believed that the military has been directed to have viable options to do so by 2005 to 2007.

   Mr. President, let me repeat that: It is believed that the Chinese military has been directed by the Communist leadership to be prepared to move against Taiwan by 2005 to 2007. If there is one sentence in this report that ought to serve as a wake-up call, this is it.

   What is so significant about that time-frame is that, during those two years,

   a number of factors fall in line. First of all, the Defense Department has projected that the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait will shift toward China by 2005. Second, it is estimated that our theater missile defense system, which China fears we will share with Taiwan, will be up and running by 2007. Finally, it is estimated that China's myriad conventional weapons recently purchased from Russia--including submarines, fighter jets, and air-to-air missiles--will become fully operational within that 2-year period.

   Indeed, the Defense Department, in its report, concluded that China's ``ambitious military modernization casts a cloud over its declared preference for resolving differences with Taiwan through peaceful means.'' The Pentagon observes that, over the past year, Beijing's military exercises have taken on an increasingly real-world focus aimed not only at Taiwan, but also at increasing the risk to U.S. forces and to the United States itself in any future Taiwan contingency.

   The Defense Department warns that China's ``military training exercises increasingly focus on the United States as an adversary.'' Its military modernization concentrates on weapons that could cripple our military strength, including anti-ship missiles to counter our naval fleet and cyber-warfare to disrupt our infrastructure. Beijing is also modernizing its ballistic missile program, improving its missile force across the board both quantitatively and qualitatively. Beijing currently has about 20 inter-continental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, capable of targeting the United States, is projected to add up to 40 longer-range, road-mobile missiles by 2010.

   In light of the Pentagon's conclusions, it is more important than ever that the United States provide Taiwan in a timely manner with the equipment and training it needs to defend itself against a potential Chinese attack. That training should include joint operational training, which would facilitate an allied U.S.-Taiwan response to an attack on Taiwan by China. Taiwan is currently outnumbered 10 to 1 in combat aircraft, 2 to 1 in ships, 60 to 4 in submarines, and its air force is beginning to lose its qualitative edge over China.

   The United States should also expand and multilateralize its security relationships with Taiwan and other allies in East Asia to deter potential Chinese aggression. No doubt China is a very different country than the former Soviet Union, but there is something to be said for the deterrent factor that comes with a NATO-like coalition. As President Bush stated during his campaign, ``We should work toward a day when the fellowship of free Pacific nations is as strong and united as our Atlantic partnership . . .''

   Additionally, the United States needs to develop and deploy missile defenses at the earliest possible date. I am pleased that President Bush recognizes the importance of having such a defensive system, and has made it a top priority among our military objectives.

   What is frustrating is that the United States continues to play a facilitating role in China's military buildup and its proliferation of dual-use technologies--technologies that have civilian and military uses--to rogue states. China's buildup and its proliferation both harm U.S. national security. The United States China Security Review commission agreed with the conclusion of the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission that:

   The U.S. has been and is today a major, albeit unintentional, contributor to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction [through] foreign student training in the U.S., by wide dissemination of technical information, by the illegal acquisition of U.S. designs and equipment, and by the relaxation of U.S. export control policies.

   Our progressive relaxation of controls on the export of high performance computers is just one example. These computers can assist China in its efforts to rapidly design modern nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

   Our lax controls over the export of these computers allow China to legally obtain U.S. technology that helps to improve its military capabilities. Indeed, the Commission concluded that, despite the existence of nominal controls, most high performance computers are no longer licensed and monitored.

   Not only is China using U.S. technology to build its own military capabilities, it is transferring this technology to countries that support international terror networks. The China Commission found that:

   Chinese firms have provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

   Chinese companies have also exported substantial dual-use telecommunications equipment and technology to countries like Iraq. Media reports indicate that the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies--an important player for many U.S. firms who want to reach the Chinese telecom and data communications market--assisted Iraq with fiber-optics to improve its air-defense system. This was not only a violation of U.N. sactions, it also greatly increased the danger to U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones.

   Despite the serious concerns of some policymakers, Members of this body, and others about the national security implications of transfers of such technology to China, the Senate, in September 2001, passed S. 149, the Export Administration Act. If enacted, this legislation would significantly relax our export control regulations and make it far easier for China to obtain sensitive U.S. technology. it would decontrol a number of items--including electronic devices used to trigger nuclear weapons and materials used to build missiles and produce nuclear weapons fuel--by giving these items ``mass market status.''

   Mr. President, it is my hope that, as the anniversary of September 11 approaches, the administration and Congress recognize the potential danger of allowing business interests to continue to trump our national security needs. I am a strong proponent of free trade and open markets. But our national security should not be sacrificed for potential commercial gain. The federal government's first responsibility is the protection of the American people.

   How the United States chooses to manage its relationship with China will have a far-reaching impact on our long-term national security. As that country continues to play a more prominent role on the world stage--no doubt a product of its economic liberalization--it is imperative that U.S. policy appropriately address not only our trade relationship, but also the threat posed by China to U.S. national security. Our actions should be based not on wishes, but on facts--even if they are unpleasant.

   I thank the Chair.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.

3A) Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.

   I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

   Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

   What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction , they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

   Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction .

   These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

   The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction , and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

   This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

   As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

   The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

   First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

   I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

   Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

   If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

   Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

   Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

   Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

   Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

   Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

   We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction --the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons -grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

   We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

   We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

   And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

   The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

3B) The Iraqi Situation
Frankly, I do not think Saddam Hussein, certainly if he had nuclear weapons today, and we know he has biological weapons, and I am going to read you some information about that here in a few minutes, I really do not think that Saddam would use them against the United States of America today. I think he would use them against Israel, but I do not think he would use them against the United States. He is no fool. He is a smart man. That is what I said earlier. He is a smart man. He knows that if he used them against the United States of America and the United States was able to track down, which we could probably do pretty quickly, as to where those weapons came from, who used them against us, that we have the weapon capability to destroy Iraq within minutes. So he is no fool. He does not want to see the United States of America retaliate with a massive, overwhelming attack that would destroy his country.

   So do not think that Saddam Hussein will probably use the weapons himself. What he will do with these weapons is he will give them out. He will give them to the people like the al Qaeda, the people that swear that they are not done with America, that they are going after our kindergartens. Notice they do not say they are going after the military; notice they do not say they will engage in open warfare. They are going to go to the shopping malls, to the stadiums, and to the kindergartens.

