Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Senate Strongly Supports US Nonproliferation Programs

   SENATE RESOLUTION 90--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE SENATE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE NONPROLIFERATION PROGRAMS OF THE UNITED STATES

   Mr. BYRD (for himself, and Mr. LUGAR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

   S. Res. 90

   Whereas on March 6, 2003, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, done at Moscow on May 24, 2002 (the Moscow Treaty), which treaty will result in the draw down of thousands of strategic nuclear weapons by December 31, 2012;

   Whereas the lack of strict and effective control over and security of all weapons of mass destruction by the governments having jurisdiction over such weapons continues to be of grave concern to all nations that are threatened by terrorism, especially after the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; and

   Whereas despite some recent improvements in cooperation at the highest levels of the Russian Federation, various officials and agencies of the Russian Federation have been counter-productive in barring access and information to the United States with respect to nonproliferation programs and activities, thereby needlessly hindering the progress of such programs and activities: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

    (1) the Senate strongly supports the nonproliferation programs of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of State, which programs are intended to reduce the worldwide threat posed by nuclear , chemical, and biological weapons that remain unsecured in the Russian Federation and elsewhere;

    (2) the Russian Federation should continue to improve the access of the United States to key facilities, and the sharing of information with the United States, so as to bring a successful and timely conclusion to various nonproliferation programs and activities; and

    (3) the United States should redouble its efforts to achieve full implementation of the nonproliferation programs of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of State under effective management, and make full use of all funds that Congress appropriates or otherwise makes available for such programs.

1B) Dirty Bomb Prevention and Port Security

   AMENDMENT NO. 343, AS MODIFIED

   Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk as modified.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], for himself, and Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 343, as modified.

   Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

   The amendment (No. 343), as modified, as is follows:

   On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.

   On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.

   On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $314,000,000.

   On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $634,000,000.

   On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $535,000,000.

   On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $336,000,000.

   On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $153,000,000.

   On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $31,000,000.

   On page 21, line 23, increase the amount by $850,000,000.

   On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $201,000,000.

   On page 22, line 2, increase the amount by $850,000,000.

   On page 22, line 3, increase the amount by $484,000,000.

   On page 22, line 7, increase the amount by $497,000,000.

   On page 22, line 11, increase the amount by $336,000,000.

   On page 22, line 15, increase the amount by $153,000,000.

   On page 22, line 19, increase the amount by $31,000,000.

   On page 36, line 15, increase the amount by $150,000,000.

   On page 36, line 16, increase the amount by $113,000,000.

   On page 36, line 19, increase the amount by $150,000,000.

   On page 36, line 20, increase the amount by $150,000,000.

   On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by $30,000,000.

   On page 42, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.

   On page 42, line 3, decrease the amount by $.314,000,000

   On page 42, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.

   On page 42, line 7, decrease the amount by $684,000,000.

   On page 42, line 11, decrease the amount by $535,000,000.

   On page 42, line 15, decrease the amount by $336,000,000.

   On page 42, line 19, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.

   On page 42, line 23, decrease the amount by $31,000,000.

   Mr. HOLLINGS. On behalf of Senators GRAHAM of Florida and South Carolina, Senators BYRD, LIEBERMAN, CORZINE, SCHUMER, MURRAY, BIDEN, and others, this amendment is to fund the port security provisions that we passed unanimously through the Senate. We had funding at that time. The House would not agree and the law is there. The responsibility and the unfunded mandate is there upon the States. Now they have no emergency dollars and it is an emergency situation.

   We have to have $1 billion this year and $1 billion next year. I wanted to first take the money from the tax cuts. That was not going to work, and then I was going to remove the caps and I retreated to the 920 offset. We are in a desperate situation. We have to have the money.

   Last Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This landmark bill reflects the first time that the federal government has imposed security requirements on U.S. ports since World War II.

   People do not ordinarily think about what happens at our ports. They take for granted that goods from all over the world are transported through our ports at minimal cost. However, this system is in jeopardy because security has never been part of the equation, and for the first time, we are requiring shipments to not only be efficient, but efficient and secure. The current situation leaves us in jeopardy, because Al Qaeda could use one of the millions of marine containers that are shipped into the U.S. to carry a dirty bomb, they could also take over an oil tanker and use it as a weapon to attack our coastal cities.

   The bill we passed last year, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, sets the stage for protecting our nation, and for protecting our homeland. Last year, when we were considering this measure, Senate conferees insisted that we needed a commitment to fund the important requirements and mandates of this act. But until now we have not agreed on how to fund this measure. We implored the administration to come up with their own plan to help us address the vital need to secure our ports and points inland from maritime attack, but they sat on the sidelines.

   Faced with that inaction, we pushed our colleagues in the House to require user fees on cargo shippers, and on ships, in order to provide funds for security equipment and programs, and to help our first responders plan how they might counteract any attacks. But our friends in the House, primarily those at the Ways and Means Committee, said that it was not a user fee. When we convinced them that it was, they then said that revenues had to originate in the House. After that we said okay, you pass the bill on the House side, and then we will pass your bill in the Senate. Yet the goal post moved further away once again, when the house said that they couldn't agree on any user

[Page: S4254]

   As required by the MTSA, the Coast Guard has begun to survey security at U.S. ports, and preliminary estimates are that we will need 4.8 billion dollars to comply with the mandates. According to a ``Maritime Security Notice'' in the Federal Register of December 30, 2002, the total costs of implementing security in our seaports will reach $6 billion over the next ten years. The first year cost will be $1.4 billion. The costs are broken down by USCG as follows:

   Vessel security: $1.1 billion over ten years,

   Facility security: $4.4 billion over ten years,

   Port Security Plans and Committees: $477 million over ten years.

   This funding is crucial to the security of our homeland. A recent port security terrorism simulation was conducted by federal, state, and private sector experts to examine the consequences of a seaport attack. Their conclusions were stunning. The simulation indicated that within twenty days of an attack through U.S. seaports, the New York Stock Exchange would halt trading on the Exchange because of restated earnings estimates and shareholder panic. Retailers and manufacturers would be crippled by our inability to reopen U.S. ports so that their inventories could be replenished.

   Last year, U.S. ports on the west coast were temporarily closed because of labor strikes, economists estimate that this closure cost our economy over two billion dollars a day. And, while we are spending billions of dollars each year to figure out how to shoot missiles out of the sky, we are spending practically nothing to protect against a weapon simply being put into a marine container, and shipped to the United States at a cost of less than three thousand dollars.

   The economic impact of the closure of just the west coast ports pales in comparison to the economic devastation that would be the reaction to a dirty bomb imported in a container through the Port of Charleston or Philadelphia, or an intentional ship collision with an oil facility along the Houston ship channel, or the scuttling of a vessel blocking the Mississippi River maritime highway. Many Members are from States that would be directly impacted by a maritime terrorist event, and all will be effected by the economic fallout. As demonstrated by the port security simulation, a terrorist event will force the closure of every port in the country, potentially causing the destruction of our economic system before the ports could be cleared and reopened. Currently, we are only inspecting two percent of containers entering the U.S. We need to do better. The consequences are just to great to not provide the badly needed funds to upgrade port security.

   For example, Tuesday, with the existing military situation and homeland security threat level at ``high,'' the State of South Carolina has been forced to supplement the existing security at the Port of Charleston, and at nuclear power plants, by deputizing and reassigning 400 probation and parole officers. This extra security should be available from security professionals trained in transportation security, but these professionals are not available because we are not doing what is needed to secure our ports.

   A failure in securing our ports from attack, will result in a catastrophic attack on our economy, and ultimately on the strength of our nation. We currently do not have an adequate security system at our ports, and there has not been any sign from the Administration that they will secure our seaports in the future. The Coast Guard, Customs and Transportation Security Administration are doing their best, but unless they are given the tools and the funding to help our ports and cities employ the security that we need, we will be defenseless from a catastrophic attack. In order to provide this critical funding I am proposing an amendment to the Senate budget resolution.

   The amendment would add $1 billion annually, for seaport security needs, over the next two years. In order to pay for the amendment, the tax cut would be reduced by $2 billion. The one billion, per year, could be spent consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as follows: Maritime Administration, $610 million; $450 million, for grants to ports and waterfront facilities to help ensure compliance with federally approved security plans; $150 million; for grants to states, local municipalities and other entities to help comply with federal area security plans and to provide grants to responders for port security contingency response; $10 million, to be used in conjunction with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to help develop a seaport security training curriculum to provide training to federal and state law enforcement personnel, and to certify private security personnel working at seaports.

   Coast Guard, $160 million; $50 million, for port security assessments; $50 million, for the establishment and operation of multi-agency task force to coordinate and evaluate maritime information in order to identify and respond to security threats; $40 million, to help implement the Automated Identification System, AIS, and other tracking systems designed to actively track and monitor vessels operating in U.S. waters; $20 million, for additional Coast Guard port security vessels.

   The Border and Transportation Security Directorate, $230 million, $100 million, to Customs for the installation of screening equipment, and to be used to help develop new technologies to help develop and prototype screening and detection equipment at U.S. ports; $100 million, to TSA and Customs; $50 million each, to evaluate and implement cargo security programs; $30 million, for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to develop and implement the Transportation Worker ID Card, and to conduct criminal background checks of transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work with sensitive cargo or information.

   I thank the distinguished chairman for his agreement. We could voice-vote to save time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

   Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Hollings and Senator Graham of South Carolina, for their willingness to work with us to modify the amendment. We are happy to accept the amendment. That will eliminate two rollcall votes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 343, as modified.

   The amendment (No. 343), as modified, was agreed to.

2A) Support for a Missile Defense System

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the RECORD a recent resolution passed by the Arizona State Legislature declaring its support for a missile defense system. I commend the sponsors and supporters of this resolution for their recognition of the need for the United States to end its vulnerability to a ballistic missile attack by developing and deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   House Concurrent Resolution 2027

   Whereas, the people of the State of Arizona view with growing concern the proliferation of nuclear , chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and the missile delivery capabilities of these weapons in the hands of unstable foreign regimes; and

   Whereas, the tragedy of September 11, 2001 shows that America is vulnerable to attack by foreign enemies; and

   Whereas, the people of the State of Arizona wish to affirm their support of the United States government in taking all actions necessary to protect the people of America and future generations from attacks by missiles capable of causing mass destruction and loss of American lives: Therefore be it

   Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

   1. That the Members of the Legislature support the President of the United States in directing the considerable scientific and technological capabilities of this nation and in taking all actions necessary to protect the states and their citizens, our allies and our armed forces abroad from the threat of missile attack.

   2. That the Members of the Legislature convey to the President and Congress of the United States that a coast-to-coast, effective missile defense system will require the deployment of a robust, multi-layered architecture consisting of integrated land-based, sea-based and space-based capabilities to deter evolving future threats from missiles as weapons of mass destruction and to meet and destroy them when necessary.

   3. That the Members of the Legislature appeal to the President and Congress of the United States to plan and fund a missile defense system beyond 2005 that would consolidate technological advancement and expansion from current limited applications.

   4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

--

   Senate Concurrent Resolution 1021

   Whereas, the people of the State of Arizona view with growing concern the proliferation of nuclear , chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction and the missile delivery capabilities of these weapons in the hands of unstable foreign regimes; and

   Whereas, the tragedy of September 11, 2001 shows that America is vulnerable to attack by foreign enemies; and

   Whereas, the people of the State of Arizona wish to affirm their support of the United States government in taking all actions necessary to protect the people of America and future generations from attacks by missiles capable of causing mass destruction and loss of American lives: Therefore, be it

   Resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:

   1. That the Members of the Legislature support the President of the United States in directing the considerable scientific and technological capabilities of this nation and in taking all actions necessary to protect the states and their citizens, our allies and our armed forces abroad from the threat of missile attack.

   2. That the Members of the Legislature convey to the President and Congress of the United States that a coast-to-coast, effective missile defense system will require the deployment of a robust, multi-layered architecture consisting of integrated land-based, sea-based and space-based capabilities to deter evolving future threats from missiles as weapons of mass destruction and to meet and destroy them when necessary.

   3. That the Members of the Legislature appeal to the President and Congress of the United States to plan and fund a missile defense system beyond 2005 that would consolidate technological advancement and expansion from current limited applications.

   4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

2B) Commending the President and US Armed Forces

[Page: S4075]
---

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the resolution which is at the desk.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The clerk will report.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   A resolution (S. Res. 95) commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

   The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will keep my opening remarks short, as well, to restate the support that the resolution addresses very directly, which is, support for the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, for our troops, for the military families, for the civilian families, in support of our military.

   The President has ordered the first salvos in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was a moment that all of us had hoped to be able to avoid. We prayed for peace. We worked for peace. But the Iraqi regime chose a different destiny.

   Now our mission is clear: to use the full might of the American military to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people from his oppressive rule.

   American warships and planes have been employed to attack enemy targets throughout Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of American troops are fighting their way across the Iraqi border. Our men and women in uniform are in harm's way. They are engaged in battle as we speak. We all pray for their safety and for their success.

   I am confident of their victory, and I am confident it will come at the earliest possible moment. Ours is the best equipped, the best trained military in the world. They know they have a job to do. They know how to do it, and they know how to do it with extraordinary skill. And as they do, they have the full support of this body and the American people behind them.

   I also applaud the President of the United States, who has shown bold leadership and strong leadership and visionary leadership over the last several months. Our prayers are with him. Through tremendous diplomacy, he has assembled more than 30 countries to join us in this cause. We are grateful for his leadership and the support of our allies.

   And to the families of our men and women in uniform, I know they are concerned about the safety of their loved ones. The President and Congress are concerned, too. We are doing all we can to ensure your loved ones return home as quickly and as safely as possible. America is grateful for your sacrifice.

   This war is justified by our own laws, by international laws, and by the laws of nature, which state all people are created equal and with a right to live in liberty.

   Let there be no mistake, we are defending our own liberty. We have already seen what terrorists can do with the combined power of only three jet aircraft. We are now at war so we will not ever see what terrorists will do if supplied with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.

   We also fight to liberate the Iraqi people. For those in Iraq who have suffered daily terror from this oppressive tyrant, for those who have survived torture and imprisonment, for those who have watched family members die in agony from chemical weapons, their moment of freedom is near.

   For those who will defend this dying regime, the moment of reckoning has come.

   Mr. President, I welcome the strong bipartisan support that this resolution has and will receive. It is an honor to stand here side by side with my colleague, the Democratic leader, to send a clear message to those brave Americans who are risking their lives for us

[Page: S4076]

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader for his remarks and for the leadership he has shown as we have come to the floor on this historic occasion.

   Last night, the President announced to the Nation that the disarmament campaign against Iraq had begun.

   It is the duty of the Senate to address our most solemn decisions now as a nation. As a veteran, I know there is no more important or grave decision than whether we send our sons and daughters into armed conflict.

   Once our President makes the decision to commit to the use of force, the Congress has always come together to speak with one voice, for one purpose: to support the efforts of our troops, and to pray for their courage, their success, and their safe and quick return home.

   With pride and resolve, we do so again today.

   We may have had differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and today we unite behind him as well.

   Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region.

   As our soldiers risk their own lives to secure the lives and liberty of others, we pledge to repay their courage by guaranteeing that we will spare no resource and no effort to ensure that nothing stands between them and victory.

   Recently, within the last couple of weeks, I visited Sturgis, SD, the home of the members of the 109th Engineering Battalion. Its members had just been mobilized and sent to the Persian Gulf.

   As American families have done since the birth of our Nation when our country has been called to war, fathers and mothers said goodbye to their children in uniform, and sons and daughters watched as their parents left home for battlefields.

   Once again, the families of our troops are left with prayers, and hopes, and the pride that the men and women they love are serving their country and serving the cause of peace and liberty.

   One thousand members of the 28th Bomb Wing from Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State are engaged in the Persian Gulf today. Several thousand more South Dakotans have been activated in what is now the most robust callup in our State's history. We are proud to have one of the highest proportions of deployed troops in the country. It makes sense that so many South Dakotans have volunteered to serve. We are a State of small towns and old neighbors. And when you grow up in a small town, you learn early that your future is bound to those around you. You learn early that if you do not do your part, someone else has to pick up the slack. And you learn early that all we value about our homes and our lives cannot be created or maintained by leaving the work to someone else.

   Soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines, go into battle today driven by that wisdom. As they begin the dangerous work of disarming Saddam Hussein and liberating the people of Iraq, their courage rides on the values of small towns and old neighbors. Our country--generation after generation--has been defended by the same willingness to sacrifice.

   Today, our bravest men and women are called upon to carry forward the proud tradition of the American Armed Forces. They are making a more peaceful world for all children--for their own and for the children of Iraq.

   History will long remember their service. They have our support, our devotion, and our gratitude.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on our side be managed by Senator Warner.

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

   The Democratic leader.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I announce that the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, will be our manager. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and the time the votes are cast on the amendments pending be divided equally.

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

   The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished leaders depart the floor, I wish to say as one Senator, I am very proud that the differences have been reconciled and that this resolution bears both of your distinguished names and that we will strive to have unity in this Chamber and to have a very constructive and clear debate as a message to the men and women of the armed forces, their families and, indeed, the whole world.

   Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Virginia will yield, I want to add a similar thought. I wish all of our troops could see the two of you standing together here. I had no doubt we would unite in support of our troops when the time came, and that is exactly what is happening. This picture is a very eloquent statement about the unity of the Congress once we are committed to combat.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed under the time allocated to the distinguished majority leader, which I am privileged to manager.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that I have the opportunity to work on this debate with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin. We have served together, now, this is our 25th year on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I say to my colleague, I know of no debate of greater significance than the one we are about to undertake at a critical hour not only in the history of the United States but the history of the world.

   It would be helpful if I were to undertake to read the resolution that is at the desk that hopefully will be voted on by the Senate in a very short period of time after all Senators have had the opportunity to express themselves.

   The resolution is entitled ``Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America,'' submitted by Senators FRIST, DASCHLE, WARNER and LEVIN.

   Whereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441;

   The most historic of all, in my judgment, resolution 1441, which received the unanimous vote of all Security Council members, 15--

   Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133;

   Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against Iraq;

   Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict against Iraq and other purposes; and

   Whereas the Congress and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, and strongly support them in their efforts;

   Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress--

   (1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq;

   (2) commends, and expenses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery;

   (3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loved ones;

   (4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many years, against Iraq;

   (5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War in Terrorism; and

[Page: S4077]

   (6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied nations for their military support, logistical support, and other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime.

   Mr. President, today in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on the high seas, at the far corners of the world, and here at home, our forces, active duty and reserve components alike, are confronting the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plagues and threatens the world and our Nation. I am so enormously proud of our military and their leaders who fashioned a force unlike any the world has ever known, a force capable of delivering overwhelming might anytime, anywhere, if necessary.

   Just weeks ago my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I, together with Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, were privileged to visit many of these troops in that region, Qatar, Kuwait, and other areas. A disciplined force this is, able to employ measured steps in an honorable and decent manner to ensure that everything possible is done to provide for the humanitarian and security needs of an innocent people, the people of Iraq. Truly the force has never seen an opportunity such as this, and it is under the command not only of our President but of officers of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and indeed more.

   A decision to commit our sons and daughters to combat is never an easy one. Clearly, our President anguished over this decision. I was privileged to meet with him, with the leadership here just days ago. Clearly, he showed his steadfastness, his courage, his wisdom, his very balanced thinking, as he conducted himself with the advice of others, to reach this decision, which he did last night.

   We in the Congress debated this solemn responsibility to authorize the use of force last October. We took our constitutional responsibility seriously. We thoroughly examined the circumstances and voted overwhelmingly, 77 to 23, to authorize the Commander in Chief to use military force if, and only if, he determined that all diplomatic efforts to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had been fulfilled. I personally think he did that and did it brilliantly.

   Those efforts, unfortunately, did not result in a Security Council resolution of unity, as it did with 15 votes in October.

   The Security Council became deadlocked for reasons we all know. It is important to note, however, that our President expended extraordinary efforts to bring this clear and growing threat to the attention of the United Nations and to try to build that consensus for a unified way to proceed.

   The United Nations was unable to step up to its responsibilities of enforcing its own mandates largely because of the intransigence of a very few nations to block any form of meaningful enforcement of these U.N. Security Council resolutions. The failure of the United Nations to step up to its responsibilities is most unfortunate, for the United Nations at this time in its long history of over 50 years is facing a challenge unlike any before, with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, Iran, and other areas of the world. This could have been their finest hour.

   Our President has stepped up to his responsibilities to protect the American people from a grave and growing threat to our national security. Ultimately, the President's constitutional responsibility is to the American people. He made the determination that Saddam Hussein, armed with weapons of mass destruction, is an imminent threat to the security of the people of this Nation and, indeed, other nations.

   His most sacred responsibility is to protect the American people. The Congress, as a coequal branch of Government, has fulfilled, in my judgment, its constitutional responsibilities by giving the President the authority he needs to do so.

   Now the effort has begun to liberate Iraq, restore a secure environment, and ultimately bring a lasting peace with justice and representative democratic principles to a land that has known little peace throughout its history. Our forces are capable of helping Iraqis realize this dream. I have no doubt our forces will conduct themselves in a very responsible way. Our forces, supported by countless civilian employees and by families and loved ones back home, and joined by forces and support from many other nations--over 30, Mr. President--as a coalition to liberate Iraq, will prevail.

   We are all hopeful that this operation can be conducted with minimum loss of life, with minimum casualties, with minimum destruction and hardship. We must await that outcome. We must be prepared, however, for a broad and concerted effort that may take longer and involve more sacrifice than some have predicted. We cannot and will not waiver from our resolve to bring freedom and hope to this troubled Nation and to rid the world of this threat to regional and global security.

   I, again, salute our men and women in uniform, their families, and those who support them in this noble effort. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as Senator Reid needs.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, today in the Senate--it does not happen very often--we speak with one voice. Now that the military effort to disarm Saddam Hussein and remove his brutal regime from power has started, it is important that we, the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, express our unified support for our troops.

   I personally am very proud of the Nevada sons and daughters who have been deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nevada has, I believe, the finest military aviation training facilities in the world. That is not something that is just provincial in nature. We have the great Nellis Air Force Base and the Fallon Naval Air Station, plus we have the Indian Springs Air Force Base where the drones are kept, where people train with those unmanned vehicles.

   Nellis Air Force Base has a special place in my heart because Bill Nellis was from my hometown of Searchlight, NV, a very small town in size and the number of people who live there. Bill Nellis served in World War II and became a hero. His body now lies in a military cemetery in Belgium, but all of us in Nevada know where Nellis Air Force Base got its name. His family is still there and very proud of the fact that this great training facility for the Air Force is named after Bill Nellis of Searchlight.

   The Fallon Naval Air Station is also where we train aviators. These two bases--to show the size of the State of Nevada--are 400 miles apart. One is the premier training facility for our Air Force, and the other, Fallon naval air training facility, is a premier training facility for our naval pilots--Top Gun. It is a rural community 65 miles out of Reno, NV.

   These pilots--hundreds from Nellis and other personnel critical to our mission in Iraq--are right now serving on the front lines. Hundreds who trained at Fallon are there also.

   When I see those Navy fighters taking off on carriers in the gulf, as I did this morning before I came to work, there is no question in my mind that they were trained at Fallon.

   Nevada's Guard and Reserve troops are also playing a significant role, more than 1,000 from Nevada's Guard and Reserve. Nevada's percentage of Guard and Reserve callups and deployments is one of the highest in the Nation. This is, of course, a hardship to the communities, the cities, and the towns from where they come. It is a hardship on the employers and families they leave behind.

   I also recognize the honor that is associated with this hardship and this sacrifice. Our Guard units, for example, have a specially train unit to handle prisoners of war. They have been called up. They also have one of the only Blackhawk-equipped medical evacuation teams. It is understandable why they have been called up. There are many other specialities that are needed in the gulf, and Secretary Rumsfeld has called them up. They are heroes. They are talented.

   There are other heroes in Nevada, and they are the families who remain behind. Children who are going to school in Nevada have mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters half a world away and hoping and praying they come home but not really knowing if that, in fact, will happen.

[Page: S4078]

   The sacrifice that many of these families are making so our forces will prevail cannot be overstated. In many cases, the lead income earner or main caretaker is in the desert right now either pursuing Saddam Hussein or maybe even trying to

   track down al-Qaida operatives.

   I try but I am not sure I fully understand the hardship the families are enduring. This Congress and communities all over America stand with the families and will help in any way we can until their loved ones return. We pray for the safe and speedy return of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

   We understand as a Congress that war entails risk; that the American military is the best fighting force ever assembled.

   I have to take a pause here and commend and applaud the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee who have worked together as partners for many years now developing the military that is now serving in the Middle East. They are two fine Senators. There are no two men in the Senate for whom I have more respect than the distinguished Senator from Virginia and my longtime friend, the Senator from Michigan. I had the pleasure and honor of coming to Congress with his brother. I have said this to Senator Levin on a number of occasions. The first time I ever met CARL LEVIN, I said: I came to Washington with your brother, Sandy.

   He said: Yes, Sandy is my brother, but he is also my best friend.

   This is the kind of man we have working with us in the minority. I again commend and applaud the two of them.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a moment? I remember so well when we had last year's authorization bill on the floor. The distinguished Senator from Michigan and I time and again sought Senator Reid's assistance to keep that bill going, to reconcile issues such as health care, current receipts, the BRAC process, and other very strong issues. So the Senator has been a full honorary member of the Armed Services Committee.

   Mr. REID. I thank my friend from Virginia. As I said, we in Congress understand the risks that war entails. The American military, as I have said before--parting a little off the subject by complimenting my two friends--is the best fighting force ever assembled. We owe a lot of that to these two men. I am confident that the men and women of our armed services, with the help of British and Australian soldiers, will bring about a decisive victory. Let us hope this can be achieved swiftly and with minimal casualties.

   Mr. President, I will do everything in my power to ensure that Congress fully funds and supports the needs of our troops as this conflict proceeds.

   As American troops are engaged in war in Iraq, as well as elsewhere around the world, in our ongoing war against terrorists, and defending our interests and allies, we think also of previous generations who served our Nation faithfully and proudly to protect American lives, liberties and values. To all of our veterans, in Nevada and around the country, I say, ``Thank you for your service.'' And I reassure you that I will continue to make sure our Nation honors our commitment to you.

   We are so fortunate to live in a Nation that promises fundamental freedom like the freedom of speech and freedom of belief. Those who have served in the United States Armed Forces in past years and those who serve today have fought to guarantee the rights we hold dear. Thanks to their service and sacrifice, Americans can express opinions even if they disagree with the Government without fear of being harassed, arrested, tortured or murdered. This is a fundamental difference that separates our American democracy from regimes like the Taliban which we ousted from Afghanistan or dictators like Saddam Hussein whom we will remove from Iraq.

   So we all appreciate, value and will fight to defend the right of all of us--American citizens and those of us in public service--to speak freely. Regardless of whether Americans agree or disagree with the decision to go to war or how the administration has conducted its foreign policy, we share patriotic feelings. That is what patriotism is about. And I want our troops to know that we all support them completely.

   Americans also stand united with our Commander-in-Chief, President George Bush, as he leads the Nation through this difficult period. I will continue to support his efforts to build and strengthen our coalition to assist with post-war reconstruction in Iraq.

   But today let me re-emphasize that we stand united, and we speak with one voice, in supporting our troops and working for the swift and decisive defeat of Saddam Hussein. I am confident more peaceful times lie ahead. Certainly, peace and freedom lie on the horizon for the Iraqi people.

   Mr. LEVIN. Before the Senator from Nevada leaves, I add my thanks to him not just for his very kind words but, as Senator Warner said, for his absolutely invaluable leadership on this floor year after year. We were able to get a bill passed last year, in good measure, because of his ability to get us to the point where we could resolve differences among Members to get to votes. One particular instance that I hope the Senator will always be remembered for--at least he will in our minds, I know--is his leadership to make sure that the veterans who are disabled are able to get a disability pension, particularly if they are severely disabled, at the same time they get a retirement benefit.

   The absurd result that we had veterans who were severely disabled who lost their disability benefit at the same time their pension became available to them was wrong. It was corrected by this Senate, in large measure because of the leadership of Senator Reid. That is one of the many monuments to his leadership that hopefully will be remembered.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. SPECTER. I rise to join my colleagues in support of this resolution. I commend the President and our troops, including civilians and national security personnel. I believe it is important, once the conflict has begun, that there be full support for our troops in the field.

   Resolutions were passed by both this body and the House of Representatives by overwhelming majorities. I respect those who have disagreed with the action of the Congress and with the action of the President, however, once the Nation moves forward under our constitutional process, where in a representative democracy the Congress votes and authorizes the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to move ahead, we should support this action.

   It is regrettable there was not a united UN because had that been done, I think it might have been possible to back Saddam Hussein down. I had an opportunity to meet with Saddam Hussein for more than an hour back in 1990, and while he is venal and brutal, I do not think he is insane or suicidal. However, the international dance and delay was such that he thought he could wear us down.

   Once the United States had more than 200,000 troops in the field, we were constrained by weather factors and our personnel were threatened by chemical and biological attacks, and so we simply had to move. Every action on Saddam's part was a delay. So whether there was agreement or disagreement up to this point, now is the time for unified American action.

   This resolution commends Prime Minister Tony Blair and his

   government, and I believe the coalition of the willing will be doing the work really of the entire free world. It is our hope and expectation that the efforts will be swift and the casualties will be held to a minimum. With success I hope that those who have dissented in the United Nations will come forward because victory will be ours on the battlefield. However, that is not sufficient. Iraq must be rebuilt and our international alliances must be reinstated.

   This is the first step today, by having a strong vote, hopefully a unanimous vote, in supporting our troops and supporting the action of the United States of America.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 4 minutes.

[Page: S4079]

   Mr. President, last month a number of us were fortunate enough to visit our troops in Kuwait, Qatar, and other places in the area. As Senator Warner said, he, Senator Roberts, Senator Rockefeller, and I had that opportunity. What an extraordinarily dedicated, and motivated professional group of men and women they are; what representatives of America and the values that we stand for they are; how well trained and equipped they are; how extraordinarily high their morale was and is; and how determined this Congress is, I know now, to give them our total support.

   In the course of that visit, I met with a group of about 20 Marines from Michigan at Camp Commando. One young Marine asked me what was going on back home with the antiwar demonstrations. I could tell by the demeanor of the other Marines, both men and women, that this was a matter on the minds of a number of them.

   I told them that those demonstrating back home were carrying out and exercising a right which is something we all cherish. As a matter of fact, they were exercising the very freedoms that our Armed Forces have protected throughout our history. I told them we had a vigorous debate in the Senate last fall about the wisdom of initiating an attack against Saddam Hussein if we were unable to persuade the world community, acting through the United Nations, to authorize and support such an attack. I told them that, in the end, a majority of both Houses of the Congress voted to authorize the President to use military force with or without that explicit authority of the United Nations.

   I told them that our democracy functions through debate and decision, and that the decision to give the President this authority was democratically arrived at. Finally and most importantly, I told these Marines I was confident that, after the debate in Congress about the wisdom of instituting an attack without the support of the world community through the United Nations, if hostilities should start, those who have such different views will come together and will rally behind them and give them the full support hey deserve.

   My prediction that we would come together if hostilities ever began, despite differences over the wisdom of the policy of proceeding without U.N. authority, has now come true.

   We stand here together, shoulder to shoulder, whichever side of that particular issue we voted on, to support the men and women who are now in harm's way. We saw just a very visual and visible example of that a few minutes ago when the majority and Democratic leaders literally stood shoulder to shoulder here in the well of the Senate as they both presented a resolution of support of our troops and then indicated they were going to work hard for its passage.

   The visit we had was quite an extraordinary visit. The men and women we visited understood fully what we were telling them about the nobility of this system of government of ours and how they represented that nobility by putting their lives on the line. I am pleased to have helped draft this resolution. I am pleased to add my voice and my vote to it.

   The hostilities have begun. The democratic debate has occurred. The men and women of our Armed Forces have the unified support of the Nation they love and for which they willingly serve and for which they risk their all. To them I can only say they are in the prayers of every American and that we all hope for a speedy conclusion to this war with the minimal number of casualties and that they return home to their loved ones as soon as possible.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma may require.

   I might also say Senators ENSIGN, BURNS, the Presiding Officer Senator Alexander, Senator KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, and Senator Allard, we are looking forward to their coming to the floor, in that sequence, on our side. We will alternate with my colleague. I alert my colleagues, this debate is moving right along and we are anxious to keep it going.

   Mr. LEVIN. I similarly indicate Senator Bingaman and then Senator Bill Nelson would be recognized on this side.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

   Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for a moment let me build on something the distinguished Senator from Michigan said talking about our troops. Having been on the Senate Armed Services Committee and having been chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years, I have had a chance to talk to troops all over the world in all kinds of circumstances. Never have I seen such a commitment as is out there right now by these young troops.

   I remember not long ago I was at a hospital where they were sending injured from Afghanistan. Without exception, each one of the injured troops--some sailors, some marines, some airmen, some Army--all said they were anxious to get back to their units. One young lady, whose name was Stennis--I remember her name because she was on the USS Stennis--a young sailor, she who got tangled up in a refueling line. It pulled her off to a free fall all the way down into the ocean, crushing both of her lungs. She was a very small person. She made it. She lived. She was in the hospital. Her words were these: I want to get well to get back to my units, and I want to make a career out of the U.S. Navy.

   When I look at our distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who was Secretary of the Navy, I can assure you we have never had sailors more committed than we have today. That is what is happening right now.

   I am pleased we are beyond the point of talking about objections. There are three major objections that various individuals are trying to voice. One was: We cannot do anything without allies. We are glad to realize we have allies. We have some 45 nations supporting us in this effort to get rid of this terrorist, Saddam Hussein. But even if we weren't, we remember Grenada, Panama, we remember 1986 when Ronald Reagan was President and when Qadhafi had blown up a building, killing some of our soldiers. We did not have overflight permission, and President Reagan sent in F-111s and pounded Libya, and we have not heard from Qadhafi since.

   The smoking gun argument, we all understand that what we are faced with, with Saddam Hussein--not Iraq, but Saddam Hussein--is an ability to do things that would not maybe kill 100 or 200 people but maybe a million people. Rich Butler, probably the most revered of the former weapons inspectors, said one warhead like they have in Iraq filled with 140 liters of VX gas could kill a million people. We have to reprogram ourselves and think in those terms.

   If you did need a smoking gun--which we did not have to have--if you did, last night we learned there are smoking guns. He had denied he had the very missiles he sent over and used last night.

   The last argument was there had to be a link with Osama bin Laden. We have to again reprogram ourselves because what we are dealing with now is a terrorist. This is not a war on Iraq, it is a liberation of the Iraqi people who have been oppressed and tortured for decades. There is a war involved. It is not a war on Iraq, it is a war against terrorism. This war was declared by our President at 8:30 in the evening on the fateful September 11. He said this is a war on terrorism. You go after the biggest terrorists.

   A lot of people do not think of Saddam Hussein as a terrorist, but if you measure the severity of terrorism by the number of people someone has tortured or murdered, certainly no one can hold a candle to Saddam Hussein. In 1983, Human Rights

   Watch and Amnesty International documented that he executed 8,000 of his own Kurdish citizens aged 13 and older. In 1985, it is reported they executed 315 children between the ages of 8 and 17. In 1988--we all remember this very well because that is when he set a record. We believe it is an all-time record that holds to this day. He murdered, in one day, 5,000 of his own citizens using a chemical that produces the most torturous kind of death, where your eyeballs are fried and your lungs are actually fried. There was mustard gas and other chemicals. That was in 1988. Then they talked about the 60 villages--Human Rights Watch--attacked with mustard gas. Women, children, it did not make any difference.

[Page: S4080]

   In 1990, Amnesty International listed 38 new methods of torture used by Saddam Hussein including mock execution, piercing of the hands with electric drills, electric shocks, sexual abuse, lowering the victims into baths of acid.

   Then in 1999, at a peaceful demonstration, security forces fired into a crowd of protesters, killing hundreds of civilians, including women and children. In the year 2000, they were looking for a new way to punish those who might be suspected of saying something about Saddam Hussein. They had been sending them into prison, but the prisons were full, so the new method was to pull the tongue out and tear the tongue off.

   In 1991, with a person I think very highly of, we made the first trip into Kuwait. It was so close after the war was over that they did not know the war was over and the fires were still going in the oil fields. The guns were still being fired. Alexander Haig, I, and a guy named Sauda Saba who was the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States of America, we went in there to see what it was like. Sauda Saba had his 7-year-old daughter with him. He was of royalty. We went to their house where we found out that Saddam Hussein had used his house as one of the headquarters. We went through the house and found that the young 7-year-old girl's bedroom had been used as a torture chamber. We found body parts and hair stuck to the walls.

   I don't believe there is a terrorist anywhere who could be more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. That is what this is all about. This is not a war on Iraq, it is the liberation of the people of Iraq. I honestly believe the dancing in the streets after Afghanistan will not hold a candle to the dancing in the streets we will see not just in Baghdad, but in all the oppressed surrounding nations.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

   Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Michigan yielding me 3 minutes to speak briefly on this issue.

   War in Iraq is underway. It is appropriate that we in the Senate suspend our other work to observe the start of this very serious undertaking. I am very glad to support the resolution the majority leader and the Democratic leader have come together on in stating our solidarity with our servicemen and servicewomen.

   We want the brave men and women who wear the American uniform and who have been sent to this region on behalf of our country to know they have the complete, unwavering support of the Senate.

   I also state my sincere hope, and the sincere hope, I am sure, of all of us, that this conflict will be short lived and that our mission will be accomplished with the fewest possible casualties to our countrymen and to the noncombatants in Iraq.

   Prior to the announcement by President Bush on Monday that he had determined to begin a military action this week, many of us expressed our disagreement with the policy and action of the President. In my case, and I am sure in all cases, those opinions were honestly arrived at and were strongly felt. But at this point, now with the war having begun, our focus needs to be on prevailing in this conflict. None of us doubts that we will in fact prevail. I join with all other Senators in the fervent hope that the war will be short, the lives lost on both sides will be few. I further hope that out of this we will arrive at a just and peaceful and prosperous future for the Iraqi people and for the region and for the entire world.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. At this time I yield as much time to Senator Ensign as he may require.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for yielding time. I appreciate his great service to this country leading that important committee.

   I rise today to talk about the situation in Iraq. There are some people to pay tribute to. It is important that we as Senators show our troops what they mean to us. It is important that all Americans show the people in uniform how much we appreciate what they are doing, and also to show their families how much we appreciate what they are doing.

   I want to start by sharing a thought about a great leader who has shown what it means, in the face of adversity, to lead our country through a difficult time. That leader is our President, George W. Bush. I am very proud that he is, indeed, our Commander-in-Chief at this time. I have heard from so many service men and women how proud they are right now, not only to be Americans, but proud that he is our Commander-in-Chief during this difficult time--not only for the war on Iraq, but for the global war on terrorism, which we are still engaged in and probably will be for some time.

   I also want to say thank you as an American to a great friend; somebody who is defining what it means to be a statesman. That is Tony Blair from Great Britain. Tony Blair obviously leads the equivalent of what would be a different party than mine. But Tony Blair has shown, in the face of incredible public opposition, and especially opposition within his own party, what it means to stand up and be a leader.

   Leaders are expected to lead, and Tony Blair and George W. Bush are doing exactly that right now.

   I also thank and take pride in Nellis Air Force Base and the people stationed there, and the people stationed at Fallon Naval Air Station, and also the Nevada National Guard, all of whom have sent people to the Middle East to engage in this conflict. We as Nevadans say thank you for their service, and take great pride in that they are over there, serving our country and protecting our people.

   I also think it is appropriate for us, whenever possible, as Americans, to adopt the families of our service men and women. Back in 1991 my brother-in-law was sent over to the Persian Gulf. He was stationed in Bahrain during the Persian Gulf war. I remember it was a very stressful time for my sister because she could not have any contact with him. She had no idea where he was, what he was doing. It was incredibly difficult for her, as it was for many other families. That is what a lot of families of our service men and women are going through right now, the uncertainty of whether their loved ones are going to be coming home or not. We all in this country need to wrap our arms around them and also lift them up in prayer, when we rise in the morning or go to bed at night, when we get on our knees and look to the Almighty.

   There is no question that America has the finest military in the entire world. Nobody's military might is anywhere close to what we have today. But I remind all Americans that no matter how strong our military is, without divine providence--as the entire history of our country has recognized--without divine providence, it doesn't matter how superior your military is. That is not enough to prevail in a war. As Abraham Lincoln said during the Civil War, when asked which side of the conflict God was on, he replied: I don't know. I just want to try to be on God's side.

   I think it would be easy for us as Americans to be arrogant and proud and boastful about how great we are and how right we think we are. I think the appropriate approach is for us to go and pray we are right, and look to what the morals are that we stand for and the principles on which this country was founded. If we apply those principles, those principles that I believe were handed down by the Almighty, then we will be on His side.

   I believe we are in a just cause. It is time we stand up and support the men and women in uniform and do everything we can as individuals to let them know, while they are there, that they are in our thoughts and our prayers. And then, when they come home, we should never, ever again allow what happened in this country when our troops came home from Vietnam. Whenever our troops come home from now on, they should be celebrated, held high as heroes, because we owe our very freedoms to the sacrifices they are willing to make.

   I stand with other Senators today to say to our troops: Thank you. Godspeed. And God bless.

[Page: S4081]

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his remarks, most particularly the concluding remarks about that period during Vietnam. It was my privilege to serve along with the men and women in that period as Secretary of the Navy. I remember so well how they were received back home, in sharp contrast to the generation in which I had a modest association in World War II. With open arms were they welcomed home. I share your sentiments.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Bill Nelson.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

   Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have gone around to the National Guard units that have been activated in my State of Florida, and I have gone to the Reserve units, merely representing our grateful Nation. These people have gone off to war, seeing tearful spouses, with the uncertainty of their economic future. And that economic uncertainty is not only from their standpoint as a guard or reservist, but it is also from their employer's standpoint. And yet we see a unity and a coming together that is part of the strength of the character of us as a people.

   It is with profound gratitude and humility that I express my support for this resolution for a fighting force of men and women who are not only in the military all over the world but who are civilian as well.

   In fact, some of our civilian agencies today were in Iraq, prior to the military units arriving there, along with other clandestine military units performing enormous intelligence functions for us. It is a profound gratefulness that this Nation expresses to our military and civilians.

   I particularly wish to call to the attention of the Senate paragraph (5). Paragraph (5) of the resolution states that Congress:

   Joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, still those missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, United States Navy, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War on terrorism. .....

   I take the time to call paragraph (5) to the attention of the Senate because of CPT Scott Speicher, the first American pilot shot down on the first night of the gulf war. Through a series of mistakes, we said he was dead. He was listed as ``killed in action.''

   Years later, the Department of Defense changed his status to ``missing in action.'' And years later, the Department of Defense changed his status to ``missing, captured,'' which is ``POW.''

   I have seen the early evidence, which has been made public, that a defector, who was corroborated--indeed, he passed a lie detector test, as well as being corroborated on other evidence--actually drove Speicher from near the crash site to a place near a hospital, and picked him out of a lineup of photographs.

   I have seen more recent information from a variety of sources that leads me to believe that Scott Speicher is alive. That opinion, by the way, is shared by my colleague, Senator PAT ROBERTS of Kansas, now the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who has been, along with former Senator Bob Smith, unrelenting--all of us--in the pursuit of a clarification on the status of Scott Speicher.

   It is my opinion he is alive. So we have gone to our commanders, and they have assured us, we have gone to the civilian agencies, and they have assured us: Scott Speicher is at the top of their list of priorities as we are now going into Iraq, to go and find him.

   And, oh, what a day that would be, if he is alive, and if America can correct the mistake that our DOD made and bring that American pilot home.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. On my time, Mr. President, I commend my colleague, a strong member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator PAT ROBERTS, likewise, who is on our committee, and Senator Smith, a former member of the committee.

   These three Senators have involved our committee in this as well. And, I think, heretofore, the Intelligence Committee has taken a very active role.

   Senator Levin and I are both appreciative of their efforts on this issue on behalf of the committee. We thank them.

   I yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he may require.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield, just for a unanimous consent request.

   I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator has concluded, Senator Kennedy then be recognized for 6 minutes.

   Let me add my thanks also to Senator Nelson of Florida for the incredible tenacity he has shown supporting Captain Speicher.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Massachusetts will be recognized for 6 minutes following the Senator from Montana.

   The Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. Yes, we have been conversing and friends ever since the day I got here, he being an old forest firefighter in Montana when he was younger, and his hair was dark. He was a dashing young man on an adventure West.

   We have also discussed this subject a lot of times in private conversations. Whether it has been on the Big Horn River or on a golf course, I have always enjoyed those discussions.

   I gave much thought on what I was going to say today. The Senator and I also shared the same uniform, the U.S. Marine Corps, at different times however. He was a good deal ahead of me.

   We know what goes through the minds of the young men and women who are confronted with war. Of all the options we have in the world, war is the absolute last one. For our young men and women over there, they have to carry the responsibility.

   But the real weight may be on the shoulders of our Commander in Chief and on the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Blair, for they have stood strong for what is right.

   We can also call this the commitment of America. It is a commitment to our history. Looking in our history books, we see man can be ruled by many things, by weapons, by sheer military power, by biological weapons, and chemical weapons.

   But 9/11 taught us something else, that we can be ruled by fear. Fear is still the greatest motivator of man. Americans have always accepted a certain level of risk for freedom. Sometimes we have accepted a high level of risk for freedom. And we are called upon to do that again. It is not a great option, but it is one that America has assumed the responsibility of since the birth of this country over 200 years ago.

   Mr. President, 9/11 proved that we can be ruled by fear. Even a sniper in the Washington area was a reminder that, again, we are curtailed and ruled by fear. It was by only one person, that person not known.

   But this one is known.

   We commend the President. We pray for our troops as they carry out a great tradition. Diplomatically, the timing is never right. It is never right. But I would say this: We could kick this can down the road. Maybe we could have kicked the can down the road in 1940. Would we have forgotten Pearl Harbor as fast as we think some people have forgotten the Twin Towers? No matter what we do, some generation of America is going to have to deal with this cruel man.

   We stand in support. We stand in prayer for those who lead, those who commit, and those who do.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock, at which time the votes begin on the budget resolution, is fast approaching. I have several Senators indicating a desire to speak on my side. I ask them to limit their remarks now to about 3 1/2 minutes, thereabouts. I think the Senator from Massachusetts should be recognized.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 6 minutes.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the best of America--our men and women in uniform--are now in harm's way in a

[Page: S4082]

   Many Americans, including many of us in Congress, opposed this war. But today and throughout this conflict, we are united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. We pledge to do all we can to support them.

   We honor them for their patriotism, their courage, their willingness to endure hardship and sacrifice and to give the last full measure of devotion to the country they love and the country that loves them. In the eloquent words of the Navy Hymn:

O Trinity of love and power!
Our brethren shield in danger's hour;
From rock to tempest, fire and foe,
Protect them wheresoe'er they go.

   Our thoughts and our heartfelt prayers are also with our President, as he makes the difficult decisions that will determine the course and success of the war that now begins. May God's wisdom guide our President and protect him in the days that lie ahead.

   In Massachusetts, we especially honor and remember the thousands of men and women on active duty from communities throughout our state who are now at war, and the thousands as well who have been activated from the Reserve and the National Guard--from the Barnes and The Otis Air National Guard Bases, from the Westover Air Reserve Base, from Camp Edwards, from the Devens Reserve Forces Training Area, from so many other places in our State. We pray for them all, and we admire them for their dedication to our country and their brave service.

   President Bush spoke for all Americans last night in expressing support for our forces. He is right to prepare our country for what may be a long and difficult struggle, and he is right to do his best to safeguard the innocent people of Iraq. We join our President in pledging our commitment to victory--to disarm Saddam and to bring freedom and opportunity to all the people of Iraq.

   In Congress, we will do all we can to give our servicemen and women the complete and full support they must have in order to prevail in this war and come safely home. We will do all we can to care for their families while they are apart. We will do all we can to protect the American people on the home front. We will do all we can to help the people of Iraq, and enable them to rebuild and renew their ancient land and rejoin the family of nations. And we will continue in the years to come to do all we can here at home to uphold the same great fundamental values for which our troops are now risking their lives--for opportunity and hope--for liberty and justice for all.

   In his great poem, ``Abraham Lincoln Walks at Midnight,'' Vachel Lindsay wrote:

It is portentous, and a thing of state,
That here at midnight, in our little town
A mourning figure walks, and will not rest,
Near the old court-house pacing up and down,
Or by his homestead, or in shadowed yards
He lingers where his children used to play,
Or through the market, on the well-worn stones
He stalks until the dawn-stars burn away.

A bronzed, lank man! His suit of ancient black,
A famous high top-hat and plain worn shawl
Make him the quaint great figure that men love,
The prairie-lawyer, master of us all.

He cannot sleep upon his hillside now.
He is among us--as in times before!
And we who toss and lie awake for long
Breathe deep, and start, to see him pass the door.

His head is bowed. He thinks on men and kings.
Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
Too many peasants fight, they know not why,
Too many homesteads in black terror weep.

The sins of all the war-lords burn his heart.
He sees the dreadnaughts scouring every main.
He carries on his shawl-wrapped shoulders now
The bitterness, the folly and the pain.

He cannot rest until a spirit-dawn
Shall come--the shining hope of Europe free:
The league of sober folk, the Workers' Earth,
Bringing long peace to Cornland, Alp and Sea.

It breaks his heart that kings must murder still.
That all his hours of travail here for men
Seem yet in vain. And who will bring white peace
That he may sleep upon his hill again?

   I withhold the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

   Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. I ask the Senator if he could limit his remarks to about 3 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. Last night, most Americans stayed up late watching for news of the war. Most Senators did, too. This morning, many Americans got up and said a little prayer for the men and women who will be fighting overseas for our country. I suspect most Senators did as well.

   Today, most Americans went about their jobs and the Senate did, too, but our discussions about the budget and our everyday jobs seem a little less important today compared to what our men and women overseas and our Commander in Chief are doing. We pause today to try to show in a united voice the same respect for our President and our men and women who are fighting overseas and our civilians who are involved, to show the same respect for them that they show for our country. The President has shown real courage. He has told us news we really don't want to hear, and he has been calm. He has used restraint, and he has been determined. But today, we think especially of our Armed Forces.

   Tennesseans have a rich history of serving in the armed services. We are the Volunteer State. We earned that name in the War of 1812, in the Mexican War and ever since, and the tradition continues today. Twenty thousand men and women from Fort Campbell have been deployed in the vicinity of Iraq, and another thousand active duty military personnel from across the State as well. More than 4,000 Tennesseans from more than 80 Reserve and National Guard units have been called up. They come from units like the 134th Air Refueling Wing from McGhee Tyson; K company, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marines in Memphis; and the 3397th U.S. Army Garrison of Chattanooga. They are protecting us from a great threat, and we are grateful to them.

   I hope and trust that we speak with a united voice, not just for this one day. I think of Larry Joyce, who sought me out in Chicago in 1995. He was a Vietnam veteran. His son Casey was killed in Somalia while serving in our armed services. He wanted to make sure that I or anyone else who might serve in public life remembered the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia.

   They were these: First, have a clear objective. Second, have more than enough force to win. And third, have the stomach to see any military action we undertake all the way through to the end.

   Mr. President, we have a clear objective. By 77 to 23, we voted to give the President the authority he exercises today. We would disarm Saddam Hussein, liberate Iraq, and help rebuild a strong democratic Iraq.

   No. 2, we have more than sufficient force to win, maybe more force than has ever been assembled in a military action.

   The question that remains is whether we, not our armed services, but whether we in the Congress and the American people have what we did not have in Vietnam and what we did not have in Somalia, which is the stomach to see our mission all the way through to the end.

   I rise today to join in expressing bipartisan support to our President and our Armed Forces and to hope and trust that we will have the stomach to see this mission all the way through to the end.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as an original cosponsor of the resolution.

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

   Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

[Page: S4083]

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding time. I was on the floor as we began the session this morning. We had the prayer and the pledge, and of course this morning the prayer, by the pastor of St. Joseph's in our neighborhood here in Washington, and the pledge had renewed and deep meaning.

   In terms of the prayer, I pray, too, Mr. President. I pray that our military action in Iraq is swift, is decisive, is successful, and I pray that the number of casualties, both military and civilian, is small.

   I am deeply grateful--we all are deeply grateful--to the soldiers who are overseas. I spoke to departing guardsmen and enlisted men throughout my State of New York, in Canandaigua, Fort Drum, and on Long Island. When I addressed them, I had a lump in my throat because of their sacrifice, their bravery, their humanity, and because so many of them were there with their families before they were getting on planes to go to the Middle East.

   They are part of a grand tradition, a tradition of young men and young women who are willing to sacrifice for the rest of us, and we pray for them. I think all Americans join in that prayer.

   We have so many different views on the issues of the day and on the action in Iraq, but what always happens in this country in time of war is unity and prayer for our fighting men and women occur, and I believe that is what is happening now in this country.

   One last point. I have been asked by so many of my fellow New Yorkers what should they do, being that we have been in the epicenter of terrorism. I say to my fellow New Yorkers, first, you cannot be too careful. If there is anything untoward, report it to authorities. Second, our intelligence, our ability to deal with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, has vastly improved since September 10, 2001, and I believe New Yorkers should continue to go about their duties, their jobs, their businesses, their daily lives. I gave the advice to my wife and daughters who live in New York City to continue going about their life, and I give that advice to all New Yorkers as well.

   Again, we hope and pray for a quick, decisive, successful military action in Iraq and for minimal casualties, military and civilian.

   I yield whatever time I have remaining to my colleague from Michigan.

   Ms. MIKULSKI. I am proud to rise in support of the resolution supporting our troops.

   America is now at war. My thoughts are with our troops. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast support. They have my respect, my admiration, and my gratitude.

   Americans have differences over the path that led us to war. Yet Americans are united in support of our men and women in uniform. Each and every member of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a tremendous sacrifice and great risk. These are ordinary men and women called on to act in an extraordinary way. Whatever their nation asks them to do, they will do with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.

   The military doesn't just need our thanks; they need our help. We must support them not only with words, but with deeds. That means ensuring that our troops have the best training and equipment. That means standing up for military families. They are facing long separations and terrible worries about the safety of their loved ones. They shouldn't also be facing financial worries. So while we are talking about tax cuts for Joe Billionaire, let's not forget GI Joe and Jane.

   I believe the war started the right way: targeting Saddam Hussein and members of his regime in their bunkers. Saddam Hussein is our enemy, not the people of Iraq.

   Let's not forget why we are at this point: The fault lies squarely with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is dangerous and duplicitous. As part of the gulf war cease-fire agreement, he committed to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. For the past twelve years, Saddam Husssein has ignored UN resolutions by rebuilding his illegal weapons programs. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to destroy any prohibited weapons of mass destruction or missiles; to fully report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs; and to cooperate with inspectors to verify compliance.

   I have consistently called for robust multinational action to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world, so the world should share the burden of confronting the Iraqi threat. I appreciate the help and support of other nations, including Great Britain, Australia, and Poland. Other countries are allowing access to territory and airspace, providing logistical and intelligence support, or playing other noncombat roles.

   America must continue diplomacy, even as we continue the war, to expand the coalition of the willing to share the burden of war and to share the responsibility and the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq.

   Now that America is at war, our troops must know: I am on their side. The American people are on their side. The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the men and women of our military, and with their families.

   God bless our troops, and God bless America.

   Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, with the commencement of engagement by U.S. military forces in Iraq, we stand united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces. These young men and women representing the best of America are entering into harm's way in a distant land. Whatever our differences on policy, we speak with one voice in supporting our troops. I have no doubt that our military forces will be successful, although we do not now know how quickly or at what cost.

   As do all Marylanders, indeed all Americans, I pray for the safety of our troops and join my colleagues in pledging to them our commitment for the necessary resources and support.

   These brave men and women and their families are in our thoughts and in our prayers. We wish them Godspeed, and their prompt and safe return to our shores.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers are with Iowa families who have loved ones serving their country in the Middle East. When faced with the difficult and sometimes terrible duty of war, the men and women of our armed services have never let us down. We have the best trained soldiers, the best technology, and the best military commanders in the world. I have full confidence in their performance. My hope is for a swift conclusion and a lasting peace in the entire region. It is also my deep hope that innocent civilians in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East suffer a minimum of harm.

   I know the views in the country have been divided as to the need for and the wisdom of this war. Right now, we need to support the men and women who are serving this country. This war and the reconstruction work that follows will not be easy and many of our troops may bravely face risks. They are doing their duty and sacrificing for our security. We need to keep them all in our thoughts and prayers and be fully behind them. That is something on which we can all agree.

   Right now, over 3,200 Iowans are serving: 2,200 in the National Guard, 1,760 are overseas, and over 1,000 in our Reserves here and abroad. We are proud of our Iowa, that Iowans are protecting our homeland.

   In my home State of Iowa, I know there have been some concerns about our vulnerable areas in this time of Washington. I want Iowans to know I will be working with my fellow Senators to ensure our homeland is protected. As our Governor, Tom Vilsack, said today, it will take the resources of our Federal Government to keep our communities safe. I intend to work to make sure Iowans and all Americans have the protections we need here at home.

   Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the tens of thousands of brave Americans who are risking their lives at this very hour in a distant land to try to bring some peace and stability to a nation that has been ravaged by a dictator.

   Late last night the President of the United States ordered United States

[Page: S4084]

   I thank each and every one of them for their service to our State, to our country, and for freedom. I say to them I am proud and honored to represent them in the Senate.

   As is always the case, these young men and women stand ready to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief to take up arms and risk their lives in the defense of all Americans and the values of freedom, liberty, and democracy. I greatly admire the courage and professionalism of our service men and women who are now engaged in this dangerous conflict far away from their homes and their loved ones.

   Americans stand as one in support of these brave individuals. I express my gratitude to the family members of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and members of the Coast Guard. They, more than anyone, understand the sacrifices involved in the service of our Nation.

   War is a treacherous endeavor and we all pray for their safe return. I am confident in the days and weeks ahead America and the U.S. Congress will continue to provide our service men and women the support they deserve and they may need.

   Last fall, I supported President Bush's decision to go to the United Nations and seek the support of the U.N. members to resolve the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and supported the deployment of U.S. weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify peaceful disarmament. I wanted the diplomatic efforts to succeed. I believe President Bush did, as well. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein obviously did not.

   While there may have been differing opinions on some aspects of our policy toward Iraq, there has been no disagreement that Saddam Hussein is anything but a cruel and murderous tyrant. At a very critical juncture Saddam Hussein chose to impede the work of the inspectors and at every fork of the road he squandered opportunities for peaceful disarmament presented by the international community. Time has run out and we thus find ourselves in this situation.

   My hope is as we begin the reconstruction process, it will be a sense of cooperation internationally on reconstruction. We cannot do this alone. We have to reach out even to those we have had disagreements with to help rebuild Iraq and build the peace and stability of the region. That is critically important for America's security for the 21st century.

   I regret we did not have more time to discuss this and express our views and thoughts. I do not minimize the importance of the budget debate, but this discussion would trump any discussion of a budget issue. Unfortunately, that time is not allocated.

   Saddam Hussein must bear full responsibility for what is about to befall him. He brought it upon himself. I have no sympathy for his plight. The real tragedy is that others may have to suffer for his sins although I am confident that American soldiers will make every effort, use every means of intelligence, and employ all available technology to minimize civilian casualties.

   Would that Saddam Hussein had shown the same regard for his people that our forces will. His record has been the opposite. This murderous tyrant has routinely had his own people tortured, raped, beaten, and executed. In 1988, he ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, killing 5,000 men, women, and children in a single day. Now, he may be ordering his elite troops to use the city of Baghdad as a fortress a human fortress endangering the lives of countless Iraqi civilians.

   It is my hope that United States military action will not only free the world of the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but provide an opportunity for the Iraqi people to free themselves from 30 years of tyranny and oppression, to begin a new chapter in the history of their country.

   The current military action may only last a few days or a few weeks. But in the end, I have no doubt that our American service men and women will prevail in this conflict. However, after we emerge successfully from our military conflict with Saddam Hussein, another challenge will face us the task of establishing a free and stable Iraq. In many ways this is an even more important battle than the one currently ongoing in the deserts of Iraq. And it is a battle that we should not ``wage'' alone. An international coalition of friends, allies, and U.N. humanitarian organizations must be mobilized to share the costs and responsibility for providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, and the larger and more complex reconstruction of Iraqi society.

   The United States is not the only nation that has a stake in rebuilding Iraq. The entire world has a huge stake in getting this right. For only an Iraq that is strong, free, and democratic--only an Iraq that respects the rights of all its citizens only an Iraq that respects the territorial integrity of its neighbors can be counted on to contribute to building a Middle East that is stable and prosperous. That is why I am confident that whatever our past differences may have been, our friends and allies at the United Nations will join with us in this effort.

   Once again let me express my thanks to the American men and women who have put themselves at risk for each one of us. Let me also thank the service members from other nations who have joined with our forces in this endeavor. And let me offer one more prayer for their swift and safe return home once their mission is complete.

   Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and all of America in expressing pride in and gratitude to our men and women in uniform. With one voice this Congress honors our troops, and with one mind we pray for their safe return.

   Last night, as we all watched from the safety of our living rooms, our military went to war. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have left their home country and their home fires to face unknown danger and even death. We cannot be proud enough of these courageous men and women who fight for freedom in Iraq. We cannot be grateful enough to these Americans who are willing to risk their lives for our security.

   We have so many people to thank today: our Active Duty forces who have made it their life work to protect and defend us; our citizen soldiers, the Reserves, and the National Guard who have left jobs in offices and on factory floors, kissed children and spouses goodbye, and donned the uniform of our armed services; our troops' families who daily endure the hardships of military life and today worry and wait for their loved ones to come home.

   In my State of Wisconsin we have had over 2,200 men and women called up for service in the National Guard and an additional 1,357 mobilized from the Reserves, more people than at any time since the Berlin crisis.

   I make special mention of them because they trained in relative anonymity during times of peace. It is only in times of conflict that communities discover how many of their friends and neighbors serve their country quietly, year in and year out. In times of crises they are notable at their absence at scout meetings, church pews, and parent-teacher conferences.

   Last Monday I was fortunate enough to observe the 1158 transportation company at Beloit, WI, as they bravely headed off, leaving behind spouses, children, families, and friends. These soldiers had little time to put their affairs in order before being ordered into harm's way. But there were no complaints and no grumbling.

   The families I met were concerned about the future, were ready to deal with the personal and financial difficulties.

   I was struck to see young children bravely saying goodbye to their parents, without knowing what the future

[Page: S4085]

   Our soldiers represent the best of the American people and American ideals. While many of us will talk about patriotism and service today, no words can do justice to the burden they have chosen to bear.

   So our hearts, our prayers, and our deepest gratitude go out to them today.

   Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The President has announced that military operations to disarm and liberate Iraq have begun. For those of us who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, entering into war is one of the most somber moments we face.

   When the President sends our troops to battle, the stakes are unmistakably clear: our courageous troops are preparing to risk everything so that our society can continue to live in freedom. At a time like this, our Nation should come together as one to support our troops in battle, and to support the Commander in Chief.

   This military action responds to the growing threat to America and our allies posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Here at home and around the world, we have debated how best to disarm Saddam. After 12 years of diplomacy, and 17 different U.N. resolutions, Saddam remains a serious threat to the peace and stability of the region, and to the safety of Americans and our allies.

   I, like most of my colleagues, believed we could not live with this threat to America's security. And so I voted last October to give the President authority to make one final attempt to disarm Saddam through the U.N.--to give diplomacy one last chance to work--and to resort to forcible disarmament if that failed.

   Five months after we passed our congressional resolution, and 4 months after the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441, Saddam has still refused to disarm.

   Now the President has decided, drawing on the authority granted him by the Constitution, by the Congress, and by a series of U.N. resolutions, to send our troops into battle--to forcibly disarm Iraq, end Saddam's rule of terror, and allow the oppressed Iraqi people to have a better life.

   And it is our responsibility, here in America, to come together to show our troops, who are fighting to protect our freedoms, that they have all our support, and that we are praying for a quick and successful campaign.

   I had the opportunity to visit our troops last month in Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan, and had the privilege to meet our fine young West Virginians serving there. I am always impressed by the commitment and professionalism of our Armed Forces--the brave enlisted men and women who have dedicated their skills and energy to safeguarding America's vital national interests, the officer crops who have honed the most awesome fighting machine the world has ever seen, and the reservists and national guardsmen who willingly disrupt their civilian lives when their country needs them.

   To witness their dedication and skill, and their willingness to risk everything to defend the greater good of our Nation, is to be reminded, just as we learned on that fateful September 11, that heroes still walk among us. The Americans who have volunteered to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces are some of the finest individuals our society produces, and we are all in their debt.

   We West Virginians have always been particularly proud that while we are a small State, we contribute a significant share of America's Armed Forces. I have here a list of the West Virginia Reserve and National Guard units that have been called up for service overseas in the past 2 years. I realize I can't read the entire list, but I would like to note that it encompasses 28 units based in West Virginia and nearly 2500 servicemembers, as well as thousands of Active Duty servicemembers who hail from West Virginia. I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   West Virginia National Guard & Reserve Units Mobilized Since September 11, 2001

   1. 157th Military Police Company, Martinsburg, WV, 124 personnel.

   2. 152nd Military Police Detachment, Moorefield, WV, 45 personnel.

   3. 1257th Transportation Company, Huntington, WV, 167 personnel.

   4. 463rd Engineer Battalion Detachment 2, Wheeling, WV, 50 personnel.

   5. 554th Adjutant General Company, Ripley, WV, 18 personnel.

   6. 111th Engineer Group Headquarters, Headquarters Company, St. Albans, 88 personnel.

   7. 119th Engineer Company, Clarksburg, WV, 159 personnel.

   8. Detachment 1 1st Battalion 80th Regiment 3rd Brigade, Kingwood, WV, 32 personnel.

   9. Army National Guard Special Operations Detachment E, Moorefield, WV, 27 personnel.

   10. Army National Guard Special Operation Detachment 3, Charleston, WV, 1 personnel.

   11. Special Operations Detachment, Europe Forward 2, Kingwood, WV, 1 personnel.

   12. State Area Command West Virginia Detachment 6, Charles Town, WV, 1 personnel.

   13. State Area Command West Virginia Army National Guard Headquarters, Charleston, WV, 1 personnel.

   14. 1092nd Engineer Battalion, Parkersburg, WV, 522 personnel.

   15. 1863rd Transportation Company, Oak Hill, WV, 68 personnel.

   16. 156th Military Police Department, Monaville, WV, 45 personnel.

   17. 261st Ordnance Company 1st Platoon Medical Lift, Charleston, WV, 44 personnel.

   18. 261st Ordinance Company Detachment 1 Ammunition Modular, Kenova, WV, 12 personnel.

   19. 261st Ordnance Company Detachment 2, Kenova, WV, 12 personnel.

   20. 321st Ordnance Battalion Headquarters Headquarters Company, Charleston, WV, 52 personnel.

   21. 363rd Military Police Company Combat Support Group, Grafton, WV, 180 personnel.

   22. 459th Engineer Company Heavy Boat Detachment 1, Bridgeport, WV, 10 personnel.

   23. 459th Engineer Company Detachment 3, Bridgeport, WV, 173 personnel.

   24. 304th Military Police Company, Bluefield, WV 180 personnel.

   25. 351st Ordnance Company, Romney, WV, 153 personnel.

   26. 811th Ordnance Company, Rainelle, WV, 118 personnel.

   27. 2nd Division Special Forces Battalion 19th Special Forces Group 1st Special Forces, Camp Dawson, WV, 9 personnel.

   28. 300th Chemical Company, Morgantown, WV, 113 personnel.

   Mr. ROCKEFELLER. A war will always involve risk and uncertainty. That is especially the case when we are dealing with a dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has used illegal; weapons before, and who knows that in this instance, war will not end until he is removed.

   We should never be over-confident, and must go into this knowing that our troops will face real risks. But we can take heart that never, in the history of mankind, have there been Armed Forces better prepared to meet the challenges that come their way.

   In skill, in technological sophistication, and in fighting spirit, our troops continue to set new benchmarks the world has never seen. Never in modern history has there been a fighting force so clearly superior to all its competitors.

   We now stand at an important threshold in our Nation's history, and our national security. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has altered America's security forever. Before 2001, we believed that we could only be threatened by another superpower--and the demise of the Soviet Union made us think that threats to America's homeland had more or less vanished. On September 11, we learned how wrong we were.

   In the coming years, the spread of weapons of mass destruction--to rogue governments, and to terrorist groups in the developing world--will be America's most important national security challenge. And increasingly, the focus of our diplomacy and defense alliances will shift away from our traditional focus on Europe to respond to these emerging threats from developing countries in Asia, in Africa, and even in Latin America.

   Indeed, that is already the case today: besides Iraq, the biggest security threats currently facing America aren't major power rivalries but illegal proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by states such as North Korea and Iran. This threat isn't unique to the United States--but our global leadership role makes us a particularly tempting target for the disaffected and resentful.

   We cannot allow foreign terrorist or rogue states to threaten our society

[Page: S4086]

   And it will require broad international support--the kind that helped us win the cold war--rather than working alone, or begin dismissive of our allies because they haven't yet recognized the magnitude of the shared threat.

   War is always a tragedy. To put human lives at risk--both military and civilian--can only be considered when all other reasonable options have failed.

   And in that regard, the significance of this conflict is not just in disarming Iraq. While that is the primary goal, this mission also demonstrates to the world that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is such a grave threat to our security that we Americans are prepared to use the full force of our militry--our fine and brave men and women in uniform--to stop it.

   And we are joined in that understanding by the British, and the Australians, and the poles, and many, many allies around the world.

   Perhaps some other countries haven't reached that understanding yet. Or they continue to believe the diplomatic processes developed for a cold war environment must be maintained at all costs. But this new threat must be addressed.

   If our troops find chemicals or biological weapons in Iraq--and I am confident they will--it will demonstrate to the skeptics around the world that we were right about the threat, and that we had to take action before these illegal weapons were used. And I hold out great hope that a swift victory in Iraq will pave the way for the U.S. and our allies to come together around a strategy to deal with the spread of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere.

   I hope, too, that a swift victory in Iraq will provide an opportunity for the U.S. and our allies to come together to support the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq. As the President has said, we bear no ill-will to the Iraqi people, only to the brutal and corrupt regime that governs them. The reconstruction of Iraq will be a long, costly complicated task, but a vital one--for it will ensure that Iraqis, now and in the future, will understand that America and its allies have come as liberators, not conquerors.

   Those are longer-term concerns, and we will have to attend to them. For now, though, we must focus on the task at hand, which is the prompt, safe and humane execution of the military operation the President has commenced.

   I join my fellow West Virginians in telling our troops they have our support, our gratitude, and our prayers. They represent the best of our society, and we know they will perform in a manner that makes us all proud.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with America at war against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, to vote in favor of the concurrent resolution introduced by my colleagues, commending the President and America's Armed Forces.

   This is a moment of utmost seriousness and solemnity, without doubt the most critical time of my decade in the Senate.

   During this difficult time, America and the world must know that this Chamber stands firmly united behind our men and women in harm's way, men and women willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberties and our lives. Our hopes and our prayers are with them and their families.

   I would also like to recognize those now engaged in combat from my home State of California.

   More than 102,000 Californians have been sent to the gulf from every branch of the military--Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines, along with 13,000 reservists. This is the largest number of Americans from any State fighting in this war.

   And while many people in California are opposed to this war, I would urge all of them to unite behind these courageous men and women and their families here at home.

   I have had questions about how we got to this point. I would have done it a different way, and I will have more to say about that at the appropriate time.

   But now, as we unite behind our military and our Commander in Chief, the United States must be prepared for the long term. Winning the war will mark but the first step.

   Once the shooting stops and the dust clears, we must be equally committed to winning the peace in Iraq, and to see that longstanding ethnic rivalries not be allowed to surface. Failure to do so would, at the very least, negate any military success.

   This means, of course, that the United States must take the lead in rebuilding the Iraqi nation, in stabilizing its new government, in providing interim security to prevent the emergence of tribal hostilities, and to see that Iraq is no longer a producer of weapons of mass destruction.

   Winning the peace in Iraq is absolutely critical. Indeed, winning the peace means: reducing the likelihood of a possible clash of civilizations, pitting the United States and our allies against the Muslim world; reducing the incidence of renewed terrorist attacks, both here and abroad; increasing the chances of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East--of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis; allowing us to recommit ourselves to the still uncertain future of Afghanistan and the government of Hamid Karzai; and ensuring that the United States will persevere, sooner rather than later, in the overall war on terror.

   So, as the courageous men and women of the American military set out to remove Saddam Hussein from power, risking their very lives for us and the liberties we must never take for granted, the focus of our thoughts and our prayers are with them.

   We wish them every success and a speedy return home to their families. For those that may fall in battle and pay the highest price, however, their sacrifice must never be forgotten.

   And the best way to honor them is by winning the peace in Iraq--by helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives, and by demonstrating to Muslims everywhere that the United States, while a powerful nation, is also motivated by a sincere desire to one day see the entire world safe, prosperous, and free.

   This, after all, is what this conflict is all about, and why we must prevail.

   Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as this conflict begins, all of us pray for a swift and decisive victory, and the safety of our brave men and women in battle.

   North Dakota has sent thousands of sons and daughters to wage this fight at home and abroad, including more National Guard members per capita than any other State.

   Along with the men and women from the airbases in Minot and Grand Forks, North Dakotans will bear a heavy burden in this conflict.

   I know they will be strong. I pray they will be safe.

   I have great confidence that the fourteen B-52s deployed from Minot Air Force Base and their crews will turn in a brilliant performance, once again demonstrating the awesome power and effectiveness of these reliable planes and their expert crews. B-52s made a huge contribution to our success in Afghanistan, helping to turn the tide quickly against the terrorists. They were decisive in the last gulf war, and I know they will again play a key role.

   The Grand Forks base is operating at a greater tempo than at any time in its history, flying its massive tankers and providing the air bridge that allows our forces to operate against an enemy halfway around the world.

   Our National Guard members have been called up to bases inside the United States, ready to support operations on the ground, and we hope, the operations that will be necessary after a victory. The Guard units have been drawn from Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, Edgeley, Grafton, Rugby, Wishek, Cando, Carrington, Mayville, Oakes, and Wahpeton. There is hardly a town in my State that has not seen at least one of its citizens called up to serve. They have left their jobs and their families to do their duty in defense of the Nation.

   I could not be more proud of the tremendous contribution the men and women of my State are making, their dedication and their patriotism.

   I had hoped for a peaceful solution, but today we are at war. Like all Americans, my thoughts and prayers will be with our troops and our allies in the difficult hours to come. My greatest hope is that the conflict will be settled quickly, with minimal loss of life,

[Page: S4087]

   As the conflict continues, I stand with my colleagues united behind our troops here at home and overseas. With my family and my colleagues I pray for the men and women who now stand in harm's way. May they be granted a swift victory, and may the sacrifices of this war lead to a safer and more peaceful world.

   Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, On Monday, March 17, the attention of the world was focused on Washington, DC and the White House. The President was about to speak to the Nation about Saddam Hussein and the refusal of the Government of Iraq to live up to its signed agreements and the resolutions of the United Nations to eliminate their stock of weapons of mass destruction. In the 15 or so minutes that followed, our President made clear his determination to take action and resolve the situation in Iraq. He said he was going to end forever the evil presence of a dictator in Iraq who had done nothing during his reign but abuse his power as he pursued his dreams of glory and increased power and prestige while showing little regard for the health and welfare of his own people.

   As the President spoke with passion and conviction on the need to rid the world of Hussein's dictatorship, he cut through the rhetoric and the misleading positions and promises that had been so often heard during the past few years. He made it clear that this was an ultimatum of more than words--action was sure to follow if his words were left unheeded. He did everything he could to make it abundantly clear to Saddam Hussein and the people of the world that such evil would not be allowed to stand. He stated a final deadline.

   Soon after he spoke, the movement of our troops intensified as an international coalition took up their positions surrounding Iraq as we all waited for Saddam Hussein's response. There could be only one acceptable response to the President's message. Saddam had to leave Iraq, relinquish his power, and take his sons and family with him. Anything less would be unacceptable.

   Now we have our answer. A deadline has been set which has come and gone. In response our troops are now advancing into Iraq and heading for its capital of Baghdad. A series of events that began years ago with our defense of Kuwait will now end where it must--with the removal of Saddam Hussein and an end to his brutal dictatorship.

   As our troops head further into Iraq, they will be heading into unknown dangers and trouble that cannot be accurately predicted, though they have been trained and will be prepared for it.

   Will Saddam Hussein try to use chemical weapons to prolong his hold on power? What has he hidden from the team of inspectors that he may now want to unleash? These and so many other questions will be in the minds of our troops as they come closer and closer to Iraq's capital city. The rewards that will come with our success will be great. But, as we know from our past experiences, the sacrifices that may lie ahead may be equally as great.

   War is a very dangerous business and Wyoming is no stranger to the kind of sacrifice it sometimes requires from those who serve in our military. Down through the years, the people of Wyoming have always answered the call to protect and preserve the peace and answer the threat of any enemy of our Nation, wherever it has led them. Many paid the ultimate price.

   In 1991, when Saddam Hussein decided to attack Kuwait and drain that country of its supplies and resources, our Armed Forces were there to respond to the cry for help that came from Kuwait.

   Joining in as part of that effort was one of Wyoming's own, Manuel Davila. Manuel was a brave young man, a father, and a nice guy who had a kind word for everyone he met. He was the kind of person you would want on your side if there were tough times ahead. There were tough times on the horizon as this battle began and we were fortunate to have brave men and women like Manuel on our side.

   I watched Manuel grow up because he came from my home town. He loved his life and he loved Wyoming. But he loved freedom more. When he was called on to bring the freedoms he loved to people he had never met, he did not hesitate. He traded his beloved blue skies and mountaintops of Wyoming for the flat dessert and skies darkened by Saddam Hussein's desperate attempts to delay the end of his occupation by setting every oil well he could on fire. He traded the sweet smell of Wyoming's clean mountain air for the use of a gas mask and the threat of exposure to the Iraqi war machine's stock of gas and chemical weapons.

   Sadly, he was one who didn't come home from that war. But he did leave behind a legacy of standing up for what you believe in,

   keeping your word, and never allowing evil to win by failing to act or by doing so little in response it was as if you did nothing at all.

   Then came September 11, and another round of attacks by a madman fueled by hatred and a mad desire for power. Once again we looked to our sons and daughters to respond and to end the threat of terrorism once and for all. The bravest and best of Wyoming and many other States were soon on the front lines, ready to put their training into action. As they did, one of the first lost was Jonn J. Edmunds, a young man from Cheyenne, who was killed as our Nation took action against those who supported and planned the terrorist attacks of that terrible day.

   Now, as we stand here together in prayerful support of our Armed Forces, I have no doubt that Manuel and Jonn and all the others who have served so bravely in our military over the years would be proud of their comrades and their liberation of Iraq which is finally at hand.

   Soon Iraq will be welcomed back into the family of nations and the rights so cherished by our Nation and our people will be part of the daily routine in Iraq, too. By our actions we are showing the world that the rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are a part of our own Declaration of Independence, were intended to be claimed not just by the people of our own Nation. They are to be rightfully claimed by people all over the world as well.

   As we wait for today's news from Iraq, we are fully aware of the seriousness of the challenge that lies before us--its difficulty and its magnitude. For the first time since I was a young boy we are facing an enemy who is faceless and nameless and may have operatives who sympathize with him who may strike us on our own soil. With the exception of Pearl Harbor, we have never faced that kind of a threat in our lives. September 11 changed that and we must now all be more vigilant for in a very real sense we are all part of the war effort--just as we were in the days of World War II.

   As the effort to remove the tyranny of Saddam Hussein continues, the fate of both our nations hangs in the balance. The degree of our success in what we set out to do and the aftermath as we work to bring a lasting peace to Iraq will speak volumes to the world about our ability to walk our talk.

   When this war is over and Iraq is free, we will have sent a message to all those who would deny their people the basic rights of human existence. The world will no longer tolerate their abuse of power and their refusal to acknowledge or respond to the needs of their people. We will also have ended the regime of a dictator and eliminated his stock of weapons of mass destruction. We will have taken a strong, decisive action which will help to increase the security of our Nation and the world.

   Ronald Reagan once said that ``Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world. The marines don't have that problem.''

   Neither does the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard or the Merchant Marine. Through their brave and courageous actions on behalf of the people of Iraq, they will do for that country what they did for the people of Kuwait. They will give them their country and their lives back. They will give them the chance to dream again about a better future for their children. They will give those who live under oppression around the world a real reason to hope that someday things will be better for them in their own country.

   We all know what brave, remarkable people our soldiers are. They don't see any limits to what they can do because they will never quit until the job is done and the war is won. We owe them

[Page: S4088]

   Tonight, when we spend those last few minutes tucking our children into bed, I hope we all take a moment to comfort our children and our grandchildren, and to assure them that things will be all right someday soon. Make sure they know they can sleep peacefully tonight and in the nights to come, because the brave men and women of this Nation, our sons and daughters--and perhaps their own sisters and brothers--are ever vigilant, on guard and have taken a stand on our behalf. We can take a great deal of pride in them all.

   As a member of the Senate, I have always been very proud of the way we come together whenever we are faced by a threat, or forced to use our nation's military to answer an attack or address a wrong. As our young men and women head into battle, I know I won't be the only one who will bow his head to pray.

   May God bless and protect the men and women of our Armed Forces. May He watch over the Iraqi people and keep them safe from harm as we fight to liberate their country and bring them freedom and peace--a just peace that will recognize their rights and ensure that they have food, medicine, and the essentials of life that have been denied them for too long. May our victory be swift so their wait for relief will not be long. And may all our loved ones return home safely, and in peace.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and the Nation in a strong and unequivocal expression of support for the courageous men and women of the United States military, who now defend America's values in the Persian Gulf.

   This expression is far more than a personal expression. It is an expression of the feelings of the people of New Jersey--many who are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and spouses of those in harm's way. For all of us, these brave individuals are in our hearts and prayers.

   Mr. President, today our Nation is united. United in support for our Nation's military. United in appreciation for the bravery and sacrifice of our service men and women, and their loved ones. United in our unshakable commitment to victory, a victory, with the grace of God, that will be achieved with maximum speed and minimum casualties.

   Mr. President, we Americans obviously had our differences as we moved on the path that got us to this point. There are many reservations I could express and people more thoughtful than myself have done so. But in our democracy, there is a time for differences and a time for debate. That said, there comes a time to end debate and unite. That time is now. That unity is without regard to party, ideology, or philosophy. We all stand together as members of the great American family.

   Mr. President, the United States military is unrivaled in its power and its competence. In that strength, I am confident that we will succeed in our mission. A mission to free the Iraqi people. A mission to help ensure that our Nation can live in peace, without the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of madmen and terrorists.

   So, Mr. President, on behalf of all New Jerseyans and in company with all Americans, let me again express my deep appreciation to the courageous Americans who are putting their lives on the line, and for their loved ones. They are America's heroes. Their Nation will support them every step of the way until the day comes, as we pray it will, when these hostilities are complete.

   Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, our hearts and prayers go out to those people in the Armed Forces who are fighting the war in Iraq. This morning, I put on this orange ribbon I wore when I was Governor of the State of Ohio during Desert Storm. I am going to continue to wear it during the war in Iraq to remind me and others that our men and women are in harm's way, and I will continue to wear it until they return.

   Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we stand here today on the Senate floor, America's finest citizens and the world's greatest military men and women have been called upon in the cause of disarming Saddam Hussein.

   These are Americans who willingly serve this country, who knowingly place themselves in harm's way to defend our Nation, and who are ready to do the jobs for which they have trained. These men and women in the Armed Services and intelligence community are unmatched in their professionalism and skill, and I have no doubt that they will prevail.

   As I said on the House floor in 1991, on behalf of the authorization of what would become Operation Desert Storm, ``the magnitude of the vote I now face is greater than any other I have or likely will cast.'' I was proven wrong on October 9, when I cast a vote of equal gravity and solemnity, authorizing the President to use force in the disarmament of Saddam Hussein.

   In the days since that vote, while President Bush pursued a course of diplomacy, Saddam Hussein instead pursued a course of deceit. Under the terms of UN Resolution 1441, approved unanimously by the Security Council, Hussein determined the course upon which we have now embarked by refusing to fully and immediately disarm. Armed conflict was not the hope of anyone among us. Now that it regrettably has become a necessary reality, we stand united in support of our troops who once again will be on the vanguard in service to freedom and the protection of all those nations that embrace this noble ideal.

   I have had the great privilege to meet countless soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and veterans during my quarter-century tenure in Congress. We are grateful because we know that they are the bulwark behind which we stand, and against which our enemies strain. And we are in awe because we cannot fully comprehend their ability to so completely substitute the concept of ``self'' with the virtue of selflessness.

   Today, the realities of war weigh heavily on our hearts, and the focus of all our prayers is now with our men and women in uniform. In the protection of freedom, the disarming of Saddam Hussein, and the liberation of the people of Iraq, American sons and daughters may well make the ultimate sacrifice. That they would undertake that risk for our Nation and the world overwhelms the words available to honor their extraordinary spirit and courage.

   The best we can hope to do is to come together, behind our Commander in Chief and all of our troops, with nothing but the greatest pride in their courage and the strongest support for their mission. A freed Iraq, a world free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, and a menacing cloud lifted from the heartland of a troubled region--none of these would be possible without those men and women who put their lives at risk for the greater good.

   It is for them that we pass this resolution and pray for safe return. May God bless all those who wear the uniform of our armed forces, and my God bless the United States of America.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as a citizen, Senator, and former marine, my hopes and prayers are with the troops and their families. I returned just a few weeks ago from the Persian Gulf and will be going back as soon as possible. I went to the region to assess whether the war fighters in the field were armed with the best intelligence possible to fight and win a battle against Saddam Hussein. Take my word for it, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are ready. They will take care of business consistent with American values. They will take care of each other. When they return, they will receive the accolades of a greateful nation.

   The operation in Iraq is a component of the war against terrorism. We depend on our men and women in uniform to keep the terror plotters and operators far off our shores, away from our families, communities, and our Nation. That is quite a responsibility. I can not imagine a more important mission.

[Page: S4089]

   I support the resolution under consideration, and I am pleased it mentions those who have yet to return home from the original conflict in 1991, most notably Navy Captain Scott Speicher. I am also pleased that colleagues have come to the chamber not to argue about Iraq, rather to proclaim support for our service personnel.

   The debate ended last October while a 77-to-23 vote to permit a military option, should one be needed, in the case of the Baghdad regime. In passing H.J. Res. 114, Congress specifically authorized the President to ``use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' This action was, of course, in addition to the Iraq Liberation Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law October 31, 1988. That act clearly states the United States should foster regime change in Iraq. The House passed that bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans. Lastly, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which gave Iraq one last opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

   A few months later, the Director of Central Intelligence declared ``Iraq has in place an active effort to deceive the UN inspectors and deny them access. This effort is directed by the highest levels of the Iraqi regime. Baghdad has given clear directions to its operational forces to hide banned materials in their possession.'' Let's be candid on the issue of compliance. The truth is that no amount of U-2 surveillance flights nor increase in the number of inspectors would have solved the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Now I don't want war. Nobody wants war. The fact is, however, we are already at war. Over the last two decades, 5,700 Americans have lost their lives as a result of the kind of terrorist activity Saddam Hussein supports. I recall that the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and of course, September 11, 2001. Only after the latter tragedy, did we begin to fight back.

   So I say to our troops and their families, thank you and I support you. You are freedom's best hope.

   Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to express, on behalf of Washington State, our prayers and thoughts for the men and women of the United States armed forces that have now been called to duty in service of their country.

   I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate and Americans throughout the country to come together to support our troops and pray that their mission is completed quickly, effectively, and with minimal casualties.

   America's deepest hope is for a swift conclusion to this war to liberate Iraq and protect the world from its weapons of mass destruction.

   In Washington State, we are proud to be the home to thousands of troops from our State that are currently serving our country in this conflict.

   The men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, homeported in Everett, WA, have been deployed in the region since last summer and are a critical element of our efforts as a launching stage for air operations, including 50 missions over Southern Iraq just yesterday.

   Air operations will depend heavily on tanker aircraft, many of which are based in Spokane, WA's Fairchild Air Force Base. And almost all air missions will be dependent upon the critical support of EA-6 radar jammers and P-3 aircraft, many of which are based in Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor, WA.

   In the ground operations, troops from Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, WA, will be providing critical infantry support. And cargo planes from McChord Air Force Base, also near Tacoma, have and will continue to be crucial in providing transportation support.

   We also recognize the important sacrifices being made by the National Guard and reserve units in our State that have been activated, leaving jobs and livelihoods behind to serve the call to duty.

   And let us not forget the parents, wives, husbands, friends and children of the men and women of our armed forces, whose support--in the face of fear and anxiety--is admirable and inspirational.

   We are enormously proud of our fellow Washingtonians that are serving the Nation. Along with men and women from all 50 States serving in the military, these brave and courageous Americans have volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend the security of our country and the stability of our world.

   Our prayers are with them, and we look forward to their speedy success and return home.

   I have tremendous confidence in the men and women of our armed services to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion.

   Yet, this support for the effort is accompanied by a deep sense of anxiety and concern.

   Nobody wants war.

   The death, destruction and misery of war are things that we should never ignore and we cannot forget. When our troops are called to defend our Nation and international peace, we do so with a heavy heart but strong confidence that we will prevail.

   In reaching our objective of disarmament, we must not forget the plight of the Iraqi people.

   Iraqi civilians have been victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator that has not only stripped away political liberty and free expression, but has combined the tactics of torture, deprivation and murder to maintain his terrible regime.

   We must soberly recognize that the Iraqi people will be innocent victims of this conflict, and we must remain dedicated to doing everything in our power to ensure their safety and, ultimately, liberation.

   Importantly, this dedication must extend beyond military success. We, in this Chamber, must recognize that the prospect of creating a stable, post-Saddam Iraq will be a huge, expensive and politically volatile endeavor.

   This will not be easy, especially given the historic rivalries among Iraq's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni population.

   However, whatever the costs and whatever the commitment, we owe it to ourselves and the world to ensure that the liberation of Iraq our troops are fighting for is not wasted away by a failed post-war strategy.

   Our troops are answering the call of duty.

   As our hearts go out to their families and loved ones, we are a Nation that is profoundly grateful for their courage, dedication and sense of mission.

   We know that our troops will meet the challenge that they have been given.

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in support of S. Res. 95, which commends our Armed Forces.

   The war with Iraq is underway. I regret that diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein have failed. I regret that diplomatic efforts to build a broader coalition of nations willing to join us in military action have also fallen short.

   But the task force before us now is to pledge our unqualified support for our courageous young men and women on the battlefield; to do whatever is needed to ensure they have every advantage now that the fighting has commended.

   I was in the Army during World War II and served in Europe. As a veteran, I know how important it is for our Air Force personnel; and our soldiers and sailors to know that we feel close to them and they are constantly in our thoughts.

   Winston Churchill said: ``We shall not escape our dangers by recoiling from them.'' So we send our young men and women in uniform--each one a volunteer--to Iraq and to other distant places such as Afghanistan.

   They fight to protect us, and they fight to free other people they don't know from cruelty and savage oppression.

   Our troops are the best trained and best equipped in history. We have no doubt that they will prevail in their mission to oust Iraq's brutal dictator, eliminate Iraq's dangerous arsenal, and make the world a safer place.

   War may be necessary, and war may be right. But it is never good. So we hope that this campaign to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his murderous cohorts will be quick and decisive. We hope that there will be little collateral damage and as few casualties as possible, both among our troops and

[Page: S4090]

   Once we win the war in Iraq, we will have to secure the peace. That will be the best way we can honor our troops.

   Even as we engage in the fighting today, we have to start planning for what comes tomorrow. That will require a steadfastness of purpose equal to what our troops are displaying as we speak. The task will not be easy. All people, all nations have the same tendency: we judge ourselves by our intentions; we judge others by their actions. We know that our intentions are noble; many others, however--including some of our long-standing allies--only see our actions and they condemn them. It is imperative that once the shooting stops, we do whatever is necessary to build a free, open, and democratic Iraq at peace with itself, its neighbors, and the world.

   So, no matter the length of the battle, no matter how demanding the war, we face some years of concerted effort after the guns have fallen silent. We have to be prepared to lead the world in peace with the same vigor and purpose as our troops are currently demonstrating. I'm certain America is up to the task and we will prove to the world that our intentions are honorable.

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last night, President Bush ordered America's military to disarm Saddam Hussein, eliminate his weapons of mass destination, and liberate the oppressed people of Iraq. The American people stand united behind the Commander-in-Chief and the men and women who defend our Nation.

   For 12 years, the United States and a broad coalition of nations exhausted diplomatic means to contain and undermine Saddam Hussein's dangerous and tyrannical regime in order to end the threat posed by his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, patient diplomacy yielded only persistent Iraqi intransigence and disobedience of international law. For 12 years, Saddam Hussein flagrantly violated United Nations Security Council Resolutions, making a mockery of that body by feverishly continuing his pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

   We have made every effort to avoid war, but diplomacy has finally run its course. Those who suggest that the United States is to balance for the failure of diplomatic efforts to disarm Hussein could not be further from the truth. The responsibility for this war rests squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein, a ruthless tyrant whose disregard for the edicts of the United Nations is matched only by his disregard for the lives and interests of his own people.

   It is clear that Saddam Hussein does not understand the language of diplomacy, but only the language of military force. What the United Nations failed to accomplish with 12 years of toothless diplomacy, the United States and a broad coalition of allied nations must now accomplish with just application of military force. On Monday, President Bush noted succinctly: ``The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.''

   Truly, we must not let the world's most dangerous dictators acquire the world's most dangerous weapons. Unless tyrants like Hussein are disarmed, deterred, or destroyed, the use of weapons of mass murder against the United States and our allies is not a question of if, but of when. As President Bush said to the Nation last night, ``We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.''

   From Afghanistan and Albania to the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan, governments throughout the world have publicly committed to providing substantive support, military and otherwise, to our efforts to disarm Hussein by force. Many other nations have quietly offered material support for our efforts to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq. Indeed, this multilateral coalition is larger than that formed in support of Operation Desert Storm during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The members of this broad coalition, many of which have suffered under oppressive authorization rule in the past, understand the danger of living at the mercy of tyrannical regimes that threaten peace and stability with weapons of mass murder.

   Like all Americans, I hope and pray for the safety of our troops who fight so that we may remain free. I am proud to represent tens of thousands of Kentuckians who will participate in military operations overseas, as well as the thousands of Kentuckians in the National Guard and Reserves who have been activated to play critical roles in defending our homeland. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. These Kentuckians, led by the 101st Airborne, Air Assault, division based at Fort Campbell, KY, will defend our freedom and security with honor and dignity.

   Just as our ongoing operations in the war against terrorism will require patience and perseverance, so too will this effort to liberate the Iraqi people. But we are resolved as a nation to carry out our mission in support of peace, stability, and freedom. We are certain that our cause is just, and necessary. As our military fights to protect America, to disarm Hussein, and to provide security in an unstable region, the liberation of the people of Iraq draws near. Unique in its place in the world, the United States does not fight wars of empire and expansionism. Rather, we fight for the protection of our liberty, and for the liberty of others. And just as in France in 1944, or Afghanistan in 2001, long-oppressed civilians--who have suffered under the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein--will soon experience the benevolence of the American people and their own inalienable right to live in freedom.

   I am grateful for President Bush's steady leadership as Commander-in-Chief, and I have no doubt that our military men and women are the finest in the world and will defend our Nation with skill, precision, courage, and honor. May God bless America. And may He bless our soldiers in harm's way.

   Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as our Nation is engaged in confrontation with Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi-regime, I join with my colleagues in offering my gratitude and support for our troops, both here and overseas.

   None of us desire the use of force. Yet, as history has repeatedly taught us, the failure to confront a menacing tyranny today can lead to far greater devastation tomorrow. Had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood fast against Nazi Germany's 1938 demand to dismember Czechoslovakia in exchange for ``peace in our time,'' the lives of 50 million people could have been saved.

   I salute the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who are willing to place their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families who remain behind, praying their loves ones not be harmed.

   The dangers facing our troops are many. Will the Iraqi army quickly surrender? Will chemical and biological weapons be used? How long will this military campaign take? In addition, our service members must contend with the scorching heat of the desert; the blinding conditions of sand storms; and the logistical nightmares of crossing the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

   We can feel better knowing our troops are prepared for all contingencies and have been trained to meet whatever challenges Saddam and his regime may throw their way.

   Our troops hail from all fifty States; our territories and insular possessions. Every Member of Congress is impacted.

   During the first Gulf War in 1991, one Alaskan was killed: Sergeant David Douthit, a 24-year-old from Soldotna. Alaskans are currently participating in Northern and Southern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq. They are in Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. They are in South Korea participating in the annual Foal Eagle military exercises.

   Unit 210 of the Kulis Air National Guard in Alaska has been activated and is awaiting deployment to the Middle East as part of an elite rescue squad. This is a group of everyday Americans--bankers, economists, and teachers--who are serving their Nation at a time of war. May no harm come to them.

   There is on question that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He has

[Page: S4091]

   As the President put it when declaring the 4-hour deadline, the day of liberation for the Iraqi people is near.

   American troops are in Iraq to secure our Nation from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He repeatedly failed to disarm and chose to ignore his obligations to the international community. The time has come for him to leave.

   An enormous burden is now placed on the shoulders of our Armed Forces. Together, with allies from over 40 member nations who are supporting this effort, we seek to eliminate the weapons and facilities that Saddam should have destroyed 12 years ago. Now, we will finally ensure that the United States and our allies do not face the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear attack from those who would seek to harm us.

   Like so many who came before them, these brave men and women are placing their lives on the line to secure our freedom and protect our ideals and liberties. They have my undying thanks and support.

   Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 95. As the United States and her allies begin the campaign to defend the world against the tyrannical rule of Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, we must all rally behind our Commander in Chief and Old Glory.

   The military action underway in Iraq is both just and lawful. We must rise and stand for humanity and help liberate the Iraqi people. After months of deception and noncompliance from the Iraqi regime about their weapons of mass destruction, the United States and over 30 allies decided to take military action to enforce United Nations resolution 1441 and disarm Saddam. Along with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues in the Senate, I voted in favor of authorizing this use of force last fall.

   The brave men and women of our Armed Forces come from all across our great Nation, but I wish to specifically recognize the vital role that Kentucky is playing in this noble effort to disarm Saddam. I am confident that the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles, 5th Special Forces Group, and 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment will continue to make Fort Campbell, KY, and our great Nation proud.

   Thousands of our soldiers now in the Middle East completed vital and comprehensive training at Fort Knox. Fort Knox is the Home of Mounted Warfare where tank training is performed and perfected. These soldiers who trained at Fort Knox in mostly Abrams tanks are now on the front lines against the Iraqi Republican Guard. I guarantee our tank soldiers will prevail.