   The thing for me in Oklahoma City, what appalled me, the whole thing was horrible, a criminal act, but what was especially embedded in my memory of Oklahoma City was the fact that they had that preschool in there and Timothy McVeigh and his coconspirators, they did not care that there were small children in the Federal building in Oklahoma City. They killed those children without thought.

   But that number was in the tens and tens. These numbers, if these people continue to develop the weapons and are given the weapons by people like Saddam Hussein, the next time they tally a hit against the kindergarten like we see in Oklahoma City, we will see numbers in the thousands and tens of thousands. New York City was 3,000; the Pentagon was a couple of hundred. Those casualties are stunning casualties, horrible, tragic; but the next time, their goal will be to add another comma to the fatalities, to the ravage that they wield upon the United States of America or upon our allies.

   Now let me say that this problem of Saddam Hussein is not something that just came up under the Bush administration. I am amazed, frankly. And this is a bipartisan effort that we have to make. But I am amazed at the position that the Democratic party has taken. I am amazed at some of the leading Democrats in the United States Congress, the demands that they are making upon President Bush, the implications that they are making upon the President, that somehow he is some kind of wild Texas cowboy that wants to start a war.

   I am going to go through what President Bill Clinton, their favorite President, the President most strongly supported by the liberal community, I am going to go through some quotes that President Clinton said several years ago about Saddam Hussein.

   This is a very serious problem we are dealing with. I have never been more, I guess, in deep thought or sober about a situation than I am about the situation that we face today on the international circuit with the al Qaeda and with Iraq. I am stunned. Obviously, I do not disagree at all that the United States Congress, it is our obligation to be engaged in debate and to be engaged in the public policy, and to be engaged in the declaration of any type of war that this country might engage in.

   So the comments that I am making are not whether or not we should have public debate in the United States Congress. I think that is good. What I am talking about this evening are how all of a sudden some of the individuals who stood right behind Bill Clinton and urged President Clinton, and these are Democrats, urged President Clinton to take immediate action to adopt a war resolution against Iraq, have done a complete reverse, saying, well, President Bush is going to have to answer a whole bunch of questions. We are not sure. Where is the justification for taking on Iraq? Where 3 or 4 years ago they were standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder, demanding that President Clinton and supporting him: We have to go into Iraq. We have to do something about that.

   That is not stuff I am just making up. I have it right here. Let us go through it a little. This is probably an appropriate time. Let us look at President Clinton here.

   President Clinton understood the threat then. Now, I think there has been a little spin put on it. I noticed that the other day the President said, or reported, and the President did not say it to me, I did not hear it from his mouth, but the President said if we were to take on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, that he, the President, that he does possess weapons, and the concern would be that he would use those weapons.

   If we take that out logically, what we are saying is we should not go against Saddam because he might use these weapons. That is exactly the kind of leverage that Saddam Hussein wants to have with the rest of the world, the doctrine of nonproliferation.

   And keep in mind, it was the liberals, and I am not trying to assail a particular affiliation, but there is a clear line here as to our ideas and our policies. It was the liberals that said, look, nonproliferation; let us hope this cancer goes away. Let us pray it away. Let us have peace throughout the world.

   There are a lot of these countries out there that, unfortunately, no matter how much we pray, and I pray, and prayer is good, but no matter how much we pray, no matter how many hands we offer, no matter what we do, they are determined to wipe us off the face of the Earth. And it is not an idle threat. It was not an idle threat a year ago on September 11, and it will not be an idle threat a year from now.

   We have to face up to the fact that there is a malignant cancer, no matter how much we pray, and it helps, and no matter how much we hope, no matter how well our neighbor talks to us and says, look, things are going to be all right, and they hold hands and we have lots of hugs and lots of tears and lots of love; people come up and say, we are going to help you, and all of that; that is all good, but the fact is that evil devil of malignant cancer is still in us, and that is the problem we have right here.

   This kind of thing, this kind of thing right here, ``We are emerging stronger, and we will hit America's shopping malls, stadiums, and kindergartens,'' that is a

   malignant cancer. We are not going to pray or hope that thought away. The only way we are going to be able to eliminate this threat is we have to take the fight to them.

   Let us look at Bill Clinton's comments, the former President. I will read them: ``What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his programs of weapons of mass destruction, and continue to press for the release of sanctions, and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.''

   That was President Bill Clinton, February 18, 1998, 4 years ago; over 4 years ago; 4 1/2 years ago those were the profound and well-spoken words, and right on point, of President Clinton. Does anybody in these Chambers believe that the capability, the destructive capability, of Saddam Hussein has reduced, has been reduced? Does anybody in here believe, really, truly in their hearts, that this madman has abandoned his weapons of mass destruction, which include chemical warfare and the attempt to get nuclear weapons?

   We know in our hearts that he has not. We wish it were not true. Again, going to the example, we wish in our heart we did not have the cancer, we wish it was not true, we wish we were having a bad dream, and tomorrow morning we could wake up and it would be a bad dream, but it is reality. We have a commitment. We have a solemn commitment to the American people that we are willing and able to stand up to the great task which sits in front of us, and that great task, of course, is to secure the safety of not only this Nation but our allies, as well.

   I know we are getting a lot of bashing by our allies, and we have a lot of allies that say, look, do it on your own. This is a dirty job. This is going to require some dirty work. We have some fair-weathered friends out there, but nonetheless, they are friends. They do not want to get their hands dirty. They do not want to get out there in the battlefield. They want the United States to do it.

   If the United States does it alone and succeeds, we will be criticized for having done it on our own. But the reality of it is, somebody has got to do it. We cannot continue to let this cancer fester, because if we do, they are going to be successful. Knock on wood, and with the blessing of God, they have not hit our kindergarten yet. But Members know that is one of their targets. That is what they have told us. The statement is clear.

   Let us go through some history here: ``Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger.'' This is an article, by the way, taken out of the Weekly Standard, the newsletter. ``The President asked the Nation to consider this question.'' This is President Bill Clinton: ``What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act,'' as I said on the chart that I showed you, and this guy is allowed to continue.

   This article goes on: ``The President,'' again, referring to President Clinton, ``His warnings are firm. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes,'' again, Bill Clinton, 4 1/2 years ago on Iraq, ``The stakes could not be higher.''

   This is a quote from Bill Clinton: ``Some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use the arsenal.'' That is 4 1/2 years ago, and our President ably and quite accurately recognized the threat. I can tell the Members that several of the leading Democrats, the Democrat leadership, got right behind the President in regard to the statement.

   Yet those very leaders today are questioning President Bush: He is overreacting, he is overstating, he had better have the evidence to prove all of this. What a 360-degree or a 180-degree turn in the last 4 1/2 years.

   Let me continue on. Those are not the words of President George W. Bush in September of 2002, but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisors had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long buildup of United States troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf, and it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

   But just 5 days later, Kofi Annan, with the United Nations, struck yet another deal with the Iraqi dictator which once more gave the United Nations inspectors permission to inspect, and Saddam won again. Of course, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse.

   ``Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained and the United States bombed a little. Then

   we stopped bombing. Later we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the United Nations created a new toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing.''

   If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February of 1998 when President Bill Clinton prepared this country for war, and United Nations inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring this weapons buildup, that Saddam is even a greater threat today.

   Now, keep in mind the history that we have seen with the Germans, for example, in World War I. The complaints that we see coming out of Iraq, oh, this is the proprietary area of our borders, for protection of our country; we should not be forced to have inspectors in the country; they are picking on poor old me; well, look at the arguments against inspections, although Germany agreed to it after World War I, as compared to what Saddam Hussein. And by the way, he has agreed to all of this. He signed a compact never to have these weapons in the history of his country.

   But compare that back in history with after World War I, what the Germans did, and what the European response was to the Germans. It was a doctrine of, well, we are picking on him. We really should not be inspecting this country. We really ought to respect their borders. We ought to take them on their word, or make them promise. But U.S., you are exaggerating.

   What was happening? The Germans were building up their gas munitions. We all know what happened a few years later when the Germans utilized these things. That is what is happening here, and that is what this article says.

   The quotes that we have been giving, with the exception of this, this is not from 1998, this is very recent, but the quotes were from President Bill Clinton. He recognized the threat in 1998, and so did the Democratic leadership. Why is it that in 2002, the Democratic leadership is pretending as if none of this has occurred? They are making demands upon President Bush that they never made upon President Clinton.

   I think every President has an obligation to their Nation, and I think they are constitutionally required to justify taking this country into a military action. After all, we are asking our sons and daughters to go in in defense of this country and to take an affirmative action against another country where the probability of loss of life is very high. We ought to meet the highest of standards.

   But it is my position today, and I think it ought to be Members' positions, that those standards have been met for some time; that right underneath our nose we have a man who has cooperated with people like al Qaeda; a man who invaded another country and killed thousands and thousands of people; a leader, a man who poisoned and gassed his own people; a man who, almost on a daily basis, fires missiles against American and allied aircraft. We know what he is doing. We are meeting the standards that demand that America do something about this.

   I would hope that our allies come on board. I would hope we get assistance from our allies. We cannot turn a blind eye to a malignant cancer, and we cannot turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein.

   You cannot do it. It will always come back to get you, and it will be your kindergartens that will suffer in the future if we do not respond affirmatively today.

   Now does that mean we send in more inspectors? The only way you should send in more inspectors is on a time basis and those inspectors have unconditional entry into that country and they can go wherever they want in Iraq and do whatever kind of tests are necessary to run to ascertain that these weapons are, in fact, not in existence. I doubt seriously that that will occur.

   Now, Iraq, by the way, may say, just to stall, they may say, okay, we will agree to it. But a week later you will find that there is a flat tire on the bus, that they are not going to let them go where they need to go. We cannot continue to fool around with this malignant cancer. We have got to sit up to reality. We have got to face reality. We have got to aggressively attack this cancer.

   Now, I am not a military expert. I do not know what the military strategy should be. But I do know this, diplomatically we have not achieved the goal of concurring the cancer. It is like saying to a patient, I know you have prayed very hard about this. I know you have got a lot of family support in fighting this cancer. I know you have got a lot of hugs. I know that you have changed your diet. But the fact is the malignant cancer is still in your foot and it is aggressively moving up into the rest of your body. You face a very tough decision. It will inconvenience your life. But in the long run, it is the only decision for the preservation of your life that you can make, and that is that you have got to accept the reality that it is there, it is moving and it will kill you.

   It is the same thing with Iraq. It is there. They are developing and have in their possession weapons of mass destruction and they will kill us. And if they do not attempt to kill us, they will give it to people like the al Qaeda that will carry this out. They do not care about our morality, values and our respect for our children and the preservation of life. That is obvious by their acts of September 11.

   Let me continue with a few comments. Summing up the Clinton administration argument, Senator Daschle said, ``Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic efforts to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That is what they are saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we do not have another option. We have to force them to comply and we are doing so militarily.''

   That is from the majority leader, the Democratic majority leader, the president of Senate. All of the sudden that is not what we are hearing today.

   Let me continue. ``JOHN KERRY was equally hawkish. 'If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the United Nations' resolution for inspections and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press the case internationally and do what we need to do in order to enforce those rights. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.'"

   These are comments made by leadership of the Democratic Party in 1998; and yet today when you read the paper, well, we should defer this decision until after the elections, as if Saddam Hussein schedules his development of weapons of mass destruction, he sets them so that they are convenient with our election dates in this country.

   It amazes me that with these kinds of threats in existence, with the knowledge that we had in 1998 that we know has not changed in 4 1/2 years, in fact, has only increased, that we have hesitancy, that we have hesitancy by some of these very leaders that advocated action in 1998, not to do action in 2002 or to delay it and wait and wait and wait. Maybe the doctrine of appeasement does not work. The fact is we have to deal with it.

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). The gentleman will refrain from casting reflections of sitting Members of the Senate.

   Mr. McINNIS. Let me finish off this article with this quote from President Clinton in 1998: ``We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.''

   This is President Clinton I am referring to.

   Let me repeat my comment. From President Clinton: ``We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century.'' To leave the quote for a minute, I absolutely agree 100 percent with what President Clinton was saying here. He was right then and George W. Bush is right today.

   Continuing: ``We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century,'' he argued. ``They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.'' And as the article says: ``What more do you need to say?"

   Now, we have taken some steps and we have taken some bipartisan steps, our missile defense system. The President has made commitment and we, as a Congress, have increased significantly the budgets, our military budgets, our defense mechanisms, but here is our biggest weakness. We have a very large Nation geographically. It is very tough to defend these borders. For example, shipping containers that come in. We cannot inspect even close to the number of shipping containers that come into this Nation every day. It is kind of like having a village in the mountains and from somewhere on the mountain every day you got a sniper, somebody shooting into your village. You cannot possibly put up a wall to stop these bullets from coming in. Every day that goes by the sniper fires another shot into the village.