   Also, our men and women at the Bluegrass Army Depot in Richmond, KY, continue to make sure that our troops have the munitions they need to defeat the enemy. Thousands of enlisted and reserve troops from Kentucky have answered their Nation's call to duty. From the Bluegrass Army Depot, they load munitions onto trains which end up in guns and the weapons systems of our ground forces and air power. They are helping freedom ring throughout the world.

   It is also important to thank our civilian workforce on our military bases and those who indirectly support the military and war effort. They play a key role in ensuring our installations are maintained and our soldiers are housed and fed and given the support they need to secure our freedoms. Their work and contribution must not be overlooked.

   This resolution reinforces that now is the time for America to be united and show our unconditional support for our troops and their mission. Freedom and democracy do not come easy and our soldiers are willing to sacrifice even their own lives to ensure that future generations will have the opportunity to embrace such concepts as liberty and human rights and lead the world to more peaceful and secure days.

   We all hope and pray our troops come back safely and quickly after successfully disarming Saddam's brutal regime and liberating the Iraqi people. The cause of our military and allies is noble and just. Our thoughts and prayers are also with the family and loved ones of our soldiers. God bless them all.

   Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, yesterday our mission to disarm the Iraqi regime began. It is my hope that our actions will deliver the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator and help bring peace and stability to a volatile region.

   Our commanders in the field have developed an operations plan that will maximize the power of our forces, and I have no doubts about their capabilities to successfully achieve their military objectives.

   I commend the President for promptly addressing the Nation last night. It is important that he continues to keep Congress and the public informed of our military actions and the status of our mission. And I agree with his assessment that we should not view this war in terms of timetables. To speculate at this point would be counterproductive. Rather, we should view this conflict in terms of meeting our strategic and tactical goals.

   As a Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee, I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the President to provide any and all support possible to ensure the success of our military forces conducting these operations.

   Our Nation is a nation of diverse views, ideologies, and opinions. We might not all agree on how or why we arrived at this point; nonetheless, we must come together as a country and support those service men and women who are currently risking life and limb.

   As we stand here today, over 300,000 United States military personnel, including a number of Arkansans, are forward deployed in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Turkey, and the waters and skies all around the world and at bases around the country. They put themselves in harm's way not for personal aggrandizement or advancement, but for immense love of country, liberty, and family. If they can hear me today, I say be assured, for the American people are behind you.

   When appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, GEN John Keane, Vice Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army, testified to the courage of our military personnel. He said when asked what their greatest challenge was, his division commanders replied ``keeping our soldiers from being too brave.'' We owe these men and women overseas and at home not only our gratitude, but also our very existence as the only country on Earth committed to promoting and spreading the ideals of democracy. Our military has kept us safe for over 200 years. We cannot thank them enough.

   Just as we should thank our military overseas and at home, we should thank our first responders that protect our hometowns. Firefighters, police, and health care personnel risk their lives and sacrifice precious time with their families every day to keep us safe from those who would try to do us harm. Their commitment and contributions to national security and homeland security should not be forgotten.

   Mr. President, I urge all Americans to pray for our troops, their families, and our President as we defend our Nation and the world from those that seek to do us harm.

   Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last October, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and believe it was right that, in recent months, the country debated the wisdom of using military action against Iraq at this time. But the commencement of military action unites us as we focus on our ongoing support for our troops. I am confident in their abilities and I hope for their safe and quick return to their families. Even more so now that this action has begun, my thoughts, and the thoughts of all Americans, are with our service men and women, and with their families.

   I am pleased that the Senate is taking this opportunity to formally go on record in support of our brave men and women in uniform with this resolution.

   The dedicated men and women of our military spend time away from their homes and families in different parts of the country and the world, and, too often, are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their selfless service.

   The war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism are turning upside down the lives of tens of thousands of Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families. These men and women seek to do their duty to our

[Page: S4092]

   Some Wisconsinites are facing the latest in a series of multiple activations and deployments for family members. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return.

   We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do everything that we can to support them in this difficult time. I will continue to work to ensure that our troops and their families have the resources that they need, both to combat our adversaries and to provide for their families, during this tumultuous time and when they return home.

   Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong and unconditional support for our troops currently engaged in disarming Iraq. As the war continues to progress, I have every confidence in their capabilities, their courage, and their patriotism. I am pleased to support the resolution before us, and believe it will send a message to all the world that the Congress is united in support of our young men and women in the Gulf.

   On many occasions in recent months, this institution has debated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Individual Senators have made honest arguments expressing widely differing points of view on this issue. Now that our troops are engaged against the forces of Saddam Hussein, however, we must speak with one voice.

   It is my hope and expectation that this war will be short, and that our victory will be decisive. Our military is the best-equipped and best-trained force that the world has ever seen. As Maine's representative on the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my privilege to work side-by-side with military leaders to ensure that this is the case. If there is any message we could send to members of the Iraqi military, it would be to express the futility of resistance. The President has been clear, that we come not as conquerors, but as liberators. Our military superiority is overwhelming, and our forces will not stop until Iraq is disarmed.

   Of course, there is very little certainty in combat. In the fog of war, there are innumerable factors that might affect the course of battle. Our leadership has worked to anticipate and prepare for whatever eventualities might develop. I suspect in the coming days we will be receiving conflicting reports, confusing media accounts, and distorted descriptions of the battlefield. However, one thing should be unmistakable ..... our troops will receive whatever support they need to bring this conflict to a rapid and successful end.

   We also need to send a message to other forces in this world that seek to do us harm. They might believe that, because so many of our forces are engaged in the Middle East, we have left ourselves vulnerable. The administration has moved the Homeland Security Advisory to Orange, indicating that we are at high risk of terrorist attack. Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, has assured me that our Nation is taking almost unprecedented steps to protect our critical infrastructure, to identify potential terrorist threats, and to secure potential targets. Certainly, we do have some difficult days ahead.

   However, we are working to deter, detect, and, if necessary, respond decisively to any terrorist attack.

   I also want to say a word to the families of those men and women currently in harm's way in the Middle East. They truly carry a heavy burden, and I want to express my personal and heartfelt appreciation for the sacrifices that they make. No war comes without cost. While our military leaders will do everything they can to minimize the danger our troops will face, there is still much risk and danger. To the wives, husbands, children, and parents of troops, I thank you for your bravery and your strength. You and your loved ones deserve our admiration, our respect, and our appreciation.

   When I came to the Senate over 6 years ago, I could not have imagined this moment. We lived in a different world then. In the coming months, we will debate how we came to this conflict, and how we need to proceed. Historians will study this period in our history every closely. There will be time to place this war in its proper context. Today, however, as our troops stand in harm's way, I only want to show my unwavering support for our troops, thank them for their service, and express my hope for their safe return.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, may I inquire of the Presiding Officer the amount of time in control of the Senator from Virginia and the amount of time in control of the Senator from Michigan?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 9 minutes 13 seconds. The Senator from Michigan has 18 minutes 1 second.

   Mr. WARNER. Senator Levin and I have now sought to advise our leadership on the ever-growing number of Senators anxious to speak. They, I presume, will consider how we will add more time to this debate now or during another period. I wish to put Senators on notice that we have the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, awaiting recognition, followed by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and then the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

   I am going to do the very best I can to get the time to accommodate these Senators, and I see other Senators present on my side.

   Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

   I thank my friend for working to accommodate as many Senators who would like to speak. I do not think it is necessary for us to make long speeches--3, 4, 5 minutes--but I do believe it is very important and we have a responsibility to do so. To the extent the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan can work together to add some time, it would be most appreciated.

   Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Virginia--has the Senator been yielded to already?

   Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Texas is to be recognized next.

   Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Texas yield for an inquiry?

   Mr. WARNER. I have to ask it be on your time.

   Mr. LEVIN. On my time. I have the following Senators on our side who are here and indicated they wish to speak: Senator Dorgan, Senator Dayton, Senator Reed who is in the cloakroom, Senator Boxer, Senator Baucus, Senator Byrd. So there is no way we are going to be able to complete even the people who are here, much less additional people who wish to speak and who come to the floor, and still have a vote on this resolution immediately after the three votes that are currently scheduled.

   So I join my good friend from Virginia in asking the leadership as to how they wish us to address this problem at this time.

   I have 19 minutes left before 4 o'clock--how many minutes?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes.

   Mr. LEVIN. Seventeen minutes. If I talk longer, it will be 16 minutes. I have 17 minutes before the first vote begins, but there is no time set on the resolution itself we are debating; am I correct?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

   Mr. LEVIN. If the leadership can give us guidance in how they want to handle this.

   Mr. WARNER. I join in that request. I also have Senator Coleman, Senator Hatch, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from North Carolina, and the number is growing.

   Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. WARNER. Yes.

   Mr. BYRD. Would it be possible to move the 4 o'clock vote, say, to 4:30 in order to get these speeches ahead of the vote? It could be included in the series of votes.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, both Senator Levin and I have put that to our respective leadership.

   Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

[Page: S4093]

   Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this resolution we are talking about today is for those brave men and women who are in harms way as we speak, close to midnight their time, far across the oceans. America's thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of them--Active Duty, Reserve, Guard, Americans, and our loyal allies.

   September 11, 2001, was a brutal wake-up call for our Nation, one that our President refuses to ignore. By disarming and liberating Iraq, these troops are working to prevent a 9/11 with a weapon of mass destruction. Today we are entering a new phase in the campaign to root out terrorism wherever it is bred.

   How did we get to this point? In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing 6 people, wounding more than 1,000.

   In 1996, terrorists bombed the U.S. military living quarters at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 brave Americans and wounding scores more.

   In 1998, followers of Osama bin Laden attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing and wounding hundreds.

   In 2000, bin Laden followers attacked the USS Cole in a harbor in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more.

   But sadly, it took 4 hijacked airplanes being turned into weapons of mass destruction and the loss of nearly 3,000 lives for us to respond, and this time the terrorists and those who harbor them will know the United States of America is resolved to preserve our freedom.

   Our President will not waiver. Congress will not waiver in our support of our President and our troops.

   There are those in this world who hate America and what it stands for. They despise our love for freedom, our passion for democracy, and our tolerance of other religions and beliefs. Their hatred led them to recklessly kill thousands of innocent civilians in our country and abroad.

   September 11 brought a sea change in our national security strategy. We now know that deterrence alone is not enough. Our new strategy in this new kind of war articulates a policy of preemption. It is when we fail to act or fail to lead that our enemies strike.

   The President has said we will not give Saddam Hussein the opportunity to attack. The Iraqi dictator seeks to make weapons of mass destruction, and those weapons would find their way into the hands of terrorists. So coalition forces from our allied nations are on the ground with us in Iraq, and we commend them for their bravery and their unwavering loyalty to our Nation and their pursuit of freedom.

   For 12 long years, Saddam Hussein has treated the world with lies and contempt. Diplomacy, sanctions, and 17 U.N. resolutions failed to do the job. His brutal campaign for decades against his neighbors, his own people, and the world is coming to an end as we speak because brave men and women are doing the job for us.

   The men and women on the front lines in Iraq, the anxious families waiting back home, and the thousands of National Guard and Reserve forces who have been called to duty must count on the American public to stand by their side until the very end. We will not fail them.

   In Congress, we must ensure our Armed Forces have every resource necessary for a swift and successful campaign. We will not fail to provide. It is our duty, as the beacon of freedom for the world, to ensure that Saddam Hussein's brutal reign comes to an end. This is our tribute to those in the past who fought for the liberty we enjoy, and it is our commitment to pass the torch of freedom to future generations.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I anticipate that we will soon have a unanimous consent request about timing, but until that is finished might I suggest that the Senator from Michigan recognize another of his speakers.

   Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just interject.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps I can at least describe what we are anticipating as the unanimous consent request. I think we are about ready to propound it. There have been a number of Senators who have indicated to the two managers that they wish to address the resolution. We are prepared to accommodate all of those requests. We would then ask for unanimous consent that the votes that are currently scheduled for 4 be moved back to 5 to accommodate the additional time allocated for discussion of the resolution. At that point, we would then vote on the amendments, in addition to the resolution.

   Following those votes, we would still allow Senators to speak, either to the resolution in support of the troops or to the resolution relating to the budget in both amendment as well as in general comment, so that throughout the evening Senators could still be accommodated to speak to the resolutions, either one.

   I hope that we could entertain a unanimous consent request that all those speeches which are made on the resolution in support of the troops appear in the RECORD prior to the vote so that the RECORD will read appropriately. That would be our intent, and I would hope that all Senators would be prepared to accommodate that request.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have before me a proposed unanimous consent request. I will now make that request.

   I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of this resolution occur at the hour of 5 today; provided further that debate between 4 and 5 be equally divided as provided earlier. Further, I ask that the previously scheduled stacked votes occur beginning immediately following the vote on the adoption of this resolution, S. Con. Res. 26, with no amendments in order to the resolution or preamble.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes Senators be recognized for purposes of making additional statements; that the time throughout the evening be equally divided and that their speeches appear in the RECORD prior to the vote cast on the resolution.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I will recommend that the distinguished Democratic leader's unanimous consent be accepted, but I would like to speak with my leader before agreeing to it.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to announce that on my side, the following Senators have indicated the desire to speak. I will be in the Chamber to accommodate them as best I can within the 30 minutes that I have remaining: Senators ALLARD, MCCAIN, COLEMAN, HATCH, STEVENS, DOLE, DOMENICI.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will read the list of Senators on this side so that everyone will know who will be speaking before the vote on the resolution under the unanimous consent that was just adopted, and then who would come afterwards with their statements on the resolution being put in the RECORD before that: Senator Dorgan would be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dayton for 5 minutes, Senator JACK REED for 5 minutes, Senator Boxer for 6 minutes, Senator Baucus for 7 minutes, Senator Byrd for 15 minutes. If my math is correct, all of those could be accommodated prior to the vote at 5.

   I notice the Parliamentarian has been adding up those numbers, and I am wondering if my math is correct.

   After the vote, if my math is correct, Senator Landrieu and Senator Biden would then be recognized on this side, and any other Democrats who wish to speak can come after the resolution, after those two Senators.

   Is the Senator correct that all of those I named up to Senator Byrd could be accommodated with the times indicated prior to the vote at 5?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator allocated 43 minutes, which appears to fit within the timeframe now allowed.

   Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Page: S4094]

   Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, America makes no more difficult decision than that which asks its sons and daughters to go to war, and those who are in harm's way as we speak need to know that our country is united in support of them. Our thoughts and prayers go to those soldiers who have answered the call for our country. Our thoughts and prayers go to their families.

   In my State, we have two Air Force bases, international guard. We have the highest rate of deployment. Almost 30 percent of all Guard and Reserves are now deployed in North Dakota under a callup. I am enormously proud of what they are contributing to this country and to its national defense. They and their families need to understand our united support for them.

   To the people of Iraq, we need to say that we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, and we pray also for the safety of those innocent noncombatants inside the country of Iraq.

   I wish with all my heart that the people of free nations, working through the United Nations, would have been able to find a diplomatic solution to require the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, but that was not possible. So our Nation now will take action to disarm this dictator.

   In the sometimes lonely and dark hours when America is challenged, I think of the words of Thomas Wolfe in his great novel. He talked about the peculiar quality of the American soul. He said Americans have an indestructible belief, a quenchless hope, a boundless optimism, that something good is sure to happen.

   Let us hope and pray through this conflict something good will happen. As we do, let us express our profound gratitude for those who nurture, protect, and risk their lives for freedom. It will be and should be left to another day to talk about what should have been done a decade or two ago, what could have been done long ago to avoid this intersection of war and strife.

   The question is, How do we, in the free world, prevent the emergence of more dictators, tyrants, and terrorists who threaten America's liberty? That is a long and difficult discussion for other days.

   For today, all of us from every philosophy in every corner of our country say to those in harm's way and who serve our country: We are proud of you; America is united in support of what you are doing.

   I yield the floor and I retain the remainder of my time.

   Mr. WARNER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

   Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last night at 10:15 p.m. eastern standard time, President Bush announced to the Nation that the war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction had begun. It was a solemn moment that reminded us that diplomacy was no longer an option.

   I recall the President's comments that you cannot have peace when you have to deal with a leader who is not peaceful.

   It also meant the men and women of our Armed Forces were now going to be committed to battle. The resolution before the Senate commands and supports the efforts and leadership of the President as Commander in Chief in the conflict against Iraq. The resolution recognizes the contribution of our defense forces and expresses support for the thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guardsmen who have been mobilized, deployed, and are now fighting to defend the security of our Nation. I strongly support the resolution and believe it deserves the Senate's unanimous support.

   Today our Nation demands much of our military. Our forces continue to fight in Afghanistan, assist forces in Yemen, Djibouti, and Georgia, and defend our homeland. Now they have taken on a new mission, the liberation of Iraq.

   Despite many hardships, our military members have extended forward and embraced our country's call to arms. Over the last month, 5,000 soldiers from Fort Carson, CO, have been sent to confront Iraqi oppression and terrorism. The soldiers have embraced their duty and are now serving their country with pride and determination. We cannot forget the valuable contribution of reservists and National Guardsmen. Many of these service men and women have left their careers and their families to answer our Nation's call to arms. Over 3,000 Coloradans in the Reserves and National Guard have extended forward and they have responded with determination. They are committed to defending our Nation and deserve our support. We ought to recognize their employers who have recognized at the workplace that they are dedicated to protecting freedom in America and are making sacrifices while their workforce serves this country overseas.

   We should not forget the families of our men and women in uniform. They have watched as their loved ones were sent overseas to defend our country. They made sacrifices and deserve our support as they fight and make sacrifices for freedom.

   Today our men and women in uniform are in harm's way. They are fighting for the safety and security of all Americans. I believe it is imperative we express our support for their efforts. I ask for God's blessing for America.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton.

   Mr. DAYTON. Winston Churchill once advised:

   In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.

   I add to that, before war, honest debate.

   That fundamental right of the first amendment to debate, to agree and disagree is the difference between our democracy and Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. The measure of our free country is not how well our country tolerates agreement but, rather, how well they accept disagreement.

   Now, however, the time for this debate is passed. Our country is at war and our Armed Forces are fighting life-and-death battles against Iraqi troops. The President has made that momentous decision, and I will support him, his military command, and the brave American troops who are carrying out his orders.

   In war: Resolution. Let us in the Senate resolve to provide whatever is needed to win the war as quickly and decisively as possible and then replenish our military arsenals so we quickly regain our great strength to protect and defend our country again.

   In victory: Magnanimity. There is no question that our Armed Forces will win this war for our country, for the Iraqi people and for, I pray, the ultimate benefit of the world. I pray the courageous Americans who will win that victory, many of them young men and women less than half our age, may return safely home.

   Let us who are at home now begin the practice of magnanimity, magnanimity toward the people of Iraq who did not take up arms against us, magnanimity toward their past suffering and future needs.

   Occupation is not magnanimous; the Marshall Plan was magnanimous. We have the obligation and the opportunity to be magnanimous and generous toward the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, we can showcase our way of life, our economic and technical know-how, and our humanity. We should match each year the increase in our military spending with that same increase in an international recovery fund. Both are key to our national security.

   In peace: Good will. Our leaders must become again the lead practitioners and worldwide promoters of good will. They can allow themselves no more derisive and destructive reactions to whoever does not see our way, not to the leaders and people of other nations, not to the leaders and representatives of the international organizations, not to our fellow American citizens.

   We must resume our leadership of the world on the path toward international security, prosperity, peace, and good will. That is our greatest challenge. That must be our ultimate victory.

   I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to the Senator from Michigan.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

   Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this is a profound moment in all our lives. Words are inadequate, so I will be brief. It is an honor to speak right after my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, and to join with him in support of our men and women on the front lines, in support of the President's decision to commence military action to disarm Iraq.

   In this Chamber it is often said the foreign policy debate ends at the water's edge. This resolution makes clear

[Page: S4095]

   This situation represents a balance of risks. War is always costly in human terms on all sides. But the threats of terrorism, mass destruction, are also real. The dangerous nature of the world we now live in was brought home to us by the events of September 11. That reality requires us to act decisively when we are threatened, rather than simply to wait and hope for the best. I agree with the President that it is better to send soldiers into battle than to send police, ambulance drivers, and firefighters to the site of future terrorist attacks.

   My firm belief is that our Nation is blessed with responsible, principled leadership. Our military is as courageous as it is capable. Our goals in this conflict are both clear and just. Now we are committed and we must carry on our duty to the end.

   It has been said that courage is fear that has said its prayers. May we all offer our support and praise to our troops, military leaders, and our President until the dangerous days are over. Our hearts and prayers are with all the women and men in harm's way in the Middle East today, and with their families.

   I ran across this quotation from Thomas Paine from his pamphlet Common Sense, written in 1776:

   These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated.

   No one wanted this to come to war. But it is here. I am proud to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of our men and women, in support of our Commander in Chief, in support of our families. Our prayers are with all of them.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Reed.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, America has placed its fate and its future in the hands of young American fighting men and fighting women. Both our future and our faith could not be in stronger, more decent, and more qualified hands. We are here today, united in our support for these extraordinary soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coastguardsmen, all of them superbly trained, faithful to their uniforms, and also faithful to those who served before them--an unbroken legacy of courage and commitment to this Nation.

   I take a moment to recognize particularly those many individuals from my State of Rhode Island. First, the thousands who are serving on active duty in units in all of our services, and then, also, our National Guard and Reserve forces, because in this conflict the National Guard and Reserve are playing a critical role. Rhode Island has 648 Guard men and women and Reserve members who are stationed throughout the globe.

   Many members of the National Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Security Forces and Communications have been deployed to Southwest Asia. They have been joined by the Air National Guard's 281st Combat Communications Group, the Air National Guard's 282nd Combat Communications Squadron and the Air National Guard's 102nd Information Warfare Squadron. The Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Aerial Port Squadron is in Turkey and members of the Rhode Island Air National Guard headquarters are in Kyrgzstan and Turkey.

   Rhode Islanders are also protecting the homefront while war is waged in the Middle East. The Army National Guard's 1207th Transportation Company is at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The Army National Guard's 118th Military Police Battalion, 119th Military Police Company, and 115th Military Police Company are at Fort Drum, New York. And the Marine Reserves, General Support Motor Transport Company and the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 103rd Field Artillery Brigade are providing security in Rhode Island.

   All of these men and women have been called to the colors, have responded, and will serve magnificently.

   The battle has begun. The battle will be pursued vigorously to a complete victory. I have every confidence in that. Part of my confidence stems from the privilege of having served with the leaders of our Army who, today, are commanding the forces that are sent against Iraq. Both as classmates and contemporaries at West Point, I had the privilege of knowing GEN Chuck Swannack who commands the 82nd; Dave Petraeus, the 101st Commander; and also General Hagenbeck, who commanded the 10th so well in Afghanistan.

   I know because these men are superb professionals, because they are committed to getting the job done and making sure their soldiers come home. We will be successful.

   Today, we are united in our support and our admiration for the forces who serve this country so well.

   I yield the remainder of my time.

   Mr. WARNER. I yield 4 1/2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the war to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people has begun. Many Americans feel we have waited a long time for this just war to come; many feel we haven't waited long enough. But the Iraqi people have waited for far too long, suffered for far too long and the world has for too long failed to come to grips with the consequences of Saddam Hussein's acquisition of an arsenal of terror. The wait is over; the liberation of the Iraqi people is underway; and the world is witnessing the end of one of the most horrible regimes in modern history, and with it the end of the threat Iraq has for too long posed to its people, its neighbors, and the world.

   There has been no rush to war. That the United States exhausted diplomacy is evident in both the 12-year history of our dealings with Iraq since the first Gulf War and the 6 month effort at the Security Council to build consensus on the need to disarm Iraq. There will be plenty of time to discuss the American diplomatic campaign that preceded the war once military action is over. There is no cause to do so today. We stand united in our support for our armed forces and confident in the swift victory that we pray will be theirs.

   One of America's finest traditions is our ability to draw together in support of our men and women in uniform when they are actively engaged in the defense of our freedom. American forces in the Iraq theater fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride. American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are engaged in combat today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so threaten freedom itself.

   Our armed forces fight to disarm and destroy a regime that has proven not only that it will continue to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, but that it will use them. Our military fights to uphold the demands of the United Nations Security Council for Iraq's disarmament, even though some in that body shirk their own obligations to hold Iraq to account for its defiance. Our men and women fight so that the Iraqi people no longer live in terror but have cause to believe, as Americans believe, that liberty's blessings are not the prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right of all mankind.

   The liberty we cherish, and in which we want all people to share, has a price. Young Americans are paying it tonight in Iraq--not out of any grand design for empire, not for oil, not out of dislike for the Iraqi people, but for love--love of America, love for her founding principles, love for her way of life, and love for the greatness that history has judged to be hers not because of riches or power, but because of her abiding commitment to the cause of human freedom.

   America is great not because of what she has done for herself, but because of what she has done for others. In another age, we helped liberate Europe from Hitler's tyranny, and ended Japanese imperialism in Asia. In extraordinary acts of generosity, we helped rebuild Europe and Japan and transform

[Page: S4096]

   Many of us remember parents and grandparents who served in the Second World War as our ``greatest generation.'' Another generation of heroes is being forged from the ruins of the attacks of September 11th. Just as Pearl Harbor opened the eyes of America to the grave peril beyond her shores, so have the terrorists who attacked us roused in America the conviction that we will never again suffer such infamy.

   Nearly a century ago, President Woodrow Wilson issued a rousing call to make the world safe for democracy. Americans, and the world, did not rise to the challenge, and the bloodiest century in the history of humanity ensued. The President has ordered American forces into action in Iraq to help make America, and the world, safe from another such century, when tyrants are empowered by technology to inflict the sort of devastation from which free nations might not recover--a capability that puts freedom itself in peril. America, the greatest of free nations, will not take that risk.

   I wish American forces in Iraq every hope for rapid victory. They fight for love of freedom--a love which is invincible. The world is better for their courage and dedication. Victory will be ours--and all honor will be theirs. God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.

   Mr. WARNER. We go to the other side.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITZGERALD). Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from California.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I address the Senate with regard to the remaining speakers on my side of the aisle to alert them? We have next the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, followed by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as military action begins in Iraq, I send my strong support, as a Senator, as a mother, as a grandmother, to our sons and daughters who are carrying out the mission asked of them.

   Military personnel from my State of California are a lead contributor in this effort. They include marines from Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms, carrier groups from San Diego, and Air Force personnel from Travis Air Force Base.

   There are many more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from throughout California serving us today, including 6,100 Guard and reservists who have recently been activated. Thousands of California families are impacted.

   From my seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have followed the issue of Iraq very closely. And for the past several months, my view was that we should build a worldwide coalition to disarm Iraq, a worldwide coalition that would truly be partners in name, in action, and in cost-sharing. That is why I was so proud to support Senator Levin's resolution to authorize force with the backing of the United Nations. While this amendment was defeated in the Senate, I believe it called attention to the importance of working with a large coalition of allies.

   As one who has recently voted twice to give a President--a Republican President and a Democratic President--the right to use force, I believe war should always be the last resort. I voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war against al-Qaida, and for President Clinton to use military force against Slobodan Milosevic.

   In this case, in Iraq, I supported intrusive inspections backed by a united coalition as the best way to achieve Iraqi

   disarmament. While the U.N. inspectors asked to continue their work, that was not to be. So that debate is behind us. I do want to say, the need to work with our allies in postwar Iraq is very important because we want to lift--we want to lift--the physical burden off the shoulders of our men and women and share that burden. And we want to, of course, try to share the cost burden as well.

   Like all Americans, I hope and I pray that hostilities end soon and that casualties are minimal. And like all Americans, I very much hope that democracy in Iraq will take root. Last night, I saw an interview with a young man who is a soldier in the Army, and he was as eloquent on this same point as any statement I had ever heard, eloquent in his simplicity, in expressing his hope for this mission.

   Congress is supporting our troops from the minute they went in. I believe one way we can demonstrate that is to ensure that the lives of both parents of dual-military families with small children are not unnecessarily put at risk. I raised this issue with the Secretary of Defense in February, and I am awaiting a response from him. Senator Ben Nelson is also working on this issue as well as other quality-of-life issues for our military. We must be mindful of the impact on a child when both parents are put in harm's way. I believe we can make sure they are not both placed in harm's way. I will work to make sure of that.

   I also intend to work to provide additional funding for four important programs.

   First, we need to increase funding for impact aid programs to help school districts with military families. Our children of military families need attention now. They must have attention now. And we are not fulfilling our responsibility to our military families if those children do not get help.

   Gandhi once said: If there is to be peace in the world, it must begin with the children. So we must never, ever forget the children. We have heard from many military families struggling to pay for daycare and other expenses who have one family member deployed from home. We have heard from them that they are having a very hard time.

   Next, I think we need to help with homeland defense. Clearly, everyone has told us--from the CIA to the FBI to Secretary Ridge--that the probability has now greatly increased that we will be facing more problems here at home. That is why I am supporting the Schumer amendment, when we get back to the budget, to reimburse our States for this burden.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from the Governor of California, pointing out these incredible expenses the States are having because of firefighters and police and emergency workers working overtime.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS,

   March 20, 2003.
Hon. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR BOXER: I understand that the United States Senate may take up an amendment tomorrow to the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution to substantially increase funding for state and local first responders. As you are aware, an increase in funding is critical to our efforts to protect Californians and I appreciate your support for these efforts.

   As Governor, my first job is to provide for the safety of all Californians. Thanks to our first responders, Californians are safer than at any time since September 10, 2001. For 18 months, California has been hard at work preparing for all emergency contingencies.

   As you know, since September 11th, the state has spent hundreds of millions of additional dollars to prepare for and prevent a terrorist attack. Even in the best of times, this is a burden that would require a strong federal partnership; in the face of the fiscal problems that states across the nation now face, that partnership is critical to state and local first responder preparedness.

   Governors across the nation are extremely disappointed that the dollars for first responder activities we expected this year are not forthcoming. With passage of this homeland security amendment to the Budget Resolution, Congress can ensure that funding for equipment and training for those in the front lines of this battle is robust in the next fiscal year.

   Governors, Democrats and Republicans alike, have worked hard to protect and safeguard their residents against terrorist attacks--but we need a strong federal partnership to fully realize this goal.

   Thank you for all your work toward ensuring the safety of all Americans.

   Sincerely,
GRAY DAVIS.

   Mrs. BOXER. And last, Mr. President, I hope we will be able to work on the development of a missile defense system for our airplanes, our commercial airplanes, which are facing the danger of shoulder-fired missiles.

   Many people throughout California have asked me, what can they do to

[Page: S4097]

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for 15 seconds, if I might.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 15 additional seconds.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let's do everything we can for our troops and everything we can to protect our homeland. And let us all pray for our men and women in uniform, and for their families, and for wisdom for all those who send them forward into battle.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 2 to 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Alaska.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will be brief.

   I am proud to stand here with this former marine, my great friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, as I recall the phrase, ``From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.''

   I believe the President has the authority. We all pledged, ourselves, when we were sworn into Federal office, to defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic.

   He has taken action--firm action--to protect us against enemies. The freedom of Iraq, the freedom of the people of Iraq, is the goal of this effort we are undertaking. But it is being done by free men and women--young women, young men of this generation. They have talked about our generation being the Greatest Generation. These young men and women are all volunteers. They have gone out there in harm's way to protect us and to carry out their pledge to the people of the United States. I support them for that.

   I only add one comment. I keep hearing people talk about overtime, and getting money to pay people here who are working so long and working overtime in cities and various functions. Those men and women over there are not getting paid overtime.

   I think it is time we started thinking about some voluntarism in the United States right here at home, volunteers to help this country get through this period. When our men and women are over there, they are volunteers, they are not getting any extra pay for what they are doing.

   I think we should recognize the concept that every one of us should volunteer more of our time to help our country in this period.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to Senator Baucus.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute for purposes of recognition of the Senator from Mississippi, who wishes to put a statement in the Record?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for yielding.

   Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that back in my State of Mississippi, our legislature is in session, and our State senate has adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 605, under the leadership of our Lieutenant Governor, as presiding officer of that body, Amy Tuck. And the president pro tempore is Travis Little.

   The operative clauses are:

   That we do hereby declare our complete support for and our great pride in the Armed Forces of the United States, particularly the men and women from the State of Mississippi, both in the Middle East and elsewhere, who are participating in and supporting military operations. .....

   And it goes on to say:

   That we do hereby express our support of President George W. Bush and the President's cabinet for their courage and decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

   There are whereas clauses in another part of that resolution.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire concurrent resolution be printed in the RECORD.

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

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 605

   Whereas, events in Iraq have reached the final days of decision, and at the direction of the President of the United States, the Armed Forces of the United States are poised to launch military operations with our allies against Saddam Hussein and his forces in Iraq; and

   Whereas, among the forces participating in this mobilization under Operation Enduring Freedom are many members of the regular United States Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Reserves and National Guard who are residents or natives of the State of Mississippi who are being deployed, including 182 female and 2,056 male soldiers in the Mississippi Army and Air National Guard already deployed, with a total number of 3,662 dependents recorded for those deployed; and

   Whereas, the dictatorship of Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441; the dictator, Saddam Hussein, has demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against neighboring nations and the citizens of Iraq. Saddam Hussein threatens the Middle East and the global economy with the threat to use weapons of mass destruction; and

   Whereas, the United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq, and that duty falls to President George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces; and

   Whereas, Mississippians understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past, and we again accept that responsibility. The men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States will be the guardians of civilization as we know it. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice, yet the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military; and

   Whereas, it is our earnest prayer that the job be done well and swiftly and that the return home to family and friends be safe and soon: Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved by the Senate of the State of Mississippi, (the House of Representatives concurring therein), That we do hereby declare our complete support for and our great pride in the Armed Forces of the United States, particularly the men and women from the State of Mississippi, both in the Middle East and elsewhere, who are participating in and supporting military operations against Saddam Hussein and his forces in Iraq, and we pray for the quick and successful conclusion of their important mission and for their safe and sound return home; be it further

   Resolved, That we do hereby express our support of President George W. Bush and the President's cabinet for their courage and decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power; and be it further

   Resolved, That this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Major General James H. Lipscomb III-Mississippi National Guard, the Commanding General-American Military Forces-Operation Enduring Freedom and to members of Mississippi's congressional delegation, and be made available to the Capitol Press Corps.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Montana.

   I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, be added as a cosponsor of the pending resolution.

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

   The Senator from Montana.

   Mr. BAUCUS. This is a solemn day for our Nation. I rise today to add my voice to the chorus of support and prayers that are being sent from this Chamber to our brave and heroic troops in the deserts of Iraq. The men and women who are serving the country on the front lines are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers. Their heroic military service is helping bring an end to a brutal regime and reducing terrorist threats by stopping those who provide assistance to terrorist operations. I know they will be successful in their mission.

   While many differences of opinion were expressed about the way this war came to be, the time for debate has ended. We now remain steadfast in support of our troops. And we must look to tomorrow and the massive rebuilding that will be needed following military actions. It is important that we continue to work with our allies to build a stronger coalition of support. We will need our friends in the coming days and weeks.

   And we must also focus on providing our troops with all the assistance and

[Page: S4098]

   In this time of war, I can think of nothing more appropriate than passing a bill that is dedicated to providing assistance to those who serve in our armed forces. In addition, our bill encourages more women and men across the country to join our armed forces.

   There are many, many brave men and women from my state of Montana who are playing a pivotal role in Iraq. Following the events of September 11, members of the 120th Fighter Wing of the Montana Air National Guard were called to secure the skies of the no-fly zone over Iraq. Their bravery will once again be seen in the current operation.

   I want to help members of 120th Fighter Wing, and every other member of our armed forces. We can do this by passing the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

   Let me describe some of the key provisions.

   Under our current tax code, if a member of the armed forces dies while on active duty, the federal government pays the surviving spouse a small death benefit of $6,000. The entire amount should be excluded from taxable income. However, because of a glitch in the law, only half is excluded. Our legislation corrects this by excluding the entire $6,000 payment.

   Just last week, one of our soldiers from Montana, Private First Class Stryder Stoutenburg, was tragically killed during a Blackhawk helicopter crash. A native of Missoula, Private First Class Stoutenburg was only 18 years old. His mother will receive the death benefit payment, but will be taxed on half of it. She has already lost so much. It is unfair to also take away part of the small compensation she is receiving.

   Another provision of this bill would ensure that military members who are frequently required to move from town to town and country to country, are not punished with capital gains taxes when they sell their homes. Under current law, an individual must live in their house for 2 of 5 years in order to qualify for capital gains taxes exclusion. This isn't feasible for many in the armed forces and our bill would eliminate the 2-year requirement.

   A third provision seeks to take a financial burden off of our men and women who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves. Many reservists must travel away from home for weekend drills and wind up spending a substantial amount of money for overnight travel and lodging.

   In fact, for many of our younger, more junior reservists, the expenses exceed their take home pay for the weekend. Our bill would allow them to deduct these expenses from their taxes, even if the expenses do not exceed the 2 percent floor.

   In addition to providing financial assistance, this bill will not add to the deficit since it's completely offset in two ways. First, we improve the collection of unpaid taxes from people who have renounced their American citizenship in order to avoid future U.S. taxes. Second, we extend certain IRS user fees. These are modest, sensible changes. In fact, in the case of expatriates, the offset seems especially timely.

   There is no better time than today to pass legislation that will allow our military personnel to fight for our country, not have to fight the tax code. I know that the thoughts of every single Member of Congress go out to the troops who are risking their lives. We pray for their fast and safe return home. I'm hopeful for quick passage of this bill that will provide needed tax relief for our troops.

   I thank Members who contributed to the development of the bill: Senators LEVIN and WARNER of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Landrieu, Senator Johnson, Senator Harkin. And especially I thank Chairman GRASSLEY of the Fiance Committee who I have enjoyed working with and who, once again, in this case has helped us to develop an important piece of bipartisan tax legislation.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending resolution be considered as a Senate resolution.

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

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for a period of 3 minutes.

   Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from New Mexico would yield for a request, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from New Mexico has completed, Senator Byrd then be recognized for 15 minutes.

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

   The Senator from New Mexico.

   Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator from Montana if he would place the Senator from New Mexico's name on the various military and veterans bills.

   Mr. BAUCUS. I make that request.

   Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today is a day, as I see it, to be thankful, to have hope, and to pray. I stand before the Senate thankful for our freedom and for the thousands of American young men and women, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, who are volunteers in the U.S. military, especially for those who are serving in combat in Iraq. I thank each of them for their service and for volunteering to protect us and to protect freedom in faraway lands.

   I think it is also important to thank their parents, their grandparents, and their spouses for their sacrifice as they wait for their loved ones who are overseas giving of themselves to save the world from a tyrant in possession of weapons of mass destruction. These brave men and women are there to protect us and protect the neighbors of Iraq from the scourge of a tyrant who has violated international rules and failed to disarm. Our men and women, joined by others from around the world, will see to it that he is disarmed. In doing that, they will be doing a very important duty, and they will be giving us the most important gift we can have, to be contributors to freedom in that part of the world and in our own country for the future.

   Last night, airplanes from Holloman Air Force Base, NM, were the planes that did the initial strikes on Baghdad. They were far away from their home in Holloman Air Force Base, NM. They are the F-117 stealth fighters. They have been joined in that theater of war by men and women from our two other military bases, the air bases at Cannon and Kirtland. They are also joined by units of the New Mexico National Guard and Reserve.

   On behalf of all of those military personnel, their relatives and friends, as one of their Senators from New Mexico, I thank them. I congratulate them for their willingness to fight for freedom and for the generosity of being volunteers to keep America safe and free.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.

   Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Byrd graciously agreed to yield 2 of his 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota. It will be very clear to the body as to why that was such an important and gracious act on the part of Senator Byrd.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

   Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and my colleague, Senator Byrd.

   Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the men and women serving in our Armed Forces in the war on Iraq. I join with my colleagues in the Senate and with the American people in conveying our gratitude to each of them for their willingness to courageously serve our Nation.

   Now that the war has begun, it is time for all Americans to come together to support our military. While we had hoped a diplomatic solution could be found so that we could avoid the use of force, it now appears that military action is imminent. I will do all that I can to assure that our troops have the resources they need to complete their mission quickly, efficiently, and with as little loss of life as possible.

   Be they active duty or members of the National Guard or Reserves, our Armed Forces are the best equipped,

[Page: S4099]

   We should not forget that we are fighting this war not only to ensure that Saddam Hussein never again is able to use weapons of mass destruction, but also to give the 22 million Iraqi people the chance to build a democracy and to live in freedom. Our goals are noble, and the actions of our military are just.

   Finally, to the families whose sons and daughters, fathers and mothers have been deployed to the Middle East, I want to say that you and your loved ones are in our prayers. As a father with a son serving as a sergeant in the 101st Airborne, now in the Iraqi theater, I understand the mix of pride and fear that family members are feeling at this time. I wear my blue star with pride. They should find comfort in the fact that they are not alone; our entire Nation is with them during these difficult moments.

   Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to address the Senate on this timely and important matter and to offer my thanks, prayers, and gratitude to our Armed Forces.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I can think of no one in this body who is more appropriate to bring this debate to a close, or near to a close, than Senator Johnson of South Dakota whose son is serving with such honor and distinction and who brings such pride to his family. I thank the Senator for sharing with us the emotions I know he feels at this very moment as a father.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I also join my colleague and express how grateful we are he came to the floor with a great sense of emotion and humility and, the final sentence with which he concluded, his pride in his son. I commend the Senator.

   I should note that the son of a member of the senior staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, COL Chuck Alsup, who is with me in the Chamber, leaves today as a military man to join the forces in the gulf.

   We will have the Senator from North Carolina address us for 2 1/2 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

   Mrs. DOLE. I thank the Chair. To date, nearly 40,000 men and women from North Carolina's military bases have been deployed for duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

   Last month, as a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I visited three of our military installations in North Carolina. I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to defending our freedoms. It was particularly important to me to visit our armed forces personnel at this critical moment in our history and to tell them how much I appreciate what they do for us, for our country, each and every day.

   At Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, and at Fort Bragg, I was moved by the dedication, the commitment, the patriotism of the members of our armed forces and their families. They make me proud and thankful to be an American.

   In a recent interview, my husband, Bob, was asked about his service in World War II--about being part of ``the Greatest Generation.'' He responded that it is the men and women of our military today who are the greatest generation. I agree with him completely. We have the best equipped, most capable, most courageous military force in the world.

   I remember my first day, 12 years ago, as president of the American Red Cross, walking into my new office to find a letter from Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of the oldest Red Cross assistance programs, the Armed Forces Emergency Services, was in jeopardy due to a lack of donor interest. I promised Colin Powell right then and there that we would do whatever it took to preserve that program for our men and women in uniform--and we did.

   Many people do not realize that wherever our military goes, the Red Cross goes with them to provide support and services, delivering 4,000 emergency messages a day to our military men and women. On that first day on my job, during the Persian Gulf war, our thoughts and prayers were with the Red Cross and our armed forces.

   Shortly after the war ended, I traveled to the Persian Gulf to thank the Red Crossers for their work and to deliver humanitarian aid to Kuwait. Even now, I can clearly recall the horror of Saddam Hussein's occupation of that country--oil fields burning, a hospital where scores of children had died because doctors and nurses fled the country to escape the horrors of Saddam Hussein and his forces. I put a call out, right then and there, for doctors and nurses to come to Kuwait through Red Cross sponsorship--and about 50 American medical personnel responded immediately.

   Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who continues to pose a threat to the region's stability, to his own people, and to the American people through his sponsorship of terror. Right now, he's passing weapons of mass destruction to Iraqi troops--weapons he claimed not to have. He would gladly pass these weapons to terrorists to use against America.

   President Bush exhausted every option before resorting to military force.

   It is time to free the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's terror, to remove his weapons of mass destruction, to help Iraq establish democracy.

   I have the highest confidence in our Armed Forces, and I know they will complete the mission they are called to accomplish. As we go forward, my thoughts and prayers will constantly be with our Commander in Chief, with these men and women and their families, with the Iraqi people, and with all those on the front lines of this war.

   May God bless them all, and may God bless this great land of the free and home of the brave--America.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. WARNER. I grant the Senator from Utah 2 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here and support our young men and women in the Middle East and the efforts they are making to defend our Nation and, of course, defend against terrorism and to end the intolerant behavior and leadership of Saddam Hussein.

   Last night we began a war that will end Saddam Hussein's threat to his own people, to the Middle East, and to this country. It was a time we chose, and a historic moment for the United States, the Middle East, and the world.

   Today, as we vote in support of S. Res. 95, our prayers go with our brave soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. I am proud to say that this includes over 3,000 of my fellow Utahns.

   Every attempt was made to find a diplomatic way to disarm Iraq, to make Iraq comply with commitments it began to violate shortly after the first gulf war in 1991. And so, in many ways, the war with Iraq never ended in 1991. A condition of ending the conflict was full and transparent disarmament, and Saddam Hussein has never--never--complied with that condition. Iraq never complied, over a decade of insistence by the international community, over a decade of frustrated inspections regimes, over a decade of resolutions by the United Nations, all of which have been ignored by Iraq. All of them. Throughout this time, the United States has worked with the United Nations. We supported all 17 resolutions. We supported not just what was written, but was intended. We supported not just the words, but the actions they demanded. We wanted resolutions with resolve.

   As I said, I believe this administration made every attempt to find a solution without resorting to force. Every attempt, that is, except a commitment to perpetuating the dangerous belief that force would never be an option. Another nation, France, declared that it would veto any resolution requiring the use of force now. That nation did so, arguing it rejected the ``logic of war.'' I have read the history of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship in Iraq. I have concluded that Saddam Hussein has never--never-- changed his behavior unless confronted with the threat of force. For France to reject the ``logic of war'' in trying to compel

[Page: S4100]

   President Bush said on Monday night that ``we are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater.'' I support the President, and I support this rationale.

   In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there remain unaccounted vast amounts of chemical and biological weapons. This is a fact documented, not by some hawks in or out of the U.S. Government but by the international community. In Saddam Hussein, there is a long and established history of association with, and support for, terrorists. All those within reach of a television or newspaper saw, within the past weeks, Palestinian terrorist groups doling out Saddam's largesse. Saddam has trained terrorists, funded suicide operations, and allowed members of al-Qaida to live in his tightly controlled Iraq.

   Some opponents of the President's policy have suggested that he failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein caused the attacks on September 11. These critics are disingenuous: The administration has never made this claim. It has asserted, and I believe them, that elements of al-Qaida have been in Iraq since September 11. As we learn more, I also believe that the history of al-Qaida will reveal a long association with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, going back years, and being developed in Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan.

   I have said this before. Association is not causation, I know. But when it comes to regimes hiding weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorist organizations dedicated to our doom, I say this: Association is reason enough for alarm, reason enough for action. The President said it clearly last on Monday night:

   Responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide.

   I commend his administration for searching for every possible solution short of war. That this was not possible does not mean they did not work earnestly and assiduously to avoid conflict. The effort does not guarantee the result. It does not guarantee support of the U.N. Security Council.

   On that Security Council, China would rather see a nuclear Korean peninsula than a passive U.S. presence in South Korea. I have seen how Russia would rather see genocide in the Balkans--and Chechnya--than NATO success there. France would rather reject the ``logic of war'' in responding to a dictator who has never been motivated by anything other than the threat of force. These countries have their own self-interest, whether we like it or not. They stand down when outlaw regimes stand defiant with their illicit weapons of mass murder.

   I thank God for the patience, wisdom and courage of this administration. I believe I join all my colleagues as we offer our thoughts and prayers for the members of the American military, their families, our allies, and the people of Iraq, who will soon be free of a despicable, murderous regime that has kept the world fearful for far too long. And last night, I prayed to God that our mission in Iraq is blessed with providence and His protection. To our brave military I say: Godspeed and safe home.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, following the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Virginia will recognize Senator Kyl for 2 minutes and then in rotation the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for 2 minutes. That results in all the time under my control being expired.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his courtesy, his characteristic accommodative spirit. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his characteristic courtesy always. I thank those who have written this resolution.

   Months of uncertainty over the fate of Iraq ended with the first U.S. air strikes on Baghdad. Today, regardless of where any of us stand on the decision to go to war, we are all Americans, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the men and women of the U.S. military who have been called to battle in a foreign land.

   Few doubt the outcome of this war. The fate of Iraq is sealed. The United States, with its awesome military might, is virtually certain to prevail decisively. But the fate of the individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who will carry the battle to Iraq is far less certain. We pray that every man and woman engaged in the war will return home safely and soon.

   Our troops will face intense dangers as the mission to unseat Saddam Hussein proceeds. When our airplanes penetrate the sky above Iraq to deliver computer-guided bombs to their targets, and our ground troops begin their armored charge through the deserts of Iraq, our men and women in uniform surely know that one unlucky shot could send their families into mourning for a fallen patriot.

   There are unknown perils as well. We do not know if Iraqi civilians will unite to repel a foreign enemy from their homes. We do not know if Iraq's military will lure us into bloody, house-to-house fighting. We do not know if Saddam Hussein will use chemical or biological weapons against our forces. I pray that the sons and daughters of the United States will never face these grave risks to their safety.

   More than 225,000 U.S. troops are now involved. True to its traditions of service to our country, West Virginia continues to have the highest per capita rates of participation in our armed forces. Thousands of West Virginians are now carrying out missions to defeat Saddam Hussein, protect our homeland, and root out terrorists in Afghanistan.

   Thirty-three different units of the National Guard and military reserves based in the Mountain State are now activated. The 459th Engineer Company, based in Bridgeport, must now be readying to bridge the ancient Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The 1092nd Engineer Battalion, based in Parkersburg, has been called to duty and might soon join in that effort. The 130th and 167th Airlift Wings are using their cargo aircraft to move men and materiel to where they are needed. West Virginians attached to the 363rd, 157th, and 304th Military Police Companies, out of Grafton, Martinsburg, and Bluefield, stand ready to maintain law and order in places far distant from their homes and families. These are but a few of the multitude of tasks now being carried out by West Virginia mountaineers in service to our country.