   At some point the village has to decide we cannot defend our perimeter. We will have to take the fight to them. We will have to go up on that mountain and find where that sniper is.

   That is the situation we face here today. We cannot just retract on our borders within the United States, as some of our allies may suggest, that the United States is poking their nose into somebody else's business. Well, it became everybody's business after September 11. And what President Clinton accurately forecasted in 1998 came into place on September 11, 1 year ago.

   The time of being able to just sit comfortably here and hope that it was not happening out there or enjoying the privilege of the fact that it had not happened within the borders of the United States for a long time, assuming that Pearl Harbor could go into that classification, and it does, those days are gone. We now have to engage in this fight, and we have to engage in this in every way possible.

   I am not condemning diplomatic pursuit of some peaceful resolution. I am not condemning using prayers if you are trying to fight cancer. I think it is very, very helpful. And I think diplomatic efforts are very, very necessary. And I am not saying that we should not have congressional debate. I think it is constitutionally required. I think it is healthy for this Congress, for the people who have elected us to represent their views to have that type of debate.

   But what I am saying is we cannot dilly dally around. We cannot any longer afford to ignore the fact that the malignant cancer is out there. We cannot afford to debate the accuracy of the x-ray very long. The x-ray tells us there is cancer. It told us we had cancer 4 years ago when President Clinton very accurately said what he has, what Saddam Hussein had, and what Saddam Hussein, by the way, supplies to the al Qaeda. We know it is there. And it does not do us any good in my opinion to continue to try to pretend it is not happening, to try to pretend that there is some clean way to handle this, that we can call Saddam up on the phone and say, Knock it off. What are you doing? Put those

   weapons in the closet and quit doing this and live peacefully with the rest of the world.

   They have no intention of doing anything but destroying as much of the rest of the world as they can. And at the top of their list are our kindergartens. Every mother and father in America should be in a state of absolute dismay and anger today after this quote was released yesterday about targeting kindergartens. These are kindergartens in America, kindergartens in the United States. Some of us knew that, obviously, we think they will target some of these other areas; but for them to come out and say, your kindergartens, that is what we will target in America, that ought to wake everybody up.

   The time for a debate is rapidly approaching. We should have a resolution on this floor as quickly as we can get a resolution on this floor. Our allies that belong to the United Nations ought to wake up, a lot of them are; but they need to come to the table too. America does not want to do it alone. America can do it alone, but America wants to be a partner. And I will tell you, our partnership, whether it is France, whether it is Hamburg, Germany, whether it is in Poland, all free-loving countries in the world are under the threat of this cancer of Iraq and the al Qaeda. And we, frankly, despite my criticism today or my expression of dismay by some of the remarks we see coming from our European allies, I do want to take a moment to tell you that as most of you know our European allies have assisted us in many ways with this fight against terrorism. But for some reason, I am a little baffled by the fact that we cannot get them to come over to this side of the line to face the reality of the threat that Iraq has against the world.

   It is the United States today. Sure, that is their number one target, the United States and Israel. But I can assure our allies it is like the big bad wolf. It is at our door today, but it will be at your door tomorrow. And we have to team up. This partnership has to stay together. This partner, the United States of America, does not want to take Iraq on by itself or take on the war against terrorism. And our partners have come to the table in large part against the war on terrorism. But they are not coming to the table like they ought to be on Iraq. And it is time for this partnership meeting, for us to cut to the chase, to get down to the work that has to be done, and it is dirty work and it is a large task in front of us; but if we do not do it today, we will have let down, in my opinion I do not think it is too strong a word to use the word betrayed, we will have betrayed future generations by knowingly allowing a threat to be built of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, to knowingly let that threat and those weapons be built by a mad man with the kind of commitments they have made to target our kindergartens and we do not take the fight to them.

   It is inherently a responsibility of those of us in Congress to debate this. I do not argue that, I said that earlier. But as inherently, as strong as the debate is to get that debate completed and to move in a unified fashion as this Congress and as the United States Senate signaled it would with President Clinton in 1998, and the threat has only grown greater.

   I think it is time for both of these Houses to come together in 2002 and move against the cancer that exists out there as a threat against the borders of this country, and as I have said, against the borders of our allies wherever they might be located throughout the worlds.

   So I would hope that in the next, I hope in the very immediate future, I know that the President is going to the United Nations this week, I hope our allies in the United Nations and the people of the United Nations understand what a threat this malignancy is out there, understand how unsuccessful we have been to convince through diplomatic efforts, through inspections, through economic sanctions, through no-fly zones, how unsuccessful these efforts have been to get Saddam Hussein to stop proceeding with these weapons, what the ramifications are of these weapons.

   Do my colleagues think that the al Qaeda, if they would have had nuclear weapons within their hands, do my colleagues think they would have used aircraft on September 11? They would have used nuclear weapons.

   Do not forget, this country suffered an attack, a chemical attack, anthrax within days of September 11. We got hit with a chemical, with a biological attack against this country. Do my colleagues not think if the al Qaeda did not have that in their hands in sufficient quantities that they would not have used that? They were probably surprised that the World Trade towers collapsed. We know from the video that we have seen, they were elated by the success of their attack, but this only set the base for the al Qaeda. This only sets a base for countries like Iraq.

   The next attack, they want to make sure those casualties, children, women and men, they want to make sure those casualties are many, many multiples of what September 11, the horror that September 11 brought to this Nation.

   As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am trying to think of my history. I have been in Congress 10 years. The horrible fires we suffered in Colorado this year, all of the different things, big issues that I think over these last few years we have dealt with, I cannot think of anything that is of a more of a threat, that has more serious future consequences than the international situation that we face today. Not the economy, not the impeachment several years ago, not the fires. We have got to go after that cancer that has centered itself in Iraq and has spread to al Qaeda and throughout rest of the world.

   Again, at the conclusion of my remarks this evening, let me repeat what President Bill Clinton said 4 1/2 years ago. President Clinton, ``We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century,'' he argued. ``They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.''

   I will wrap up my comments with 15 more seconds. I would ask my colleagues to take 15 seconds and read the poster, and once again, what more of a threat, what more of a warning do we need, do we need as a Nation than exists out there today? If in 1998 what Saddam Hussein did in 1998 was not enough, then was September 11 enough? Then was the acts of aggression against Kuwait enough? Was the assassination against Bush, Senior enough? If that was not enough, if all of that was not enough, this statement standing alone, this statement standing alone ought to be enough to bring all of us to bear arms to assure the security of this Nation and our friends throughout the world.

END

3C) Saddam's Violations of UN Resolutions
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the wake of the remarks by the President of the United States before the United Nations, words that resonated not only around this Nation but around the world, to respectfully repeat the question the President asked that august and historic body today: Will the United Nations choose to be relevant on the planet Earth?

   As the President described, Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations resolutions over the past decade. The United Nations, for incomprehensible reasons, has chosen to retreat in the face of Hussein's audacity.

   Mr. Speaker, we must learn the lessons of history. Over 60 years ago, Neville Chamberlain retreated in the face of tyranny in Central Europe when he returned to the people of England and held aloft a sheet of paper, an agreement of peace with the dictator of Germany, and pledged that he had achieved peace in our time.

   For the past decade, the United Nations has repeated the mistakes of the past. President Bush demonstrated by his speech in the United Nations that he will not play the role of a modern-day Chamberlain, but he has chosen to play the role of Churchill. As the President said today, Saddam has made the case against himself. A dictator who routinely murders his own people, harbors terrorists, develops weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the civilized world.

   President Bush has made the case for military action against Iraq, and it is now time for the United Nations to fully support regime change in that nation and for that people.

   Iraq has refused weapons inspections for almost 4 years. Mr. Speaker, 4 years is 4 years too long. Are we to believe that Saddam Hussein stopped developing biological and chemical weapons and his pursuit of nuclear capability at the exact moment he prevented weapons inspections from going forward? As the President said memorably today to the United Nations, logic and common sense scream otherwise.

   Are we willing to gamble, as the President asked, the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people on the possibility that Saddam Hussein can be trusted, or is it more reasonable to assume that when that dictator attains a nuclear weapon, that he will be prepared to use it?

   Saddam Hussein has already used weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear capability is simply the next and logical macabre step. As the President said today, this is a gamble that opponents of military action are taking in the world. It is a gamble that I and many in this institution, as the debate ensues in the weeks and months ahead, I pray will not be willing to take.

   Mr. Speaker, military conflict is a serious business. There is not a night that I do not go into my 11-year-old son's room late, pull up the covers and brush back his hair, that I am not aware of the cost of war. But I must say today, the risk of inaction against this malevolent dictator, who has flaunted the resolutions of the civilized world, is greater than the risks of action.

   The United Nations, as the President said memorably today, Mr. Speaker, was designed to be able to respond to threats from dangerous dictators who threaten the peace of the world. I say again that question which the President asked today. The United Nations must now choose whether it will be relevant on planet Earth.

   If they choose against relevance, as the President was clear today, let the world be assured that by this Congress and its war powers authorizing our Commander in Chief, the United States and its courageous allies will not choose irrelevance; we will choose justice. We can seek the safety and security of our people and the people of the civilized world.

3D) Act Now
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last Friday (September 6, 2002), an outstanding article by our distinguished former Secretary of State, George P. Shultz, was published in a number of American newspapers. Secretary Shultz eloquently explained why he believes we must act decisively against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

As Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan, George Schultz exhibited remarkable experience in foreign affairs. Since leaving the Department of State, Secretary Shultz has continued to deal with international relations as a Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, an institution dedicated to public policy analysis of international and domestic questions. In recognition of Secretary Schultz's outstanding commitment to education and public service, the Hoover Institution's Foreign Service Institute was recently renamed in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of our colleagues in the United States Congress would benefit from reading Secretary Schultz's excellent analysis on the issue of Iraq, and I ask that it be placed in the RECORD.

Are we to be the Hamlet of nations, debating endlessly over when and how to act? Saddam Hussein's performance as ruler of Iraq is a matter of grave concern not just for the United States but for the international community as a whole. The major debate going on in the media, in Congress and with our friends and allies is necessary. But it is also necessary to move beyond debate and create the clarity that is the basis for action.

The world now has entered the third decade of crises and dangers to international peace and security created by Saddam Hussein. In 1980 he launched an eight-year war against Iran. Chemical weapons were used, and at least 1.5 million people were killed or severely wounded. In 1990 he invaded Kuwait in a war aimed at eradicating another state's legitimate sovereign existence. As he was forced out, he deliberately created environmental degradation of gigantic proportions. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurdish people in an attack on a genocidal scale, and he has sent his forces into Kurdistan to conduct widespread slaughter. He has relentlessly amassed weapons of mass destruction and continues their development. He has turned Iraq into a state that foments, supports and conducts terrorism. No other dictator today matches his record of war, oppression, use of weapons of mass destruction and continuing contemptuous violation of international law, as set out by unanimous actions of the U.N. Security Council.

Against this background, much of the current debate ignores the facts of the United Nations' long series of steps to rein in Saddam Hussein and authorize action against his regime. A strong foundation exists for immediate military action against Hussein and for a multilateral effort to rebuild Iraq after he is gone.

A remarkable series of U.N. Security Council resolutions in 1990 and 1991 authorized war to oust Hussein's forces from Kuwait. This was the basis for the Desert Storm campaign that won the Gulf War in 1991. With that military victory, a Security Council resolution declared the ``suspension'' of offensive operations, deliberately leaving intact the original authorization to use force. Then Security Council Resolution 687 imposed a series of demands upon Iraq with the objective of restoring peace and security in the area. This carried the case against Hussein beyond the matter of liberating Kuwait to focus on the elimination, under international inspection, of his weapons of mass destruction. In other words, the threat to the region and the world of a decisively armed Iraq was fully recognized and declared unacceptable.

In the first years after Desert Storm, U.N. inspectors uncovered Iraqi facilities used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. They dismantled uranium-enrichment and other nuclear weapons installations and destroyed a chemical weapons plant and hundreds of missile warheads armed with poison gas. Threats of Iraq's noncooperation were countered by U.S. airstrikes. But even limited Iraqi compliance decreased sharply over time.

The U.N. inspectors did what they could. They found a lot, but they missed even more. In 1995 Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Hassan Majeed, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, defected and revealed that Hussein was making biological weapons at a center where inspectors had found nothing. The center, which had produced 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and botulinum toxins, was destroyed, but the inadequacy of inspections in Iraq was demonstrated.