   The men and women of these military units, like the rest of our troops, did not join the armed forces to fight Saddam Hussein. They did not ask to be sent to the harsh climes of the Arabian desert. Our troops volunteered to serve our country and uphold our Constitution. They are to be commended for their dedication to our country.

   I stand foursquare behind our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. I urge every American to pray for our troops, and pray that they will return safely from those faraway sands, to the loving arms of their families. I will do everything in my power as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee to provide our troops with the funds that are needed to ensure their safety.

   I do not agree with every word of this resolution. I have strong reservations that the new doctrine of preemption does not meet the test of international law. I have strong reservations about the assertion that the Congress has ``fully authorized'' this war against Iraq. I do not believe that Congress can cede its constitutional power to declare war to the President of the United States.

   I have questions about our long-term strategy for the reconstruction of Iraq, the plans to democratize the Middle East, and the application of the pre-emptive doctrine that has led the United States to war in 2003.

   But I have no question about the ability of our military to deliver a crushing blow to whatever army might stand in their way in Iraq. I have no question that our armed forces will carry out their mission with honor and resolve. I have no question that our Nation has the obligation to finish the job and destroy whatever chemical, biological, and radiological weapons that Saddam Hussein possess.

[Page: S4101]

   Last night, in his address to the Nation, the President said that ``our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.'' I support these words by the President, for they speak to the millions of Americans who now wonder when their loved ones might return home. This is the ultimate measure of support that our Government can give to our military servicemen and women.

   We do not know how long this war might last, or how long our troops might occupy Iraq after our victory. We should not rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein could flee at anytime during the course of the battle, precluding further carnage. In the coming days, the television news is sure to show pictures of smart bombs dropping on targets, and perhaps grainy, night-time images of our troops moving to take their objectives. These sanitized images do not reflect the true cost of war. They cannot hope to convey the perils that our military will encounter as the war continues. But I hope the words spoken on the floor of the Senate today will convey the deep and abiding support of every Member of this body for the men and women of the United States military serving in the Persian Gulf.

   I close by referring to those words by Longfellow in ``The Building of the Ship'':

Thou, too, sail, on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
'Tis of the wave and not the rock;
'Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with three,--are all with thee!

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last night leading elements of our coalition forces began to rid the land and the people of Iraq of the oppression of Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat he poses to the rest of the world.

   Throughout our history, our Nation has experienced moments that have defined our spirit, our cause.

   We really do hold ``these truths to be self evident..*.*.* That all men are created equal,'' that all ``men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' This applies to the innocent Iraqis who have been brutalized by a cruel and morally bankrupt regime as much as it applies to the citizens of our Nation who deserve to be free of Saddam Hussein's threats.

   In the past, Americans have crossed oceans to free subjugated peoples and protect ourselves. On more than one occasion in the past century, our friends on the European continent have required our intercession and our sacrifice to extricate them from the foul pit of regional war, and genocide perpetrated by the evil men of those times.

   Our experience of war on our own soil also brought with it defining moments. On July 2, 1863, in a field outside of a little town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg, a young Colonel named Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain addressed a group of his men, men of the 20th Maine, who were about to play a pivotal role in the success of the Union forces in that horrible battle. For his part in this battle, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

   Though no exact record of his words exist, the following has been attributed to him, and I believe it reflects our motive, our mission, and the attitude of our men and women who are now in harm's way. He said to the assembled group: ``We all volunteered to fight for the Union *.*.* ours is a different kind of army. *.*.* If you look back through history, you will see men fighting for pay, women, some other kind of loot *.*.* they fight for land or power *.*.* because a king leads them or because they like killing. We are here for something new--this has not happened much in the history of the world--We are an army out to set other men free.''

   To those who do not agree with us right now, to those who believe that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is not worth the effort or the cost required to remove him, I offer the words of one of the great philosophers of liberty. The Englishman John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.''

   Mr. President, I call upon everyone to pray for our troops; to pray for their safety, to pray that the battle will be quick, and that their families will see them home again soon. I call upon the country to pray, too, for the innocent civilians of Iraq and the citizens of nearby nations whom Saddam seeks to harm; that all of them as much as we may be protected from his evil designs.

   Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

   Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support to the resolution before the Senate.

   The President has now started an operation that we had all hoped to avoid. Now that battle has begun, we must win the war and win the peace.

   There has been considerable disagreement leading up to this moment--in this chamber, in this country, and throughout the world. Many people have very strong feelings about the military operation in Iraq, and they have expressed those feelings.

   The debate has been vigorous. But now that American forces are in combat, our soldiers should not doubt our support for them.

   We stand firmly behind the men and women of our military. They have volunteered to serve their country. We are proud of their service, and we admire their courage. During this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with them and the families who await their return.

   My State of Washington is home to thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them--at Fort Lewis, Fairchild Air Force Base, McChord Air Force base, Whidbey Naval Air Station, Everett Naval Station, Bremerton Naval Station, the Bangor Sub base, and our Coast Guard stations.

   Some of Washington State's finest are now serving in the Middle East, and may be seeing combat. I have no doubt they will distinguish themselves in carrying out their missions.

   Many of these soldiers have family back in Washington State. Throughout my state and across the nation, families are anxious, knowing that their loved ones are in military action.

   We take comfort in knowing that America's soldiers are the best-trained, best-equipped, and most capable fighting force the world has ever known. They will carry out this dangerous mission, and they will prevail. We are proud of their dedication and courage, and we all pray for their safe and swift return.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I understand the Senator desires to speak and will yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

   Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this resolution and on this issue.

   Last night, the Liberty Bell of freedom and democracy began to ring again. Last night, the United States of America headed down a path of freeing the people of Iraq from the cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. I don't know how long President Bush or Prime Minister Blair will be in office, but this has to be the most difficult decision that they have made or will ever make. But I commend them for their courage and their leadership. No one wants to see war. But there are times in our country, in the history of our country, when military conflict is necessary to ensure that America and Americans are safe and secure.

[Page: S4102]

   I am very proud of all the Active Duty, Reserve and Guard personnel from my State who have been deployed from 8 of the 13 military installations in Georgia. We wish them Godspeed, a successful and quick victory, and wish that they come home safely, sound and soon.

   I am privileged to yield the remainder of my time to the only member of the Reserve serving in the Senate, my good friend from South Carolina, LINDSEY GRAHAM.

   Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank the Senator for yielding.

   Mr. President, there is a better day coming. It is a cloudy day right now. We are worried about our families and our troops, but there is a bright day coming. Our American servicemen will give freedom to Iraq, make us more secure. They are a blend of who we are: Rich, poor, black, white, Jew, Gentile, all mixed up into the American military. The strength of our military is they are an optimistic bunch. They are fighting for causes greater than their self-interest. That is why we will win.

   Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 44 seconds.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to Senator Landrieu and 1 minute to Senator Stabenow.

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, less than 24 hours ago, President Bush, our Commander in Chief, issued orders to begin military actions to disarm Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime. War is never our first choice, but it is sometimes a necessary last choice. As a mature democracy, we prefer to settle disputes peacefully and use diplomacy whenever possible. But sometimes, disputes cannot be settled peacefully. Force must be used to defend against threats to our freedom and liberate an oppressed people. That is what we are doing in Iraq. I want to express my support for our men and women in uniform and this course of action.

   I wish to offer my wholehearted and unwavering support for those serving in our Armed Forces. The men and women serving our country in the military symbolize the best America has to offer. They are dedicated to the defense of our Constitution and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary, to protect the Constitution for every American. More importantly, they volunteer to do so. They are well-trained and ready to defend our way of life and improve the lives of Iraqis. Along with the people of Louisiana, I will be praying for our troops and their families. I wish our men and women safety in their missions and a quick return home.

   Barksdale--B-52s and A-10s from the 2d Bomb Wing and 917th Air Wing are making great contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guam. I am so proud of Barksdale's leadership, pilots, flight crews, and their families.

   Fort Polk is the premiere light armored training center in the world. Our Army will succeed in Iraq because it trained for victory at Fort Polk. Currently, 4,000 men and women of the 2d Armored Cavalry are working to liberate Iraq, and I could not be more proud. Their families should also be proud.

   Louisiana has 14,000 Air and Army National Guardsmen; 2,400 are currently deployed, and many are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Guardsmen have been activated three times since September 11. In the last 18 months, they have seen little of their families, but they have done much for their country. These proud warriors have served above and beyond the call of duty.

   Belle Chasse is the premiere Joint Reserve Base for the Marine Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. Belle Chasse has contributed A-10s, Cobras, F-15s, and F-18s; pilots and crews to the war on terrorism. These men and women, too, have been called up a number of times. They have served valiantly and with distinction.

   In closing, I want to thank our allies who have joined us to defend our shores, bring liberty to the people of Iraq, and root out terrorism. British Prime Minister Tony Blair risked his political career to do what is right for world security. I want to tell him that the American people appreciate his courage. Australia is committing forces, and we are grateful. Additionally, Eastern European countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland have been staunch supporters of disarming Saddam Hussein. They have done so because not long ago they lived under dictators. They have recently experienced the sweet breaths of freedom, and they want the Iraqi people to experience the same. God bless our troops.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

   Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague and leader, Senator CARL LEVIN.

   With the first shots fired last night, I rise today to talk about the need to support our troops now fighting in the gulf, as well as those on duty around the world.

   From that freezing winter in Valley Forge to the baking heat and swirling dust storms of the gulf today, our men and women in uniform have shown over and over the hardships they are ready to endure in service to their country.

   They are all in our thoughts and prayers. And we pray this ends quickly and with little loss of life.

   I have met with many of these men and women and their commanders and have been impressed with their professionalism, training, and sense of duty and sacrifice.

   From my home State of Michigan, the men and women of the 127th Air National Guard Wing in Selfridge, the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek and the Combat Readiness Training Center in Alpena have been mobilized and deployed to bases around the world, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South West Asia, and Turkey.

   Army National Guard and Reserve unites from Owosso, Taylor, Grand Ledge, Grayling, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Pontiac, Three Rivers, Augusta, Selfridge, and Ypsilanti have all been mobilized and are awaiting their deployment orders.

   Many of these men and women leave families and well-paying jobs behind, creating hardships for themselves and their family just so they can serve their Nation.

   As the sole remaining superpower, we are asking a tremendous amount of our Armed Forces today. When we look around the globe, the numbers are staggering.

   Right now about 225,000 troops are deployed in the Mideast--with more on the way.

   But, again, as the sole remaining superpower we still have responsibilities around the globe.

   We still have 38,000 Active Duty troops in Korea, nearly 40,000 in Japan, more than 100,00 permanently stationed in Europe, and about 50,000 sailors and soldiers afloat on ships in foreign waters.

   In fact, according to the Department of Defense, the U.S. military is operating in more places around the globe than at any time in its history, including World War II, with a military presence in about 140 nations.

   These men and women in uniform need to know their Nation will do everything in its power to give them the support they need to do their jobs--and also that gratitude for their sacrifice they will have our support when they come home as well.

   General George C. Marshall, who oversaw the movement of forces in Europe and the Pacific in World War II, knew that the morale of the troops is crucial if the Armed Forces are to be effective. He once said:

   It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit which we bring to the fight that decides the issue. It is morale that wins victories.

   I agree.

   And I believe one of the things we must do in this Congress to ensure high morale among our 2.3 million men and women in uniform, including Active, Reserve and Guard units, is to show them we are treating the 25 million veterans who came before them, including about 875,000 from Michigan, with the respect a grateful nation owes them.

   One thing I would like to see is a change of policy so that our 600,000 disabled men and women who wore their country's uniform could collect both full pensions and disability benefits.

   I also want to make sure our veterans have access to the best possible health care by fully funding the Veterans Affairs health care system.

   If you cared enough to wear the uniform, you should be guaranteed high-quality, uniform care.

[Page: S4103]

   We also need to eliminate bottlenecks at the Veterans Administration for veterans who need prescription drugs.

   Finally, we need to pass legislation creating tax fairness for military personnel.

   We need to send to the President S. 351 that would address long-overdue tax reforms for National Guard and Reserve personnel.

   We also need to remember that in the world after 9-11, our first responders are now also a crucial part of our national security, and they need our full support as well.

   They were then, and remain now, on the front lines of hometown defense in this new war against terrorism.

   For the past several months I have been traveling throughout Michigan meeting with the public safety officials who have been given the mission of trying to prevent an attack--or be first on the scene to save lives if one occurs.

   In nine meetings from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Detroit, I heard the same message over and over:

   Help us get the training, personnel and equipment we need to protect the people we need to protect, and help us meet our obligations in the face of these new threats to our communities.

   Mr. President, I hope we will do just that as soon as possible.

   This Sunday I will participate in a special ceremony that puts this all in perspective for me. This Sunday I meet with an American hero of World War II to present him a long overdue and richly deserved Bronze Star.

   His name is Sergeant Herbert Munford and his story is inspiring.

   Sergeant Munford had already earned a Silver Star at the Battle of the Bulge. Of the 385 men in his company when the battle began, only 18 were standing at the end--the rest killed, captured, or wounded.

   Months later, SGT Munford's platoon was scouting along the Rhine, looking for a place to cross in advance of General George S. Patton's 3rd Army.

   A German machine gun nest opened up on the platoon. SGT Munford made a run for some tall grass, hoping to hide himself while he circled around behind the machine gun.

   He was shot in the hip as he was making his run out in the open. But he still managed to make it into the tall grass, circle behind the machine gun nest and take it out.

   And what does SGT Munford say today about his heroic act. Well, he jokes about it. He called being shot in the hip his ``million dollar wound.''

   Why? Well, in his own words SGT Munford says:

   I can't swim. I didn't know how I was going to get across the Rhine in the first place. I was sent back to be treated for my wound and when I got back about two days later, Patton had taken the Rhine and built a bridge so I could just walk across.

   What modesty! And keep in mind, that German bullet is still lodged in his hip today.

   And his story doesn't end there. SGT Munford went on to win an Oak Leaf Cluster for his Bronze Star for bravery under fire in Korea.

   I tell this story, because I think SGT Munford's story, like the stories of so many of our veterans, shows the great patriotic tradition of our Nation--a tradition that is on display today in the gulf and around the world.

   And when I meet with SGT Munford on Sunday--and he's standing there with his family and fellow veterans--I want to be able to look each and every one of them in the eye and tell them in this time of conflict this Nation is doing all it can to support our present military personnel serving in the gulf and other duty stations around the globe. And that we stand behind our veterans of past wars as well.

   I want them to know that we are committed to the proposition that those who answered the call to duty will never need to call out for help due to indifference.

   I want them to know that those who sacrifice for their country will return to a country ready to sacrifice for them as well.

   And I want them to know that those who wear the uniform of this Nation with honor, will themselves be honored long after that uniform has been put away and the guns gone silent.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven seconds.

   Mr. LEVIN. The men and women we have now placed in harm's way are carrying the prayers of every single Member of this body and every single man, woman, and child in this Nation. They are carrying on in the greatest traditions of the American military. We thank them.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this has been a historic debate, fully participated in by many Senators. I am privileged to be a part of that debate. I again salute the distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader for drawing up this resolution. The Senate has spoken.

   As we conclude this historic debate, which conclusively states the support of the Senate behind our President, our men and women in uniform and their families, I believe it is appropriate to include as part of this record the speech given to the British Parliament on March 18, 2003 requesting authority to use British forces alongside American forces in the liberation of the people of Iraq, by the Prime Minister, the Honorable Tony Blair, whom I and others view as Churchill II. My colleagues will recall that Prime Minister Blair was specifically mentioned in the text of this resolution I read earlier. This was a purposeful reflection of our great esteem for this courageous leader who has stood so firm arm-in-arm with America. His request to use force was not a popular motion, but he prevailed. The following is the text of his speech and I commend it to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to print the speech in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Tony Blair's Speech

   I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

   At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.

   And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

   This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.

   I believe we must hold firm.

   The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.

   People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on anything, finding common cause. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less bitter but not less grave.

   So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalized by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the U.S. the relations within the EU and the way the U.S. engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.

   But first, Iraq and its WMD.

   In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.

   Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. UNSCOM, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following declaration at the end of April 1991.

   The declaration when it came was false--a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.

   The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.

   In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.

[Page: S4104]

   Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.

   Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.

   In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.

   In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.

   In October 1997, the U.S. and the U.K. threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.

   Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.

   In August, cooperation was suspended.

   In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.

   The U.S. and the U.K. then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.

   In 1999, a new inspections team, UNMOVIC, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.

   So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.

   What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.

   Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.

   When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.

   We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.

   1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.

   I want to go through all the events since then--the house is familiar with them--but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.

   On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: ``Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX .....

   ``Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ..... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ..... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.

   ``Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ..... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.''

   On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.

   What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But fundamental change of heart or mind.

   But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.

   We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.

   But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?

   We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.

   The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfill all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow. So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.

   Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.

   There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.

   Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

   Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorizing action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

   Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorizes force in the event of non-compliance.

   That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.

   So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.

   What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.

   What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.

   The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,00 allied troops on his doorstep.

   And yet when the fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution that authorizes force will be vetoed. Not just opposed. Vetoed. Blocked.

   The way ahead was so clear. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow.

   The tragedy is that had such a resolution been issued, he might just have complied. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force.

   Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an immediate recourse to the language of the veto.

   And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but war.

   Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to plactate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil. Now the very length of time counts against us. You've waited 12 years. Why not wait a little longer?

   And indeed we have.

   1441 gave a final opportunity. The first test was the 8th of December. He failed it. But still we waited. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation. Another breach. And still we waited.

   Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine, tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately.

   Our fault has not been impatience.

   The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.

   What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

   That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.

[Page: S4105]

   Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.

   Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq in not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.

   But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.

   There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s. No one here is an appeaser. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment; for example, when Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis--that's when we should have acted.

   But it wasn't clear at the time. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers. Listen to this editorial--from a paper I'm pleased to say with a different position today--but written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous in its desire to act.

   ``Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us.''

   Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight.

   So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.

   The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold War is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.

   But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.

   The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.

   Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.

   I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.

   I know there are several countries--mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes--desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.

   We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.

   The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror.

   Round the world it now poisons the changes of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa.

   The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But is has not gone away.

   And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life.

   At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening.

   And the possibility of the two coming together--of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgment, a real and present danger.

   And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.

   Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometer of a city.

   Millions of lethal doses are contained in one liter of Anthrax. 10,000 liters are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.

   Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

   To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

   And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us? What price our credibility with the next tyrant? No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of support.

   I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.

   But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.

   What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe--Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal--have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.

   But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The U.S. and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.

   I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of U.S. predominance.

   There is fear of U.S. unilateralism. People ask: do the U.S. listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of U.S. preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the U.S. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.

   We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the U.S. should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.

   I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements. But the U.S. is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in consultation with the UN. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.

   All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world, and a viable Palestinian state. And that should be part of a larger global agenda. On poverty and sustainable development. On democracy and human rights. On the good governance of nations.

   That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance.

   Here again there is a chance to unify around the UN. Let me make it clear.

   There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.

   It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq. And let the oil revenues--which people falsely claim we want to seize--be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.

   And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq--protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots in the no-fly zone--has done so remarkably.

   And the moment that a new government is in place--willing to disarm Iraq of WMD--for which its people have no need or purpose--then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.

   I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.

   But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.

   I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.

   Today it is impoverished, 60 percent of its population dependent on food aid.

[Page: S4106]

   Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.

   Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.

   The brutality of the repression--the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty well documented.

   Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilized and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.

   I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.

   ``But you don't,'' she replied. ``You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear.''

   and she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.

   We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means--let us be clear--that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

   And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means--what then?

   What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.

   Who will celebrate and who will weep?

   And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist? Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our influence, stripped of our insistence?

   This house wanted this decision. Well it has it. Those are the choices. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.

   But on this decision hangs the fate of many things.

   Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and meet it.

   Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship.

   Of our armed forces--brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear.

   Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come.''

   I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our armed forces--brave men and women whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear--of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.

   To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, in turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.

   Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be a party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.

   I beg to move the motion.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, resolutions, such as the one before us, are not possible without a dedicated, bi-partisan effort. Our staffs have worked hard and well together over the past few days to help members craft this resolution. I want to especially recognize and thank Steve Biegun of the Majority Leader's Office, Dennis McDonough of the Democratic Leader's Office, and Judy Ansley, Rick DeBobes and Chuck Alsup of the Armed Services Committee staff, for their efforts in helping draft this important resolution.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

   Mr. FRIST. Has all time expired?

   Mr. LEVIN. May I make a unanimous consent request.

   I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor, and every Member of the Senate who chooses to, who wants their name added, be allowed to do so, and even though it comes after the vote, that it appear that it occurred before the vote.

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

   Mr. WARNER. I specifically ask the Senator from New Mexico be added as a cosponsor.

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

   The majority leader.

   Mr. FRIST. I will close on leader time.

   Mr. President, I welcome the strong bipartisan support and the bipartisan spirit in which this debate has been conducted today, the bipartisan support over the last several hours of remarks. American soldiers, American sailors, and airmen are fighting to end the regime of one of the world's worst tyrants.

    Our men and women in uniform are in harm's way. They are engaged in battle as we speak. Let us pray for their safety and their success.

   I am confident of their victory, and I am confident that it will occur at the earliest possible moment. In passing this resolution, the Senate says to the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform and to their families: We are grateful for your sacrifice.

   As they act to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime, let there be no mistake--they are defending our own liberty as well.

   Again I ask in this vote we send a clear message to those brave Americans who are risking their lives for us on the battlefield. Our prayers are with you. Godspeed toward victory.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk called the roll.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. MILLER) is necesarily absent due to a family medical matter.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. MILLER) would vote ``aye''.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

   Akaka

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Bond

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Byrd

   Campbell

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Clinton

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Conrad

   Cornyn

   Corzine

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   Dayton

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Dole

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (FL)

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Hollings

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Murkowski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Santorum

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stabenow

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Wyden

   Miller

   The resolution (S. Res. 95) was agreed to.

   The preamble was agreed to.

   The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

   S. Res. 95

   Whereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678, 686, 587, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441;

   Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133;

   Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against Iraq;

   Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict against Iraq and other purposes; and

   Whereas the Senate and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,

[Page: S4107]

   Resolved, That the Senate--

   (1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq;

   (2) commends, and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery;

   (3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loves ones;

   (4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many years, against Iraq;

   (5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War on Terrorism; and

   (6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied nations for their military support, logistical support, and other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime.

   N O T I C E

   Incomplete record of Senate proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows,

   today's Senate proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.

END

2C) Expressing Support and Appreciation for President and US Armed Forces

[Page: H2227]
---

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 104) expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed Forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration pursuant to the following order:

   Debate on the concurrent resolution shall be limited to 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption, without intervening motion or demand for a division of the question.

   The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

   The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, has rightly reminded us tonight of the events of 9/11. I think all of us remember the time that we stood together singing ``God bless America'' on the steps of this Capitol, unified in recognizing that what is involved here is bigger than us as individuals or as political parties, and how we joined with near unanimity in supporting the President on the war on terrorism.

[Time: 23:15]

   Thanks to the good efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we did this once again about 10 days ago, when he offered his resolution, H.J. Res. 27, ``commending the continuing dedication, selfless service, and commitment of members of the Armed Forces and their families during the Global War on Terrorism.'' At that time I rose, along with many colleagues, to support that resolution honoring our service members and to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. HUNTER) for an effort that brought us together, rather than splitting us apart.

   I doubt that we can offer too many resolutions for our servicemen and servicewomen, so I understand the gentleman's interest in offering a further resolution tonight. I would like nothing more than to see a similar unanimous vote in support of that resolution.

   I would ask the gentleman under my reservation, since we have not yet even had this resolution printed for our review, if he is familiar with a resolution commending our troops that was authored by Senators FRIST and WARNER and Senators DASCHLE and LEVIN, and which was passed unanimously today in the United States Senate?

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I am aware that the other body passed a resolution?

   Mr. DOGGETT. Yes.

   Mr. HUNTER. Yes.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Is it correct that the gentleman's resolution is not the same as resolution S. Con. Res. 26?

   Mr. HUNTER. That is true.

   Mr. DOGGETT. I believe the gentleman's resolution omits clause 5 of Senate resolution S. Con. Res. 26, which says that the Congress ``joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher of the United States Navy''.

   Would the gentleman be open to amending his resolution to include that language from clause 5 of the Senate Con. Res. 26?

   Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield further, yes, we would be open to including it.

   Mr. DOGGETT. The gentleman would be open to including that language?

   Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add clause 5 of the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 26.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would retract that and tell the gentleman that I would not be open to that. Would the gentleman yield further?

   Mr. DOGGETT. Let me just ask, and then I will be very brief, because I know it is late and the gentleman wishes to proceed.

   The Senate, I am sure, acted, and not every word did I agree with, but they did act unanimously. It was good enough for the majority leader, Senator Frist and Senator WARNER, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Could we not dispense with this debate and simply take up, with the gentleman's approval, the entire Senate resolution and adopt it, and have every one of us saying not only the same thing in this House chamber but saying the same thing throughout the Capitol, that with one voice, we, the House and Senate, approve and applaud and support our troops?

   Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the gentleman that I read not only the resolution that was offered by the other body in 1991, but

[Page: H2228]

   I would just say to the gentleman that I think that the Members of this body have made a very fine statement, a very heartfelt statement commending our troops. I think it says the right thing. I applaud the gentleman for other things that he would like to see in a resolution. I think reasonable minds can differ.

   I would hope that the gentleman would, in the spirit of bipartisan support for people that wear the uniform of the United States, not ask us to have precisely the same words as the other body, and simply spend a few minutes and go home. I would hope the gentleman would allow us to have our own resolution to express our own heartfelt support for those people, and let this body work its will.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman. Continuing under my reservation very briefly, it just seems to me we have heard so much about the need for us to speak with one voice that we could speak with one voice and do it promptly by taking verbatim what was good enough for Senators FRIST and WARNER.

   But let me ask the gentleman one other question, since he talks about acting with unanimity. The gentleman has three enacting clauses in his resolution. Clause two commends the Members of the United States Armed Forces; Clause three commends their families. I think there is unanimous agreement for both of these.

   Would the gentleman be open under his unanimous consent agreement to our proceeding now by unanimous consent to approve those two clauses, so that we could concentrate our debate in the only area that we have any difference, which are the words that the gentleman uses to approve the President's action with his first-strike policy in clause one?

   Mr. HUNTER. No.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Just one final question. The draft of this resolution, and I know there have been changes going on all night, but the draft that we Democrats were asked to approve late this afternoon was a little like the President's recent budget on Afghanistan, which he forgot to fund. The resolution draft we were offered as praising the troops largely forgot the troops.

   I was wondering if the gentleman would have any objection to my putting into the RECORD the resolution draft that we were given this afternoon and asked to approve, which did not include in the ``whereas'' clauses much of anything about our servicemembers other than the first and last paragraphs. Most all of it seems to be about the President.

   Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that we have some excellent commendations in this particular resolution.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Added at our request, for the troops.

   Mr. HUNTER. Let me finish my statement, if I might.

   We commend the President as Commander in Chief. That is something we did in 1991. Under the Constitution, he leads this military force. We commend the Members of the United States Armed Forces. We commend the families. We give them our sincere gratitude and appreciation.

   I would think that any Member reading this resolution, and I would ask all Members to read it since the gentleman has called it into question, would agree that this resolution is an excellent resolution, and that it does all the things that we want to do. It would lead us all to wonder why the gentleman somehow wants it to say something else or follow some other example. It does not make a lot of sense.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will save the rest of my remarks for the debate.

   Mr. HUNTER. I will look forward to that.

   Mr. DOGGETT. I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD, Mr. Speaker, this type of unanimous consent request, which seeks only to place in the RECORD the draft of the resolution we Democrats were asked to concur in this afternoon, that it might be made part of the record so all could see it.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

   Mr. THOMAS. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is recognized under his reservation of objection.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, as any Member, has the right to place any material under extension of remarks in another area of parliamentary procedure of this body. Is that correct?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman makes clear why the Chair should entertain only one unanimous consent request at a time.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has the right to place in the RECORD at another point in the proceedings. Since he has that right, which cannot be removed, I object to doing it at this time.

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it being apparent that the decision of 99 Members of the United States Senate is inadequate for some in this House, that they will not accept even placing in the RECORD at this point, at a very appropriate and proper point, the resolution they offered us, which treated the troops almost as an afterthought, since the goal was not to applaud the troops but the President; and recognizing their refusal to let us approve now unanimously what we all agreed to, that the Members of the Armed Forces and their families deserve commendation, even if we disagree with the civilian, political decision to institute a new first-strike policy, which will actually endanger our families, I recognize little ability to reach unanimity; and I will raise the rest of my concerns about the Administration's unfortunate new policy, which places so many in harm's way, in the course of the debate.

   Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) may be heard under his reservation.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we are all patriots and we all want to support the troops, including our colleague. We all want to support their families.

   In hopes of trying to come to an agreement here, I am wondering if the gentleman would be willing to modify his unanimous consent request to include a more neutral resolution which supports the troops, as we all do, for their valiant and dedicated work, consistently performing in a professional manner; and which supports the families at this time of difficulty and trial?

   Since I think unanimously there is a way that we can all agree on this, would the gentleman be prepared to support House Concurrent Resolution 105, which I left at the desk and which is at the desk there, which is a resolution that supports the troops, but does not require Members to agree with the policy in Iraq?

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman and to the gentleman who just spoke, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform putting themselves in very difficult positions for our freedom tonight. If they are watching this procedure, they are probably wondering, what in the heck are those guys doing? We have a commending vehicle.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.

   Mr. HUNTER. I guess what I am saying is the answer is no to the gentleman from Ohio.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) controls the time.

   Mr. KUCINICH. To the gentleman, and he is a gentleman, I would like to say that we all agree that we want to support the troops. This resolution, however, or at least half of it, is not about the troops. At least half of it is about the war in Iraq, which is a matter of contention. We understand that. There are 133 Members of this House who voted against the Iraq resolution.

   The gentleman has made his decision, and I regret the decision, which I

[Page: H2229]

   I have a question to ask my good friend. Mr. Speaker, in looking at this resolution, I would like to call attention to page 3 of the resolution. I just want to understand, would the gentleman be prepared to amend his unanimous consent request to eliminate any references in this resolution to 9-11, since no credible evidence has ever been presented that would link Iraq to 9-11, so that this Congress would not be put in a position when something really has not been decided, we have not had a commission that has made that decision?

   The media has not really had an investigation that has decided that Iraq is connected to 9-11, this Congress has not made that association, yet this resolution does make that association. Would the gentleman be prepared to delete that reference in order to make this resolution something that would be more palatable?

   Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, first, that restates the President's letter.

   Second, a second point I would make to the gentleman is that we have been working, Democrats and Republicans, to put this resolution together. My colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, has been working on it. The gentleman's leadership has been working on it. The product that we have before us is a product of both sides.

   I would just say to the gentleman if he has a disagreement with it and he thinks that it does not state his position, I would urge the gentleman to take time in this debate in the next several hours and explain his position; but nonetheless, let the rest of us in this House work our will and give our commendation to the troops. Obviously, we would all write it differently.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct. I think this House should be able to give a commendation to the troops.

   Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my reservation of objection in the hopes that in the course of the debate we can clarify that while we all support the troops, there are many of us who have reservations about the wording of this resolution and it going beyond support for the troops.

   Mr. HUNTER. I look forward to the gentleman's statement.

   Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

[Time: 23:30]

   Mr. FRANK OF Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the gentleman from California respond to the gentleman from Ohio when the gentleman from Ohio referred to that part of the resolution which quotes the President's letter and said he disagreed with it in effect.

   The response from the gentleman from California was that simply factually recounts the President's letter. If, in fact, he is saying this is not necessarily by this body an endorsement of that, but simply a recognition of the fact that the President says it, and this is on the record, I think that would help us advance this.

   So I appreciate the gentleman from California having made that point that that particular phrase that the gentleman from Ohio mentioned is not the wording of this House. It is a reference to a fact that the President said that, and it does not reflect one way or the other what individual Members might think.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the concurrent resolution will be so considered.

   There was no objection.

   The text of H. Con. Res. 104 is as follows:

   H. Con. Res. 104

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, are now undertaking courageous and determined operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein's regime;

   Whereas the Senate and House of Representatives and the American people have the greatest pride in the members of the Armed Forces and strongly support them;

   Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

   Whereas on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), which provides congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iraq;

   Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on November 8, 2002, voted unanimously that Iraq ``. . . will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations'' to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas Iraq remains in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas the United States has assembled and deployed an allied military coalition to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with the relevant United Nations resolutions;

   Whereas on March 18, 2003, the President transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate the President's determination, consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and that the President's use of military force against Iraq is consistent with necessary ongoing efforts by the United States and other countries against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001;

   Whereas on the evening of March 17, 2003, the President of the United States issued Saddam Hussein and his sons a final ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face United States military intervention;

   Whereas, when Saddam Hussein failed to comply, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to commence military operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein during the evening of March 19, 2003, under the code name of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in order to liberate Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces and allied forces are performing their missions with great courage and distinction in carrying out air, land, and sea attacks against Iraqi military targets; and

   Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to successfully perform their mission requires the support of their nation, community, and families: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation--

    (1) to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism;

    (2) to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery; and

    (3) to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 60 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

   As I rise today, this country is embarked on a very noble endeavor. Last evening, military forces of the United States and our coalition allies commenced military operations to liberate the country of Iraq.

   This is indeed a historic moment. Operation Iraqi Freedom marks the culmination of nearly 13 years of U.S. action in Iraq. Commencing with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, through Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, through the coalition enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly zones, to Operation Desert Fox and beyond, the United States and our allies have for over a decade been required to deal with the deceit, brutality and duplicity of Saddam Hussein, both diplomatically and militarily.

   Today Saddam's moment of truth has arrived. The path to his downfall began

[Page: H2230]

   Since the passage of that resolution, President Bush has undertaken herculean efforts to avoid a conflict. The President aggressively pursued the unanimous passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, calling for Iraq to disarm or face grave consequences. Subsequently, the President has exhausted every diplomatic means available to make the United Nations Security Council enforce 1441 to no avail.

   Today, the time for diplomacy has passed.

   Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today does three things. First, it expresses the support and appreciation of our Nation to the President for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of the military operations currently underway in Iraq. It is because of his wisdom and judgment that Iraq will soon be a free Nation, a Nation without weapons of mass destruction, a Nation that will become a full and peaceful participant in the international community.

   Second, this resolution expresses the support and appreciation of a Nation to our men and women in uniform. A few short weeks ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I brought forward H.J. Res. 27 commending the members of our Armed Forces and their families for the dedication to duty and service to country that they demonstrate each and every day around the world. Today we bring forward this resolution to show our support, admiration and thanks for the nearly 230,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Because of their dedication and devotion to duty, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be a success.

   Finally, this resolution expresses support for the families who wait at home for their loved ones who have undertaken this mission. Without the love and support of the families, our military personnel could not focus on the serious task at hand in Iraq, and I want to express a special thanks to the families of those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their sacrifice will not be in vain.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show our support for our men and women in uniform by supporting this resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

   This is a solemn moment for this body. We are here this evening representing Americans all across our land, and we are here to say on their behalf thank you to the young men and women who wear the uniform today, just as those veterans have done in yesteryear.

   I appreciate the Speaker mentioning to this body that our colleague and friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has been called to Active Duty. We will remember him in our thoughts and prayers, just like we do every soldier, sailor, airman and marine who represents us in this struggle for freedom and the end of a regime that could cause great harm to the free world.

   It is too bad that we have to have a resolution for our young men and women when they are in danger. Maybe we ought to pass one when there is a time for peace, when there is no conflict or a threat of conflict. It was the British poet Rudyard Kipling that put it so well in his poem ``Tommy'' when he said, It's Tommy this and Tommy that and throw them out the brute, but savior of his country when the guns begin to shoot.

   I think we should show respect and thanks and appreciation to those who wear the uniform, who are trained daily, working daily, and, when they are called upon as they are now, be ready.

   So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my good friend and chairman, for his efforts. We have worked so well, as we did on a previous resolution just a few days ago, and sadly, the process by which we find ourselves here tonight has not met with full understanding. Nevertheless, we are here to commend those troops for what they are about to do and what they are doing on the field of battle this evening.

   We unite as Americans in support of our troops, who are the truest expression of what this country stands for: courage, strength, compassion. They are the finest sons, daughters we have to offer the world as defenders of freedom, both in the United States of America, for the Iraqi people, as well as for those who love freedom across this globe.

   I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We will have a number of speakers, and as a result thereof, I will cut my remarks short, and I thank the gentleman from California for his efforts in this behalf.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my friend from Missouri.

   Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all the members of our Committee on Armed Services, Republican and Democrat, who work every day to support the people in uniform who are protecting American freedom around the world.

   Mr. Speaker, this great instrument of freedom, our Armed Forces, have saved the world and liberated hundreds of millions of people in three major conflicts, World War I, World War II and, of course, the Cold War that involved several smaller wars, smaller battles, that I call Vietnam and Korea, and we have liberated hundreds of millions of people.

   The real product of our Army and our Navy and our Marine Corps and our Air Force is freedom, and shortly we are going to be liberating 23 million more people, Mr. Speaker.

   Mr. Speaker, in that great book about Korea, it was called the Bridges of Toko-Ri, by James Michener, if my colleagues have read that book, watched that movie, they may recall that the hero was a carrier pilot, flew out and hit a set of bridges in Toko-Ri that they had gone after day after day and lost a lot of people, and in the end that pilot did not come back. The commander of that carrier air group stood on the deck of the carrier when it was clear he would not return and neither would those people who were sent out to rescue him, and he asked, where does America get these people who will join the U.S. Armed Forces and put themselves in a very dangerous position, in this case go off on a mission, fly into enemy territory, hit a very heavily defended target and come back and try to find that little postage stamp called an American aircraft carrier? Then he answered his own question: They come from the cities and the towns and the villages of this country, and they always have, and as long as they continue to come, we are going to be a free Nation.

   Mr. Speaker, one of those people comes from Shelbina, Missouri.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who was the top gun in Vietnam, nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a guy whose heart always travels with people that wear the uniform of the United States.

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about this resolution. I do not think any of us can speak adequately on our feelings to our men and women that serve us today. They are today not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and all over this world, and they go a long way to protect our families and our country.

   Over 40 nations have joined the leadership of the United States, and they also send their sons and their daughters and their family members so that terrorism will stay there instead of here.

   My friends, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), they know the fears of Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers and Glory, and I guarantee my colleagues the families do, too.

   My mom cried when I was shot down. An officer told her that I had been shot down, and she passed out, and they took her to the hospital before she even knew that I was okay. In my district and in my colleagues' districts, I

[Page: H2231]

   This is an important resolution. I hate to see the partisanship, that things come up. I know different people believe certain ways, but let us not do it here. This is so important.

   I know when we were overseas, many of us, it was important. I did not care if it was President Johnson, I did not care if it was President Clinton, all I wanted to know was that the Congress was behind us, that they would support us and that the Congress would support our leaders because they had to make the decisions that kept us alive or not.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time and for his distinguished service on the committee and to our country, and I also commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

   In the previous day, a couple of weeks ago, we had a very fine resolution on the floor that they proposed that was worthy of the troops that we were honoring. I wish we had that resolution before us today.

   Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution which, in part, honors our courageous men and women in uniform. I disagree with the policy that took us to this war. I dispute some of the arguments used in favor of this resolution, and I am disappointed in some of the provisions in it, but even those objections cannot overcome the pride and appreciation that I have in our troops and the message that I want them to hear from us tonight of our support for them.

   Tonight the thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with our military forces and their families. I think we should be honoring the military wherever they serve in our country tonight because they are all brave, courageous, patriotic and willing to make the sacrifice for our country.

[Time: 23:45]

   Mr. Speaker, I certainly think we could have done better in this resolution, but do not let that stand in Members' way for us to give a resounding vote of support of appreciation and pride for our men and women in uniform.

   Tonight we learned of the first casualties of this war. Sixteen American and British Marines have died in a tragic helicopter accident in Kuwait. I hope it is a comfort to the families who lost their loved ones that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time. There is no heavier burden for a President and no more solemn choice for this Nation than to send our young men and women into battle.

   As Commander in Chief, President Bush has made that difficult decision. Despite our policy decisions, as Americans we stand behind our men and women in uniform. As Congress, charged by the U.S. Constitution with providing for the common defense, we pledge today to our Armed Forces and their families, they will have the support they need in this dangerous and difficult time, both to win the war and to secure the peace.

   In recent weeks I have met with some of these courageous men and women. We have all been meeting with them over time; but as the war drew near, it was more poignant. I traveled with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to meet with the B-2 crews that may soon be engaged over Iraq. They were again brave and patriotic. Everyone respected the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), as Members can imagine; and everyone recognized what a great patriot he is in our country.

   Three weeks ago, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), I traveled to Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey to meet with the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines now risking their lives in Iraq. We brought with us Members' good wishes of appreciation and pride, and thanked them for their patriotism, courage and, willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice.

   Our men and women in uniform are an inspiration. They have waved good-bye to their husbands, wives, and children; and they endure daily hardships over many months to enhance America's diplomatic leverage. They are focused on their mission, motivated by a profound love of country and prepared, yes, to make the ultimate sacrifice. They are the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military force the world has ever seen; and every American is eternally indebted to these patriots.

   During our visit to the Persian Gulf, we met a young soldier named Captain Jennifer Schulke of Fort Bliss, Texas. She commands a Patriot missile battery in Kuwait. With the precision and ease of an engineer, she described for us the capability of the weapons system she commands. But she spoke with even greater pride of something else, about her daughter back home. Her daughter will be 2 years old on March 27, and on her birthday her mother will be serving in a country halfway around the world. Captain Schulke is one of the countless mothers and fathers, husband and wives and sons and daughters in uniform making sacrifices American families can only begin to imagine. I thought of her today when we heard of the Scud attacks and the Patriot response. It is people like Captain Schulke who inspire us and insist that we must support our men and women in uniform.

   Today we pray for their swift and safe return into the loving arms of their families. When they come home, we will honor them for the heroes they are. And if they do not come home, we will support their families and honor their heroic deeds. We also honor our men and women in uniform by proving ourselves worthy of their sacrifice when we uphold the democratic values they defend with their very lives.

   As we protect and defend the American people, we must also protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein which we cherish. And we must treat honest debate for what it is, an expression of patriotism, not a violation of it. Open discussion of the great task before us does not give comfort to America's adversaries. No, on the contrary, it gives comfort and confidence to the American people who look to Congress to uphold the immutable values and ideals that define our American democracy.

   Today, America's sons and daughters preparing to go into Iraq have answered the call of their country. In the days to come, let us build a future worthy of their sacrifice. May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless America.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

   Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this resolution to the floor.

   Even though the hour is late, Members are willing to stay here because it is so important for the House of Representatives to express our support for our men and women in uniform, our troops in harm's way now, and as the minority leader said, those troops anywhere in the world and at home. And also to support their families for the sacrifices that they are making. It is tough on the families, probably tougher on the families than any other people. We are also here to commend the President for his strong leadership in bringing us to where we are today.

   Our men and women in uniform need to understand why they are fighting and why they are risking their lives, and understand that this House supports them in that because in order to risk their lives, they have to understand that they are doing it for the right reasons.

   Last night began a challenging time for our country as our Armed Forces went on the march against tyranny. It also signaled the time for our country to come together with singleness of purpose and speak with a single voice.

   Under our Constitution, America speaks through the United States Congress, and last year we spoke out boldly and strongly from both political parties. We let the world know that the defenders of freedom are not going to allow the world's leading purveyor and practitioner of terror continue to spread his grip of fear.

   Today, Congress is set to speak again for the American people. We want to honor the men and women of our Armed Forces who are conducting their mission with the utmost honor and courage as they defend our democracy.

[Page: H2232]

   We salute every person taking risks to confront terrorism and tyranny to expand the frontiers of freedom, and we salute the President for showing the world the power of strong, moral leadership.

   We know that Saddam Hussein is seeking the means to murder millions in just a single moment, and he is consumed with hatred for America. We know that the war on terrorism will be fought here at home unless we summon the will to confront evil before it attacks. Free democratic nations must be willing to stop his evil aspirations. He is not a man with whom we can confer, consult, or convince. He is not a man we can trust. He has violated 17 United Nations resolutions. He is in material breach of multiple U.N. resolutions, and he has ignored the final ultimatum by the President of the United States.

   Saddam Hussein once agreed to end his missile program. He agreed to stop building chemical weapons. He agreed to stop developing biological weapons. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to stop brutalizing and oppressing his people. He agreed to do many, many other things; but every promise he made was a lie. Every agreement was a devious swindle. Every commitment was an expedient falsehood.

   It was all a devilish strategy designed to escape accountability for past crimes and to buy the time to develop weapons for even greater crimes against humanity.

   He turned the regime's resources to the awful purpose of developing terror weapons to spread the cruelty and oppression beyond his own borders. He welcomes terrorists to sanctuary and support within his own borders.

   During the years that Saddam Hussein slow-walked the United Nations through his series of deceptions, his regime systematically brutalized the Iraqi people. He tortures children to punish their parents. He executes members of his government to enforce obedience. We can never know how many faceless victims have screamed out their last words to the uncaring ears of Saddam Hussein's torturers.

   As a member of England's Labour Party recently laid out in chilling detail earlier this week, Saddam Hussein is a diabolical prodigy in the craft of evil. This member spoke of Iraqi citizens who witnessed men being forced into a machine intended to shred plastic. The men who went in head first were, in a tragic sense, the fortunate ones. The men who were sent to their death feet first, their final words were anguished screams for mercy. She told of women raped as Saddam Hussein's torturers made their husbands watch.

   This is wickedness that by the grace of God the people of America will never know. We have not cornered the market on morality, but our policy of intervention to force an end to this evil is clearly a just cause, a worthy war and a principled stand.

   Fortunately, President Bush is proceeding with courage and boldness. He is leading with moral clarity. He is fighting principled battles, and he is not backing down. We have to give President Bush our full support as he confronts this evil, and our men and women in uniform as they confront this evil.

   This vote to support our Commander in Chief and our courageous troops in battle sends the right message that we are denying Saddam Hussein the power to take additional lives. We believe that in the teeth of terrorism, America must continue exporting the values, democratic institutions, and patterns of conduct that have built the strongest and fairest system of government and the most free society the world has ever seen.

   We feel very deeply for all of the people trapped within autocratic regimes and born with repressive governments. And as defenders of freedom, we also owe the besieged people of Iraq the same hope we supplied to the people of Germany nearly 6 decades ago.

   In the battle between freedom and terrorist tyranny, there is no middle ground. We look to the day, far off though it may be, when every person comes into this world with the full promise of their God-given rights upheld by the government of their birthplace. This is a bold vision and a noble goal, but the potential of the American people is not constrained by the timid boundaries of conventional thinking. We are called to far more than that. And due to the excellence and patriotism and bravery of our soldiers and their families, and the courage of the President with moral purpose, the liberation of Iraq has begun.

   May God bless our President, may God bless our troops, may God bless our Nation.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).

   (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the war to remove the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime's weapons of mass destruction has begun. Throughout this mission, the men and women of our Armed Forces will have the unwavering support of Congress and the American people. I thank the leadership of both parties for bringing this important resolution to the floor.

   Today, this House speaks with one clear voice to America's allies and adversaries alike. We stand united in strong support of our troops.

   My wife, Army Major General Kathy Frost, Commander of the Army Air Force Exchange Service, recently visited our troops in four Persian Gulf countries. She has shared with me their absolute commitment to everything asked of them by our country to complete this mission.

   I also wish to recognize the thousands of American civilians, such as the AAFES employees, who are providing vital support to our troops in the Persian Gulf. The work of these civilians is essential to the success of this mission, and they, too, deserve our gratitude for taking the enormous risk to work in what is now a combat zone.

[Time: 00:00]

   Our troops will succeed in carrying out this mission. Like all Americans, I hope and pray they do so as safely and quickly as possible.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a guy who works every day on behalf of folks in uniform.

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise really to express my deep appreciation for both the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for the fabulous job they do on behalf of the men and women who make up our Armed Forces. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I have talked about the fact that I am very proud at this moment in our history to have the privilege to chair the subcommittee of appropriations that does the funding for the men and women who are now serving us overseas.

   This evening we will have before us a budget that is probably the finest budget in terms of national security that I have seen in all the years I have been in Congress, and we will have the opportunity in that budget to express our strong support for those men and women who are doing this work on our behalf and on behalf of freedom in the Middle East this evening.

   But particularly relative to this resolution are these two gentlemen, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who have come together to provide a vehicle for us to express our deep appreciation, our deepest appreciation, for the work that they are about. Indeed, it is America's challenge to preserve freedom and provide leadership for freedom in the world. The men and women who are serving us this evening who we are praising by way of this resolution are right at the point of the strength of America as we go out carrying forward that responsibility we have to be the world's force for peace as well as for freedom. I thank them so much for what they are doing.

   I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

   (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our troops.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution. We are now at a state of war with Iraq. Regardless of how we as individuals

[Page: H2233]

   Over the last few months, we as a nation have engaged in a vigorous discussion concerning our policy toward Iraq. During this time, many people have expressed a differing view from the President's concerning Iraq.

   No one should ever mistake our open society for weakness of spirit and resolve. I support our American and allied troops, and I pray for a swift and decisive conclusion with as few casualties as possible.

   When the fighting concludes, and if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his top officials survive the war, I have introduced a resolution with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. WELDON, which calls for the establishment of a U.N. war crimes tribunal to investigate and try them for crimes against humanity, genocide and other criminal violations of international law. I have little doubt that such a tribunal is justified. There is an enormous amount of irrefutable evidence that Saddam and his top officials ordered Iraqi soldiers to commit atrocities against their own population and against others, including American soldiers during the 1991 Gulf War.