In 1997 Saddam Hussein escalated his campaign of harassment, obstruction and threats against the inspection effort. He activated ground-to-air missile systems to deter inspection flights. He expelled all American members of the inspection teams. In early 1998 Hussein refused access to ``presidential sites''--the numerous palaces he had built for himself around Iraq. The United States responded with a military buildup, including ground troops deployed to Kuwait. In a speech at the Pentagon in February 1998, President Clinton gave details of Iraq's violations and declared that Hussein must grant ``full, free and unfettered'' access to inspectors or the United States would launch attacks to compel his compliance.

In an attempt to defuse the crisis, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan negotiated that same month a Memorandum of Understanding between Iraq and the United Nations, which pledged ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' for inspections. A Security Council resolution endorsed the Memorandum of Understanding and warned Iraq of the ``severest consequences'' if the memorandum was violated.

In September 1998, the chief U.N. inspector informed the Security Council that Iraq was again barring inspections, and the council, in yet another resolution, condemned Iraq for suspending its cooperation. A further U.N. effort to regain Iraq's cooperation failed as Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with U.N. inspections. In an emergency session, the Security Council passed Resolution 1205 on Nov. 5, 1998, condemning Iraq's action as ``a flagrant violation'' of the original resolutions of 1990-91. Since then, nothing consequential has been done. The failure to take military action against Hussein after his flagrant violation in 1998 has given him nearly four years to continue unencumbered in his development and accumulation of weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq by its own actions has, in effect, terminated the cease-fire established in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War and reactivated the ``suspended'' authorization to use military force against Iraq. No longer can anyone plausibly claim that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can be eliminated by an inspection program. The Security Council's judgment still stands: A Saddam Hussein armed with weapons of mass destruction is not acceptable. Military force against Hussein is both necessary and authorized to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

The full range of reasonable legal, diplomatic and other alternatives has been exhausted. All conceivable forms of leverage have been employed: sanctions; embargoes; massive military buildups to threaten him into compliance; limited military operations in the form of air and cruise missile strikes; the encouragement of internal opposition; positive inducement through the ``oil for peace'' program; and diplomacy in all forms--unilateral, multilateral, private, public, direct and through intermediaries. Nothing has worked. Any further steps will only provide him with more time and heighten the danger.

Self-defense is a valid basis for preemptive action. The evidence is clear that Hussein continues to amass weapons of mass destruction. He has also demonstrated a willingness to use them against internal as well as external targets. By now, the risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action. If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense.

The danger is immediate. The making of weapons of mass destruction grows increasingly difficult to counter with each passing day. When the risk is not hundreds of people killed in a conventional attack but tens or hundreds of thousands killed by chemical, biological or nuclear attack, the time factor is even more compelling.

The moment is racing toward us when Hussein's possession of nuclear weaponry could transform the regional and international situation into what, in the Cold War, we called the balance of terror. Some argue that to act now might trigger Hussein's use of his worst weapons. Such self-imposed blackmail presumes easier judgments when he is even better equipped than now. Time is his ally, not ours.

Concern over the future of Iraq is legitimate. Following the end of the current Iraqi regime, a new Iraq can emerge as a territorially integral sovereign state with a federal-style form that respects the Kurdish, Sunni and Shia communities. A set of phased transitional steps, including referendums and elections, can be carried out and involve the range of Iraqi political parties, factions and groups in exile and internally opposed to the Hussein regime over the years.

For the Middle East, a major source of and support for terror and instability will have ended. Those who argue that the Iraq crisis should be deferred until progress is achieved between Israelis and Palestinians are proposing an impossible task. For the Arab world as a whole, a new Iraq offers the opportunity to start a reversal of the stagnation detailed in the ``Arab Human Development Report 2002'' recently released by the United Nations. The report describes how Arab societies are being crippled by a lack of political freedom, repression of women and isolation from the world of ideas that stifles creativity.

The history of Iraq, the achievements of its peoples, its high civilization of the past, and its extensive natural resources all point to the possibility of a positive transformation once Hussein's yoke is lifted. In the process, a model can emerge that other Arab societies may look to and emulate for their own transformation and that of the entire region. The challenge of Iraq offers an opportunity for a historic turning point that can lead us in the direction of a more peaceful, free and prosperous future.

This is a defining moment in international affairs. Authorization for action is clear. We have made endless efforts to bring Saddam Hussein into line with the duly considered judgments of a unanimous U.N. Security Council. Let us go to the Security Council and assert this case with the care of a country determined to take decisive action. And this powerful case for acting now must be made promptly to Congress. Its members will have to stand up and be counted. Then let's get on with the job.

The writer was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. He is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

3E) Call to Arms Against Iraq
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the convincing call to action against Iraq that President Bush issued yesterday at the United Nations to discuss the unique dangers created by Saddam Hussein's regime and to argue that it is imperative that the international community, led by the United States of America, mobilize now to eliminate those dangers.

   On September 11, 2001, a foreboding new chapter in American history began. On that day, our Government was reawakened in this new century to its oldest and most solemn responsibility: protecting the lives and liberty of the American people.

   As we survey the landscape of threats to our security in the years ahead, the greatest are terrorists--al-Qaida and rogue regimes such as Saddam Hussein's.

   Saddam hates America and Americans and is working furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass destruction and the missiles, planes, and unmanned aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets.

   Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world. As long as Saddam remains in power, there will be no genuine security and no lasting peace in the Middle East, among the Arab nations or among the Arabs, Israelis, and Christians who live there.

   The threat Saddam poses has been articulated so often that some may have grown numb to the reality of his brutality. But after September 11, we must reacquaint ourselves with him because if we do not understand and act, his next victims, like Osama bin Laden's, could be innocent Americans.

   President Bush advanced that process with great effectiveness in his speech at the U.N. yesterday, albeit after a season long on the beating of drums of war and short on explaining why war may now be necessary. But the President did that yesterday in New York. Now we, in Congress, must go forward together with him as the Constitution's competing clauses require us to do. Each of us must decide what actions will best advance America's values and secure the future of the American people.

   The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession--chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history, his invasions of his neighbors, his dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world, his record of anti-American rage, his willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. And we need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.

   Indeed, 2 days ago on September 11, 2002, the state-owned newspaper in Iraq showed a picture of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in flames with the headline ``God's Punishment.''

   This man--Saddam Hussein--is a menace to the people and the peace of the world. It was his brutal invasion of his peaceful neighbor, Kuwait, in August 1990 that first and finally convinced America and the world that Saddam had become a tyrant, like so many before him in world history, who had to be stopped before he did terrible damage to his people, his region, and the wider world. I was privileged in January of 1991 to join with my colleague from Virginia, Senator JOHN WARNER, in sponsoring the Senate resolution that authorized the first President Bush to go to war against Saddam.