   Our immediate focus after the fighting stops must be to stabilize Iraq and the entire Middle East region. After the war the United States and our international partners must help Iraq transition to a democratic republic that respects the rule of law and human rights. I also look forward to working with the President to ensure that Iraq has the help it needs to transition to a democratic republic that respects the rule of law and human rights.

   The weeks ahead will be difficult ones, but I know Americans will join me in supporting our troops who are in harm's way. I also know that all of us want a swift conclusion to this conflict with as little loss of life as possible.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, we all wanted diplomacy to find a peaceful solution, and now we all want our troops home as quickly and safely as possible. The enemy should understand that it can take no comfort in the disagreement we have had with President Bush on the wisdom of a unilateral war in Iraq. Once our President sends our men and women into harm's way, we will do everything possible to support our troops abroad and their families here at home.

   I share the sadness and concern for our fighting men and women and the people of Iraq. I join my colleagues and Californians in wanting to ensure our troops are safe, innocent civilians casualties are avoided, Saddam is disarmed, and the world community is engaged in rebuilding a democratic Iraq.

   When I was in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, I saw many of the men and women who will win this war for America. They are young, they are smart, and they are ready. To the men and women of the Armed Forces, especially those from Travis Air Force Base and Reserve and National Guard units from throughout California and the Bay area, you have the unwavering support of this Congress and the American people. To the families of these brave men and women, let me tell you that your sacrifice is tremendous, and we are praying for your loved ones' safe return.

   Now the only exit strategy that remains is victory. I am confident that day will come soon. God bless our troops and God bless America.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

   Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, however much we may disagree in the Congress and the country about how we got to this moment in time, here we are. Americans are engaged in battle to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraqi people from his reign of terror. The world must know all Americans stand behind President George W. Bush in his role as Commander in Chief. The world must also know that all Americans stand united in support of our magnificent military personnel who are now in harm's way. Victory is certain. I believe it is important that we all pray and ask for God's guidance and assistance that victory come swiftly and with as little loss of life as possible, both American and Iraqi.

   I believe the surest path to peace is through strength. Americans are a peaceful people, but evil exists. This is a time when the evil of Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses must be defeated with military force. It is right and proper that we appeal to God, for we need His help to move beyond war and achieve the goal of a free and prosperous Iraq that will be a model for the Middle East and the world.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

   Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on April 28, 1999, the now majority leader addressed the House of Representatives with these solemn words:

   ``Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy.'' I quote this, Mr. Speaker, not in criticism and not for any political purpose, but because these words express my feelings tonight, just as they expressed the majority leader's when our troops were in Kosovo, a policy I supported, just as he supports the war in Iraq.

   Each and every word of praise and support for our troops in this resolution I wholeheartedly endorse. As a mother, every expression of gratitude and prayer for their families I embrace. But as one who believes that this preemptive war that put these brave patriots in harm's way is unwise and unnecessary, I cannot in good conscience support a resolution that unequivocally endorses that action. I deeply love my country, and without reservation the men and women who wear our uniform, but regretfully, will not be able to support this resolution.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

   Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a parent of three sons who are in the military, I rise in support of the resolution being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

   In particular, I had the opportunity just last month of going on a delegation to visit our troops in Kuwait. It was an extraordinary opportunity. The delegation was led by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). We went to encourage the troops, but actually while I was there, they encouraged me. We saw the troops of the 82nd Airborne, the 3rd Infantry Division, neighbors of mine from Fort Stewart, Georgia; I was able to see the troops from the 1st Marine Division.

   At each stop we were encouraged by the high morale of the troops. We could see that they had the best equipment in the world. They have the best training in the world. They have the finest military leaders in the world. My greatest concern for the troops was the threat of chemical and biological weapons.

   I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. Yesterday we had a presentation which revealed to us the extraordinary technology which is being provided our troops, the lightweight protective gear, the wonderful modern gas masks, the 20,000 chemical detection devices. Each one of our troops is well protected against chemical and biological weapons.

   We have 44 allies involved in the coalition that is facing Saddam Hussein at this time. In the Persian Gulf there were 41. Two countries in particular I want to thank. I have had the opportunity to be with Ambassador Elena Poptodorova of Bulgaria. Bulgaria has provided troops. It is providing the first American air base in the history of their country at Burgas. I also thank Ambassador Sorin Ducaru of Romania. I met with him 2 days ago. It is just extraordinary the services they are providing as they support the war against terrorism and the war against Saddam Hussein.

   I conclude, God bless our troops.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

   Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the United States is at war. We have one Armed Forces, one Commander in Chief, one Nation. There are questions to be asked about how we came to this moment, about the diplomacy, about the relationships with our allies, about the shifting rationales we have been offered for war. These are serious issues.

[Page: H2234]

   Today is not a time for that debate. There are hundreds and thousands of young men and women in harm's way, my neighbors and yours. Our attention should be focused on those young men and women, the success of their mission, and their safe return.

   I had the fortunate experience of serving in the White House. I know firsthand what a solitary and difficult decision it is for a President to send our Armed Forces into harm's way. I well remember some Members of this body, in the midst of conflict, attacking the President, the Commander in Chief, even as he worked day and night to complete a mission to bring our servicemen and women home safely. It was wrong then. It would be wrong now.

   I for one will not do that to our President, to our Commander in Chief. I want him to succeed. We should all want him to succeed. So long as our troops are engaged, we should suspend the debate over how and why, focus on the mission, unite as a country in prayer and resolve, hope for a speedy resolution of this war, with a minimum of loss. God bless America.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

   (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to the courageous men and women in uniform and a word to the courageous men and women of the United States Congress. First, I think we should remember September 11 because the greatest generation on whose shoulders we stand today were incredibly encouraged by the bravery and the sacrifice following September 11 when we were struck in our homeland. They were encouraged because they realized that their children and grandchildren had what it takes, that we were actually willing to answer our call to courage in our generation, and that we were willing to sacrifice.

   Today's men and women in uniform around the world are standing in the gap between a threat and our civilian population, and we all thank them for that.

   When I was growing up, it was almost all Active Duty career men and women in the military. Today it is the Guard and the Reserves, and they are all deployed, and they leave their jobs and they go and they serve, and they did not know this moment was going to come, but they are ready and willing.

   I sent off the 181st earlier this week from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and wives and parents were all there. They have got guts, and we appreciate them so very much.

   But let me say something quickly to this body. I have been around long enough to know, I do not know what the next election is going to bring except probably a real close election, and I do not know who is going to be President. I was raised in the Cold War, but I am raising my children in a hot war. This is not the only time that we are going to be on the floor addressing problems like this. We are going to be back. I do not know who is going to be President, but I hope that the tradition of us meeting at the water's edge when it comes to our national security is carried on, because this institution and that tradition is bigger than either party or any Member, and we must continue to stand together for freedom in the United States Congress.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

   (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of our troops and our families.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, at this moment my prayers and thoughts are with the service men and women who are braving the fierceness of battle in the deserts of Iraq. My best wishes are with them and their families for a safe return home. I have no doubt that they will be victorious in their undertaking and perform their duties honorably and bravely.

   I have a particularly soft spot in my heart for the service men and women serving in Michigan's National Guard and reserve units that are now activated to duty. They are providing a myriad of services and tasks on behalf of the war effort and in service to our nation.

   The politics of war should stop when the first shot is fired and when the men and women who make up our armed forces move into the field of battle. Some Members in this chamber have taken exception to the Administration's handling of the Iraq crisis, and I include myself among those who have had strong reservations about our road to war. If this were a simple resolution expressing our support and best wishes for the safe return of our troops, it would have my complete and unquestioning support. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will do everything I can to make sure that our troops are provided with the equipment and resources necessary to ensure their safety and support their families.

   But I have strong reservations about the course of action that took us into our present state of war. My position on this war has been plainly clear since the beginning, when the Administration first proposed using preemptive action against Iraq. I supported working through the United Nations and our allies and using all diplomatic means possible to disarm Saddam Hussein. I do not feel that the President stayed true to this path and exhausted all diplomatic means available. Therefore, I could not in good, moral conscious, vote ``yes'' for this resolution because it represents an affirmation of the policy of pre-emption. I strongly disagree with the application of a pre-emptive doctrine. It is counter to our values as a democratic nation and our American tradition.

   Now that we are committed, our troops are bound to perform their mission effectively and destroy the Iraqi war machine. As they pursue their objective, they will encounter many perils as the war follows its course. I share with the President the wish that their job will be completed swiftly so that they will soon be returning home to their loved ones.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

   Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise with a heavy heart in strong support of our troops. My thoughts and prayers are with them, and I pray for their safe return. As a soldier's daughter, my heart also goes out to their families. I know they anxiously await their return home.

   America's Armed Forces put their lives on the line and their sacrifices should never be forgotten. That is why just 2 weeks ago I voted in favor of H.J. Res. 27, which recognized and commended the continuing dedication and selfless service of members of the Armed Forces and their families. In spite of our policy differences, I do support our young men and women in uniform.

[Time: 00:15]

   But what I cannot support, though, is this resolution that endorses war against Iraq. I believed and still believe that diplomatic alternatives existed, the inspections process was working. Keeping our troops out of harm's way has been and remains first and foremost on my mind and in my heart. May God protect them and return them safely home.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who was a fighter pilot in the Persian Gulf and in Vietnam.

   (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the many voices who are commending the troops of our Nation and our allies as they undertake the task of liberating the people of Iraq and removing the danger that Iraq's illegal weapons present to the world. It is unfortunate that Saddam Hussein did not take the opportunity given to him for the past 12 years to simply comply with the demands of the world and peacefully disarm. However, the decision to ignore the world will ultimately be a tragedy, mostly for Saddam Hussein.

   Over the next few days we are going to find out just how fortunate we are to have our young men and women on the front lines. The bravery of our troops has already been demonstrated in the last 24 hours. A courageous 117 pilots have struck deep into Iraq with minimal support in some of the first air strikes of this war. Marines and soldiers alike in Kuwait have engaged the enemy in Iraq, and freedom for Iraq is closer today than ever before.

   Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is the beginning of the end for many different people. For the Iraqi people, it is

[Page: H2235]

   The men and women of our Armed Forces will demonstrate to the world the courage of our Nation, and they will show that the United States will not tolerate appeasement that keeps tyrants in power and endangers the entire world. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

   May God bless our leaders. May God bless our troops, and may God bless this great Nation.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

   (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, as we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of Americans and allied troops are risking their safety to protect ours. They are courageously confronting Saddam Hussein and the danger his regime poses to the world, and we have the utmost confidence that their victory will be sure and swift. I pledge my full support to these brave men and women and my firm commitment to providing whatever resources may be necessary to back their critical mission. Just as importantly, I want to thank the loved ones these soldiers have left at home for their sacrifice during these difficult times.

   Sadly, the deaths tonight of 16 Marines and British troops in a helicopter crash in Kuwait remind us of the great and constant risk our servicemen and women are facing. I offer my deepest condolences to their families in their time of grief. Above all, I express the gratitude of every American for the brave patriots who have been called upon to defend freedom and security.

   May God be with each and every one of our troops as we all pray for their protection in combat and a quick and safe return home.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his great service to the Committee on Armed Services.

   I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), another gentleman with great military expertise.

   Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the Navy's Atlantic fleet and nearly 100,000 active duty servicemen and women, I am pleased to rise to honor our brave men and women in uniform. The piers in Norfolk stand empty tonight and thousands of families are risking their loved ones, but we pray along with them that their loved ones have a successful and safe mission and that they can return home as soon as their mission is complete.

   Fortunately, our enemies do not often witness the strength of the U.S. military firsthand, but Saddam Hussein's regime is learning of that strength tonight. It is the men and women of our armed services that give us that strength. Their resolute training, their unwaivering bravery, and their steeled resolve will bring a quick and decisive end to this conflict. These men and women have volunteered to fight and put their lives at risk to ensure our freedom and to liberate those held back by the chains of tyranny. These men and women represent the best that America has to offer, and we must stand united behind them and our Nation's leadership.

   I thank the gentleman from California, whose son is an active duty Marine Corps officer and the gentleman from Missouri whose son is an active duty naval officer for bringing this resolution to us, and I urge its swift passage.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

   Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Member of this body who was privileged to serve my country as an officer in the United States Navy. In that roll as chief psychiatrist at the Long Beach Naval Station at the height of the Vietnam War, it was my duty to evaluate and treat seaman and Marines returning from combat. I saw their pain.

   I wish it to be clearly understood that I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the courage, tenacity, and dedication of those currently serving in Iraq and elsewhere. But, Mr. Speaker, war is not a partisan matter. The leadership should be ashamed of bringing this resolution to the floor. Everyone here wants to support an honest and straightforward resolution to support our troops. Do not give us a disingenuous and deceptive resolution that confuses the issue by asking us to endorse the Bush doctrine that sent our troops to war. I for one will not be forced to praise the President's reckless decisions when what I want to do is praise the troops. I cannot endorse the administration's policy of unilateral military action without international sanctions. This war of choice undermines the international order and endangers our Republic.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

   Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member. I appreciate this opportunity, and I rise really for two specific reasons. First, on behalf of those I represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia, I want to rise to express my appreciation and my support for this resolution, the men and women whom it honors, the parents who raised them, and the Commander in Chief who today leads them.

   And, secondly, I rise to pay tribute in memory of my best friend, Captain Jackson Elliot Cox, who died in 1967 in Vietnam. He died at a time when America's Congress was divided over another conflict at another time. He died and gave the last full measure of his life on behalf of this country so this body could do its work just as those men and women are doing today in the sands of Iraq and in the Middle East.

   So before at this early stage we divide ourselves over words, I hope we will unite ourselves over the praise of these young men, these young women, their families that raised them, and the President that leads them. This resolution is important to all in America, but it is most important to those who tonight serve us while we have the freedom to debate, to vote, and to participate in the greatest democracy in the history of the world, the United States of America.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

   (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity we had tonight for all of us to unequivocally endorse and praise those brave young men and women who are prepared at any time to put their lives on the line and put themselves in harm's way for the interests of the United States of America.

   My training in the military dictated to me that when that flag goes up, we salute it. When you are in the military, you do not have the options of determining which is a right war, which is a moral war, and which is any other type of war that one likes or dislike. You do what you are told, and you fight for this great country.

   As Members of Congress, however, we had an opportunity to forge a resolution that would not have any doubt about our unequivocal support for our men and women not just tonight but as long as we are able to serve in this great body for this great country. But somehow we sought not to do this. Somehow, as the majority leader said on different occasions, we wanted to mix policy with praise. Our fighting men and women do not have an opportunity to deal with policy; and yet this is what we are asked to do, as the majority leader said, that we must congratulate and express the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation for a President who brought us where we are today. I do not like where we are today. I did not vote or support how we got where we are today. I am prepared to salute the Commander in Chief because he is in charge today, but why do you put me in the position that it even looks as though I am not supporting our men and women? Because I reserve the right as a Member of this body to disagree with this President or any other President as long as I am elected to serve my constituents.

   I am happy that I will have other occasions to show in a more vocal way

[Page: H2236]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a gentleman with great experience in the U.S. Marine Corps.

   Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of this resolution to commend our troops and to show our complete support for them. The men and women engaged in the struggle against the war on terrorism face a difficult challenge, and we have seen it tonight with the loss of 16 servicemen. Whether directly involved in combat or serving in support roles, these brave individuals are responsible for providing protection to our allies and freedom to the people of Iraq.

   There are those who may have debated the United States's role in this conflict, and fairly so. But now is a time to rise above this debate and send one clear message to the men and women of our Armed Forces. These troops need to know that we support what they are doing. If we express doubt as to the validity and purpose and importance of what they are doing, I am afraid our support will sound hollow to their ears. Our message to these troops is one of gratitude for what they have done and what they will continue to do to advance the cause of peace and protect our national security. Our prayer tonight is one for fortitude that they can persevere throughout the battle and return safely to their families and their loved ones.

   We commend our troops for their service, and we pray for their safety.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

   Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, Abdul Henderson was called up as a Marine Reserve to go to Iraq. I am hoping and praying that he was not aboard that helicopter. As soon as I leave these Chambers, I will make a call out to Los Angeles.

   He is the son of one of my employees. We saw him off. I support and I honor our troops for they are following commands, and I think the most honorable thing we can do is take them out of harm's way.

[Time: 00:30]

   There is no way I can support this resolution because it speaks to a war that I feel is unnecessary and unjustifiable.

   Even after we succeed in Iraq, is America going to be any safer? Because I remember the President talking about the Axis of Evil, Iran and North Korea. So I pray every day for our troops and their families. And let us do the right thing. Never, ever again should America do a preemptive strike. Why do we not do what we need to do, and that is go after Osama bin Laden, who has been proven to be an effective terrorist.

   Bring our men and women home, and let us honor them so they can come back to their families.

   God bless America.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

   Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman HUNTER) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this resolution to the floor.

   Mr. Speaker, in early February, the Speaker asked five of us to travel to the Middle East, first stopping in Kurdistan, on into Uzbekistan. We attempted to get into Afghanistan, but, due to bad weather, we were unable to; and also on into Kuwait city.

   The purpose of that trip was to deliver a message from the Congress of the United States about the support that we have for Enduring Freedom and for the operation that is going on that they are carrying out today.

   On our visit to each of the stops, we had four ways of expressing our gratitude. One, we had banners, banners that had inscribed the words from the President's State of the Union Address, when he addressed the troops and said, you believe in America, and America believes in you. Those banners were signed by hundreds of people, not just Members of Congress, but people from across the country who visited here in Washington. Each of those banners was signed by the Commander in Chief.

   Another way that we had of expressing the gratitude of the Congress was a video, a 10-minute video which began with the Speaker of the House delivering a message personally, the Commanding General of Fort Benning, Georgia, people from the PX, people from the streets, also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), Vice President DICK CHENEY, and ending by a message from the Commander in Chief, President Bush.

   The third way that we expressed our gratitude from the Congress was with a flag. We presented each stop, each unit that we visited, with a flag that had been previously flown over the Capitol of the United States.

   Five of us were traveling; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and myself. Never once did we identify ourselves at any stop as other than Members of Congress. We did not carry a label by party, just Members of Congress, to express our gratitude.

   The fourth way was there in person, to personally deliver the message. We never heard one complaint, and we shook the hands of thousands of men and women in uniform. Not one complaint, but a lot of fine compliments to the Congress and to the Commander in Chief. Proud to serve both.

   But to our surprise in Uzbekistan, as we were presenting these gifts and expressions of gratitude of the Congress, they had a gift for the Congress. They had a flag that they had flown over the air base, K-2 in Uzbekistan, a forward operation base for Enduring Freedom. But not only did they fly it over the base, they put it aboard a C-130 gunship and flew it over Afghanistan, because they wanted to express to us their gratitude for what we do as Congress and for our Commander in Chief.

   Should we not be doing that today in the same fashion that the five of us traveled, as Members of Congress; not by party label, just Members of Congress, proud to be so, and proud of our soldiers and our airmen, our sailors, our marines, our Coast Guard.

   God bless each and every one, and God bless our Commander in Chief.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the new Select Committee on Homeland Security.

   Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight American soldiers are crossing the deserts of Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. It is a mission that will present unknown dangers to our young men and women in uniform. They go not as conquerors, but as liberators. They seek no sovereignty over the Iraqi people, but seek to grant the opportunity for freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

   Their mission is to disarm Saddam Hussein in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Resolution 1441. Some would say that the task of disarmament might be accomplished without force, but none would deny that the threat of the use of force is the only credible tool in dealing with a dictator who has for 12 years defied the requirements of the resolutions of the United Nations.

   Our Nation vigorously sought to unite the world in this cause. Though some of our allies failed to face the reality of a brutal dictator who seeks to accumulate weapons of mass destruction, we are joined tonight by over 40 nations to confront this dictator who controls a nation that possesses the wealth to achieve his goals of military dominance.

   The policy of containment and mutual deterrence that worked successfully in the 20th century is not a strategy for security against the threats of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century.

   We join together tonight in deep gratitude for the brave young men and women who courageously face the dangers of our mission. They join a long line of patriots who have given us the opportunity to live in peace and prosperity. May God bless and protect them, and may His hand guide them in the pursuit of the cause of freedom and justice for all.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

[Page: H2237]

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, some Members of this United States Congress support President Bush's preemptive strike against Iraq. Some Members have done their elected and patriotic duty and raised questions about the President's diplomatic failure and inability to resolve this conflict peacefully. However, every Member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, strongly support our men and women in uniform.

   Why, then, could our Republican Members not agree to a clean-cut, clearly worded resolution of support for our soldiers? The Republican leadership chose to politicize this moment in history with a politically worded resolution designed to trap the opposition into supporting a war that we do not support. They have cheapened this debate by trying to use this resolution to legitimize this war. This war is neither legitimate nor necessary.

   No matter, our troops are in harm's way. We support our soldiers and their families and will do everything in our power to make sure our men and women in uniform are honored and respected as they bravely serve our country. And when they return home, my office and my staff are always available to our men and women in uniform, and we will work very hard for them.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

   Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, 50,000 marines and sailors who call San Diego home are officially at war, and I respect their courage and the skills they bring in defending our freedom. I have met with many of these families and with those who advocate on behalf of them, the ombudspeople who volunteer every day to ensure that parents and spouses and children get the support they need in times of peace and in times of war.

   I supported the resolution 2 weeks ago, and I will support it again tonight, because my support overrides honest differences that I and many of my constituents have in the course that we have taken.

   Jessica, whose fiance is a marine in the Gulf, sent in an article from San Diego today: ``Nobody wants war, but the troops need our support. They have the toughest job. I get to sleep in my bed tonight.''

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

   Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, oh, freedom; oh freedom. I pledge my unequivocal support for the Armed Forces of the United States of America. I, too, have visited troops in Germany, Italy, Kosovo, Qatar, Bahrain and Hawaii.

   I have attended deployments of two units from the 11th Congressional District of Ohio. Their mothers and fathers asked me, why are we going to war, and why in Iraq? I could not answer their question, but I, too, gave them a flag, and asked them to bring it back to me safely.

   Oh, freedom; oh, freedom. Freedom includes the right to have free speech. Thank God I am free to speak in opposition to this resolution.

   Oh, freedom; oh, freedom. The young men and women of the Armed Forces, God bless you, God keep you, God surround you with his love. Oh, freedom; oh, freedom.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

   Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who, as he brings his distinguished service to this House, also is the distinguished father of a son who is serving tonight as we have this debate.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this resolution; not because I like every single word that is in it, but the words that mean the most to me this evening are those that relate to and are connected to the treasures of our Nation, the sons and the daughters that are in harm's way this evening.

   They are the sons, they are the daughters; they are fathers, they are mothers; they are grandsons, they are granddaughters; they are nephews, they are nieces; and they are really the beloved of our Nation.

   I have raised questions about what would bring us to war. I stand in opposition to preemption, but tonight I do not believe is the night for that debate. We had it before; I think we will have it again.

   Our troops who wear the flag on their uniform may very well, some of them, come home with a flag draped around their coffin. So, tonight I think our entire Nation genuflects and prays for every single one of them.

   Let God watch over them and bring them home safely to the families who gave birth to them, to the families that love them, and to the families that had to bid farewell to them.

   God bless them, and God help us.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

   Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day. I weep for my country tonight. I am sorry, very sorry, that we have arrived at this point.

[Time: 00:45]

   Tonight I think the world is a much more dangerous place for all humankind.

   I want to make it clear that I support all of our young men and women who are in harm's way, and I pray and I pray for their safe return.

   But tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for peace. War is bloody and messy. It destroys the hopes, the dreams, and aspirations of a people. In all good conscience, I cannot and will not vote for a resolution that supports and endorses a failed policy that led us to war. War is never the answer. War is obsolete.

   The struggle for peace is as old as the dawn of history and as fresh as the morning dew. The struggle for peace is a struggle that lasts for more than 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, or more than a lifetime. But we must struggle.

   Is it possible, is it too much to ask? Maybe it is possible for humankind to evolve to a much higher level and lay down the tools of hate, violence, and war. If we want to create a beloved community, a community that is at peace with itself, if that is our end, if that is our goal, then our way must be one of love, one of nonviolence, one of peace.

   Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I ask God's blessing on our soldiers, and may God bless our little planet we call Earth.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

   Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

   Today Congress stands in support of our Commander in Chief and our men and women in uniform. Tonight I join with all Americans in sending my thoughts and prayers to the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. These brave soldiers have been entrusted with the ultimate responsibility of defending our freedom, and for this they have our unconditional support.

   Citizens of my State know all too well the sacrifices that are made in times like this. In my home State of Connecticut, 35 percent of all National Guard and Army reserve troops have already been deployed to not only Iraq, but throughout the world, the third highest amount of any State in the Union.

   We do not know what the days ahead for us will bring, yet it is the sincerest hope of every American that this conflict will be finished quickly and successfully. We hope there will be minimum casualties to our military and to the people of Iraq, and we will continue to pray for the safe return of these men and women to their families and their loved ones.

   This is a time for all Americans to join together, to let our troops know that we support them fully and completely, and that they are in our hearts.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

   (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we gather here for a well-deserved tribute to our troops in the Middle East. Yet just before this, we were debating the President's budget which cruelly cut $25 billion of veterans benefits, including disabled veterans. Is this how Republicans would honor those who have made great sacrifices in defense of our country? Is that how they would boost the morale of our current troops? Every major veterans organization has denounced these cuts as unconscionable, but now the pending business before us is a little bit different.

[Page: H2238]

   So I rise to reject these efforts to piggyback support for President Bush's dangerous policies on to a simple, but deserved, resolution supporting our troops. I trust the American people to see through this attempt to coerce endorsement of his ``preventive war'' doctrine.

   I fully support our troops and offer my prayers for their safe return. I am an Army veteran myself; I care deeply about their well-being. And precisely for that reason, I cannot in good conscience vote for tonight's resolution, a carefully crafted document to force endorsement of President Bush's doctrine of preventive war, allowing him to attack countries whenever or wherever he chooses. I will not provide support for such a dangerous doctrine.

   For years to come, it will unnecessarily put current and future members of our Armed Forces in harm's way, even when our national security is not really threatened.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, President Bush is about to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction dropped on a city of 6 million human beings. The barrage is oddly named the days of ``shock and awe.'' All Americans who hold human life precious should watch the clock run down, not with ``awe'' but with fear and trembling. The sad truth is that we are lurching towards an unnecessary war that President Bush seems determined to launch.

   Apparently, therefore, the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces are about to head into harm's way. We all offer them our support as they try to do their duty, and we send our prayers for their safe return. But we must also be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers. That is the solemn duty to decide whether the United States should go to war.

   The Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted that decision to the Congress alone. They were adamant that the Executive not play a role--although once war began the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief to implement that decision. The Framers were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the Executive.

   I know that President Bush, and many of my colleagues believe that the Congress properly authorized war against Iraq last Fall, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I respectfully disagree. We have not performed our duty yet. Last fall Congress enacted a resolution that generally authorized the president to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous U.N. Resolutions on Iraq. But in reality, that resolution bucked the duty constitutionally conferred on Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. In short, it dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that may not be delegated.

   The administration's supporters argue that legal precedents allow the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely-used formal Declaration of War. That entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue; it is ``who decides?''

   It was clear, at that time, from the congressional debate, from Executive Branch statements, and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first, by going through the U.N. Subsequently, in response to a broad national consensus, the U.S. spearheaded U.N. Security Council passage of Resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. In other words, it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off for a later date.

   In the months since then, it has become increasingly clear that the decision on going to war would turn on two crucial assessments. The first would be an assessment of the results of that inspection program.

   The second assessment, and the ultimate judgment, would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the U.S. against the full costs--fiscal, diplomatic, casualties and increased terrorism--of going to war. Clearly these are not military judgments for a Commander-in-Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred on the Congress in matters of war and peace.

   Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that fateful decision. The entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war against Iraq.

   President Bush has brazenly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision, and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution.

   Even if one argues that Congress properly exercised its constitutional duties, and that the President thereby has all necessary authority to start a war the fundamental questions remain. ``Why war?'' ``Why now?'' And most importantly, ``Will waging war in Iraq make us more secure or less secure?''

   Bush's war would have disastrous consequences for every American. War is about devastation, destruction and death. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war's human and economic costs are too great. The human devastation of death, injury and destruction is obvious. In addition, it will rob us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and less fortunate.

   Even in terms of national security, an all-out war will rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense in homeland security, on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of 9/11. As the President repeats his unverified mantra of ``threats to national security,'' cities across this land are laying off police, firemen, and emergency medical services teams--the so-call ``first responders'' to any new terrorist attack. They must do so because this Administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries across America has been one word: ``Tough.''

   This is not merely a partisan spat, nor a Washington insiders' policy dispute. The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul. Thus far, that struggle has not succeeded. But we will not give up. We must commit ourselves to stopping hostilities and re-weaving the torn fabric of international organizations with the same dedication and urgency with which we strove to stop segregation and the Vietnam war, and finally brought our Government to its senses.

   President Bush repeatedly insists that for him ``war is a last resort.'' But his actions reveal that war was really his first choice, all along. His attempts to make it politically palatable by badgering, bullying and bribing countries into a counterfeit coalition have been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world.

   President Bush has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to stay one jump ahead of ``truth squads'' exposing their disinformation--at the U.N., among skeptical Members of Congress and the media, and even in their own intelligence agencies.

   Americans have readily borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened. But America cannot, in good conscience, start a war so costly in blood and treasure simply on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that, sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the U.S.

   Bush's war against Iraq is:

   A war that will devastate a country of 26 million and cause damage that will take years to undo;

   A war that will see many American casualties, and that could fracture our fragile economy;

   A war that will destabilize the Middle East;

   A war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits;

   A war that will weaken our fight against terrorism, at home and abroad, and that will cost billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in Detroit and other cities;

   A war that will set a terrible precedent, in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, for any country to launch a preventive war against opponents deemed a possible future threat; and

   A war not really wanted by the American people, our military commanders or our allies.

   Worst of all, it is a war that, as the CIA admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam would unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, Israel and our other allies. There is no evidence Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, Saddam may well seek to play Sampson and pull down the Temple for lethal revenge.

   Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading newspapers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq. Article after article reported with an air of sudden discovery that:

   The war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam's using weapons of mass destruction;

   That it would almost certainly escalate dramatically terrorist attacks against Americans;

   That many U.S. military commanders feared it would undermine the real war against terrorism;

   That their could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians; and

   That, even following a quick ``military victory'' against Saddam, we could be mired in

[Page: H2239]

   I took cold comfort from the irony of the media's belated ``discoveries.'' It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered this costly side of the war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the Administration, most media coverage focused only on whether, absent other concerns, it was desirable to prevent Saddam's pursuit of armaments and remove his regime--as if there were no competing costs on the other side of the ledger to be carefully weighed in deciding whether war would be a net plus for America.

   There is still time for President Bush to avoid starting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. There is still time--but precious little time--for the American people to speak out against a war that few of them support. If the war commences, there is time for it to be brought to a rapid end and areversion to diplomatic efforts and enhanced inspections.

   We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni. A distinguished Marine Commandant and head of U.S. Central Command, which guards the Middle East, Zinni reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake. On the other hand, Zinni warned, those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the quickest to beat the drums of war.

   Those are harsh words. The administration will condemn whoever utters them as partisan and unpatriotic--just as the Johnson White House condemned King's questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander, in order to stop erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are families of those who were killed on 9/11 and who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous.

   I know many of my colleagues have in good faith been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now. But they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially the Vice President's early insistence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that Saddam had nuclear weapons now--both of which claims have long been disavowed by our intelligence community. Many other assertions and premises used by the administration to ``market their product,'' in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of staff, have crumbled under close scrutiny.

   I would ask my colleagues who support the war to reconsider their view in light of these facts:

   Almost the entire world is strongly against this war; this includes the majority of the citizens of even those countries formally part of the ``coalition'';

   Every major city in America has gone on record against this war;

   The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American Labor movement and the NAACP are against this war;

   Leading retired U.S. military commanders such as General Zinni, and General Schwarzkopf--in his original unvarnished views--have voiced opposition to this war;

   Numerous active duty generals have told reporters off the record of their concerns about a war against Iraq; and

   General Scowcroft, who was also President George Herbert Walker Bush's National Security Advisory is against this war.

   And all of this opposition has arisen even before the war has started--an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. In view of these facts, I ask whether it is just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises with his logic, and with his rejection of further effort to resolve the issues peacefully.

   I urge my colleague to reflect on these powerful facts and join me in pressing President Bush to find another way--to follow the path of peace. As the Bible teaches, ``Blessed are the Peacemakers.''

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

   (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran I stand behind our troops, and I ask everyone to get together in the form of solidarity.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, several months ago, when we voted on the President's Iraq resolution, we all hoped war could be avoided, even though most of us believed deep down that it was a forgone conclusion. It was just a matter of when. Well, the day we all knew would come upon us. As we speak the U.S. Army 7th Calvary has engaged the enemy inside Iraq.

   This is a difficult dilemma. We hope and pray that Saddam does not have any weapons of mass destruction to use against our troops. My faith teaches me that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone in conflict. We have cast the stone, and we'll just have to wait and see what the effects will be.

   However, Mr. Speaker, none of that is important anymore. The most important issue we face as any war begins is how we are going to support our brave men and women in uniform. No matter how we feel about the prospect of waging war at this time, we must stand solidly behind our troops. Hundreds of soldiers from my district have already deployed. Thousands more from the Inland Empire and across California are heading to the Persian Gulf region. Even more Californians are serving our Nation in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all over the World. It saddens me to think that some of these men and women will not return home to their mothers and fathers, to their sons and daughters, to their husbands and wives.

   We can support our troops by keeping the promises we have made to our veterans, and by providing them with the benefits and healthcare that they have earned through their services to our Nation.

   Mr. Speaker, as I think about the lives that may be lost in the coming days and weeks, I ask myself one question. Could this situation have been avoided? Although I cannot answer this question with 100 percent certainty, I have always believed that there was a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis. I believed that when I voted for a resolution in October authorizing the President to use our armed forces in support of any U.N. resolution mandating the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Speaker, I still believe that now. Unfortunately, the diplomatic window is closed. Diplomacy no longer seems to be an option.

   But I want my colleagues to hear me when I say this. Now is not the time to debate misguided or unsuccessful policies. Now is the time to come together and support our brave men and women in uniform. We must let them and their families know that we appreciate their sacrifice. Let us rally around our troops and show the world that our Nation stands united. I hope the unity that Members on both sides of the aisle are showing tonight sends a strong signal to our troops. We are thinking of you and praying for you.

   Mr. Speaker, I do have one request. I ask my constituents, and every American, to light a candle and pray for our troops and pray for all the innocent victims of this war.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

   (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at times of great stress, great patriots rise to the occasion. Tonight there are young Americans who are rising to the occasion as they traverse across the desert sands of Iraq, as they soar across the unfriendly skies of Iraq, as they serve on naval ships. Tonight their families have risen to the occasion, as they sadly note the empty place at the dinner table, the bedtime story not read to a young son or daughter, or as they stare at the photograph on the mantel piece and wish that he or she were at home with them.

   I know that every Member who has spoken tonight is a great patriot. Every Member who has spoken on both sides loves their country. And I know that many feel a sincere sense of doubt about some of the words that are in tonight's resolution. I would implore every Member, though, to try to rise to the occasion and rise above the words and rise to a symbol of unity that says to every one of these young men and women that their interests are our prime interests. I would ask every Member to support this resolution.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his great work on the committee.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was a distinguished Marine rifleman in Vietnam.

   Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good friend, the two of them, for bringing this resolution to the floor.

   We all remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.''

   And we remember the words of Abraham Lincoln: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us work together to bind up the Nation's wounds.''

   And another century passing by, we remember Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dream that little children will not

[Page: H2240]

   This great Nation of ours has seen periods of great joy, wretched despair, and great sacrifice. And still, we come, children of democracy, again here tonight to find our place in history. Our young men and women, once again on the front lines of history, once again in anticipation of great joy, although for some there will be wretched despair because some will not come home, we give them our praise and support for the sacrifice that they are now enduring as they bear the greatest burden of preserving and restoring freedom during this present crisis.

   Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with a very familiar poem by a Canadian soldier during World War I who did not make it home:

``In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row by row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

``We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.''

Those who lie in Flanders fields said,
``Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.''

   The Americans in the Middle East are bearing the burden of the present crisis, and we come here tonight to mix and to mingle and to speak and to have differences, but the unity of this Congress, the unity of this Nation will linger for decades to come.

   I stand here tonight to support the resolution.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

   Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is sadly too late for truth to be the first casualty of this war, because we have already had brave people killed. But truth is taking a beating tonight.

   We had the floor manager of this bill object to efforts to democratize the process and give Members more choice to make real votes in the name of letting the House work its will. He blocked unanimous consent requests that would have allowed amendments, that would have allowed separated votes, theoretically in the name of democracy. We had another gentleman from California come and say, ``let us not make this partisan,'' in defense of a resolution that is very partisan, that is drafted in a way that will minimize, rather than maximize, the goal Members pretend to want to be in favor of.

   We have had Members who savaged Bill Clinton during the war in Kosovo, now announcing their convergence to the doctrine that once the guns start, the President is untouchable. Why? To use the unanimous admiration felt in this House for our troops for political purposes.

   The gentleman from California who is managing the bill asked before, he said, people will be watching and they will say to us on the Democratic side, what are you doing? I will tell them what we were trying to do. We were trying to stop the Republicans from taking the troops politically hostage to serve the President's political purposes. We were trying not to allow the support that is unanimously felt for the troops, the admiration for their courage, the sympathy for the plight that their families are in; we did not want that used to puff up support that does not exist for decisions made by the President.

   Sadly, we failed, because the majority used its control of this body, and so Members were put in an unfortunate position. But let us be very clear. Had the majority wanted to do it, there would have been a unanimous vote in this House, every Member voting, in support of the troops. The resolution, those parts of it that support the troops would have been unanimous. Unfortunately, partisanship has resulted in what will be a diminution in the vote that is cast for the support for the troops.

[Time: 01:00]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

   Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking leader for yielding time to me.

   I stand with great pride and respect in support of this resolution. I support our brave and courageous troops. I support their mission and their Commander in Chief. It is very difficult for me to stand here and say I support the troops and not their mission, and not the Commander in Chief that sent them in harm's way.

   Mr. Speaker, we did not ask for this war. It was brought to us unexpectedly, without warning, savagely, tragically by terrorist suicide bombers, terrorists who are desperately trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Biological and chemical weapons, biological and chemical weapons are being manufactured by the tens of thousands of tons by Saddam Hussein of Iraq. What other choice would we have?

   The least this Congress can do on a night when we are losing our military men, with their lives on the line, is to stand here together, Democrat and Republican, and support this resolution, and send a proud message to our men and women in uniform that we are here to stand with them, and stand in the evil day, and stand.

   God bless America, God bless our troops, and thank God that we have got these courageous men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line. It is with great pride that I stand here to support this very worthwhile and important resolution.

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair will remind all Members that there is a rumbling of noise out in the aisles, and ask Members to keep their conversations down or remove them to the cloakroom.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

   (Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution to the body. I salute the comments of the gentleman just prior to me. I appreciate the observations.

   The Second Congressional District of New Mexico is home to the Stealth fighters, the ones who launched the attacks last night. I know personally some of the men and women of that unit, and recognize and know personally some of the National Guard and Reserve troops who are called up. I recognize the sacrifices of their family.

   In 1967, I won the lottery. As a result of winning the draft lottery, I went for 3 1/2 years into Vietnam, from the period of 1971 to 1974. I watched personally as a political discussion devolved into disrespect and disregard for what our troops were doing there: the insults, the spitting on, the disrespect that was given to our troops that emanated from a political discussion.

   I hope that political discussion does not take the same road now; for even today when I see those Vietnam veterans who were disregarded so much on their return, their simple greeting is, welcome home, brother; and it is done with tears in the eyes of people who faced death every day.

   I served at that time without regard for who my Commander in Chief was as far as a politician, but instead, of the duty that I was called to perform. I think our young men and women today are doing the same thing. I respect the sacrifices that their families make; I respect the sacrifices that they themselves make. I ask that we keep them in our prayers.

   I support the resolution, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

   Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   For the sacrifices of our sons and daughters in uniform and that of their families, no mere resolution or series of resolutions suffices to express our gratitude.

   Because the support for our troops is so very strong and the justification for the administration's reckless first-strike doctrine is so very weak, this resolution relies on the pride that all of us feel for our troops in order to carry this weak policy, this faulty and unworthy policy that is so faulty it cannot stand on its own merits, it has to be clumped with the sacrifices of the men and women who serve America tonight in the Persian Gulf.

   Just as this administration has failed completely to provide the slightest

[Page: H2241]

   This resolution could have been the one the Senate adopted today by 99 votes. It was good enough for Majority Leader FRIST, it was good enough for JOHN WARNER, but it did not go to the extremes that our colleagues want.

   We could have all accepted my request that we approve by unanimous consent support for our troops and families, but they did not have that in mind. They want this back-door approval. We will not be intimidated into silence. If we were to do that, we would be abandoning the very democracy we are pledged to serve and that they tonight defend.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

   Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago I helped welcome home 235,000 Army soldiers from my district who had fought in Desert Storm. I saw firsthand how much it meant to them, to those brave Americans, that our Nation respected their service to country; and that is why I join my colleagues tonight in strong support of this resolution.

   But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that a majority of my colleagues in less than 1 hour after this vote will support a budget resolution that the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have called ``callous and unconscionable'' in its treatment of veterans.

   Today's troops are tomorrow's veterans. They will watch our deeds even more than our words. So in the spirit of supporting our troops, I propose that we reduce this morning the proposed dividend tax cut by less than 10 percent so we do not have to cut veterans services by $8 billion. Let us honor today's troops and tomorrow's veterans with our words and our deeds.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

   (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members will hear me say nothing tonight other than that we have the bravest, the most valiant, the most courageous young men and women in the world standing for our freedom.

   But what I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a need to speak the truth. The first truth is that we have lost brave young men and women already, and my deepest sympathy and affection and love for those families. I know full well the burying of young men and women who served in the United States military. I sat at the funeral of one in my constituency, and the family still mourns.

   So I rise tonight to stand on the side of peace over war and life over death. I remind this Congress that we are best when we understand what freedom is all about. Democracy is more than words; it is practice. So I agree with Hubert Humphrey when he said, what we need are critical lovers of America, patriots who express their faith in their country by working to improve it.

   I stand before the Members to say that I commend and express the gratitude of the Nation to all Members of the United States Armed Forces, whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves, and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations of the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.

   Mr. Speaker, I will stand undivided in commending the brave men and women tonight, but I will also go to my death for the right to stand to save lives. I would clearly remind those who feel we are dividing the caucus, the Nation, the world, to be reminded that my voice is hoarse but my spirit is not broken; for I remind Members of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who wished that he had been able to stand more than 30 years ago to be able to save the lives of 58,000 brave young men and women in the Vietnam War. There are Vietnam veterans, and some came home, thank God. But I would rather be able to say that I stand, as I said, for life over death.

   I thank Members for democracy that allows variety. You will never hear me say an unkind word of the Commander in Chief. I stand undivided and in support of the troops of the United States of America.

• [Begin Insert]

   First and foremost, whether our valiant men and women of the United States Military are away from home to fight a war, to protect a peace, or to enforce disarmament, they will have the full support of the U.S. Congress. We will take every possible step to ensure that they are protected from potential attacks and a difficult environment, that they have the support they need to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and that we bring them home safely as soon as practicable. I cite my support by referring to Sen. Con. Res. 26.

   The Congress: Commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery;

   Commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loved ones;

   Expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many year, against Iraq;

   Joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War on Terrorism

   I continue to cite my support by referring to H. Con. Res. 104.

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, are now undertaking courageous and determined operations against the forces of Saddam Hussein's regime;

   Whereas the Senate and House of Representatives and the American people have the greatest pride in the members of the Armed Forces and strongly support them;

   Whereas the United States Armed Forces and allied forces are performing their missions with great courage;

   Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to successfully perform their mission requires the support of their nation, community, and families: Be it

   Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation:

   To the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership [in the] ongoing Global War on Terrorism; to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriot-ism, and bravery; and to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.

   When history is recorded as I stand on this floor tonight, my words will note that I stand undivided from the troops. I have nothing but the greatest honor, respect, and admiration for their courage and their unselfishness.

   May God have mercy on their families, and bless them in this time of challenge. And may God give all of our troops the fortitude, strength, and resolve to get their jobs done and then to get back home to their loved ones.

   And for those whom we will never see again, they will remain heroes . . . throughout time, never forgotten, Partiots until the end.

   God bless them, and God Bless the United States of America.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), who has a son in the United States Navy.

   Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   Mr. Speaker, as I sat last night in front of the TV, I could not take my eyes off of the images that I was seeing because, as a mother, I was thinking of my son. The gentlemen know that a mother's love is different than a father's love.

   As I sat there, I thought of my grandmother, who sent two young sons off to war. I thought of my uncle, who was missing in action for over 13 months; of how the family felt when they did not know whether he was dead or alive. I

[Page: H2242]

   I thought of the heroes among us in this Chamber, the veterans that we love and we honor. I thought of when I first shook the hand of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). When I found out why his hand was crippled, I thought of how I wanted to kiss his hand and honor him.

   Tonight, with a mother's heart, I want to say, God bless each one of the young men and women who are serving us. God bless their families that have made the sacrifice. When we are away from our loved ones, we want to hold them; and we are holding them in our hearts.

   Today I got an e-mail from John, and it touched me. Let me just share it with you:

   ``Hey, everyone, I just wanted to drop an e-mail to you to let you know I am doing great and that I am safe and sound. Here on the ship, the spirits are high. Everyone is going about their business like we do every day. Everyone here is united in the spirit of what we are doing. It gives us a sense of how important our job really is. All the late hours, all the things we put up with, are now justified.

   ``Just wanted to give you a quick update and thank you for your thoughts and your prayers.''

   Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with our Commander in Chief. I pray that the Lord would give him wisdom. I pray for the team that he has surrounded himself with. I pray for the families whose young people are serving.

   I want to give a clear message to every one of those young men and young women: never again in this Nation should we tell anyone who is serving that we do not appreciate what they have done, because we appreciate every one of them. We love them and we hold them in our hearts tonight. God willing they will come home so we can hold them in our arms again.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

   Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, of the over 200,000 men and women who are in and around Iraq this evening, I want to just touch on one person who was highlighted today in the New York Times, Captain Cynthia Brito from Woodside, Queens, my hometown. She is the daughter of Ecuadoran immigrants Angel Brito, a limousine driver, and his wife Ines, a jewelry worker.

[Time: 01:15]

   Captain Brito is a graduate from Fordham University in the Bronx, and she is serving as a dentist in the Army in the 561st Medical Company of V Corps.

   Captain Brito represents the best of the men and women who are fighting on our behalf on the front lines. She is the daughter of immigrants, a female officer in a male-dominated Army, and a dentist with medical training. We know that she will be on the front line.

   So much this evening has been said about the war, and I do not think enough has been said about our young men and women troops fighting over there. These mostly young men and women like Captain Brito are the ones truly making the sacrifice for our country.

   Men, women, white, African American, Latino, Asian, Christian, Jews and Muslims, they are all the faces of this country. Our prayers go out to each and every one of them this evening and to all their families, especially to Cynthia Brito, who makes all of us proud.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

   Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the troops, to our troops overseas and everywhere in the world, thank you. I thank them for their bravery, thank them for their courage, thank them for believing in this Nation, thank them for being willing to give their life for our freedom. We love them, we support them, and I am sure that is all 535 Members of Congress.

   As I look at this resolution, to me it is like a contract, and if a person signs a contract, that means they agree with everything in the contract. I do not agree with the doctrine of preemptive strike. Therefore, as to page 4, line 4 through 7, I disagree, and therefore, I cannot sign on to this contract.

   I really wanted to sign on to and vote for this resolution, and we had an opportunity to speak as one Congress, House-Senate alike, sending the same message. That is unity. What a great opportunity we had. What a great opportunity we missed.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

   Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight in support of this resolution not because I agree with the decisions that have brought us to this moment, but because I love, honor and revere those brave young Americans who are fighting for us even as we sit in this Chamber at this late hour.

   I am troubled tonight because I believe one way we honor our current troops fighting in Iraq and around the world is to honor those who have served before them, our veterans, veterans like my brother who turned 79 years old last week and who served our Nation in World War II.

   Very soon the vast majority of us will vote for this resolution to honor our troops, as we should. I am troubled that soon thereafter many of my colleagues in this Chamber will cast another vote, a vote that will cut $28 billion from veterans' benefits. I am puzzled that so many would salute the troops with one hand and vote to cut $28 billion from veterans' benefits with the other hand.

   I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this resolution and to vote no for the budget resolution.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

   Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, last October I thought that it was absolutely necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein. I still think so, but I thought then and I think now that Saddam could have been disarmed without resort to war. So I voted against the resolution giving the President complete authority to use military force at his sole discretion.

   Now our country is at war and our young people in harm's way. I unequivocally support our troops in their valiant role, and I, therefore, support this resolution.

   This resolution expresses support for our troops and for their families and for the President's leadership ``in the conduct of military operations in Iraq,'' and only for his conduct of those military operations. It does not, as some have said, express support for the President's decision to resort to war or for the administration's diplomacy that has led us to war.

   Our troops and their families deserve our support, and I will express my support for them by voting for this resolution.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

   (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this war, but I will always support our brave men and women in uniform and their families. They must be treated with dignity and respect, both while the battles are being fought and when they come home.

   This means that our soldiers have the best military equipment and protective gear and that their families are cared for while they are away. The children and spouses of our military must not be on welfare rolls, and they must not have to survive off of food stamps or live in substandard homes.

   The families of reservists and the National Guard should not suffer economically while their loved ones are called up for Active Duty. The families of enlisted soldiers must have salaries adequate to lift them out of poverty, and the United States must fulfill its promises by providing all necessary care and promised benefits to our enlisted and Reserve military personnel as active members and as veterans.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   (Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here tonight to endorse this resolution, but I must say that this resolution has language like

[Page: H2243]

   I respect the Members that are going to vote for the resolution. I respect the Members that are not going to vote for this resolution, and I commend their patriotism for standing up for what they believe in, but I think it is imperative that we remember that we must have resolutions that every Member of this Congress can vote for because we are all patriots, and we all believe in the American way, and it is important that American families understand that we are together and united always when it comes down to defending this country.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

   Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this resolution.

   I do not necessarily agree with every word of the resolution, but how many times have all of us voted for bills and resolutions that we do not agree with 100 percent? We have to make a choice, and I choose to support our troops. That is clearly the thrust of this resolution, to support the brave men and women that do us all proud.

   War is never easy. War should always be a last resort, and while we can question the policies of any administration, the men and women that go to preserve freedom for our great country, we owe them our deepest gratitude.

   I think it is very fitting that the Congress show our brave men and women that we strongly support them and that we join hands regardless of how some of us may feel about policy.

   I voted to give the President the authority, and I think that now is the time to stand behind our President, to stand behind our troops and to move forward with one voice. Support the resolution.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

   (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

   I rise this morning to honor the men and women of our armed services by supporting the support the troops resolution.

   I believe the time has come for Americans to put aside our differences concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom and to stand together to show solidarity for the men and women in our Armed Forces. It is time for all Americans to show their support for the mothers and fathers, the sons and daughters and friends and loved ones who are serving our Nation and defending our freedom.

   Our Nation, at the guidance of our President, is facing the inevitable action in Iraq. War is something that we would never dream of for our children to see or to hear. There comes a time, however, when we must unite together and show the enemy that we will stand up for our freedoms, freedoms that our forefathers fought for and won, and we will fight to ensure that the United States remains a beacon of hope and freedom that brightens the world.

   One woman in my district, Judith Allen of Denton, Texas, has done her part. After saying good-bye to her son, Private Joseph Paul Terrace, who is part of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, Judith formed the Military Support Group of Denton, Texas. The group is open to families and friends with loved ones in the Armed Forces.

   Judith's son answered the call to duty and said in a recent interview with the Denton Record Chronicle, ``Nobody actually wants to go to war, but they want to do their job, and they want to keep people safe, and we realize how much a real threat things are these days.''

   In my home county of Denton, Texas, county Judge Mary Horn and her husband Jim have a son also named Jim who is now in an undisclosed region in the Gulf. Keith Self, a man who was in the Republican primary with me in our six-way primary last spring, we were opposed during the primary, but we became friends and have remained friends since that time, Lieutenant Colonel Self was recalled to Active Duty and now serves in an undisclosed location in the Gulf.

   My own son Mike serves in the Air National Guard in Fort Worth, Texas. While he has not been called into Active Duty, part of his unit has and is now in an undisclosed location in the Gulf.

   I do not believe that in our ordinary life we think about the sacrifices that our U.S. military personnel make, from the hardship of time away from families and children to the hundreds of reservists who unselfishly answer the call to duty. These men and women protect our borders, shield our skies, guard our country, believe in America and support our President. These brave souls will march the same steps of previous generations who gave of their lives to defend our homeland and to secure the blessings of liberty for our country and for generations to come.

   While our troops and allies exemplify the true spirit of patriotism, we, the citizens at home, must remain united for freedom and show the world we believe in liberty more than the horror of allowing a deadly dictator to threaten the security of liberty.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), an Army veteran and distinguished Member of this body.

   Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to come and stand before my colleagues this evening, and regardless of how we got here, I think the time has come that we ought to stand together for the troops, and so I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this to the floor.

   I have to reflect on some things, as many of us have done, veterans here, as many of us are, and the lack of support for the two times I went to Vietnam. I was reflecting on that this last Monday when I went to three different communities to activate troops, went off from Fort Riley and will go to the Middle East.

   I looked at the faces of the men and women and the uniform, and I realized how much I appreciated when that gymnasium in these three different towns, three different locations, that was packed to the walls, the support of the families and the community was so meaningful and so special and so appreciated.

[Time: 01:30]

   So I support the resolution, and I encourage Members to support it, to support our men and women in uniform. God bless America.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

   (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the floor to express our support for our citizen soldiers, all of our men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our armed services, as they are now in harm's way fighting the war against terror in Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I am not here to debate the substance of the merits of the war, but only to express our support, especially for the families and loved ones who anxiously wait and wonder if their husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, mothers or fathers, aunts and uncles and friends will return from the war.

   As a Vietnam veteran, nothing warms the hearts and minds of our soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines more than to know that we here in this Chamber support and pray for their welfare, knowing that at any moment our men and women in the military walk a very thin line between life and death.

   Mr. Speaker, the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., ring well in my ears tonight. He said, ``In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.''

[Page: H2244]

   Mr. Speaker, God bless our men and women in the Armed Forces.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. HUNTER) and our senior ranking member, Mr. SKELTON, for bringing this resolution to the floor, to express our fullest support for our citizens-soldiers--all our men and women who proudly wear the uniforms of our armed services, as they are now in harm's way fighting the war in Iraq.

   I am not here to debate the substance or the merits of the war, but only to express our support especially for the families and loved ones who anxiously wait and wonder if their husbands and wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts and friends will return from the war.

   As a Vietnam veteran, Mr. Speaker, nothing warms the hearts and minds of our soldiers, our sailors, our marines and our airmen more than to know that we here in this Chamber support and pray for their welfare--knowing that any moment our men and women in the military walk a very thin line between life and death.

   Mr. Speaker, the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. rings well in my ears tonight. He said, ``In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.''

   Mr. Speaker, as the most powerful military power in the world, we need to also be reminded of a statement made centuries ago by Thucydides who said, ``Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses most men.''

   Mr. Speaker, God bless our men and women in the armed forces.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

   Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we all agree upon, we are grateful to our troops and their families. We respect the men and women in our Armed Forces, and we admire their patriotism and bravery. We all recognize that no matter what the policy disagreements about the steps that took us to this day of invasion, our troops are doing their duty and putting their bodies on the line for our country. They are in our prayers, and we all hope for a speedy conclusion and a safe return for each of them.

   How fine it would have been if the right-wingers in charge of this House had put aside their partisanship for just this evening and agreed to write a clean resolution that supported our troops; but no. One can always count on them to try to wedge an issue, divide people and make partisan what should be purely American.

   There are plenty of things in this resolution that are just not true, but I am going to vote for it because of clause 2 and 3. I do support and appreciate our Armed Forces and their families. I cannot say the same thing about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the rest of the Republican leaders who once again have proven by their actions this evening that they are more interested in partisan advantage for their party than unity and success for our country. They dishonor our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are the real patriots we seek to honor by this resolution.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I just say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services, that I would hope that the gentleman would discourage Members like the Member who just spoke from using this time when we are supposed to be commending our troops from demeaning other Members of this House.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I had this and I was not going to use it. I am on the same side as the gentleman. I am in the minority of my party on this issue. But I want to tell Members that they cannot have it both ways. On December 13, 1995, our troops were deployed. Our troops were deployed in Bosnia. They were deployed for the purposes of keeping the peace. They were successful. Thousands of people were being killed. The gentleman remembers that, and our troops were deployed for the purpose of keeping the peace pursuant to an agreement by President Clinton and others in the NATO alliance.

   There was a resolution on the floor. That resolution was a very brief resolution and it had one resolved clause, just one and it said this: That the House of Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.

   The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), who spoke earlier, voted ``no'' on that resolution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who talked about the troops, voted ``no'' on that resolution.

   I am with my friend on the substance, but when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) gets up and makes her statement and she is criticized, remember December 13, 1995.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time.

   To the point on Bosnia, a lot of us had misgivings. I remember going there fully intent on finding kids to tell me it was a bad idea. I met a kid from Ocean Springs, Mississippi. I regret that I cannot remember his first name. His last name is Rhodes. I asked him should we be here. It was a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving. It was snowing and crummy. It is 80 degrees in Ocean Springs, and it is 18 degrees in Bosnia.

   And the kid said, Yeah. I was dumbfounded. I said, Why? He said because I am keeping women from getting raped. I am keeping children from getting murdered. I am keeping old folks from getting drug out into the street and getting tortured at night. That is why I joined the United States Army, to be a good guy.

   Tonight we vote to commend the 250,000 young Americans, just like Private Rhodes, who are doing the very same thing.

   To my colleagues, I would say every other generation of Americans, check the record, every other generation of Americans voted to pay the cost of those wars right then and not stick the young Private Rhodeses with that bill. Let us not be the first generation of Americans that after we welcome the Private Rhodeses home, stick them with the bill from this war.

   I am going to vote for the resolution because it is exactly right, but I am going to vote against their budget because they are sticking those 250,000 young Americans and their children with this bill. That is inexcusable. Let us vote for the troops. Let us vote to pay the bill. Those of us fortunate enough not to be on the front lines, not to watch our buddies lose an arm or leg, their vision, not to watch our buddies die, at least ought to be willing to pay the bill for this war right now and not stick our kids with it.

   In the past 2 years, we have run up $802 billion worth of debt. That is no prize to hand those kids when they come home. Let us support the troops and pay for this war right now. Let us be honest with the American people and leave them a Nation that is worthy of their sacrifice.

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair reminds all Members to turn off their electronic devices.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Robert Kennedy once remarked, ``All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful men, to the weakest and hungriest children, share one precious possession, the name American.''

   So tonight as our brave men and women in uniform fight for freedom and our security half a world away, we come here not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, Americans united as one in support of our Armed Forces, and for the success of the cause for which they willingly risk their lives.

   That cause, liberty and freedom from fear, inspired our Founding Fathers 227 years ago, and guides our action today. It is a measure of our Nation's greatness that when freedom's call came at

[Page: H2245]

   Our thoughts and prayers are with our troops and with the troops of our allies, four of whom also lost their lives this night, and our thoughts as well are with the families who wait. We are with you. We honor you; we honor your sacrifice. We hail your courage, and we pray for your safe return.

   We are confident that the Iraqi people who have been terrorized for so long under Saddam Hussein's brutal reign will soon throw off the shackles of tyranny and see that your mission has always been one of liberation and not of aggression. There should be no doubt we shall win this war, and we must win the peace that will follow. We are committed to a liberated and free Iraq where individual Iraqis can decide their own fate, where basic human rights and the rule of law are respected, and where that nation's tremendous resources are the property of a proud Iraqi people, and not plundered by an international criminal who has killed his own people and who continues to threaten the security of the region and the world.

   Saddam Hussein believed, like other dictators and despots who pockmark history, that our democratic debate was evidence of disunity and weakness. He was wrong.

   In fact, as all of us who are privileged to serve here know, that ability to debate, that ability to disagree, that ability to want options is what makes America so strong, so envied.

   Tonight we stand as one behind our brave Armed Forces. No matter the votes, we stand as one and pray for a quick end to this conflict and to the safe return of our brave men and women and the brave men and women of every nation who will fight in those sands.

   May God protect our men and women. May God give wisdom to our Commander in Chief, and may God continue to bless America.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

   Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the resolution honoring our troops, their families and our President. It is time that we unite in this recognition and recognize the sacrifice that all pay for our freedom.

   I am reminded of two boyhood friends who served in Vietnam, but did not return, Emery Manor Smith, a fine young man, a good friend and a great neighbor. Also I am reminded of another friend, Joe Berry, another great friend and neighbor. I am reminded of a nephew who served in the first Gulf War, Scott Baker, and I honor him tonight for his service to America. I have a neighbor, Adam Ivy, who currently serves in the Gulf as a United States Marine. He serves proudly to protect America from a dictator who would inflict enormous pain and suffering, and to free the people of Iraq.

[Time: 01:45]

   Tonight we need to unite as one in support of our troops, in support of their families and in support of our President. I believe, and I am sure you agree, we live in the greatest Nation in the world. It is time that we honor those who protect our freedom. May God bless America.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

   (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our troops, but on principle must vote against the resolution.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my heartfelt support for our men and women who are currently engaged in war with Iraq. Although I disagree with this war, and the policies that have brought us to this point--our troops deserve the full support of America. The more than 200,000 courageous men and women in Iraq represent the best of America. They have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve their country and protect and defend freedom.

   The troops are ordinary men and women who are doing extraordinary things. Many of our service people have left family behind to fulfill their commitment to serve. The men and women of our armed services epitomise the biblical proverb: ``No greater love is there than one who would lay down his/her life for their fellow man.''

   I want to assure the families of our service men and women that I stand fully behind them. In addition, I will do everything that I can to ensure that they have the best equipment and resources necessary to carry out their mission and provide for their safe return.

   While I have no doubt that America will prevail militarily. It is my hope and expectation that we will redouble our efforts to seek collective, nonmilitary solutions to these critical issues. Also, as we engage in war I hope that we take every effort to minimize collateral damage to civilians and innocent people.

   Again, I want to commend and honor the outstanding men and women of our armed services who are carrying out their orders with great distinction.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

   (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and stand 1,000 percent behind our brave and selfless men and women in uniform.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

   At this decisive moment in history, all Americans stand 1000 percent behind our brave and selfless men and women in uniform.

   I have no doubt America will achieve a military victory in Iraq. The road after that will be long, and require sustained commitment along with the support of our allies.

   No one can predict fully the course of world events as this war begins, so we must draw our strength from one another. This is a time for reflection, and kindness to one another.

   I extend deepest respect to all the people of our community country who have open discussed and not shirked from their responsibilities as free citizens in addressing how best to defeat rising terrorism around the world. Your voices will shape a wiser course for the future.

   May the God that creates and sustains us all protect the world's children for a general of peace to come.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire of the Chair how many minutes we have remaining on each side?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 7 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 17 minutes remaining.

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

   As I mentioned earlier in the evening, this is a solemn moment. I wish I had the eloquence of diction to sway everyone within hearing distance to vote for this resolution. However, in my mind it is one that speaks loudly and clearly about the young men and young women who wear the uniform today, many of whom will be in harm's way very soon. They are all not Active Duty. We have 212,000 National Guard and reservists called up; 26,000 are in the Gulf area. Our hearts and thoughts are with them.

   Earlier in the evening the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) quoted that famous poem that came out of the First World War, Flanders Fields. Part of that poem reads:

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

   Every generation, it seems, has thrown the torch of freedom to hold it high. The generation today that stands guard for Americans wherever they may be, fighting terrorists or in the Gulf, are the ones that are holding that torch high today. We salute them and thank them.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone in this body to support this resolution. I give a special thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman, a veteran of the Army, the Vietnam conflict, for his courtesy and help in putting this resolution to the floor.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

   Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House tonight, especially this night. I suspicion that many of us came here because, as we would put it, we love this Nation. We love America. As I sit here and listened to this debate on this resolution tonight, it also crossed my mind that this is a resolution about that very thing, about loving America.

   Let me tell my colleagues a story about what loving America really is. I have some childhood friends back home in Colorado, Karen and Leon Palmer. I

[Page: H2246]

   When I came back here to be sworn in for my very first time in Congress, this 108th Congress, Matthew's mother Karen came by my house and she gave me a picture of Matthew inside the cockpit of his F-16. She could tell that this action that has now been joined might be coming. She looked at me and she said, ``Bob, please take care of Matthew. Keep him safe. Keep him well equipped. I would love to have him come home, but,'' she said, and this is what love is, ``more than that, I love this Nation, and I love the ideals of this Nation, and I love what this Nation is willing to protect. If I have to sacrifice my only son for the sake of this Nation and for the sake of liberty, Leon and I are prepared to do that.''

   Mr. Speaker, there is no greater love than that.

   There has been enough partisanship in this body tonight. We ought to check our partisanship at the doors of this great Chamber and vote in support of this resolution about love and about freedom and support our troops.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

   Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I offer my prayers, heartfelt sentiments and unwavering support to our American soldiers who are facing enemy fire in a faraway land. I also offer my prayers and my support to their families who eagerly await their safe return. However, I do not support the dastardly attempt by my Republican colleagues to demean our love and concern for our soldiers by shamelessly attempting to transfix our focus from them onto the narrow-minded and misguided policies of their Commander in Chief.

   Mr. Speaker, Scripture says in the book of Proverbs 29:2, ``When the righteous rule, the people rejoice. But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.'' Thousands of my fellow Americans are on the streets this night, on the streets of this Nation, protesting this unjust war. They groan because they do not understand and I do not understand why we are at war.

   Mr. Speaker, I respectfully cannot support this resolution as written.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

   Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. One of the age-old realities of politics is that old men sit in judgment and send young men off to war, some to die. Today we have young men and women fighting in the Gulf, fighting for our country. As with many of my colleagues, I have reservations, I have disagreements, I have questions. But I think at this moment in time, it is important that we put aside those questions, disagreements and questions, if you will, about how we got to this point, to unify behind these young men and women and let them know that they have our full support, because we indeed are sending them off to fight and perhaps die.

   So this evening, despite those reservations I may have, I am going to support this resolution. I hope my colleagues will do so as well and present to the world a united front of America, 100 percent behind our young men and women in harm's way. God bless these young men and women, and God bless America.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I had hoped that this time, that this resolution which was brought forward this evening would bring us together as a House, and perhaps after having some partisan work and working on a policy, budget policy, which often divides us, we would come together and find some common ground in commending our troops and commending our President.

   I think anybody who must be watching this from overseas must be wondering at this point, what is in this resolution that so many Members have come out from the Democrat side to condemn? I thought it might be good to go through the resolution, because this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991 after we took our first action in Iraq.

   What did we do here? The whereas clauses talk about the fact that there was an Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in which we stated it would be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. That vote passed, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly, Democrat and Republican. It also states that on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the authorization, and I would say this clearly for my colleagues, many of whom probably voted against this, but nonetheless it was the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that vote passed 296-133. It passed overwhelmingly. It passed more overwhelmingly than the vote that we passed in 1991.

   So what was so wrong with this resolution? This resolution followed the law, the steps that we took under the law, under United Nations resolution and under our own law that brought us to the culmination of this event in which it was necessary for the United States to interject force into the Iraq theater. We talked about Security Council Resolution 1441, now well known to most Members of this body that voted unanimously that Iraq will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions.

   It also said that Iraq remained in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions. That was clearly stated by the reports that were adopted by the United Nations. It was in material breach, and Saddam Hussein is in material breach of his obligations.

   So just like the resolution in 1991, we followed the law. We followed this trail of steps, very patient steps that the United States took, including acts that were signed by a Democrat President, stating that it was our policy to bring about a free Iraq. That is what we state in this resolution that you think is so poorly worded.

   What else did we do? When you get down to the meat of the resolution, and we talk about what it actually says, let us go to the resolved clause. First I want to go to the resolved clause that we passed in 1991 regarding the President and the troops and their families. We said in 1991 that we acclaim the President for his decisive leadership, unerring judgment and sound decisions. We say in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we express our support and appreciation to the President as Commander in Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism.

[Time: 02:00]

   Now, many of the faces that I see here who are condemning this resolution were thanking Mr. Rumsfeld a few hours ago for the clear judgment that is being shown by this administration in prosecuting this war. I had many Members come up to me from the Democrat side who said he was doing the right thing. They said we were lucky to have a person of that capability. We are lucky to have a team like this team that President George Bush has put together. So we commended our President because he is the Commander in Chief. We commended him in 1991. We commend him tonight.

   What else did we do? In 1991 we expressed our highest commendation and sincerest appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces and other members of the international coalition who participated in Operation Desert Storm and have demonstrated exceptional bravery, dedication and professionalism.

   Where is the trick language in this that you object to so much?

   And what did we do in this resolution? We said that we express our appreciation ``to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom,'' the present operation, ``who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery.'' Where is the trick language there? Where is the double meaning?

   Now we go to the families, and we say in this resolution ``to the families of the United States military personnel

[Page: H2247]

   What did we do in 1991? We said almost the same thing, and we conveyed our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of the United States and coalition forces who had been injured or killed during that operation.

   So, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991, I might add, with a Democrat Congress, those words that I read to you about the President exercising unerring judgment even though many of the Democratic leadership had voted against this operation in a much closer vote, incidentally, than the vote to allow force that we took this fall. So they talked about his judgment, and many of them have talked privately about his good judgment in the present operation when we are referring to the present President.

   The President and his team have done an excellent job. So maybe what we are really talking about is the cause. The many Members who I think did not represent a majority of the Democrat Party who came out here could have worked this resolution if they wanted it to say we do not really believe in the cause, but I do not think a majority of the Democrat Party wanted to say that because I do not think they believe it. I think they do believe in the cause. Do the Members know something else, Mr. Speaker? I think the people we are commending that we have been talking about all night believe in this cause, and maybe that is the difference between those people, those people wearing the uniform of the United States, and the people who wanted to use this forum to continue to debate this policy.

   The facts are this body believes in this cause. We have given permission to the President to use our most valuable asset, our most precious resource, our Armed Forces, to ensure that this just cause is carried out. And, Mr. Speaker, since we have all given our foreign policy statements here tonight, maybe we should listen to the foreign policy statement of a Marine leader just before he took his people across that line, and I want to read a statement that was issued to every member of the First Marine Division before they went into operation today. It comes from the commanding general, J.N. Mattis, and this is what he states. Even though I am sure some Members of the other side could take exception to his language, this is his position:

   ``For decades Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered the Iraqi people, invaded neighboring countries without provocation, and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.

   ``When I give you the word, together we will cross the line of departure close with those forces that choose to fight and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people nor is it with members of the Iraqi Army who choose to surrender. While we move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

   ``Chemical attack, treachery, and the use of the innocent as human shields can be expected as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted. Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our Nation.

   ``You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and a strong spirit.

   ``For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles, who fought for life and never lost their nerve, carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world that there is `No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a United States Marine.''

   Ladies and gentlemen, those people that wear the uniform do not have the disagreement with this resolution that so many Members from the other side had tonight. They know this is a good cause. They believe in this cause. They share this cause. They also believe that they have a great President leading them.

   May God bless them. May God bless America.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his eloquent statement.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

   (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this resolution to support our men and women in harm's way serving this country.

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

   Some discussion has been held tonight regarding foreign policy. Let me say my foreign policy. I speak of the valor and the courage and the dedication of young men and young women who are protecting freedom and safety of our country and of the free world, whether they be on the outskirts of Iraq or in Afghanistan or wherever they may be in this world. I hope everyone will see themselves clear to support and vote for this resolution so we can say thanks to those brave souls of America. We have lost some, as was recently said this evening, whose families will grieve, but it is for us to carry on and say thank you.

   Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator once said that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues, and I hope tonight by this vote we can express our gratitude and exhibit that virtue by voting for this resolution.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise in strong support of the work that our U.S. Armed Forces are doing in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. However, I cannot support the resolution offered by my friend, Mr. Hunter. I truly believe that war is not the answer to this question facing the world community.

   I truly believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and should not be allowed to oppress his people or threaten the rest of the world. Having said that, I would note that we should have given diplomacy a chance to work and more importantly, given the inspectors a chance to do their job to avert this military action.

   As a New Yorker, no one understands the reality of terrorism more than me and the people of Brooklyn; we all lost family and friends that day and were all thankful for the outpouring of support we received from the nation and the world in wake of the September 11th tragedies. Having said that, after seeing my city attacked with my own eyes that day I believe that the actions of this administration are wrong and short sighted.

   Once again, Mr. Speaker I stand with our troops this evening, but cannot commend those who would not work with the world community to find a peaceful solution to the problems that face our ever-shrinking world.

   Tonight I say thank you to our troops and know that I am praying for their safe return to America, but cannot vote for this resolution because I do not believe this to be a just war.

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the brave young men and women who are following orders that have placed them in harm's way. I hope and pray for their safe return. My thoughts and prayers are with them, their families and loved ones in this difficult time.

   While I will always support the troops, I cannot support this mission. Last night, the President ordered an unprovoked aggressive attack against Iraq in violation of American traditions of defensive war.

   This war is wrong. As a nation we must come together to support the troops, but continue to challenge the policy that has put them at grave risk.

   Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this resolution because, like every American, I want to see all of our troops come home safely and want to show my support for them and their families. I also want to see this war ended as quickly as possible, with a minimum of Iraqi casualties.

   I am disturbed, however, about the partisan nature of this resolution. Instead of simply indicating our support for the troops, this resolution has language in it which some might suggest indicates support for the policies of the President which have led us to where we are today. Let me be very clear. I do not support those policies. I do not support the concept of ``preemptive war.'' I do not support a foreign policy which undermines the United Nations,

[Page: H2248]

   Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator but I believe that, with the support of the international community and the United Nations, he could be contained and his weapons of mass destruction could be removed from him--without war and without killing and at a fraction of the cost that this war and occupation will cost. I also believe that with enforced and prolonged inspections, and with a strong commitment to human rights, the international community could bring democracy to Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the phenomenon of ``blow-back,'' or unintended consequences. The U.S., the most powerful military force on earth, will surely win this war in short order, but I'm not so sure that this victory will seem quite so clean and positive five years from now. I'm not so sure that the American occupation of Iraq will have all of the positive results that some think.

   Let me conclude by expressing my outrage about how, at a time when young men and women are in the line of fire in Iraq, the Republican leadership, on this very night, is voting to cut the benefits of our veterans. On one hand we vote to ``support the troops,'' while on the other hand we vote to deny health care and other promised benefits to those veterans who fought in the first Persian Gulf War, or Vietnam, or Korea or World War II. What hypocrisy! Yes. We apparently have billions available for tax breaks for the rich, but not enough to keep the promises we made to our veterans.

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the American men and women in uniform and their families who are providing key support and bearing such a heavy burden. Congress stands in solidarity with those given such a somber responsibility. This resolution is testimony to that unity.

   My vote on this resolution affirms my support for our troops, but should not be mistaken as an affirmation of the administration's foreign policies and diplomatic efforts, which I find wanting.

   Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, nearly 250,000 men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces are deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have just had notice of the first casualties with the crash of a Marine helicopter. I would like to convey my condolences to their families; my heart and prayers are with them at this difficult time.

   With the consideration of this resolution, I and every other Member of the United States House of Representatives wish to honor the courage and service of all our troops to this nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with them for their prompt and safe return home to their families.

   The House of Representatives could have better demonstrated support this evening for members of the Armed Forces past and present during deliberation and votes on the Budget resolution. The resolution that just passed will cut veterans benefits and fails to fulfill the commitment to lifelong care and care of dependents made to our young men and women at the time of enlistment. I voted against the Republican budget Resolution that mandated the cuts in veterans benefits. Instead I voted for an alternative budget resolution that would have fully funded veterans programs and met our nation's obligation to those who have served selflessly in defense of our freedoms.

   I will vote for this resolution to further demonstrate my support for our young men and women in the armed forces. I only wish that all those who join me in this vote had demonstrated a similar commitment when it came to full funding for veterans programs. In casting my aye vote for the troops, I want to note that I would have offered a motion to strike the whereas clause beginning at the bottom of page 2 extending to the top of page 3. I also find that the assertion at the end of line 6 ending on line 7 (p. 4) is not supported by any facts released by the CIA or other intelligence agencies and was, in fact, debunked in a publicly released CIA document last fall.

   I have previously made known my concerns with the new policies of pre-emptive and preventative war. I have also spoken of the failure of the United States Congress to fulfill its duty under Article I Section 8, the duty to debate and declare war. Now, as we mourn the first casualties and honor our soldiers still on the front lines, is not the time to continue that debate despite the concerns I expressed earlier. However, there will come a day in the not too distant future when the House will no longer be able to avoid its duties.

   Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for our troops and for this resolution.

   First and foremost my heart and prayers are with the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who right now are engaged in a dangerous, but necessary war to rid the world of an evil dictator who threatens the world with his weapons of mass destruction. Our troops are courageously risking their lives for, not only the freedom and security of the people of the United States, but for the people of Iraq, and the entire world.

   For 12 years, the United States and United Nations have called on Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. passed 16 resolutions ordering him to do so. He has chosen not to comply. HIs history of using weapons of mass destruction, plus the likelihood that he could give these weapons of mass destruction to his agents in the U.S. or to terrorist organizations to use against Americans at home or abroad make him a clear and present danger to America.

   The risks of this war are great, but the risks of not going to war to disarm Saddam Hussein now are far greater. With September 11 very much in my mind, I believe that our government must be proactive in protecting our people and our homeland.

   I am mindful of, and have had extensive discussions with, the many people of good faith in my district who oppose taking action against Saddam Hussein at this point in time. I have great respect for them and for their strongly held views. But I hope that all Americans will join me today in supporting our troops as these brave young Americans place themselves in harm's way on behalf of our nation.

   I pray for the safety of the brave men and women in our armed forces and for the innocent Iraqi people. I look forward to the elimination of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and to the liberation of the Iraqi people from this murderous, sadistic dictator.

   May God bless our troops and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

   Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 104.

   The security of our Nation and the freedoms we enjoy will not be held hostage by a brutal dictator or terrorists whose only aim is to destroy our way of life. We will not live in fear.

   The very real threat of an attack on America by terrorists who would use weapons of mass destruction cannot be left to chance. This risk is too great.

   In the face of such threats, our current military action in Iraq, with our allies, is warranted.

   As many of my colleagues have said before me this evening: Saddam Hussein must be stopped. His arsenal of terror must be eliminated. The terrorist networks with whom he allies himself must be destroyed. America must and will lead the free world to disarm Saddam Hussein and stop terrorism.

   We have a duty to protect our people, and this we will do with courage and conviction.

   This is the call to action our young men and women in uniform have heard, and for their sacrifices, we owe them our gratitude, our prayers and all of America's support.

   Our Commander in Chief has given our brave, young soldiers their orders. They are following those orders with precision, professionalism, compassion and courage. At the end of this battle, the world will be a safer place without Hussein, his anthrax, toxins and nerve gas, or the terrorists he aids and abets.

   Our troops now go into battle to defend our Nation and protect our children's future.

   As those of us who have seen war know, the price of freedom is paid for by the sacrifices of those who serve. Their courage is our inspiration.

   We wish them Godspeed, swift victory, and safe return.

• [End Insert]

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as I vote for this resolution tonight, I am mindful that many of my constituents remain opposed to United States action in Iraq, and believe it reflects an abuse of United States power which unnecessarily risks human life and sets us on a dangerous path for the future.

   I want to explain to those constituents, whose views are heartfelt and well intended, why I respectfully disagree.

   The President's decision to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his WMD was, indeed, controversial. I had hoped diplomacy would succeed, and that, even if it failed, the threat of imminent force would cause the Iraqi regime to seek exile.

   One day, when we look back to write the history of these past months, we will undoubtedly conclude that there were many mistakes--some by the United States, many by our allies in the United Nations, and critical ones by Hussein and the leadership of Iraq. And we will learn from those mistakes.

   But this resolution does to debate the issue of whether we should have gone to war. It merely expresses support and appreciation for those commanding the war, including the President as Commander in Chief, and for our young heroes, those in uniform,

[Page: H2249]

   Mr. Speaker, we must not make the mistake we made during and after the Vietnam war. This time, let's support the women and men serving in our Armed Forces--and, as importantly, welcome them home with open arms.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution commending our brave men and women of the armed services. I wish them Godspeed and a quick and decisive victory so they can return home soon and safe.

   America is the greatest democracy the world has ever known. The advent of a new century has brought new threats and new terrors never before imagined that threaten our cherished freedoms and liberties. Fortunately, we have some of the finest citizens of our country who choose to serve to defend those cherished liberties, even at times, by giving their last full measure of their lives. They do it for their country, they do it for their families, and they do it for their buddies in the foxhole next to them, and thank God they do it well. Each generation has faced its own unique challenges and has risen to address them. Now it's our turn and I am confident that the current generation of servicemen and servicewomen will perform honorably and successfully. We are so very proud of them.

   With military action to disarm Saddam Hussein just underway, my thoughts and prayers are with these men and women, as well as their families. Over 2,200 members of the Wisconsin Air and Army National Guard are serving on active duty as well as many Reservists from across the Badger State. Our appreciation not only goes out to them but also to their families and their employers for their support and sacrifice during these challenging times.

   I want to particularly express my appreciation to the members and families of the Wisconsin Army National Guard's 229th Engineer Company out of Prairie du Chien and Platteville under the command of Capt. Robert Pruitt, the 829th Engineer Detachment out of Richland Center under the command of Capt. Kurt Geilfuss, and the 1158th Transportation Company with members from Tomah and Black River Falls under the leadership of 1LT Jason Stebbins, and Army Reserve's 652nd Engineer Company out of Ellsworth under the command of Capt. Dean Kasparek. These units have been activated and deployed. They can take great pride in knowing that they are part of the greatest military force the world has ever known and that they have the support of a grateful nation. We owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.

   I also want to thank Maj. Gen. Al Wilkening, the Wisconsin Adjunct General and LTC Tim Donovan of the Wisconsin Army National Guard, along with Col. Mike Stazak, commander of Ft. McCoy, Army Reserve Total Force Training Center and his staff in western Wisconsin. The people of Wisconsin are proud of their service and the service of all the men and women of our armed services during this important time in our Nation's history.

   As our military effort continues, I and other members of Congress will work to ensure that our service men and women have all the resources necessary to fulfill their mission. My thoughts and prayers are with those serving our country, as well as their families. America is firmly behind our troops and we're all hoping to see them home safe, secure, and soon.

   May God bless our troops during this difficult time and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

   Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues, worked to keep America's sons and daughters out of harm's way and to protect the innocent civilians of Iraq by encouraging the continuation of U.N. inspections and diplomatic efforts to gain the support of the United Nations Security Council.

   I am deeply disappointed that the President instead has chosen to begin military action. But the fact is, since the decision was made to go to war, we must do everything in our power to support and protect our troops and to prevent civilian casualties.

   I, like all Americans, am deeply grateful for the patriotism of our troops, their courage and the sacrifices they are willing to make. I join all Americans in praying for their prompt and safe return home to America and to their families.

   Since September 11, 2001, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide the tools necessary for our military forces to accomplish the difficult tasks given to them. I have supported these efforts because our fighting men and women deserve the very best. With our troops now engaged in conflict, Congress and the President must make certain that our armed force continue to promptly receive the necessary resource to end the war and to secure the peace when the conflict ends.

   As the wife of a former Marine and as the stepmother of a proud member of the Army, I also want to thank our country's military families who share fully in the sacrifices of our military personnel. I will work with congressional leaders to continue to address the particular needs of these families during these difficult times and work to insure that full veteran benefits are available to them when they return.

   The United States must continue diplomacy to bring together the broadest coalition to aid our efforts during and after the military conflict. America will need the support of our allies to help the people of Iraq rebuild their country.

   Mr. Speaker, tonight our prayers and thoughts for our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians are perhaps best expressed by the American poet, Longfellow, who wrote so poignantly:

Our hearts, our hopes are all with thee.
Our hearts, our hopes our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee--are all with thee.

   Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this resolution that expresses our appreciation for our Armed Forces and their families. As a proud member of the Veterans Committee, I have worked to champion the causes of our brave men and women in uniform every day. As we enter a time of peril for our troops, and a time of concern in the hearts of their loved ones, it is important that the Congress is steadfast in our support.

   I do have reservations, however, about the full content of this resolution. It mixes a statement of support for our troops, a sentiment that unites this Congress and our Nation, with support for the policies and plans of the administration--policies that remain controversial in this body and among many Americans.

   It is the right--indeed, it is the duty--of elected representatives in a Democracy to question, to debate, and to voice the concerns of their constitutes. This resolution seeks to suppress all such concerns in a cynical act of politics, by forcing members either to vote in favor of all of the policies, or risk showing disdain for the troops. This kind of politicking has no place in what should be a pure and genuine expression of national unity.

   I am voting for this resolution tonight because the sacrifice of our troops and their families deserves to be honored. But I object to the way in which this was brought forward, and I hope that this body will show a greater regard for all of the voices in our Nation in the future.

   Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 104, a measure to honor our men and women in uniform and the families who support them.

   Mr. Speaker, the meaning of this resolution strikes close to home because many men and women from my district are currently deployed overseas or they are in the cue to be deployed. There must be a remarkable level of stress associated with deployment. Uncertainty can be the largest contributor to this anxiety. Uncertain where they will be sent, uncertain as to what they will see. But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, there is no uncertainty in what they must do.

   I know first hand that those airmen from the Air Force Special Operations Command, based at Hurburt Field, are of the best trained, best equipped members in our United States Armed Forces. They go hand in hand with the Rangers who trained at Camp Rudder in the Northwest Florida swamps, the sailors who trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station and Whiting field, the Air Force Reservists from Duke Field and the airmen from the 33rd Fighter Wing, the Nomads, from Eglin Air Force Base.

   These are the faces of our forces in Iraq. These men and women, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, are the people who have volunteered to defend our freedom wherever a defense is needed. They protect the very fabric that gives protestors the right to protest, the editorialist the right to editorialize and the security where we can move about our day, completing our routine duties, without fear of oppression or persecution based on our simple, God-given rights.

   As you, Mr. Speaker, I've seen many object to our efforts to liberate Iraq. I am deeply troubled by their lack of understanding as to what our troops are battling but at the same time I am proud of our Nation and the beacon of light we shine around the world--that those objections are permitted. Nobody here expects everyone to agree with every policy implemented. But I have yet to see a single protest against the Iraqi regime in downtown Baghdad. I would highly doubt the citizens in Iraq are truly comfortable with living a life of terror at the hands of their own government. I doubt they move about their daily routines without fear of persecution. I know they cannot assemble to oppose the government or publicize their written thoughts that run contrary to the views of the ruling regime.

   Mr. speaker, we here in the United States, Western Europe and scores of other countries are fortunate to live in a land where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are abundant, and I would submit, taken for granted. I look forward to the Iraqi people living in the same type of land and I thank the troops for bringing them to our welcoming arms.

[Page: H2250]

   May God bless and protect our men and women in Uniform and continue to bless the United States of America.

   Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, as we speak and assemble on the floor of the House tonight, young men and women of our Armed Forces are ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation. Indeed, 12 American and four British soldiers died when their U.S. Marine helicopter crashed in Kuwait just hours ago. My condolences and prayers are with their families at this most difficult time.

   About 3,600 of the troops honorably serving in the Persian Gulf today are from Fort Bliss in my own district. I have been fortunate and honored to meet many of them and their families. These men and women have already shown their remarkable abilities, manning Patriot missile battalions that successfully defended Kuwait and allied troops against Iraqi Scud missiles earlier today. I am very proud to represent these brave and capable soldiers. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they face the dangers and uncertainties of war. And my thoughts and prayers extend to their families as well, who must anxiously await their loved ones' safe return. The mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, wives and husbands, and brothers and sisters of our service members are making sacrifices of their own, and enduring a challenging time. They deserve our recognition and appreciation.

   I commend all the members of our Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom for their patriotism, bravery, and professionalism. I also wish to express my appreciation to the British and Australian troops who are fighting alongside Americans in combat, and to the personnel from other allied countries who are providing support to our forces.

   I support our Government's efforts to prosecute this war swiftly and successfully, with a minimum of military and civilian causalities. Our soldiers deserve our fullest support, and they can count on me for that for however long this war may last.

   Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the men and women of our armed services. These courageous Americans are putting their lives on the line in order to serve our country, and I pray that they succeed swiftly in their mission and return home safely.

   I also want to express my support for the families of our troops, who are patiently awaiting their return with heavy hearts. My thoughts and prayers go out to you during these difficult times.

   While I fully support our troops, I am frustrated and deeply disappointed by the resolution that we are being asked to consider tonight. I vehemently disagree with the President's decision to abandon a diplomatic solution to disarm Saddam Hussein, and cannot support a resolution that endorses that decision.

   I was proud to support H.J. Res. 27 two weeks ago, a resolution commending the service of our Armed Forces. However, it is with a heavy heart that I must oppose the resolution we have before us tonight.

   Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I back this resolution because of my complete support and admiration of the brave men and women in our armed services. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude to these selfless individuals who have put themselves in harm's way in service of our Nation. Like many of my fellow Americans, I still disagree with the process that brought us to this juncture and my vote here does not represent any change in that belief. But I pray for a quick end to this conflict and for the safe return of all of our men and women in uniform.

   Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H. Con. Res. 104. It is very fitting that we honor those men and women who tonight are making the world a safer place. Their mission is legal and, more importantly, just. I am certain they will succeed in changing an evil regime, they will succeed in eliminating dangerous chemical and biological weapons, and they will succeed in liberating the people of Iraq.

   Our thoughts and prayers must also go out to the families of our troops. Their sacrifice is great and must be acknowledged.

   There is no greater love than the love of a family, so as a nation, as family America, we must send our love to families whose members are in harm's way defending our freedom.

   And finally recognizing our President for his leadership, his strength, his decency and his commitment to the American people.

   I hope and pray for a swift and safe return for all of our troops. May God bless our military and their families. And may God bless America.

   Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to vote to support our brave armed forces. I will vote for this resolution. My thoughts and prayers are with the men and women in uniform who are serving our country in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. They will, without doubt, perform admirably. While I am disappointed that this resolution contains dubious and politically opportunistic language regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism, that cannot stop me from endorsing the valor and dedication of our troops. Although I remain concerned that this war will make our country less instead of more safe, I deeply respect the personal sacrifice and commitment of our armed forces. Our democracy permits and even encourages disagreement, but it cannot tolerate disrespect towards our men and women in uniform.

   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as we vote today to commend our troops, I would like to take the opportunity to express my personal support for our brave men and women in uniform who are in harm's way, and to hope for their safe return home after a victory on the battlefield.

   The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally-enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them.

   Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our so-called ``NATO allies'' and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security.

   For now all such foreign policy debates are on hold, and I hope all Americans will join in supporting our troops in the successful completion of their mission.

   Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my unequivocal support of our men and women in uniform currently participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I would also like to thank my colleague Chairman HUNTER for bringing this important and timely resolution to the floor.

   As we speak, our armed forces are beginning the second day of their quest to end the reign of one of the most diabolical tyrants the world has ever known. As they advance on their objective, the professionalism and abilities of our troops are obvious. These brave men and women--so far from home--bear upon their shoulders the task of keeping the world safe so that the rest of us can enjoy the comforts of freedom.

   While no one doubts that ultimate success will be theirs, the dangers our troops face are all too real. Not long ago we received the sad news that a helicopter crash has claimed the lives of 12 U.S. Marines and 4 British soldiers. It is unlikely these casualties will be the last, but we are comforted in the knowledge that the sacrifices they have made will help make the world a safer place.

   Saddam Hussien had ample opportunity to join the peace-loving nations of the world, but he refused at every turn. Thus, if falls to our troops to finally put an end to his murderous regime. Earlier today they crossed the line of departure, and are now closing with those enemy forces that chose to put up resistance. But more important than the fear they bring to the allies of Saddam is the hope they bring to the Iraqi people, who soon will see their great and ancient civilization flourish once again.

   As for Saddam, he will experience for a second time that there is no great friend, no worse enemy than a member of the U.S. military.

   Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support our brave troops in harm's way, as they fight to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction.

   My gratitude and prayers are with the 270,000 brave American troops at war to protect the American people, including 2,512 Minnesota National Guard and Reserve Troops.

   Mr. Speaker, politics stops when war starts. It's time for all members of this body to take off their political hats and put on their American hats in support of our troops. At time of war, there are no Republicans, no Democrats and no Independents, only Americans.

   As Americans, we have the will power and the staying power to accomplish this mission and bring our troops home safely.

   Thanks to our brave troops, I am confident we will be successful at disarming this brutal and murderous dictator of his weapoons of mass destruciton. And for that, Mr. Speaker, they deserve our deepest gratitude, respect and prayers.

   May God bless our troops and our Commander-in-Chief, and may God bless America!

   Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand 100% behind our troops. The brave men and women in uniform who have volunteered to defend our country are in my thoughts, and in my prayers. I pledge to work to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to help them accomplish their mission quickly and safely so that they can return home to their families.

[Page: H2251]

   I also pray for the family members who sent their loved ones into harm's way to protect the freedom that every American enjoys. They are to be commended for their sacrifice and unwavering support for our troops.

   My home state of Florida has sent over 5,000 Reserve and National Guard personnel to Iraq with the full understanding that not all of them would return to their families and loved ones, and my heart goes out to these brave Floridians.

   Every member of our Armed Forces deserves our deep and unending gratitude for their professionalism and commitment to the ideals of this great country.

   For the record, I would like to express my support for the second and third Whereas clause of the resolution we are currently debating, and I would like to submit Congressman HASTINGS' Resolution support the troops which I support in its entirety.

   May God continue to bless America.

• [End Insert]

   H. Con. Res.--

   Whereas the valiant and dedicated members of the United States Armed Forces consistently perform in an exceptionally professional manner befitting an all-volunteer military force;

   Whereas the members of Reserve and National Guard components of the Armed Forces consistently demonstrate their readiness and ability to respond and deploy quickly to become an integral part of the active components;

   Whereas the families of the active and reserve forces provide exceptional and unwavering support for deployed forces;

   Whereas the valiant members of the military forces of the allies of the United States share common goals and objectives with the United States in the war on terrorism and the war with Iraq; and

   Whereas all citizens of the United States and the allies of the United States have demonstrated a show of unity in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and against the threat to global security and crimes against humanity posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

    (1) each member of the Armed Forces of the United States be commended for serving with such distinction and professionalism;

    (2) the family members of members of the Armed Forces of the United States be commended for their special role in providing support for the members of the Armed Forces;

    (3) each allied service member be commended for serving with such distinction and professionalism; and

    (4) all citizens of the United States pay homage to the members of the Armed Forces and their families and to allied service members and their families.

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

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

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the order of the House earlier this legislative day, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.

   The question is on the concurrent resolution.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

END

2D) A Threat to Taiwan
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns regarding the constant threat to Taiwan from missiles in China , and the signal that this military buildup sends to both the people of China and the people of Taiwan about the eventual peaceful resolution to the Taiwan dispute.

Currently, there are more than 400 Chinese missiles targeted on Taiwan, with fifty or more being added each year. Also, China has devised strategies to destroy Taiwan's political, communications, and production centers within days. What is even more menacing is that China has reiterated that it will use force against Taiwan if Taiwan refuses to accept China's ``one country, two systems'' unification formula.

I believe that China's intimidation of Taiwan questions its seriousness about being considered a major world power. China must not ignore Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's repeated pleas for resumption of a cross-strait dialogue. If war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, China , Taiwan and the rest of the countries in the Asian Pacific will all suffer irreparable economic and political damage.

We in the United States feel most strongly that a military clash in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. I call upon the Chinese government to dismantle the hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan and to embrace peace in managing its relations with Taiwan.

3A) Help American Liberators

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, in days when wars were fought with bows and arrows, the international doctrine of self-defense said that a nation should not go to war unless attacked. But in these days of weapons of mass destruction and in these days following September 11, we no longer enjoy such a privilege. Americans cannot gamble on the false hope that Saddam Hussein, who has already killed one million of his own people, will not team up with the al Qaeda terrorists who have the intention and the determination to kill a million Americans.

   This lethal combination of Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and the al Qaeda network of international terrorists is too much to be left in the hands of the U.N. Security Council.

[Page: H1906]  GPO's PDF

   For those who think we have no reason to fight, no reason to ever go to war, I ask you to envision a Saddam Hussein who is the new hidden financier behind the al Qaeda network, a Saddam Hussein as a secret arms broker for the al Qaeda network, and a Saddam Hussein who has become the new leader of the al Qaeda network.

   This is why Americans must choose to put their future in the hands of the American administration, in our own military. Our future and your children is dependent upon us and our Nation protecting itself. This wounded beast, the Iraqis, this wounded beast, the al Qaeda network, will team up and come after us like a wounded beast, like a wounded bear.

   In addition, America lives by a moral obligation to lift up the weak, defend the oppressed, and free those too enslaved to free themselves. We come as liberators not conquerors. We have proven our just and true intentions in liberating other Islamic nations like Kuwait, like Bosnia, like Afghanistan. We have shown the Muslim world that we can help you be free and respect your faith.

   So rise up, people of Iraq, overthrow the Butcher of Baghdad. Begin to dream now of how you can rebuild your nation, how you can choose to institute a representative form of government of your own choosing. You need not be content with the mediocrity imposed upon you. Your Iraqi brothers and sisters will return to your homeland from exile. They will help rebuild your nation. This is your chance, a second chance to breathe free. Rise up now and help the American liberators.

3C) Biological Terrorism

   S. 666. A bill to provide incentives to increase research by private sector entities to develop antivirals, antibiotics and other drugs, vaccines, microbicides, detection, and diagnostic technologies to prevent and treat illnesses associated with a biological, chemical, or radiological weapons attack; to the Committee on Finance.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, America has a major flaw in its defenses against bioterrorism. Hearings I chaired in the Government Affairs Committee on bioterrorism demonstrated that America has not made a national commitment to research and development of treatments and cures for those who might be exposed to or infected by a biological agent, chemical toxin, or radiological material. Correcting this critical gap is the purpose of legislation we are introducing today.

   This legislation is a refined and upgraded version of legislation I introduced last year, S. 1764, December 4, 2001, and S. 3148, October 17, 2002, and I am delighted that Senator Hatch has joined me as the lead cosponsor of the new bill.

   Obviously, our first priority must be to attempt to prevent the use of these agents and toxins by terrorists, quickly assess when an attack has occurred, take appropriate public health steps to contain the exposure, stop the spread of contagion, and then detoxify the site. These are all critical functions, but in the end we must recognize that some individuals may be exposed or infected. Then the critical issue is whether we can treat and cure them and prevent death and disability.