   The American military fought bravely and brilliantly, in that conflict and won an extraordinary victory in rolling back Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But we did not achieve total victory. On April 9, 1991, I came to the Senate floor and expressed my disappointment that our forces in Desert Storm had not been authorized to remove Saddam from power, while his military was in disarray.

   I said then: ``The United States must pursue final victory over Saddam. We must use all reasonable diplomatic, economic, and military means to achieve his removal from power. Until that end is realized, the peace and stability of the region will not have been fully accomplished.''

   In 1997 and 1998, I joined with Senators Bob Kerrey, TRENT LOTT, and JOHN MCCAIN to introduce the Iraq Liberation Act, which established in law for the first time that it is U.S. policy to change the regime in Baghdad, not just contain it, and authorized specific assistance, including military training and equipment, to the Iraqi opposition in furtherance of that goal. That declaration was based on Saddam's record of barbarism before, during and after the gulf war, and his repeated violations of U.N. resolutions.

   On November 13, 1998, after Saddam ejected the U.N. weapons inspectors, I said, ``If we let him block the inspections and the monitoring that he agreed to as a condition of the cease-fire in the gulf war, then there is no doubt that one day soon, he will use weapons of mass destruction, carried by ballistic missiles, against Americans in the Middle East or against our allies.''

   Since then, months and years have passed and the danger from Baghdad has only grown greater. International pressure--legal, diplomatic, economic, and political--has failed to change Saddam's behavior. Growing stockpiles of Iraqi weapons, toxins, and delivery systems have accumulated. So too has a growing pile of U.N. resolutions which Saddam has persistently defied. They testify to the repeated opportunities the international community has given him to prove he has changed and to his determination nonetheless to remain a recidivist international outlaw.

   As President Bush made clear yesterday, this must end. The hour of truth and decision has arrived. This is Saddam's last chance, and the United Nations' best chance to show that its declarations of international law stand for something more than the paper on which they are written. It is time for all nations, law abiding and peace loving, to make clear that, after September 11, the world will not hesitate or equivocate while a tyrant stocks his arsenal and builds alliances with terrorists.

   I am grateful that President Bush has effectively begun the critical work of educating the American people, the Congress, and the world about why. Our cause is just. The facts are on our side.

   ``Making this case'' is not a burden. It is the vital responsibility of a democracy's leaders when they have decided that our Nation's security may necessitate war.

   It is an extraordinary opportunity, as well, to engage our allies in meeting the greatest security threat of our generation before it is too late--not just for us but for them. An opportunity to make the consequences of repeated defiance of the United Nations painfully clear to Iraq, and to any other government that might follow in its criminal path. An opportunity to show the world's law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim majority--who share the same values we do, the same aspirations we have for our families, and, I might add, the same extremist foes--that as we oppose tyranny and terror, we will actively support them in their fight for freedom and a better life.

   President Bush has acted wisely and decisively in asking the United Nations to lead this noble effort, to insist that Iraq obey its resolutions, and to be

   prepared to enforce them militarily if Iraq does not comply. But if Saddam does not comply, and the United Nations proves itself unwilling or unable to take decisive action, then the United States surely can and must assemble and lead an international military coalition to enforce the United Nations resolutions and liberate the Iraqi people, the Middle East and the world from Saddam Hussein. If we lead, I am confident many other nations will come to our side.

   For more than 11 years now, since the early spring of 1991, I have supported the use of military force to disarm Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, since the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998, that has been the law of our land. Therefore, I am fully supportive of such military action now.

   I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate believe thoughtfully and

[Page: S8595]  GPO's PDF

   But the White House has made it clear it will ask for a resolution of support and authorization in the very near future. Each member of the Senate must, and I am confident will, face that reality in a spirit of non-partisanship, going where their hearts and heads take them, in deciding how best to fulfill our Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense in the current circumstances. For my part, I intend to work with Members of both parties in the Senate with the White House to draft a Senate resolution that will receive the broadest possible bipartisan support for the President, as Commander in Chief, as he works to protect our Nation and the world from Saddam Hussein.

   On October 22, 1962, as nuclear weapons were being amassed in Cuba, President, Kennedy spoke to the Nation and warned Americans of the need to act in the face of the rising threat. President Kennedy's courageous and eloquent words can guide us now. He said on that occasion.

   My fellow citizens, let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can see precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead, months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.

   The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are, but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, and Americans have always paid it but there is one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.

   Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right--not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here ..... and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.

   I yield the floor.

4A) Department of Defense Appropriations
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 5010, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003 -- (House of Representatives - September 10, 2002)

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

   MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OLVER

   Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Mr. Olver moves that the managers on the part of the House on the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 5010, be instructed to insist on the higher funding levels permitted within the scope of conference with regard to chemical and biological defense programs, projects, and activities.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

   Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Madam Speaker, I offer this motion on behalf of the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who has been detained.

   Madam Speaker, it has become obvious to all that chemical and biological warfare is a clear and present danger to our country.

[Time: 11:00]

   The two gentlemen who lead the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have recognized this fact for many years and have steadfastly worked to increase the funding for the variety of promising technologies in development to protect us from these weapons of mass destruction . We want, through this motion, to continue this.

   Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Madam Speaker, I am prepared to accept the gentleman's motion.

   Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

   The motion to instruct was agreed to.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the following conferees:

   Messrs. LEWIS of California, YOUNG of Florida, SKEEN, HOBSON, BONILLA, NETHERCUTT, CUNNINGHAM, FRELINGHUYSEN, TIAHRT, MURTHA, DICKS, SABO, VISCLOSKY, MORAN of Virginia and OBEY.

   There was no objection.

4B) WMD Civil Support Teams
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman, for recognizing early on that a major government reorganization should be considered in light of the tragic events of September 11th and for his leadership in putting together a basic structure for a new Department of Homeland Security. I also praise President Bush for supporting the existing congressional effort to elevate the authority and the status of the Office of Homeland Security to a Cabinet level position that will be responsive to the needs of the American people.

As we approach the anniversary of September 11th, Congress has been diligently working to insure that America has a Department of Homeland Security that can be responsive to the challenges of the post September 11th world. The Senate has spent the past few months exploring the bureaucratic obstacles that limited our capacity to identify and prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11th. We have considered in hearings whether the steps that have been taken to advance our country's safety and security since September 11 have been effective, and whether they adequately protect our most fundamental civil liberties.