   In short, we need a diversified portfolio of medicines. In cases where we have ample advance warning of an attack and specific information about the agent, toxin, or material, we may be able to vaccinate the vulnerable population in advance. In other cases, even if we have a vaccine, we might well prefer to use medicines that would quickly stop the progression of the disease or the toxic effects. We also need a powerful capacity quickly to develop new countermeasures where we face a new agent, toxin, or material.

   Unfortunately, we are woefully short of vaccines and medicines to treat individuals who are exposed or infected. We have antibiotics that seem to work for most of those infected in the current anthrax attack, but these have not prevented five deaths. We have no effective vaccines or medicines for most other biological agents and chemical toxins we might confront. We have very limited capacity to respond medically to a radiological attack. In some cases we have vaccines to prevent, but no medicines to treat, an agent. We have limited capacity to speed the development of vaccines and medicines to prevent or treat novel agents and toxins not currently known to us.

   We have provided, and should continue to provide, direct Federal funding for research and development of new

[Page: S4010]

   The legislation we introduce today would provide incentives for private biotechnology companies to form capital to develop countermeasures--medicines--to prevent, treat and cure victims of bioterror, chemical and radiological attacks. This will enable this industry to become a vital part of the national defense infrastructure and do so for business reasons that make sense for their investors on the bottom line.

   Enactment of these incentives is necessary because most biotech companies have no approved products or revenue from product sales to fund research. They rely on investors and equity capital markets to fund the research. They must necessarily focus on research that will lead to product sales and revenue and, thus, to an end to their dependence on investor capital. There is no established or predictable market for countermeasures. These concerns are shared by pharmaceutical firms. Investors are justifiably reluctant to fund this research, which will present challenges similar in complexity to AIDS. Investors need assurances that research on countermeasures has the potential to provide a rate of return commensurate with the risk, complexity and cost of the research, a rate of return comparable to that which may arise from a treatment for cancer, MS, Cystic Fibrosis and other major diseases.

   It is in our national interest to enlist these companies in the development of countermeasures as biotech companies tend to be innovative and nimble and intently focused on the intractable diseases for which no effective medical treatments are available.

   The incentives we have proposed are innovative and some may be controversial. We invite everyone who has an interest and a stake in this research to enter into a dialogue about the issue and about the nature and terms of the appropriate incentives. We have attempted to anticipate the many complicated technical and policy issues that this legislation raises. The key focus of our debate should be how, not whether, we address this critical gap in our public health infrastructure and the role that the private sector should play. Millions of Americans will be at risk if we fail to enact legislation to meet this need.

   On November 26 of 2001, the Centers for Disease Control issued its interim working draft plan for responding to an outbreak of smallpox. The plan does not call for mass vaccination in advance of a smallpox outbreak because the risk of side effects from the vaccine outweighs the risks of someone actually being exposed to the smallpox virus. At the heart of the plan is a strategy sometimes called ``search and containment.''

   This strategy involves identifying infected individual or individuals with confirmed smallpox, identifying and locating those people who come in contact with that person, and vaccinating those people in outward rings of contact. The goal is to produce a buffer of immune individuals and was shown to prevent smallpox and to ultimately eradicate the outbreak. Priorities would be set on who is vaccinated, perhaps focusing on the outward rings before those at the center of the outbreak. The plan assumes that the smallpox vaccination is effective for persons who have been exposed to the disease as long as the disease has not taken hold.

   In practice it may be necessary to set a wide perimeter for these areas because smallpox is highly contagious before it might be diagnosed. There may be many areas subject to search and containment because people in our society travel frequently and widely. Terrorists might trigger attacks in a wide range of locations to multiply the confusion and panic. The most common form of smallpox has a 30 percent mortality rate, but terrorists might be able to obtain supplies of ``flat-type'' smallpox with a mortality rate of 96 percent and hemorrhagic-type smallpox, which is almost always fatal. For these reasons, the CDC plan accepts the possibility that whole cities or other geographic areas could be cordoned off, letting no one in or out--a quarantine enforced by police or troops.

   The plan focuses on enforcement authority through police or National Guard, isolation and quarantine, mandatory medical examinations, and rationing of medicines. It includes a discussion of ``population-wide quarantine measures which restrict activities or limit movement of individuals [including] suspension of large public gatherings, closing of public places, restriction on travel [air, rail, water, motor vehicle, and pedestrian], and/or `cordon sanitaire' [literally a `sanitary cord' or line around a quarantined area guarded to prevent spread of disease by restricting passage into or out of the area].'' The CDC recommends that states update their laws to provide authority for ``enforcing quarantine measures'' and it recommends that States in ``pre-event planning'' identify ``personnel who can enforce these isolation and quarantine measures, if necessary.'' Guide C--Isolation and Quarantine, page 17.

   On October 23, 2001, the CDC published a ``Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.'' It was prepared by the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, in conjunction with the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of City and County Health Officers, and National Association of Attorneys General. A copy of the model law is printed at www.publichealthlaw.net. The law would provide powers to enforce the ``compulsory physical separation (including the restriction of movement or confinement) of individuals and/or groups believed to have been exposed to or known to have been infected with a contagious disease from individuals who are believed not to have been exposed or infected, in order to prevent or limit the transmission of the disease to others.'' Federal law on this subject is very strong and the Administration can always rely on the President's Constitution authority as Commander in Chief.

   Let us try to imagine, however, what it would be like if a quarantine is imposed. Let us assume that there is not enough smallpox vaccine available for use in a large outbreak, that the priority is to vaccinate those in the outward rings of the containment area first, that the available vaccines cannot be quickly deployed inside the quarantined area, that it is not possible to quickly trace and identify all of the individuals who might have been exposed, and/or that public health workers themselves might be infected. We know that there is no medicine to treat those who do become infected. We know the mortality rates. It is not hard to imagine how much force might be necessary to enforce the quarantine. It would be quite unacceptable to permit individuals to leave the quarantined area no matter how much panic had taken hold.

   Think about how different this scenario would be if we had medicines that could effectively treat and cure those who become infected by smallpox. We still might implement the CDC plan but a major element of the strategy would be to persuade people to visit their local clinic or hospital to be dispenses their supply of medicine. We could trust that there would be a very high degree of voluntary compliance. This would give us more time, give us options if the containment is not successful, give us options to treat those in the containment area who are infected, and enable us to quell the public panic.

   Because we have no medicine to treat those infected by smallpox, we have to be prepared to implement a plan like the one CDC has proposed. Theirs is the only option because our options are so limited. We need to expand our range of options.

   We should not be lulled by the apparent successes with Cipro and the strains of anthrax we have seen in the recent attacks. We have not been able to prevent death in some of the patients with late-stage inhalation anthrax and Robert Stevens, Thomas Morris Jr., Joseph Curseen, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren died. This legislation is named in honor of

[Page: S4011]

   As I have said, we need an effective treatment for those who become infected with smallpox. We have a vaccine that effectively prevents smallpox infection, and administering this vaccine within four days of first exposure has been shown to offer some protections against acquiring infection and significant protection against a fatal outcome. The problem is that administering the vaccine in this time frame to all those who might have been exposed may be exceedingly difficult. And once infection has occurred, we have no effective treatment options.

   In the last century 500 million people have died of smallpox--more than have from any other infectious diseases--as compared to 320 million deaths in all the wars of the twentieth century. Smallpox was one of the diseases that nearly wiped out the entire Native American population in this hemisphere. The last naturally acquired case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977 and the last case from laboratory exposure was in 1978.

   Smallpox is a nasty pathogen, carried in microscopic airborne droplets inhaled by its victims. The first signs are headache, fever, nausea and backache, sometimes convulsions and delirium. Soon, the skin turns scarlet. When the fever lets up, the telltale rash appears--flat red spots that turn into pimples, then big yellow pustules, then scabs. Smallpox also affects the throat and eyes, and inflames the heart, lungs, liver, intestines and other internal organs. Death often came from internal bleeding, or from the organs simply being overwhelmed by the virus. Survivors were left covered with pockmarks--if they were lucky. The unlucky ones were left blind, their eyes permanently clouded over. Nearly one in four victims died. The infection rate is estimated to be 25-40 percent for those who are unvaccinated and a single case can cause 20 or more additional infections.

   During the 16th Century, 3.5 million Aztecs--more than half the population died of smallpox during a two-year span after the Spanish army brought the disease to Mexico. Two centuries later, the virus ravaged George Washington's troops at Valley Forge. And it cut a deadly path through the Crow, Dakota, Sioux, Blackfoot, Apache, Comanche and other American Indian tribes, helping to clear the way for white settlers to lay claim to the western plains. The epidemics began to subside with one of medicine's most famous discoveries: the finding by British physician Edward Jenner in 1796 that English milkmaids who were exposed to cowpox, a mild second cousin to smallpox that afflicts cattle, seemed to be protected against the more deadly disease. Jenner's work led to the development of the first vaccine in Western medicine. While later vaccines used either a killed or inactivated form of the virus they were intended to combat, the smallpox vaccine worked in a different way. It relied on a separate, albeit related virus: first cowpox and the vaccinia, a virus of mysterious origins that is believed to be a cowpox derivative. The last American was vaccinated back in the 1970s and half of the US population has never been vaccinated. It is not known how long these vaccines provide protection, but it is estimated that the term is 3 to 5 years.

   In an elaborate smallpox biowarfare scenario enacted in February 1999 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, it was projected that within two months 15,000 people had died, epidemics were out of control in fourteen countries, all supplies of smallpox vaccine were depleted, the global economy was on the verge of collapse, and military control and quarantines were in place. Within twelve months it was projected that eighty million people worldwide had died.

   A single case of smallpox today would become a global public health threat and it has been estimated that a single smallpox bioterror attack on a single American city would necessitate the vaccination of 30 to 40 million people.

   The US government is now in the process of purchasing substantial stocks of the smallpox vaccine. We then face a very difficult decision on deploying the vaccine. We know that some individuals will have an adverse reaction to this vaccine. No one in the United States has been vaccinated against smallpox in twenty-five years. Those that were vaccinated back then may not be protected against the disease today. If we had an effective treatment for those who might become infected by smallpox, we would face much less pressure regarding deploying the vaccine. If we face a smallpox epidemic from a bioterrorism attack, we will have no Cipro to reassure the public and we will be facing a highly contagious disease and epidemic. To be blunt, it will make the current anthrax attack look benign by comparison.

   Smallpox is not the only threat. We have seen other epidemics in this century. The 1918 influenza epidemic provides a sobering admonition about the need for research to develop medicines. In two years, a fifth of the world's population was infected. In the United States the 1918 epidemic killed more than 650,000 people in a short period of time and left 20 million seriously ill, one fourth of the entire population. The average lifespan in the US was depressed by ten years. In just one year, the epidemic killed 21 million human beings worldwide--well over twice the number of combat deaths in the whole of World War I. The flu was exceptionally virulent to begin with and it then underwent several sudden and dramatic mutations in its structure. Such mutations can turn flu into a killer because its victims' immune systems have no antibodies to fight off the altered virus. Fatal pneumonia can rapidly develop.

   Another deadly toxin, ricin toxin, was of interest to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. At an al-Qaeda safehouse in Saraq Panza, Kabul reporters found instructions for making ricin. The instructions make chilling reading. ``A certain amount, equal to a strong dose, will be able to kill an adult, and a dose equal to seven seeds will kill a child,'' one page reads. Another page says: ``Gloves and face mask are essential for the preparation of ricin. Period of death varies from 3 to 5 days minimum, 4 to 14 days maximum.'' The instructions listed the symptoms of ricin as vomiting, stomach cramps, extreme thirst, bloody diarrhea, throat irritation, respiratory collapse and death.

   No specific treatment or vaccine for ricin toxin exists. Ricin is produced easily and inexpensively, highly toxic, and stable in aerosolized form. A large amount of ricin is necessary to infect whole populations--the amount of ricin necessary to cover a 100-km\2\ area and cause 50 percent lethality, assuming aerosol toxicity of 3 mcg/kg and optimum dispersal conditions, is approximately 4 metric tons, whereas only 1 kg of Bacillus anthracis is required. But it can be used to terrorize a large population with great effect because it is so lethal.

   Use of ricin as a terror weapon is not theoretical. In 1991 in Minnesota, 4 members of the Patriots Council, an extremist group that held antigovernment and antitax ideals and advocated the overthrow of the US government, were arrested for plotting to kill a US marshal with ricin. The ricin was produced in a home laboratory. They planned to mix the ricin with the solvent dimethyl sulfoxide, DMSO, and then smear it on the door handles of the marshal's vehicle. The plan was discovered, and the 4 men were convicted. In 1995, a man entered Canada from Alaska on his way to North Carolina. Canadian custom officials stopped the man and found him in possession of several guns, $98,000, and a container of white powder, which was identified as ricin. In 1997, a man shot his stepson in the face. Investigators discovered a makeshift laboratory in his basement and found agents such as ricin and nicotine sulfate. And, ricin was used by the Bulgarian secret police when they killed Georgi Markov by stabbing him with a poison umbrella as he crossed Waterloo Bridge in 1978.

   Going beyond smallpox, influenza, and ricin, we do not have an effective vaccine or treatment for dozens of other deadly and disabling agents and toxins. Here is a partial list of some of the other biological agents and chemical toxins for which we have no effective treatments: clostridium botulinum toxin, botulism, francisella tularensis, tularaemia, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, Marbug hemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, Julin, Argentine

[Page: S4012]

   The naturally occurring forms of these agents and toxins are enough to cause concern, but we also know that during the 1980s and 1990s the Soviet Union conducted bioweapons research at forty-seven laboratories and testing sites, employed nearly fifty thousand scientists in the work, and that they developed genetically modified versions of some of these agents and toxins. The goal was to develop an agent or toxin that was particularly virulent or not vulnerable to available antibiotics.

   The United States has publicly stated that five countries are developing biological weapons in violation of the Biological Weapons convention, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, and stated that additional countries not yet named, possibly including Russia, China, Israel, Sudan and Egypt, are also doing so as well.

   What is so insidious about biological weapons is that in many cases the symptoms resulting from a biological weapons attack would likely take time to develop, so an act of bioterrorism may go undetected for days or weeks. Affected individuals would seek medical attention not from special emergency response teams but in a variety of civilian settings at scattered locations. This means we will need medicines that can treat a late stage of the disease, long after the infection has taken hold.

   We must recognize that the distinctive characteristic of biological weapons is that they are living micro-organisms and are thus the only weapons that can continue to proliferate without further assistance once released in a suitable environment.

   The lethality of these agents and toxins, and the panic they can cause, is quite frightening. The capacity for terror is nearly beyond comprehension. We do not believe it is necessary to describe the facts here. Our point is simple: we need more than military intelligence, surveillance, and public health capacity. We also need effective medicines. We also need more powerful research tools that will enable us to quickly develop treatments for agents and toxins not on this or any other list.

   We need to do whatever it takes to be able to reassure the American people that hospitals and doctors have powerful medicines to treat them if they are exposed to biological agents or toxins, that we can contain an outbreak of an infectious agent, and that there is little to fear. To achieve this objective, we need to rely on the entrepreneurship of the biotechnology industry.

   In the summer of 200 <, the Defense Science Board completed a study of the countermeasures we have available. It focused on countermeasures--diagnostics, vaccines, and drugs--for the top nineteen bioterror threats, and estimated what we have available today, what we might have available in five years and what we might have available in ten years.

   If one assumes that we need diagnostics, vaccines, and drugs for all nineteen of these bioterror threats, we need fifty-seven countermeasures (19 times 3). It found that today we have only one of these fifty-seven countermeasures, a drug for Chlamydia psittaci. It found that in five years we might have twenty of the fifty-seven countermeasures and in ten years we might have thirty-four of the fifty-seven. These are optimistic assessments.

   It set reasonable criteria for what constitutes an effective countermeasure. For diagnostics, it said that we are unprepared if our diagnostic takes more than 24 hours, requires confirmatory testing and the patient must be symptomatic. If said we are somewhat prepared if the diagnostic takes 12 to 24 hours, requires confirmatory testing, and works in some cases where the patient is asymptomatic. It said we are only truly prepared if the test takes less than 12 hours, requires no confirmatory testing, and detects the disease when the patient is asymptomatic. It found that we have no diagnostics today that meet the top standard and might have diagnostics for seventeen of the nineteen terror threats in five years and eighteen of the nineteen in ten years.

   For vaccines it found that we are unprepared if we have no vaccine. We are partially prepared if we have a vaccine but have production or use limitations. And we are fully prepared if we have a vaccine generally available. It found that we have no vaccines today that meet the top standard and might have vaccines for two of the terror threats in five years and nine in ten years.

   For therapeutics it found that we are unprepared if we have no approved treatment. We are partially prepared if we have a treatment available but have production or use limitations. And we are fully prepared if we have a treatment available. It found that we have one treatment that meets the top standard and might have treatments for the same agent in five years and seven treatments in ten years.

   Obviously, we are woefully unprepared. The Defense Science Board only focused on the top nineteen threats, and there are many others for which we are also unprepared.

   My proposal would supplement direct Federal Government funding of research with incentives that make it possible for private companies to form the capital to conduct this research on their own initiative, utilizing their own capital, and at their own risk--all for good business reasons going to their bottom line.

   The U.S. biotechnology industry, approximately 1,300 companies, spent $13.8 billion on research last year. Only 350 of these companies have managed to go public. The industry employs 124,000, Ernest & Young data, people. The top five companies spent an average of $89,000 per employee on research, making it the most research-intensive industry in the world. The industry has 350 products in human clinical trials targeting more than 200 diseases. Losses for the industry were $5.8 billion in 2001, $5.6 billion in 2000, $4.4 billion in 1999, $4.1 billion in 1998, $4.5 billion in 1997, $4.6 billion in 1996, and similar amounts before that. In 2000 fully 38 percent of the public biotech companies had less than 2 years of funding for their research. Only one quarter of the biotech companies in the United States are publicly traded and they tend to be the best funded.

   There is a broad range of research that could be undertaken under this legislation. Vaccines could be developed to prevent infection or treat an infection from a bioterror attack. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are needed. Also, promising research has been undertaken on antitoxins that could neutralize the toxins that are released, for example, by anthrax. With anthrax it is the toxins, not the bacteria itself, that cause death. An antitoxin could act like a decoy, attaching itself to sites on cells where active anthrax toxin binds and then combining with normal active forms of the toxin and inactivating them. An antitoxin could block the production of the toxin.

   We can rely on the innovativeness of the biotech industry, working in collaboration with academic medical centers, to explore a broad range of innovative approaches. This mobilizes the entire biotechnology industry as a vital component of our national defense against bioterror weapons.

   The legislation takes a comprehensive approach to the challenges the biotechnology industry faces in forming capital to conduct research on countermeasures. It includes capital formation tax incentives, guaranteed purchase funds, patent protections, and liability protections. We believe we will have to include each of these types of incentives to ensure that we mobilize the biotechnology industry for this urgent national defense research.

   Some of the tax incentives in this legislation, and both of the two patent incentives I have proposed, may be controversial. In our view, we can debate tax or patent policy as long as you

[Page: S4013]

   We know that incentives can spur research. In 1983 we enacted the Orphan Drug Act to provide incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases with small potential markets deemed to be unprofitable by the industry. In the decade before this legislation was enacted, fewer than 10 drugs for orphan diseases were developed and these were mostly chance discoveries. Since the Act became law, 218 orphan drugs have been approved and 800 more are in the pipeline. The Act provides 7 years of market exclusivity and a tax credit covering some research costs. The effectiveness of the incentives we have enacted for orphan disease research show us how much we can accomplish when we set a national priority for certain types of research.

   The incentives we have proposed differ from those set by the Orphan Drug Act. We need to maintain the effectiveness of the Orphan Drug Act and not undermine it by adding many other disease research targets. In addition, the tax credits for research for orphan drug research have no value for most biotechnology companies because few of them have tax liability with respect to which to claim the credit. This explains why we have not proposed to utilize tax credits to spur countermeasures research. It is also clear that the market for countermeasures is even more speculative than the market for orphan drugs and we need to enact a broader and deeper package of incentives.

   The government determines which research is covered by the legislation and which companies qualify for the incentives for this research. No company is entitled to utilize the incentives until the government certifies its eligibility.

   These decisions are vested in the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security. In S. 1764, the decisions were vested in the White House Office of Homeland Security, but it is now likely that a Department will be created. I have strongly endorsed that concept and led the effort to enact the legislation forming the new Department.

   The legislation confers on the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Health and Human Services, authority to set the list of agents and toxins with respect to which the legislation and incentives applies.

   The Secretary determines which agents and toxins present a threat and whether the countermeasures are ``more likely'' to be developed with the application of the incentives in the legislation. The Secretary may determine that an agent or toxin does not present a threat or that countermeasures are not more likely to be developed with the incentives. It may determine that the government itself should fund the research and development effort and not rely on private companies. The Department is required to consider the status of existing research, the availability of non-countermeasure markets for the research, and the most effective strategy for ensuring that the research goes forward. The legislation includes an illustrative, non-binding list of fifty-four agents and toxins that might be included on the Secretary's list. The decisions of the Secretary are final and are not subject to judicial review.

   The Department then must provide information to potential manufacturers of these countermeasures in sufficient detail to permit them to conduct the research and determine when they have developed the needed countermeasure. It may exempt from publication such information as it deems to be sensitive.

   The Department also must specify the government market that will be available when a countermeasure is successfully developed, including the minimum number of dosages that will be purchased, the minimum price per dose, and the timing and number of years projected for such purchases. Authority is provided for the Department to make advance, partial, progress, milestone, or other payments to the manufacturers.

   The Department is responsible for determining when a manufacturer has, in fact, successfully developed the needed countermeasure. It must provide information in sufficient detail so that manufacturers and the government may determine when the manufacturer has successfully developed the countermeasure the government needs. If and when the manufacturer has successfully developed the countermeasure, it becomes entitled to the procurement, patent, and liability incentives in the legislation.

   Once the list of agents and toxins is set, companies may register with the Department their intent to undertake research and development of a countermeasure to prevent or treat the agent or toxin. This registration is required only for companies that seek to be eligible for the tax, purchase, patent, and liability provisions of the legislation. The registration requirement gives the Department vital information about the research effort and the personnel involved with the research, authorizes inspections and other review of the research effort, and the filing of reports by the company.

   The Secretary then may certify that the company is eligible for the tax, purchase, patent, and liability incentives in the legislation. It bases this certification on the qualifications of the company to conduct the countermeasure research. Eligibility for the purchase fund, patent and liability incentives is contingent on successful development of a countermeasure according to the standards set in the legislation, as determined by the Secretary.

   The legislation contemplates that a company might well register and seek certification with respect to more than one research project and become eligible for the tax, purchase, patent, and liability incentives for each. There is no policy rationale for limiting a company to one registration and one certification.

   This process is similar to the current registration process for research on orphan, rare, diseases. In that case, companies that are certified by the FDA become eligible for both tax and market exclusivity incentives. This process gives the government complete control on the number of registrations and certifications. This gives the government control over the cost and impact of the legislation on private sector research.

   The registration and certification process applies to research to develop diagnostics and research tools, not just drugs and vaccines.

   Diagnostics are vital because healthcare professionals need to know which agent or toxin has been used in an attack. This enables them to determine which treatment strategy is likely to be most effective. We need quickly to determine which individuals have been exposed or infected, and to separate them from the ``worried well.'' It is likely in an attack that large numbers of individuals who have not been exposed or infected will flood into healthcare facilities seeking treatment. We need to be able to focus on those individuals who are at risk and reassure those who are not at risk.

   In terms of research tools, it is possible that we will face biological agents and chemical agents we have never seen before. As I've mentioned, the Soviet Union bioterror research focused in part on use of genetic modification technology to develop agents and toxins that currently-available antibiotics can not treat. Australian researchers accidentally created a modified mousepox virus, which does not affect humans, but it was 100 percent lethal to the mice. Their research focused on trying to make a mouse contraceptive vaccine for pest control. The surprise was that it totally suppressed the ``cell-mediated response''--the arm of the immune system that combats viral infection. To make matters worse, the engineered virus also appears unnaturally resistant to attempts to vaccinate the mice. A vaccine that would normally protect mouse strains that are susceptible to the virus only worked in half the mice exposed to the killer version. If bioterrorists created a human version of the virus, vaccination programs would be of limited use. This highlights the drawback of working on vaccines against bioweapons rather than treatments.

   With the advances in gene sequencing--genomics--we will know the exact genetic structure of a biological agent. This information in the wrong hands could easily be manipulated to design and possibly grow a lethal new bacterial and viral strains not found in nature. A scientist might be able to mix

[Page: S4014]

   This means we need to develop technology--research tools--that will enable us to quickly develop a tailor-made, specific countermeasure to a previously unknown organism or agent. These research tools will enable us to develop a tailor-made vaccine or drug to deploy as a countermeasure against a new threat. The legislation authorizes companies to register and receive a certification making them eligible for the incentives in the bill for this vital research.

   The legislation includes four tax incentives to enable biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to form capital to fund research and development of countermeasures. Companies must irrevocably elect only one of the incentives with regard to the countermeasure research.

   Four different tax incentives are available so that companies have flexibility in forming capital to fund the research. Each of the options comes with advantages and limitations that may make it appropriate or inappropriate for a given company or research project. We do not now know fully how investors and capital markets will respond to the different options, but we assume that companies will consult with the investor community about which option will work best for a given research project. Capital markets are diverse and investors have different needs and expectations. Over time these markets and investor expectations evolve. If companies register for more than one research project, they may well utilize different tax incentives for the different projects.

   Companies are permitted to undertake a series of discrete and separate research projects and make this election with respect to each project. They may only utilize one of the options with respect to each of these research projects.

   The first option is for the company to establish an R&D Limited Partnership to conduct the research. The partnership passes through all business deductions and credits to the partners. For example, under this arrangement, the research and development tax credits and depreciation deductions for the company may be passed by the corporation through to its partners to be used to offset their individual tax liability. These deductions and credits are then lost to the corporation. This alternative is available only to companies with less than $750,000,000 in paid-in capital.

   The second option is for the company to issue a special class of stock for the entity to conduct the research. The investors would be entitled to a zero capital gains tax rate on any gains realized on the stock held for at least three years. This is a modification of the current Section 1202 where only 50 percent of the gains are not taxed. This provision is adapted from legislation I have introduced, S. 1134, and introduced in the House by Representatives DUNN and MATSUI, H.R. 2383. A similar bill has been introduced by Senator Collins, S. 455. This option also is available to small companies.

   The third and fourth options grant special tax credits to the company for the research. The first credit is for research conducted by the company and the other for research conducted at a teaching hospital or similar institution. Tax credits are available to any company, but they only are useful to a company with tax liability against which to claim the credit. Very few biotechnology companies receive revenue from product sales and therefore have no tax liability. Companies with revenue may be able to fund the research from retained earnings rather than secure funding from investors.

   A company that elects to utilize one of these incentives is not eligible to receive benefits of the Orphan Drug Tax Credit. Companies that can utilize tax credits--companies with taxable income and tax liability--might find the Orphan Credit more valuable. The legislation includes an amendment to the Orphan Credit to correct a defect in the current credit. The amendment has been introduced in the Senate as S. 1341 by Senators HATCH, KENNEDY and JEFFORDS. The amendment simply states that the Credit is available starting the day an application for orphan drug status is filed, not the date the FDA finally acts on it. The amendment was one of many initiatives championed by Lisa J. Raines, who died on September 11 in the plane that hit the Pentagon, and the amendment is named in her honor. As we go forward in the legislative process, I hope we will have an opportunity to speak in more detail about the service of Ms. Raines on behalf of medical research, particularly on rare diseases.

   The guaranteed purchase fund, and the patent protections, and liability provisions described below provide an additional incentive for investors and companies to fund the research.

   The market for countermeasures is speculative and small. This means that if a company successfully develops a countermeasure, it may not receive sufficient revenue on sales to justify the risk and expense of the research. This is why the legislation establishes a countermeasures purchase fund that will define the market for the products with some specificity before the research begins.

   The Secretary will set standards for which countermeasures it will purchase and define the financial terms of the purchase commitment. This will enable companies to evaluate the market potential of its research before it launches into the project. The specifications will need to be set with sufficient specificity so that the company--and its investors--can evaluate the market and with enough flexibility so that it does not inhibit the innovativeness of the researchers. This approach is akin to setting a performance standard for a new military aircraft.

   The legislation provides that the Secretary will determine whether the government will purchase more than one product per class. It might make sense--as an incentive--for the government to commit to purchasing more than one product so that many more than one company conducts the research. A winner-take-all system may well intimidate some companies and we may end up without a countermeasure to be purchased. It is also possible that we will find that we need more than one countermeasure because different products are useful for different patients. We may also find that the first product developed is not the most effective.

   The purchase commitment for countermeasures is available to any company irrespective of its paid-in capital.

   Intellectual property protection of research is essential to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies for one simple reason: they need to know that if they successfully develop a medical product another company cannot expropriate it. It's a simple matter of incentives.

   The patent system has its basis in the U.S. Constitution where the federal government is given the mandate to ``promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts by securing for a limited time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' In exchange for full disclosure of the terms of their inventions, inventors are granted the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling their inventions for a limited period of time. This quid pro quo provides investors with the incentive to invent. In the absence of the patent law, discoverable inventions would be freely available to anyone who wanted to use them and inventors would not be able to capture the value of their inventions or secure a return on their investments.

   The patent system strikes a balance. Companies receive limited protection of their inventions if they are willing to publish the terms of their invention for all to see. At the end of the term of the patent, anyone can practice the invention without any threat of an infringement action. During the term of the patent, competitors can learn from the published description of the invention and may well find a new and distinct patentable invention.

   The legislation provides two types of intellectual property protection. The

[Page: S4015]

   The first protection against erosion of the term of the patent is an issue that is partially addressed in current law, the Hatch-Waxman Patent Term Restoration Act. That act provides partial protection against erosion of the term, length, of a patent when there are delays at the FDA in approving a product. The erosion occurs when the PTO issues a patent before the product is approved by the FDA. In these cases, the term of the patent is running but the company cannot market the product. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides some protections against erosion of the term of the patent, but the protections are incomplete. As a result, many companies end up with a patent with a reduced term, sometimes substantially reduced.

   The issue of patent term erosion has become more serious due to changes at the PTO in the patent system. The term of a patent used to be fixed at 17 years from the date the patent was granted by the PTO. It made no difference how long it took for the PTO to process the patent application and sometimes the processing took years, even decades. Under this system, there were cases where the patent would issue before final action at the FDA, but there were other cases where the FDA acted to approve a product before the patent was issued. Erosion was an issue, but it did not occur in many cases.

   Since 1995 the term of a patent has been set at 20 years from the date of application for the patent. This means that the processing time by the PTO of the application all came while the term of the patent is running. This gives companies a profound incentive to rush the patent through the PTO. Under the old system, companies had the opposite incentive. With patents being issued earlier by the PTO, the issue of erosion of patent term due to delays at the FDA is becoming more serious and more common.

   The provision in the legislation simply states that in the case of bioterrorism countermeasures, no erosion in the term of the patent will occur. The term of the patent at the date of FDA approval will be the same as the term of the patent when it was issued by the PTO. There is no extension of the patent, simply protections against erosion. Under the new 20 year term, patents might be more or less than 17 years depending on the processing time at the PTO, and all this legislation says is that whatever term is set by the PTO will govern irrespective of the delays at the FDA. This option is available to any company that successfully develops a countermeasure eligible to be purchased by the fund.

   The second option, the bonus patent term, is only available to small companies with less than $750,000,000 in paid-in capital. It provides that a company that successfully develops a countermeasure is entitled to a two-year extension of any patent in its portfolio. This does not apply to any patent of another company bought or transferred in to the countermeasure research company.

   I am well aware that this bonus patent term provision will be controversial with some. A company would tend to utilize this option if it owned the patent on a product that still had, or might have, market value at the end of the term of the patent. Because this option is only available to small biotechnology companies, most of whom have no product on the market, in most cases they would be speculating about the value of a product at the end of its patent. The company might apply this provision to a patent that otherwise would be eroded due to FDA delays or it might apply it to a patent that was not eroded. The result might be a patent term that is no longer than the patent term issued by the PTO. It all depends on which companies elect this option and which patent they select. In some cases, the effect of this provision might be to delay the entry onto the market of lower priced generics. This would tend to shift some of the cost of the incentive to develop a countermeasure to insurance companies and patients with an unrelated disease.

   My rationale for including the patent bonus in the legislation is simple: I want this legislation to say emphatically that we mean business, we are serious, and we want biotechnology companies to reconfigure their research portfolios to focus in part on development of countermeasures. The other provisions in the legislation are powerful, but they may not be sufficient.

   This proposal protects companies willing to take the risks of producing anti-terrorism products for the American public from potential losses incurred from lawsuits alleging adverse reactions to these products. It also preserves the right for plaintiffs to seek recourse for alleged adverse reactions in Federal District Court, with procedural and monetary limitations.

   Under the plan, the Secretary of HHS is required to indemnify and defend entities engaged in qualified countermeasure research through execution of ``indemnification and defense agreements.'' This protection is only available for countermeasures purchased under the legislation or to use of such countermeasures as recommended by the Surgeon General in the event of a public health emergency.

   The legislation contains a series of provisions designed to enhance countermeasure research.

   The legislation provides for accelerated approval by the FDA of countermeasures developed under the legislation. In most cases, the products would clearly qualify for accelerated approval, but the legislation ensures that they will be reviewed under this process.

   It provides a statutory basis for the FDA approving countermeasures where human clinical trials are not appropriate or ethical. Rules regarding such products have been promulgated by the FDA.

   It grants a limited antitrust exemption for certain cooperative research and development of countermeasures.

   It provides incentives for the construction of biologics manufacturing facilities and research to increase the efficiency of current biologics manufacturing facilities.

   It enhances the synergy between our for-profit and not for profit biomedical research entities. The Bayh-Dole Act and Stevenson-Wydler Act form the legal framework for mutually beneficially partnerships between academia and industry. My legislation strengthens this synergy and these relationships with two provisions, one to upgrade the basic research infrastructure available to conduct research on countermeasures and the other to increase cooperation between the National Institutes of Health and private companies.

   Research on countermeasures necessitates the use of special facilities where biological agents can be handled safely without exposing researchers and the public to danger. Very few academic institutions or private companies can justify or capitalize the construction of these special facilities. The Federal government can facilitate research and development of countermeasures by financing the construction of these facilities for use on a fee-for-service basis. The legislation authorizes appropriations for grants to non-profit and for-profit institutions to construct, maintain, and manage up to ten Biosafety Level 3-4 facilities, or their equivalent, in different regions of the country for use in research to develop countermeasures. BSL 3-4 facilities are ones used for research on indigenous, exotic or dangerous agents with potential for aerosol transmission of disease that may have serious or lethal consequences or where the agents pose high risk of life-threatening disease, aerosol-transmitted lab infections, or related agents with unknown risk of transmission. The Director of the Office and NIH shall issue regulations regarding the qualifications of the researchers who may utilize the facilities. Companies that have registered with and been certified by the Director--to develop countermeasures under Section 5 (d) of the legislation--shall

[Page: S4016]

   The legislation also reauthorizes a very successful NIH-industry partnership program launched in FY 2000 in Public Law 106-113. The funding is for partnership challenge grants to promote joint ventures between NIH and its grantees and for-profit biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries with regard to the development of countermeasures, as defined in Section 3 of the bill, and research tools, as defined in Section 4(d)(3) of the bill. Such grants shall be awarded on a one-for-one matching basis. So far the matching grants have focused on development of medicines to treat malaria, tuberculosis, emerging and resistant infections, and therapeutics for emerging threats. My proposal should be matched by reauthorization of the challenge grant program for these deadly diseases.

   The legislation also sets incentives for the development of adjuvents to enhance the potency, and efficacy of antigens in responding to a biological agent.

   It requires the new Department to issue annual reports on the effectiveness of this legislation and these incentives, and directs it to host an international conference each year on countermeasure research.

   This legislation is carefully calibrated to provide incentives only where they are needed. This accounts for the choices in the legislation about which provisions are available to small biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical companies.

   The legislation makes choices. It sets the priorities. It provides a dose of incentives and seeks a response in the private sector. We are attempting here to do something that has not been done before. This is uncharted territory. And it also an urgent mission.

   There may be cases where a countermeasure developed to treat a biological toxin or chemical agent will have applications beyond this use. A broad-spectrum antibiotic capable of treating many different biological agents may well have the capacity to treat naturally occurring diseases.

   This same issue arises with the Orphan Drug Act, which provides both tax and FDA approval incentives for companies that develop medicines to treat rare diseases. In some cases these treatments can also be used for larger disease populations. There are few who object to this situation. We have come to the judgment that the urgency of this research is worth the possible additional benefits that might accrue to a company.

   In the context of research to develop countermeasures, I do not consider it a problem that a company might find a broader commercial market for a countermeasure. Indeed, it may well be the combination of the incentives in this legislation and these broader markets that drives the successful development of a countermeasure. If our intense focus on developing countermeasures, and research tools, provides benefits for mankind going well beyond terror weapons, we should rejoice. If this research helps us to develop an effective vaccine or treatment for AIDS, we should give the company the Nobel Prize for Medicine. If we do not develop a vaccine or treatment for AIDS, we may see 100 million people die of AIDS. We also have 400 million people infected with malaria and more than a million annual deaths. Millions of children die of diarrhea, cholera and other deadly and disabling diseases. Countermeasures research may deepen our understanding of the immune system and speed development of treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases. That is not the central purpose of this legislation, but it is an additional rationale for it.

   The issue raised by my legislation is very simple: do we want the Federal government to fund and supervise much of the research to develop countermeasures or should we also provide incentives that make it possible for the private sector, at its own expense, and at its own risk, to undertake this research for good business reasons. The Frist-Kennedy law focuses effectively on direct Federal funding and coordination issues, but it does not include sufficient incentives for the private sector to undertake this research on its own initiative. That law and my legislation are perfectly complimentary. We need to enact both to ensure that we are prepared for bioterror attacks.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Biological, Chemical and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003

   SENATORS LIEBERMAN AND HATCH, CONGRESSMEN TOM DAVIS, CAL DOOLEY, CURT WELDON, AND NORM DICKS

   The legislation proposes incentives that will enable biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to take the initiative--for good business reasons--to conduct research to develop countermeasures, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, to treat those who might be exposed to or infected by biological, chemical or radiological agents and materials in a terror attack.

   The premise of this legislation is that direct government funding of this research is likely to be much more expensive and risky to the government and less likely to produce the countermeasures we need to defend America. Shifting some of the expense and risk of this research to entrepreneurial private sector firms is likely to be less expensive and much more likely to produce the countermeasures we need to protect ourselves in the event of an attack.

   For biotechnology companies, incentives for capital formation are needed because most such companies have no approved products or revenue from product sales to fund research. They rely on investors and equity capital markets to fund the research. These companies must focus on research that will lead to product sales and revenue and end their dependence on investor capital. When they are able to form the capital to fund research, biotech companies tend to be innovative and nimble and focused on the intractable diseases for which no effective medical treatments are available. Special research credits for pharmaceutical companies are also needed.

   For both biotech and pharmaceutical companies, there is no established or predictable market for these countermeasures. Investors and companies are justifiably reluctant to fund this research, which will present technical challenges similar in complexity to development of effective treatments for AIDS. Investors and companies need assurances that research on countermeasures has the potential to provide a rate of return commensurate with the risk complexity and cost of the research, a rate of return comparable to that which may arise from a treatment for cancer, MS, Cystic Fibrosis and other major diseases or from other investments.

   President Bush's BioShield initiative is designed to establish and predictable market for these countermeasures. This legislation provides a template for implementation of BioShield and supplements it with additional incentives to ensure that the industry is enthusiastically engaged in this vital research.

   The legislation provides tax incentives to enable companies to form capital to conduct the research and tax credits usable by larger companies with tax liability with respect to which to claim the credits. It provides a guaranteed and pre-determined market for the countermeasures and special intellectual property protections to serve as a substitute for a market. Finally, it establishes liability protections for the countermeasures that are developed.

   Section 3 of the legislation is drafted as an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA)(P.L. 107-296). Section 2 sets forth findings and sections 4-9 are drafted as amendments to other statutes.

   1. Setting Research Priorities (Section 1811 of HSA): The Department of Homeland Security sets the countermeasure research priorities in advance. It focuses the priorities on threats for which countermeasures are needed, and with regard to which the incentives make it ``more likely'' that the private sector will conduct the research to develop countermeasures. It is required to consider the status of existing research, the availability of non-countermeasure markets for the research, and the most effective strategy for ensuring that the research goes forward. The Department then provides information to potential manufacturers of these countermeasures in sufficient detail to permit them to conduct the research and determine when they have developed the needed countermeasure. The Department is responsible for determining when a manufacturer has, in fact, successfully developed the needed countermeasure.

   2. Registration of Companies (Section 1812 of HSA): Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies register with the Department to become eligible for the incentives in the legislation. They are obligated to provide reports to the Department as requested and be open to inspections. The Department certifies which companies are eligible for the incentives.

   Once a company is certified as eligible for the incentives, it becomes eligible for the tax incentives for capital formation, and if it successfully develops a countermeasure that meets the specifications of the Department, it becomes eligible for the procurement, patent, and liability provisions.

   3. Diagnostics (Sections 1813 and 1814 of HSA): The incentives apply to development of detection systems and diagnostics, as well as drugs, vaccines and other needed countermeasures.

[Page: S4017]

   4. Research Tools (Section 1815 of HSA): A company is also eligible for certification for the tax and patent provisions if it seeks to develop a research tool that will make it possible to quickly develop a countermeasure to a previously unknown agent or toxin, or an agent or toxin not targeted by the Department for research.

   5. Capital Formation for Countermeasures Research (Section 1821 of HSA; also section 4 of the legislation): The legislation provides that a company seeking to fund research is eligible to elect from among four tax incentives. The companies are eligible to:

   (a). Establish an R&D Limited Partnership to conduct the research. The partnership passes through all business deductions and credits to the partners.

   (b). Issue a special class of stock for the entity to conduct the research. The investors would be entitled to a zero capital gains tax rate on any gains realized on the stock.

   (c). Receive a special tax credit to help fund the research.

   (d). Receive a special tax credit for research conducted at a non-profit and academic research institution.

   A company must elect only one of these incentives and, if it elects one of these incentives, it is then not eligible to receive benefits under the Orphan Drug Act. The legislation includes amendments (Section 9 of this legislation) to the Orphan Drug Act championed by Senators Hatch, Kennedy and Jeffords (S. 1341). The amendments make the Credit available from the date of the application for Orphan Drug status, not the date the application is approved as provided under current law.

   6. Countermeasure Purchase Fund (Section 1822 of HSA): The legislation provides that a company that successfully develops a countermeasure--through FDA approval--is eligible to sell the product to the Federal government at a pre-established price and in a pre-determined amount. The company is given notice of the terms of the sale before it commences the research.

   7. Intellectual Property Incentives (Section 1823 of HSA; also section 5 of this legislation): The legislation provides that a company that successfully develops a countermeasure is eligible to elect one of two patent incentives. The two alternatives are as follows:

   (a). The company is eligible to receive a patent for its invention with a term as long as the term of the patent when it was issued by the Patent and Trademark Office, without any erosion due to delays in the FDA approval process. This alternative is available to any company that successfully develops a countermeasure irrespective of its paid-in capital.

   (b). The company is eligible to extend the term of any patent owned by the company for two years. The patent may not be one that is acquired by the company from a third party. This is included as a capital formation incentive for small biotechnology companies with less than $750 million in paid-in capital, or, at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, to any firm that successfully develops a countermeasure.

   In addition, a company that successfully develops a countermeasure is eligible for a 10-year period of market exclusivity on the countermeasure.

   8. Indemnification Protections (Section 1824 of HAS; also Section 10 of the legislation): The legislation provides for indemnifications for liability for the company that successfully develops a countermeasure.

   9. Accelerated Approval of Countermeasure (Section 1831 of HSA): The countermeasures are considered for approval by the FDA on a ``fast track'' basis.

   10. Special Approval Standards (Section 6 of this legislation: The countermeasures may be approved in the absence of human clinical trails if such trails are impractical or unethical.

   11. Limited Antitrust Exemption (Section 7 of this legislation): Companies are granted a limited exemption from the antitrust laws as they seek to expedite research on countermeasures.

   12. Biologics Manufacturing Capacity and Efficiency (Section 1832 and 1833 of HSA; and section 8 of this legislation): Special incentives are incorporated to ensure that manufacturing capacity is available for countermeasures.

   13. Strengthening of Biomedical Research Infrastructure (Section 1834 and 1835 of HSA): Authorizes appropriations for grants to construct specialized biosafety containment facilities where biological agents can be handled safely without exposing researchers and the public to danger (Section 216). Also reauthorizes a successful NIH-industry partnership challenge grants to promote joint ventures between NIH and its grantees and for-profit biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device industries with regard to the development of countermeasures and research tools (Section 217).

   14. Annual Report (Section 1841 of HSA): The Department is required to prepare for the Congress an annual report on the implementation of these incentives.

   15. International Conference (Section 1842 of HSA): The Department is required to organize an annual international conference on countermeasure research.

BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, AND RADIOLOGICAL WEAPONS COUNTERMEASURES RESEARCH ACT -- (Senate - March 20, 2003)

[Page: S4152]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about my cosponsorship, with

[Page: S4153]  GPO's PDF

   I think that when our colleagues, the administration, academic biomedical researchers, patient advocacy organizations, and the general public study the ambitious set of incentives contained in the Lieberman-Hatch bill, they will conclude that this measure can materially improve our national security. If adopted, this legislation will allow the families of Utah and in our sister states across America to live with a greater measure of safety.

   Although this is a complex piece of legislation, its goal is simple. The Lieberman-Hatch bill will establish a unique public-private sector relationship that will result in stimulating the private sector to increase its scope and pace of research and development activities for a wide range of medical products intended to deter and respond to acts of biological, chemical, or radiological terrorism.

   Senator Lieberman and I believe that the best way to discourage and prevent acts of bioterrorism is to be able to demonstrate our capacity to develop, produce, and distribute biological, chemical, and radiological weapons countermeasures.

   In short, if our medicine chest is full and we show the world that we have the ability to rapidly discover new countermeasures, we will decrease the likelihood of ever having to deploy these countermeasures in the first place. For example, in the last 18 months we have made great strides in ramping up production of, and our capacity to distribute, smallpox vaccine. In fact, few, in any, countries could respond more effectively than the United States to the introduction of smallpox. Our enemies in Baghdad and those hiding in mountains of Afghanistan might do more harm to themselves and their neighbors if a worldwide smallpox outbreak occurs.

   Unfortunately, there are dozens, and perhaps many more, biological and chemical threats for which we have no adequate response. As well, this latest outbreak of antibiotic- and antiviral-resistant pneumonia points out the need to develop responses to new public health threats whether they are spread intentionally or naturally. This bill tries to create a new paradigm for the development of vital bioterrorism countermeasures that could also serve as a model for stimulating private sector drug discovery activities in other important areas such as cancer, heart disease, and infectious and rare diseases.

   Senator Lieberman and I praise the work that has already been done to help our nation meet this new type of threat. Senators BYRD, STEVENS, SPECTER, and HARKIN made available a substantial amount of new resources immediately in the aftermath of the September 11th and the October, 2001 anthrax attacks.

   Last year, Senators GREGG, KENNEDY, and FRIST led the effort to pass important bioterrorism legislation to improve the public health infrastructure so that our country can better respond to public health emergencies.

   The Bush administration is currently working closely with Congress on the Project BioShield program. We salute these efforts. We are pleased that the Administration is now embracing the concept of a guaranteed market that was part of last year's Lieberman-Hatch bill, S. 3148. We urge the Administration and Congress to adopt other critical features of Lieberman-Hatch.

   The Lieberman-Hatch bill is a bold attempt to move the ball closer to the goal line. Our bill attempts to complement all the previous efforts to build up the capacity for public sector responses with a set of incentives designed to unleash the creative genius and substantial resources of the private sector actors within our Nation's biomedical research enterprise.

   Let me quickly summarize the major features of the bill.

   The Department of Homeland Security sets the countermeasures research agenda so that firms know beforehand the research targets. Interested companies register with DHS and become obligated to report their activities and subject their plants to inspection.

   The legislation allows a participating company seeking to fund eligible research to elect from among four types of tax incentives. First, we provide for the establishment of R&D limited partnerships. Second, we create the authority for qualified firms to issue a new class of stock that would be subject to no capital gains tax. Third, we create a new tax credit to help fund the research. Fourth, we allow for a special tax credit for research conducted at non-profit and academic research institutions.

   Anyone familiar with the current dismal financial state of affairs within the biotechnology industry will understand the attraction of these tax provisions. Many struggling firms might find it prudent to explore the benefits of adjusting their research portfolios to include countermeasure research and development.

   The legislation authorizes funding for a program whereby companies successfully developing countermeasures that secure FDA approval can be guaranteed a market at a pre-negotiated price and pre-negotiated quantities.

   Our legislation also contains some fundamental revisions in pharmaceutical intellectual property laws. As author of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, I hold these provisions near and dear.

   Essentially, the bill adopts a policy of day-for-day patent term restoration for each day lost during FDA review. Under the current provisions of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman law, no patent may be restored by more than five years and then only if the effective patent term does not exceed 14 years regardless of whether the FDA review takes longer than five years.

   The legislation also grants a ten year period of marketing exclusivity for any approved countermeasure, regardless of a product's patent status. This means that FDA could not approve a competitor product until that period expires. This provision operates in parallel with patent protections and serves as a floor time period during which generic versions of the pioneer countermeasure product could enter the market. Current U.S. law only provides for a five year marketing exclusivity period while most European Union countries and Japan already provide a ten year marketing exclusivity period.