The Congress has always responded to the challenge to protect this nation against any and all threats, including terrorism. I am committed to ensuring that as we build this new agency, we do so in manner that guarantees that basic fundamental rights are not lost or forgotten in a rush to be seen as doing something.

As the Senate moves forward in considering this new government structure, I have been guided by two simple questions: Will this reorganization make all of us safer? And will it preserve our liberties as Americans? That inquiry should continue to guide our consideration for a Department of Homeland Security.

So as we move forward toward establishing a Department of Homeland Security, it is important for all of us to examine and discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the pending proposal. All of us know that local law enforcement stands at the front line for security in our neighborhoods and communities. The new Department should be organized in a manner that helps and doesn't hinder local law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security needs to insure that federal, state and local law enforcement work together with the necessary information, tools and resources that are required to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges our first responders are facing.

I am pleased that my bill, the First Responder Support Act, is part of the present proposal we are now discussing. I certainly want to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, for her work in making our responsibility to first responders a priority in this bill.

The First Responder Support Act will help first responders get the information and training they need from the Department of Homeland Security. I am also introducing the First Responder Communication Support Act to help communities who need communication systems to enable police, fire, EMS, and relief agencies to speak to one another in a time of crisis without overwhelming existing communication lines. Whether people face an act of terrorism or a tornado, in a time of emergency our first responders need to be able to communicate with one another.

I am also concerned about our efforts to protect the public from the use of weapons of mass destruction. The emerging chemical and biological weapons of the 21st century present new challenges to our military and to local first responders. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks emphasize the need to have full-time teams in each State. I have filed an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State by September 30, 2003. The cost of establishing, training, equipping, and operating these new teams would be paid for from existing fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense resources, thus requiring no additional spending while providing a critical level of protection. As we rethink the security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an additional 23 full-time Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Establishing these additional full-time teams will improve the overall capacity and capability to prepare for and respond to potential threats in the future. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Chairman Lieberman on this effort.

5A) Homeland Security Act of 2002, SA 4508 and 4509
SA 4508. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. TORRICELLI) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4471 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN to the bill H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 210, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

TITLE VI--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team Act of 2002''.
SEC. 602. ESTABLISHMENT OF AT LEAST ONE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM IN EACH STATE. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that there is established, by not later than September 30, 2003, at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State.
SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS. In this title:
(1) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM.--The term ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team'' means a team that--

(A) provides support for emergency preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any emergency involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in section 1403 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302)); and
(B) is composed of members of National Guard who are performing duties as members of the team under the authority of subsection (c) of section 12310 of title 10, United States Code, while serving on active duty as described in subsection (a) of such section or on full-time National Guard duty under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code.

(2) STATE.--The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

SEC. 604. FUNDING. The costs of establishing Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams to comply with the requirement in section 602, and the costs of training and equipping the teams established to comply with such requirement, may be paid (to the extent properly allocable on the bases of purpose and period of availability) out of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for purposes as follows:
(1) For the Army, for--
(A) military personnel;
(B) operation and maintenance;
(C) other procurement; or
(D) military construction.
(2) For the Air Force for military personnel.
(3) For the Department of Defense for the chemical and biological defense program.

-- SA 4509. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. TORRICELLI) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4471 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN to the bill H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 211, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
TITLE VI--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team Act of 2002''.
SEC. 602. ESTABLISHMENT OF AT LEAST ONE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM IN EACH STATE.

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that there is established, by not later than September 30, 2003, at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State.

SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM.--The term ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team'' means a team that--

(A) provides support for emergency preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any emergency involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in section 1403 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302)); and
(B) is composed of members of National Guard who are performing duties as members of the team under the authority of subsection (c) of section 12310 of title 10, United States Code, while serving on active duty as described in subsection (a) of such section or on full-time National Guard duty under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code.
(2) STATE.--The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

SEC. 604. FUNDING. The costs of establishing Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams to comply with the requirement in section 602, and the costs of training and equipping the teams established to comply with such requirement, may be paid (to the extent properly allocable on the bases of purpose and period of availability) out of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for purposes as follows:
(1) For the Army, for--
(A) military personnel;
(B) operation and maintenance;
(C) other procurement; or
(D) military construction.
(2) For the Air Force for military personnel.
(3) For the Department of Defense for the chemical and biological defense program. --

5B) Homeland Security Act of 2002, SA 4510
SA 4510. Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. SHELBY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4471 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN to the bill H.R. 5005, to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 211, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

TITLE VI--STRENGTHENED TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STORAGE DEPOTS

SEC. 601. ENFORCEMENT OF TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

(a) IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT.--The Secretary of Defense shall take such actions as may be necessary to improve the enforcement of temporary flight restrictions applicable to Department of Defense depots for the storage of lethal chemical agents and munitions.

(b) ASSESSMENT OF USE OF COMBAT AIR PATROLS AND EXERCISES.--The Secretary shall include among the actions taken under subsection (a) an assessment of the effectiveness, in terms of deterrence and capabilities for timely response, of current requirements for carrying out combat air patrols and flight training exercises involving combat aircraft over the depots referred to in such subsection.

SEC. 602. REPORTS ON UNAUTHORIZED INCURSIONS INTO RESTRICTED AIRSPACE.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to Congress a report on each incursion of an aircraft into airspace in the vicinity of Department of Defense depots for the storage of lethal chemical agents and munitions in violation of temporary flight restrictions applicable to that airspace. The report shall include a discussion of the actions, if any, that the Administrator has taken or is taking in response to or as a result of the incursion.
(b) TIME FOR REPORT.--The report required under subsection (a) regarding an incursion described in such subsection shall be submitted not later than 30 days after the occurrence of the incursion.

SEC. 603. REVIEW AND REVISION OF TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW AND REVISE.--The Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) review the temporary flight restrictions that are applicable to airspace in the vicinity of Department of Defense depots for the storage of lethal chemical agents and munitions, including altitude and radius restrictions; and
(2) revise the restrictions as the Secretary considers appropriate to ensure sufficient opportunity for--
(A) detection of incursions of aircraft into such airspace; and
(B) response to protect such agents and munitions effectively from threats associated with the incursions.
(b) REPORT.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the actions taken under subsection (a). The report shall contain the following:
(1) The matters considered in the review required under that subsection.
(2) The revisions of temporary flight restrictions that have been made or are planned to be made as a result of the review, together with a discussion of how those revisions ensure the attainment of the objectives specified in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.