   The Lieberman-Hatch bill also allows certain types of biotechnology companies, specifically those with less than $750 million in paid-in capital, to extend any patent by two years if the firms successfully develop a countermeasure.

   I can tell you that these substantial changes in the area of intellectual property will get a positive reaction in corporate boardrooms; resources will flow in the direction of products eligible for these new intellectual property protections and products will be developed to help our country respond to bioterrorist threats.

   In addition to the guaranteed market provisions, targeted tax breaks, and intellectual property incentives, the Lieberman-Hatch legislation also contains liability provisions; accelerated FDA approval procedures, and a limited antitrust exemption.

   In summary, the Lieberman-Hatch bill contains an array of incentives designed to spur a robust response from the private pharmaceutical sector. If we are going to increase our ability to defend the American homeland, we need to be certain that both the public and private sectors' are fully engaged. That is exactly what our bill will help accomplish by unleashing the energy and resources of those private sector firms engaged in biomedical research and development.

   I urge all of my colleagues and others with an interest in homeland security to study the bipartisan Lieberman-Hatch Biological, Chemical, and Radiological Weapons Countermeasures Research Act of 2003. I believe that when our legislation is examined, it will attract broad and strong bipartisan support.

   Let me close by commending my friend from Connecticut, Senator JOE LIEBERMAN, for his vision, energy, and leadership in this critically important area. I would also like to commend the efforts of our bipartisan group of partners in the House, Congressmen TOM DAVIS, CAL DOOLEY, CURT WELDON, and NORM DICKS.

3D) Iraqi Scientist Immigration Act of 2003
IRAQI SCIENTISTS IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2003 -- (Senate - March 20, 2003)

[Page: S4222]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 9, S. 205.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   A bill (S. 205) to authorize the issuance of immigrant visas to, and the admission to the United States for permanent residence of, certain scientists, engineers, and technicians who have worked in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.

   There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

   Mr. LEAHY. I applaud the Senate for passing S. 205, the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, along with Senators BIDEN, HATCH, LUGAR, and SPECTER. When Senator BIDEN introduced this last year, I worked closely with him, discharging the bill from the Judiciary Committee and encouraging the Senate to pass it. I was pleased when the Senate did so, and disappointed that the House failed to act.

   This bill could not be more timely. As the United States and United Nations seek to obtain information about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, the scientists who have worked on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons for Iraq hold critical information. Thus far, however, those scientists have refused to speak privately with U.N. inspectors, instead insisting that Iraqi government representatives be included in interviews. Many have suggested that these scientists fear they will be executed if they provide material assistance to the inspectors.

   The Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act offers a potential way around this quandary by offering a benefit to those scientists who would like to share what they know about Iraq's weapons development. It provides for the admission to the United States of scientists who want to provide useful information about Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, along with those scientists' families. Eventually, these scientists could become legal permanent residents of the United States.

   This bill has taken on increased importance since the Homeland Security Act--which has caused severe disruption in the processing of asylum and refugee applications--has taken effect. Many Iraqi scientists would surely be eligible for asylum and/or refugee status. Section 457 of the Homeland Security Act, however, eliminated the surcharges on applicants for immigration benefits, which had been used to fund the processing of asylum and refugee applications, which are generally made by destitute people. This was apparently an oversight in the hasty and secret process by which the Homeland Security Act was written by Congressional Republicans and the administration. This provision has left the asylum and refugee programs in limbo. The Senate-passed omnibus appropriations bill includes language to strike section 457 and restore the status quo, but the prospects for that change will remain unclear until the conference committee has completed its work. This gives us an added incentive to pass the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act as quickly as possible. I urge the House to take the bill up and pass it without further delay.

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related thereto be printed in the RECORD, without further intervening action or debate.

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

   The bill (S. 205) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

   S. 205

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003''.

   SEC. 2. ADMISSION OF CRITICAL ALIENS.

    (a) NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY.--Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended--

    (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (U);

    (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (V) and inserting ``; or''; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

    ``(W) Subject to section 214(s), an alien--

    ``(i) who the Attorney General determines, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Director of Central Intelligence, and such other officials as he may deem appropriate, and in the Attorney General's unreviewable discretion, is an individual--

    ``(I) who has worked at any time in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them;

    ``(II) who is in possession of critical and reliable information concerning any such Iraqi program;

    ``(III) who is willing to provide, or has provided, such information to the United States Government;

    ``(IV) who may be willing to provide, or has provided, such information to inspectors of the United Nations or of the International Atomic Energy Agency;

    ``(V) who will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information; and

    ``(VI) whose admission would be in the public interest or in the interest of national security; or

    ``(ii) who is the spouse, married or unmarried son or daughter, parent, or other relative, as determined by the Attorney General in his unreviewable discretion, of an alien described in clause (i), if accompanying or following to join such alien, and whose admission the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, determines in his unreviewable discretion is in the public interest or in the interest of national security.''.

    (b) LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ``W'' NONIMMIGRANTS.--Section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended--

    (1) by redesignating subsections (m) (as added by section 105 of Public Law 106-313), (n) (as added by section 107(e) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1513(c) of Public Law 106-386), (o) (as added by section 1102(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act), and (p) (as added by section 1503(b) of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act) as subsections (n), (o), (p), (q), and (r), respectively; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(s) NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION AND STAY FOR NONIMMIGRANTS ADMITTED UNDER SECTION 101(a)(15)(W).--

    ``(1) LIMITATION.--The number of aliens who may be admitted to the United States or otherwise granted status under section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) may not exceed a total of 500.

    ``(2) CONDITIONS.--As a condition for the admission, and continued stay in lawful status, of any alien admitted to the United States or otherwise granted status as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(W), the nonimmigrant--

    ``(A) shall report to the Attorney General such information concerning the alien's whereabouts and activities as the Attorney General may require;

    ``(B) may not be convicted of any criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of 1 year or more after the date of such admission or grant of status;

    ``(C) must have executed a form that waives the nonimmigrant's right to contest, other than on the basis of an application for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture, any action for removal of the alien instituted before the alien obtains lawful permanent resident status;

    ``(D) shall cooperate fully with all requests for information from the United States Government including, but not limited to, fully and truthfully disclosing to the United States Government all information in the alien's possession concerning any Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; and

    ``(E) shall abide by any other condition, limitation, or restriction imposed by the Attorney General.''.

    (c) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.--Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--

    (1) in subsection (c)--

    (A) by striking ``or'' before ``(8)''; and

    (B) by inserting before the period ``or (9) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W)'';

    (2) by redesignating subsection (l), relating to ``U'' visa nonimmigrants, as subsection (m); and

    (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(n) ADJUSTMENT TO PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS OF `W' NONIMMIGRANTS.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--If, in the opinion of the Attorney General, a nonimmigrant admitted into the United States (or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status) under section 101(a)(15)(W)(i) has complied with section 214(s) since such admission or grant of status, the Attorney General may, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, and in his unreviewable discretion, adjust the status of the alien (and any alien who has accompanied or followed to join such alien pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(W)(ii) and who has complied with section 214(s) since admission or grant of nonimmigrant status) to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien is not described in section 212(a)(3)(E).

    ``(2) RECORD OF ADMISSION; REDUCTION IN VISA NUMBERS.--Upon the approval of adjustment of status of any alien under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record the

[Page: S4223]  GPO's PDF

    (d) WAIVER AUTHORITY.--Section 212(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:

    ``(2) The Attorney General shall determine whether a ground of inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(W). The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's discretion, may waive the application of subsection (a) in the case of such a nonimmigrant if the Attorney General considers it to be in the public interest or in the interest of national security.''.

    (e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 248(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1258(1)) is amended by striking ``or (S)'' and inserting ``(S), or (W)''.

   SEC. 3. WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFINED.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--In this Act, the term ``weapon of mass destruction'' has the meaning given the term in section 1403(1) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C. 2302(1)), as amended by subsection (b).

    (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.--Section 1403(1)(B) of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2717; 50 U.S.C. 2302(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``a disease organism'' and inserting ``a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States Code)''.

4A) Are We Ready for the Consequences of War with Iraq?

   Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns that we are not as prepared as we should be for the consequences of a war with Iraq.

   I have complete confidence in the ability of our armed services to defeat Iraq. We have a superb military which is, without a doubt, the most effective and most professional fighting force ever fielded in the history of mankind.

   We can all be proud of our dedicated military men and women. It is their dedication and willingness to risk their lives in the service of their country that places a special responsibility on our shoulders. Our responsibility is to ensure that their service is not expended in the vain pursuit of ill-defined objectives and that our national security is truly enhanced.

   In my capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I meet with many of our field commanders. Prior to our debate last session on H.J. Res. 114 concerning war with Iraq, I met with one of our senior commanders just returned from the war against terrorism. He told me ``keep asking the hard questions'' about the consequences of committing American troops to a war on Iraq. I have heeded his advice, and it is the reason I stand today to discuss the consequences of war on Iraq.

   I am concerned that we are not sufficiently prepared either materially or psychologically for a protracted occupation of Iraqi territory, nor are we sufficiently well prepared domestically for possible terrorist attacks on American soil.

   My constituents ask me why the President has chosen to fight Iraq at this time or what his objective is in so doing. I do not have a good answer for them because the President has yet to provide one.

   Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has resisted and ignored over the past 12 years United Nations resolutions calling for Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has oppressed the Iraqi people and carried out terrible attacks against the Kurds and Shia tribes of Southern Iraq. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has paid only grudging lipservice to recent efforts by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC, to discover and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

   However, none of those issues justifies going to war now if we are unprepared for the consequences of war and if we do not have a clear exit strategy for getting out of Iraq. It would be far better to take the time to ensure that we are prepared for both the consequences at home and abroad before sending our superb military into combat in a distant land.

   The reasons for war have increased in number and difficulty as we build up our forces in the gulf. At first, the President asserted that war was to end Saddam Hussein's program for developing weapons of mass destruction. More recently, the President has added that our objective is to ``help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.'' The President argues for war because he believes that ``success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.'' Mission creep is already occurring, and the mission has not begun.

   In February testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, retired General Anthony C. Zinni asked, ``do we want to transform Iraq or just transition it out from under the unacceptable regime [. .....]'' and he added, ``defining the problem, however, is only half the task. The other half deals with how you solve the problem. I have not seen a lot of specifics in this area.''

   The mission of an American occupation to establish a democratic Iraq is well-meaning but difficult to implement. Indeed, as I read testimony and speeches by administration officials, I am struck by how many new objectives are being added to our mission: for example, establish the rule of law and an independent judiciary; create a free enterprise system; end weapons of mass destruction programs; make an American ally; create a bulwark against terrorism; forge a secular and democratic state; reform the educational system; and develop a free press. These are extremely ambitious programs for a country that has little, if any, historical experience and no recent experiences in any of these conditions. Perhaps we should be bringing democracy to our allies in the region.

   A well-defined objective is crucial for a mission's success. Will the objective be a discrete military mission: seek and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or an open-ended goal to bring democracy to a country that has no experience in democracy? The administration now indicates that both goals are intertwined: to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction we must create a democracy in Iraq. Perhaps that is the case. But the opposite is also possible: a democratic Iraq responsive to the will of the Iraqi people, continuing to share borders with countries traditionally hostile to Iraq--including Iran which we have learned this week is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons--may feel compelled to restart its weapons of mass destruction program out of self-preservation.

   Let us be clear: we can take weapons away from Iraqi leaders but we cannot erase the knowledge of how to make those weapons from the minds of Iraqi scientists. That capability will always remain. Weapons scientists and engineers will not unlearn what they have learned. To make another Iraqi WMD program impossible, we need to develop solid support for an international regime with enforcement mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them.

   Unfortunately, the President's rush to war is undermining the very international consensus we need to forge to prevent proliferation.

   International cooperation is essential both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, it is essential for our goal of ending the threat from Iraq. A stable international coalition is the basis for managing any future crisis. In the long term, it is essential to prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction.

   The administration insists that all it needs is a ``coalition of the willing'' to go to war. That may be true for war, but will there be a coalition to pay the costs of an indefinite occupation of Iraq? Without international support, the United States will pay the direct cost for our military presence and reconstruction. Our struggling economy will also pay an indirect cost adding to our sky-high deficit. Already it looks more like a coalition for war of the compensated than a coalition of the willing.

   I believe we are not ready for the cost of such an occupation both in terms of money and our military.

   When the British conquered Iraq in 1917, the British military commander, Lieutenant General Sir Stanley Maude, said ``our armies do

   not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators.'' When the British departed Baghdad in the 1930s, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis observed, ``my own prediction is that they will all fly at each other's throats and that there will be a bad slump in the administration which will continue until someone strong enough to dominate the country emerges, or alternatively, until we have to step in and intervene.''

   We should heed history before we attempt to make a future. The danger is that the war will end in a few weeks while crisis endures for a long time.

   Just recently, the administration announced a $900 million contract for postwar Iraqi reconstruction. This is just a small down payment on what people in and outside the Government estimate may amount to over $100 billion, not including the cost of maintaining a long-term American troop presence in Iraq. A military presence will cost additional billions and tie down American forces, affecting training, rotation cycles, and recruitment of

[Page: S3800]  GPO's PDF

   Some suggest that Iraqi oil exports will pay for the occupation force and reconstruction efforts. But a recent study by the Council of Foreign Relations warns not to expect such a ``bonanza.'' The Iraqi oil industry is estimated to need $5 billion in investment and 3 years just to return to pre-1990 production levels, and Iraq is already carrying an external debt burden of $300 billion.

   If, as some experts predict, our forces confront ethnic, tribal, and religious in-fighting and are besieged by terrorist attacks emboldened by pan-Islamic hostility to the American occupation, we may need a much larger force than the current 45,000 to 75,000 under review by the Pentagon. No doubt, as in the first gulf war, there will be score settling among Iraqis with vigilante justice and possibly open warfare. Many are predicting that Kurdish refugees expelled in 1968 from their homes in Kirkuk will pour back into this center of Iraqi oil wealth, bringing with them the possibility of war with Turkey seeking to protect Turkmen minority interests.

   The Pentagon is reported to be planning on a 2-year military occupation of Iraq under a military governor that may be expanded to 5 years. Ironically, one of the first things this governor general will have to do is to rebuild the Iraqi military with professional training and new weapons. Time magazine reports that the Pentagon has ``only a rudimentary plan for rehabilitating the bulk of the [Iraqi] Army.'' But it is clear that we cannot demobilize over 400,000 Iraqi troops without adding to the problems in the civilian sector.

   We are just beginning to plan for all these postwar problems. On February 11, 2003, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith announced that the President ``has directed his administration to begin planning now'' for reconstruction and testified that the administration was still ``conceptualizing'' peace. Now is too late for a war that may start this month. The Defense Department's Office of Reconstruction was opened only on January 20, 2003. Time magazine reported on March 2 that ``at this late hour, the Administration is not very ready for the peace.''

   As Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman warned in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on February 7, 2003, ``we are rushing planning efforts without making adequate efforts to make up for our lack of knowledge. As a result, planners both outside and inside the U.S. government may end in doing more harm than good. .....''

   President Bush has stated that ``we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' I appreciate his candor, but I am deeply disturbed by such an open-ended commitment to deploying American troops. We may wear out our welcome long before we have accomplished the democratic transformation of the Middle East envisioned by the President.

   I am also concerned over the lack of preparation at home for the possibility of terrorist attacks. Even the President is dissatisfied with the counterterrorism budget passed for this fiscal year. I am dissatisfied that we have not done more during the past 2 years. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs International Security Subcommittee, I began holding hearings on our preparedness against terrorist attacks in July 2001. I have continued to press for reform of our national and local preparedness. I agree with the President that the budget for this fiscal year was too small. We have done too little to defend ourselves against attack.

   I am disturbed by the letter from FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley to FBI Director Robert Mueller indicating that the FBI would not be able to ``stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq.'' Last month the FBI issued a warning that ``lone extremists represent an ongoing terrorist threat in the United States.'' Certainly, steps have been taken to improve our law enforcement capability, but I believe much more needs to be done before we are as prepared as we should be. The President acknowledged as much when he announced in his State of the Union Address his intent to create by May 1 a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center. This Center is at least 3 years away from being fully staffed according to administration plans.

   In other areas we are also behind. The Transportation Security Administration has just begun to assess the vulnerabilities of American airports to terrorist attack, especially from shoulder-launched missiles--that task force was set up after the deadly November 28 attack against an Israeli airline in Kenya. The President's plan to immunize 500,000 health care workers against smallpox in 30 days has only inoculated 4,200 and is draining money and personnel from other programs in State and local public health departments.

   Many State and local law enforcement officials have yet to receive federal security clearances so that they can receive information about potential terrorist attacks. Our emergency health care system is already stressed to the breaking point as hundreds of emergency departments have been closed due to budgetary constraints even as the number of patient visits has increased. Few of the respirators operated by local firefighters and other first responder rescue teams were found to be effective against poison gas. Many reservists in our first responder units have been called to active military duty, depleting critical services at home.

   The list of problems is endless. The ability to solve these problems is limited by time and by money. The bottom line is that we have a lot to do and a long way to go before we are as ready at home for war as we are for waging war far away.

   If war does come, both in Iraq and here at home, we will all support our troops and do the best we can to confront the problems here. I believe that the security of all Americans would be better served by taking the time to be better prepared. Allowing United Nations inspectors to do their work in Iraq will deplete the number of weapons Saddam Hussein might aim at our troops--already 46 Al Samoud missiles have been destroyed--and build international support for resolving the Iraq crisis. We will have not only a coalition of the willing but a coalition of the strong.

   If we pursue our current path, we will have a war lacking in many things essential to achieving complete success. It will be a war without broad international support, without sufficient planning for postconflict reconstruction and stability, without a definite exit time and strategy, and without a firm pricetag. Moreover, it will be a war with serious ramifications for our long-term readiness capabilities for homeland security and for managing other crises.

4B) The Current Situation in Iraq

[Page: S3769]
---

   Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the current situation in Iraq.

   There has been a broad consensus that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant and that the world is a more dangerous place if he has weapons of mass destruction. There has also been consensus that he has not complied with his obligations under the U.N. ceasefire resolution at the end of the Gulf War and the numerous resolutions that followed, which called for him to disarm, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction. And

[Page: S3770]

   Now there is division at the U.N.

   Many members of the United Nations want to complete the inspections and keep Saddam contained and in a box until those inspections are completed. Just a few days ago, the President said he would call for a vote at the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force so that every member nation could state its position. The President has now apparently reversed himself in the face of a likely rejection by the Security Council.

   The issue, until yesterday, was whether to proceed militarily without the support of the world community as expressed by the Security Council or, alternatively, to give the inspectors the months they said they need to complete their work, the position which many members of the Security Council apparently favor.

   The President has apparently chosen the former course. I have felt that course was unwise for a number of reasons. By failing to rally the Security Council to a common view, we have lost the best chance to force Saddam Hussein to capitulate because it is likely that only if Saddam Hussein sees a united world at the other end of the barrel will he see no potential to turn the tide to his favor. A world solidly against him would be a world that an anti-U.S. propaganda machine would have great trouble stirring up. Just as in the gulf war, Saddam was unable to score any propaganda points when 28 nations, including a number of Muslim nations, provided military forces against him.

   Another reason I have felt that proceeding without the U.N. would be unwise is we would lose some support in the region, with the resulting loss of staging areas and overflight rights, as is apparently the case in Turkey, which, in turn, could increase the length of the war and the number of casualties.

   There are also serious long-term risks in proceeding without support of the world community as expressed through the U.N. Such an attack on Iraq would be viewed by much of the world as an attack by the West against an Islamic nation, rather than of the world against Saddam. We would fuel the anti-Americanism that is already so prevalent, and stoke the terrorism which is already our No. 1 threat.

   Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February:

   Much of the world is increasingly apprehensive about U.S. power and influence. Many are concerned about the expansion, consolidation, and dominance of American values, ideals, culture, and institutions. Reactions to this sensitivity to growing ``Americanization'' can range from mild ``chafing'' on the part of our friends and allies, to fear and violent rejection on the part of our adversaries. We should consider that these perceptions mixed with angst over perceived ``U.S. unilateralism'' will give rise to significant anti-American behavior.

   I have also felt that proceeding without the U.N. would make it less likely that other nations will join us in the difficult tasks of providing stability in reconstructing Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said the following:

   If they [the members of the U.N. Security Council] cannot agree on a common position and if some of them launch action without the support of the [Security] Council, the legitimacy of this action will be widely questioned and it will not obtain the political support required to ensure its success in the long term, once the military phase is over.

   The European Union's External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, likewise pointed out recently that ``if it comes to war, it will be very much easier'' to make a case for other countries to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq ``if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place.''

   Further, and of great significance, President Bush's principal basis for launching a military action is Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and other U.N. resolutions. But how is it credible to invoke the Security Council's resolutions as a basis for our action and then ignore that same Security Council if it does not agree with us on the wisdom of military action at this time and does not give us the resolution we want?

   Stressing the importance of a U.N. authorization does not give the U.N. a veto over American action. Nobody has a veto over America's foreign policy or decisionmaking. The decision is America's and America's alone. The issue is not whether we need the U.N.'s permission to use force; we don't. The issue is whether it would be wise to have the U.N.'s support and whether we will be more secure from terrorists and other threats if we initiate a military action against Iraq without the support of the world community. If there were an imminent threat against us, we would not--and should not--hesitate to use force. But attacking in the absence of an immediate threat is a very different scenario with very different risks.

   The President has said that the U.N. will become irrelevant if it does not authorize member states to use military force at this time against Iraq. But the Security Council's decision in this matter, whichever way it would have gone, would have been highly relevant.

   If the Security Council authorized force by member states, that would be relevant as a statement of the world community against Saddam. But if the Security Council rejected authorizing force at this time, as they apparently would have, it would still be relevant because our use of military force in the face of such a Security Council rejection could have a worldwide negative political impact with great peril to us.

   The issue is not whether we will prevail militarily without the U.N.'s support; we will. The issue is whether our long-term security would be enhanced in that circumstance or whether chaos and instability in the Middle East, following our unilateral action, will be deep and long and more costly, and whether the level of terrorism against us in the world will rise to a higher point than it otherwise would.

   The U.N. too often has been seen by the administration as an obstacle to overcome instead of an opportunity to rally the world. And the administration has also weakened its case at the U.N. in a number of ways.

   It has used divisive rhetoric and denigrating attitude towards the views of other nations whose support we seek. Countries have been told ``you are either with us or against us.'' The U.N. has been told that while we welcome U.N. endorsement, we can do just fine without you. U.N. inspectors were called ``so-called'' inspectors. And before U.N. inspections even began, they were called useless. Germany and France were sneered at as being part of ``old Europe.'' This kind of rhetoric alienates our friends and fuels the inflammatory propaganda of our enemies. Divisive and dismissive rhetoric is no way to rally the Security Council. It comes across as bullying and domineering.

   The White House spokesmen have also spun facts in a

   transparent way, contradicting themselves from day to day. The refusal of Iraq to assure the safety of U-2 surveillance planes was at first called a serious breach of resolution 1441. When agreement was reached between U.N. inspectors and Iraq to fly the planes shortly thereafter, the White House spokesman said the agreement was no big deal. Similarly, when the inspectors determined that Iraqi missiles violated U.N. resolutions limiting their range, the White House pointed to the violation as significant evidence of noncompliance. When, soon thereafter, Iraq agreed to destroy those missiles, with U.N. inspectors looking on, the White House spokesman said that action was evidence of the Iraqis' deception. That kind of spinning and reversal of field by White House spokesmen has not helped our credibility or our cause.

   We will prevail militarily in Iraq on our own, albeit with increased risk, but it will be more difficult to win the larger war on terrorism without the world community in our corner. We need the eyes and the ears and the intelligence of the people of the world if we are going to detect and ferret out, deter, and destroy those who care nothing for international law and do not even accept the rules of war.

   Historically, America has been strongest when we found common cause with other nations in pursuit of common goals. The path to a safer world and a more secure America has

[Page: S3771]

   [I]f Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a more decent Iraq, but something more important--America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world.

   If war against Iraq comes, far better it be seen as the decision of the world community, not just a U.S.-British decision.

   The President said accurately on January 3 that Saddam Hussein has no respect for the Security Council and does not care about the opinion of mankind. But surely we should.

   President Bush has now decided to end the diplomatic effort.

   Those of us who have questioned the administration's approach, including this Senator, will now be rallying behind the men and women of our armed forces to give them the full support they deserve, as it seems certain we will soon be at war.

   Last October a majority of both Houses of Congress voted to authorize the President to use military force with or without the authority of the United Nations. While I disagreed with that decision and offered an alternative, the overriding fact is that this democracy functions through debate and decision. The decision to give the President wide authority was democratically arrived at.

   The courageous men and women whom we send into harm's way are not just carrying out their orders with bravery and the highest form of professionalism. They are also implementing the outcome of the democratic debate which this Nation protects and honors. Those men and women should know that they have the full support and the fervent prayers of all of the American people as they carry out their missions.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my recent remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Boston World Affairs Council, along with two of my opening statements at recent Armed Services Committee hearings, be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Remarks of Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, ``U.S. Policy Towards Iraq,'' Council on Foreign Relations, October 8, 2002

   Thank you, Walt, for your kind introduction. I understand that with the change in Administrations, you have returned to your tax law practice. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who remarked that ``The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward.'' We'll ask you about the truth of that statement when I'm finished speaking about U.S. policy towards Iraq!

   I want to thank Les Gelb, the Council on Foreign Relations President, and Pete Peterson, the Council's Chairman of the Board, for inviting me this evening, and I want to thank the Council for its 80 years of outstanding service to our Nation and to the world as the ``privileged and preeminent nongovernmental impresario of America's pageant to find its place in the world.'' Those are the ``objective'' words of Les Gelb, by the way.

   Last night, President Bush described in detail the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses. I have relatively few differences with that description, and there is also a consensus that if Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to meet his obligation to destroy his weapons of mass destruction and prohibited missile delivery systems, the United Nations should authorize member states to use military force to destroy those weapons and systems and that the United States Armed Forces should participate in and lead a United Nations authorized force.

   So the issue that is in dispute is whether unilateral force should be authorized by Congress now in case the U.N. does not act. How we answer that question could have a profound and lasting impact on the safety of our children and grandchildren for decades to come. Because the difference between attacking a nation with the support of the world community or attacking it without such support is fundamental, and it can be decisive.

   The President answers the question by seeking a resolution from Congress that gives him the authority to use force under the auspices of the United Nations or to go-it-alone if the United Nations fails to act. He seeks this unilateral authority even though he does not condition its use on the threat to the United States by Saddam being imminent. Indeed, he argued in the National Security Strategy that was released by the White House last month that preemptive attacks to forestall or prevent hostile acts by our adversaries can now be undertaken although a threat is not imminent. The new strategy states explicitly that ``We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means.'' The President's Iraq resolution and the National Security Strategy, therefore, both take the position that an ``imminent'' threat is no longer required as a basis for our military action in self-defense. The President is explicitly seeking to modify the traditional concept of preemption by deleting the need for ``imminence'' and substituting that of ``sufficient'' threat in the Strategy and ``continuing'' threat in the proposed resolution.

   That the President is seeking the authorization for unilateral preemptive attack without U.N. authorization is at the heart of the Senate debate that is presently taking place, and the vote on that resolution will come soon.

   Under the traditional international law concept of preemption in self-defense, the United States would be justified in acting alone in the case of a serious threat to our nation that is imminent. In a case where such a threat is not imminent, military action would be justified only if it were carried out pursuant to an authorization for the use of force by Member states by the United Nations.

   The choice facing the Senate is whether Congress should now--at this time--give the President the authority to ``go-it-alone,'' to act unilaterally against Iraq if the United Nations fails to act. Congress is being presented with this issue at the very same time our Secretary of State is trying to get the United Nations to back a tough new resolution authorizing member states to use military force to enforce Iraqi compliance with inspections and disarmament.

   Last night the President said, ``I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military if it proves necessary to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.'' But, the White House resolution asks for much more. It isn't limited to the use of force if the United Nations authorizes it; on the contrary, it specifically authorizes, now, the use of force on a unilateral, ``go-it-alone'' basis, that is, without Security Council authorization. The President's rhetoric doesn't match the resolution. Moreover, the White House approach authorizes the use of force beyond dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

   The resolution I introduced is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should ``go it alone,'' that is, should act unilaterally against Iraq, if the United Nations fails to act.

   My resolution does the following: First, it urges the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution promptly that demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be located and destroyed; and within that same U.N. resolution, authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. Member States as a means of enforcement in the event Iraq refuses to comply.

   My resolution also specifically authorizes the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution, if Iraq fails to comply with its terms and the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain Iraqi compliance with such a U.N. resolution.

   My resolution affirms that under international law and the U.N. Charter, especially Article 51, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action. It also affirms that Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session, if necessary, and promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly adopt the resolution I described above.

   My resolution, therefore, supports the President's appeal to the United Nations and approves--right now--the use of our Armed Forces to support the action of the United Nations to force compliance by Saddam Hussein with inspections and disarmament. It does not, however, authorize now--before we know what the United Nations intends to do, before we know whether or not we have the world community on our side--it does not authorize the United States Armed Forces going-it-alone. Should we need to consider that possibility at a future time, the resolution provides for the immediate recall of Congress to do so. My resolution doesn't--on a matter of war and peace/life and death--exceed the grant of authority needed at the present time.

   If Congress instead endorses the resolution proposed in the Senate by Senator Lieberman and others allowing the unilateral use of force at this time--even in the absence of a U.N. authorization--we will be sending an inconsistent message. We will be telling the United Nations that, if you don't act, we will--at the same time that we are urging them to act. We will be telling the United Nations that they are not particularly relevant--at the same time we are urging them to be very relevant.

   If we want the United Nations to be relevant and credible--if we want the United Nations to succeed--if we want the United Nations not to be limited to humanitarian and disaster relief and other tasks that are

[Page: S3772]

   If we act wisely--authorizing the use of our forces pursuant to a U.N. resolution authorizing Member states to use force--we will not only unite the Congress; ultimately, we would unite the world community, on a course of action that we all seek: the elimination of Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. That's where our focus should be: uniting the world, not dividing it.

   Moreover, a go-it-alone approach in which we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community entails serious risks and could have serious consequences for us in the Middle East and around the world. It makes a difference, when deciding to use force, whether that use of force has the support of the world community.

   It makes a difference for us in the current situation involving a possible attack on Iraq:

   If we go it alone, will we be able to secure the use of airbases, ports, supply bases, and overflight rights in that region? Those rights and those capabilities are so important to the success of a military operation against Saddam.

   If we go it alone, will there be a reduction in the broad international support for the war on terrorism, including the law enforcement, financial, and intelligence cooperation that is so essential?

   If we go it alone, will that destabilize an already volatile region and undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan? Could we possibly end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons?

   If we go it alone, will Saddam Hussein or his military commanders be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations in the region and against our military forces in response to our attack than would be the case if he faced a U.N.-authorized coalition, particularly if that coalition included Muslim nations as the coalition did during the Gulf War?

   If we go it alone, will other nations view our action as a precedent for threatening unilateral military action against their neighbors in the future?

   If we go it alone, will we be undercutting efforts to get other countries to help us with the expensive, lengthy task of stabilizing Iraq after Saddam is removed?

   Beyond the current situation relative to using force in Iraq, going-it-alone without U.N. authorization, based on a modified concept of preemption that no longer requires the threat to be imminent, will lead to a serious risk to international peace and security.

   If we act unilaterally, without U.N. authority or an imminent threat, that will create a dangerous situation for international peace and stability in the long term. We would be inviting other nations to forego an important rule of international law requiring a serious and imminent threat before one nation can attack another in the name of self defense.

   By seeking a U.N. resolution that will authorize U.N. Member States to use force if Iraq does not comply with its terms, we are not giving the United Nations a veto over the conduct of our foreign policy. Rather, we are getting from the United Nations strength and international credibility and legitimacy, should military force be needed.

   We should be seeking to unite the world against Saddam Hussein, not dividing it. Our immediate objective should be to get the United Nations to act--to locate and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. The threat Saddam presents is real, and we should deal with it. But authorization for preemptive, unilateral U.S. action in Iraq does not need to and should not be granted at this time. If the U.N. doesn't act, Congress can be called back promptly to consider a request to authorize force unilaterally and to consider the serious and different risks involved in pursuing that course at that time.

   Last Monday's Washington Post carried a story in which a senior European official's response to the United States going-it-alone was, ``A lot of Europeans would feel they'd been put in an intolerable position.'' For those who would agree to participate militarily, ``it would be less a coalition of the willing than of the dragooned.''

   Javier Solana, former NATO Secretary General and currently High Representative for the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU's top foreign policy official, in an address at NATO Headquarters last Thursday, stated ``Ad hoc coalitions of docile followers to be chosen or discarded at will is neither attractive nor sustainable.''

   Just last week, after hearing from Prime Minister Blair and Foreign Minister Straw, the ruling Labor Party's Conference issued a formal position on Iraq that included the following: ``Conference believes that the authority of the U.N. will be undermined unless it is enforced, and recognises that in the last resort this could involve military action but considers that this should be taken within the context of international law and with the authority of the U.N.''

   And just last Friday, Turkey's presidential spokesman said that his nation would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it, stating ``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted.''

   The best chance of having Saddam Hussein comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions is to make sure that when he looks down the barrel of a gun, he sees the world at the other end, and not just the United States.

   Congress should give the President what he said last night he was asking for--the authority to use U.S. military force to enforce U.N. Security Council demands, not what the White House resolution also provides--go-it-alone authority. Our focus then would be where it belongs: securing a United Nations resolution that can unite the world; that has the best chance of forcing compliance; that reduces the risk to our forces and to our interests throughout the world; that avoids to the maximum extent possible the negative consequences if force is required, including the loss of cooperation on the war on terrorism; and that has the best chance of isolating Saddam Hussein rather than isolating the United States.

   Thank you for listening. That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer your questions.

--

   Senator Carl Levin's Remarks to the Boston World Affairs Council Regarding the Christian A. Herter Award, December 2, 2002

   Thank you for honoring me with this prestigious award.

   The past recipients of the Christian A. Herter Award are a distinguished group of people who have made significant contributions to better understanding among nations, and I am honored to be included in this group.

   It is a particular pleasure to be receiving this award with Dick Lugar, who will become the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January. No member of the Senate is better qualified for this important position than Dick. He is a true internationalist who enjoys the confidence of both Senate Democrats and Republicans, as well as the respect of foreign leaders and parliamentarians around the world.

   A Senator from Michigan can't talk about the importance of national consensus and bipartisanship in America's foreign policy without recalling the career of Arthur Vandenburg, who was an ardent champion of a bipartisan American foreign policy. Senator Vandenberg helped draft the 1945 United Nations Charter and steered its passage through the Senate. He later played a leading role in constructing the Marshall Plan and in the formulation of NATO. Over the years, his name has become synonymous with the expression that ``politics end at the water's edge.''

   That expression is a good one to keep in mind in the weeks after a hard-fought mid-term election and a lengthy debate in Congress over U.S. policy in Iraq. Both these events revealed differences over foreign policy between Democrats and Republicans, and even in some cases among Democrats and Republicans.

   For the most part, Democrats and Republicans will be in agreement on a foreign policy agenda in the coming year.

   We agree on the need to continue an all-out effort against al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.

   We agree on the need to follow to the finish the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, especially if the multilateral path that the President started at the United Nations is followed.

   We agree on the need to deal with the problem presented by North Korea's recently acknowledged nuclear weapons program, working calmly and determinedly with South Korea, Japan and others.

   We agree on the need to strengthen the authority of the central government in Afghanistan.

   We agree on the need to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a goal to which Dick Lugar has contributed so much by creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

   We agree on the value of expanding NATO and modernizing its mission and operations.

   But leaving politics at the water's edge doesn't mean that there won't be differences over foreign policy. While a bipartisan foreign policy is important for both domestic and international purposes, it is healthy--indeed essential at times--for constructive alternative positions to be expressed, as long as these alternatives are not prompted by partisan motivations.

   The Bush Administration's initial foreign policy positions on a host of issues had a pronounced unilateral, and at times, even an isolationist tone. Despite Candidate Bush's call for humility on the part of the world's sole superpower, President Bush too often ignored Candidate Bush's good advice. For instance, his early statements on international treaties and peacekeeping in the Balkans served to undercut or offend even close Allies and, perhaps more importantly, unnecessarily provoked feelings of hostility among the peoples of many nations.

   Constructive criticism of some of the Administration's foreign policies and foreign policy statements over the past year has had a positive impact on both the policies and the rhetoric. That criticism came from within the Administration, from members of Congress of both parties, from the media, and from the leaders of allied and friendly nations.

   For example, during the weeks leading up to the Congressional vote on an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq, many members of Congress sought

[Page: S3773]

   Senator Lugar joined forces with Senator Biden to modify the Administration's proposal to refocus the grant of authority to use military force on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and on seeking a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force.

   I offered an alternative resolution, which was not adopted, which was designed to give even greater importance to a multilateral approach through the United Nations. It deferred a Congressional decision on authorizing the unilateral use of force until such time as the multilateral approach proved to be beyond our reach. My alternative would have called on the United Nations to promptly adopt a new resolution demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the U.N. weapons inspectors so its weapons of mass destruction could be destroyed, authorizing the use of military force by U.N. Member States to enforce the resolution in the event that Iraq refused to comply. My alternative would have authorized the President to use U.S. military force to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pursuant to such a U.N. resolution, and would have provided that Congress not adjourn so we could consider proposals relative to the use of unilateral force if the U.N. Security Council failed to adopt a resolution authorizing the use of force by member states.

   I have urged a multilateral approach to the Iraq threat because I believe that approach has the greatest chance of success. A multilateral approach reduces the risks involved in military action and minimizes the fallout from vengeful, violent retaliatory responses which often result if we're perceived as a unilateral bully. The events of 9/11 made clear that dealing with international terrorism must be our first priority, but we can't effectively deal with international terrorism without the political, law enforcement, intelligence, and, at times, military assistance and cooperation of the world community. That same multilateral approach is essential to combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or to dealing with the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear program.

   I believe the efforts of many within and without the Administration had an impact on the course of action chosen by the Administration and on the legislation on Iraq that was enacted by Congress, which endorsed the multilateral approach and conditioned the unilateral use of force on the President certifying that diplomatic means will not succeed. I also believe those efforts helped Secretary Powell to prevail, at least temporarily, over other views within the Administration during the painstaking negotiations that led to the unanimous adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8th.

   The U.N. resolution was a victory for those who favor a multilateral approach to the use of force. It's great to be the world's only superpower, and I hope it stays that way. But I do not believe that our national interests are well served when we engage in rhetoric that needlessly inflames passions and incites hostility towards the United States and its citizens. Teddy Roosevelt's soft rhetoric and big stick approach was about the right balance.

   We must be more than powerful; we must be wise in the use of our power and wise in the use of our rhetoric. The United States must be a leader, not a loner. Otherwise, we will turn what has been admiration for our values and our beliefs into fear of domination by us and hostility towards our apparent arrogance.

   Recently I was struck in reading an excerpt from Bob Woodward's new book, ``Bush at War,'' in the Washington Post. Woodward was reporting on an interview with the President, and at the end which Laura Bush joined them. The President had just told Woodward that the First Lady wished the President's rhetoric wasn't quite so harsh about getting them ``dead or alive.'' When the President asked her why, the First Lady said, ``It just didn't sound that appealing to me, really.'' The First Laey added that she tells the President from time to time, ``Tone it down, darling,''

   In the spirit of the Christian Herter award, I pledge to work with others in the Congress to seek consensus in support of the Administration's foreign policies whenever possible and, when necessary, to support constructive alternatives that I believe will better suit the interests of the United States. And relative to the Administration's rhetoric, I also will from time to time will urge them to ``tone it down, darlings.''

--

   Opening Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Hearing on Worldwide Threats With George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence and Lowell Jacoby, Defense Intelligence Agency, Wednesday, February 12, 2003

   All of us want Saddam Hussein to be disarmed. The best way to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein without war is if the United Nations speaks with one voice relative to Iraq. I also believe that if military force is used, the best way of reducing both the short-term risks, including the risks to U.S. and coalition forces, and the long-term risks, including the risk of terrorist attacks on our interests throughout the world, is if the United Nations specifically authorizes the use of military force.

   That's the bottom line for me--the best way of increasing any chance of disarming Saddam Hussein without war and of minimizing casualties and future attacks on the United States if war does ensue is if the United Nations acts relative to Iraq.

   Supporting U.N. inspections is an essential step if we are going to keep the Security Council together. We can support those U.N. inspections by sharing the balance of our information about suspect sites, by quickly getting U-2 aircraft in the air over Iraq, with or without Saddam Hussein's approval, and by giving the inspectors the time they need to do their work as long as the inspections are unimpeded.

   I disagree with those, including high officials in our government, who say that U.N. inspections are useless. We heard that before the inspections began. We heard it from Dr. Rice at the White House last week. I am astounded that some of those high officials have gone so far as to refer in a derogatory way to the ``so-called'' U.N. inspectors. If these inspections are useless without Iraqi assistance in pointing out where they have hidden or destroyed weapons of mass destruction, why are we sharing any intelligence at all with the inspectors; and why are we apparently finally implementing U-2 flights to support the inspectors?

   It's one thing to be realistic about the limitations of the U.N. inspections and not have too high hopes about what they can produce.

   It's another thing to denigrate their value, prejudge their value, be dismissive and disdainful about the beliefs of others on the U.N. Security Council about their value, and be cavalier about the facts relative to those inspections.

   Referring to being cavalier about facts brings me to my next point, the sharing of intelligence information in our possession with the U.N. inspectors.

   This is an issue that I have followed very closely. For the last several weeks, at my request, the CIA has been providing me with the classified details of how much information we have been sharing with the U.N. inspectors in Iraq. We just began sharing specific information in early January, according to Secretary Powell as quoted in the Washington Post on January 9th. While I can't go into those classified details in an open hearing, I can say that the information the CIA has provided me made it very clear that we had shared information on only a small percentage of the suspect sites in Iraq and that we had not shared information on the majority of the suspect sites, which was confirmed by CIA staff.

   At yesterday's hearing, I was astounded when Director Tenet told us that we have now shared with U.N. inspectors information about every site we have where we have credible intelligence. Then, last night, in Director Tenet's presence and in the presence of Senator Warner, his staff acknowledged that we still have useful information that we have not shared with the inspectors--which is the opposite of what Director Tenet told the Intelligence Committee yesterday in open session. If we haven't shared yet all the useful information that we have with the U.N. inspectors, that would run counter to the Administration's position that the time for inspections is over.

   When President Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on September 12th of last year, he said that ``We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. Well we have some responsibility to help the United Nations achieve that. Saying to other countries, including allies, that if you don't see it our way, you must have some ulterior motive, doesn't help.

   While a number of heads of State and Government have called for the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security and some have pledged to contribute military forces to that effort, others believe that we should give the strengthened inspections the time they need to finish their job. Both groups agree on the necessity of disarming Iraq. Rather than following a course that divides the United Nations and separates us from some of our closest allies, we should at least fairly consider courses of action that unite the world community against Iraq.

--

   Opening Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services Hearing with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard B. Myers, Thursday, February 13, 2003

   Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers, thank you for coming.

   Mr. Chairman, as we meet today, America's Armed Forces stand on the brink of possible military action. In the next few weeks, as many as 250,000 of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be in the Persian Gulf region, preparing for a possible war against Iraq. Almost 40,000 more stand on the front lines in Korea, within range of North Korean artillery and rockets. Thousands of additional American troops are risking their lives every day in continued operations in the global war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other hot spots around the world. And of course many more continue to work to keep the peace and work to build a more stable future in the Balkans and elsewhere. To support these efforts, the President has already called up more than 110,000 members of the Reserve components to active duty.

[Page: S3774]

   Many questions have been raised in recent months about our policy moves on Iraq, Korea, and elsewhere. Concerns have been raised about our proclivity to proceed unilaterally; about a rising tide of anti-Americanism overseas; about the risk that the focus on Iraq has reduced our focus on the war against terrorism, which has to be fought and won here at home as well as overseas; about whether our refusal to talk directly with the North Korean regime as urged by our South Korean allies may be undermining our interests in that area of the world; and about the degree of our commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan and the possible consequences of a similar lack of follow-through in Iraq.

   I share many of these concerns. I believe that America is at its strongest and best when we make common cause with other nations in pursuit of common goals. I believe that the path to a safer world and a more secure America rarely comes from a go-it-alone approach. Specifically, I believe that, in the absence of an imminent threat, it is in our interest to have a U.N. resolution authorizing member States to take military action before initiating a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

   If there is any chance of disarming Saddam Hussein without war, it is for the United Nations to speak with one voice. And if military force is used, the best way of reducing both the short-term risks, including the risks to U.S. and coalition forces, and the long-term risks, including the risk of terrorist attacks on our people throughout the world, is also a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force.

   Supporting U.N. inspections is an essential step if we are going to keep the Security Council together. We can show support for those U.N. inspections by sharing with the U.N. inspectors the balance of our significant intelligence information about suspect sites, by quickly getting U-2 aircraft in the air over Iraq without conditions and with or without Saddam Hussein's approval, and by giving the inspectors the time they need to finish their work as long as the inspections are unimpeded.

   Yesterday, I talked about statements by the administration that all useful intelligence information in our possession has now been shared with the U.N. inspectors.

   Condoleeza Rice told us that at the White House 10 days ago. George Tenet told us that at an open Intelligence Committee hearing two days ago. They were in error. Director Tenet acknowledged yesterday here that we still have information and will be sharing it.

   The premature declaration that we've already shared all useful intelligence makes us seem excessively eager to bring inspections to a close.

   Top administrative officials from the beginning said inspections were useless and that inspectors couldn't find anything without Saddam showing them where it was.

   Well, that's what he is supposed to do, but there's at least a chance inspections will prove useful even without his cooperation. Inspectors caught him in lies about his biological weapons program in the '90s. And in this morning's paper it appears they are catching him in lies about the range of missiles he's developing.

   Another way to support the inspectors is to back up their request for U-2 surveillance planes, with a U.N. resolution that any interference with them by Saddam Hussein would be considered an act of war against the United Nations.

   During the State of the Union speech, President Bush noted that ``Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.'' Secretary Powell, during his address to the U.N. Security Council a week ago noted that ``Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspections.''

   Indeed the New York Times on January 30th quotes a senior White House official as describing Iraq's refusal to allow the U-2 surveillance flights ``the biggest material breach of all, so far.''

   I met with Dr. Blix and his staff in New York on January 31st. They told me that U-2 flights would be very useful because of their ability to observe large areas of Iraq and to loiter for extended periods of time. U-2 flights would be particularly helpful to track trucks that appear to be moving items from one suspicious place to another, and to track mobile labs. Satellites can't track suspicious vehicles; U-2s can.

   For this reason, I was astonished to read on Tuesday that State Department spokesman Richard Boucher characterized what appears to be an agreement to implement U-2 flights as nothing ``worth getting excited about.'' If Iraq's refusal to allow U-2 surveillance flights is cited by the President and characterized by the White House as ``the biggest material breach of all,'' if Secretary Powell is right when he says that U-2 surveillance flights would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspections, then minimizing their usefulness at this point can only be explained as further disdain for the inspections effort.

   It may be unlikely that inspectors will catch Saddam with the goods without his cooperation. But it's at least possible and we should increase that possibility by sharing all our useful intelligence and using the U-2s.

   Supporting the inspectors in these and other ways is not inconsistent with the position that administration has correctly taken that the burden is on Saddam Hussein to show where the prohibited material is or what he's done with it. The fact that he hasn't carried his burden is undeniable. But how best to deal with his deceit and deception is still ours and the world's challenge.

   There is unanimity around here about one thing at least: all of us and the American people will stand behind our uniformed forces if they are engaged in military conflict. Should they be so engaged, we will provide our men and women in uniform with everything they need to ensure that they prevail promptly and with minimal casualties.

   Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

END

4C) Media Accountability
MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY -- (House of Representatives - March 18, 2003)

[Page: H1925]  GPO's PDF
---

   (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews, both print and television, have subjected our young troops to questions which in my mind have no business being posed days before possible military action. These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons , ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life. Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the task assigned and the mission objective that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage. We must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for rating purposes.

   Today's media has a tremendous amount of access, much more so than they did in Desert Storm. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand and let them do their job and return home safely.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, recent media interviews both print and television have subjected our young troops to questions, which in my mind, have no business being posed days before possible military action.

   These interviews are asking questions regarding fratricide, combat deaths, chemical or biological weapons , ``personal demons,'' and ``bloody urban fighting.'' As many of us in the House are veterans, we know the sacrifices that come with service, including the loss of life.

   Our troops and their commanders know they must focus on the tasks assigned and the mission objectives that must be completed. I believe that focus can be hindered when certain media personalities continue to dredge up these feelings purely for national coverage.

   Let me state that I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate common sense. Providing media access to our troops is necessary to assist in providing accurate information for the American public and to counter false propaganda from other sources seeking to undermine our objectives.

   However, we must be mindful that reporting facts is quite different from generating an emotional story for ratings purposes. Today's media has a tremendous amount of access--much more so than during Desert Storm in 1991. There are 600 journalists embedded in our military operations. With that access comes responsibility ..... responsibility to the troops, their families and the public. I ask that the media let our troops focus on the mission at hand, let them do their job and return safely home.

4D) Use of Force in Iraq


   (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include therein extraneous material.)

   Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, and for the information of all Members, I am in receipt of a report from the President pursuant to the Use of Force Resolution approved by the Congress last year.

   This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by the United States, cooperating with foreign countries and international organizations to obtain Iraqi compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

   Pursuant to House Rule XII, I will refer this report to the Committee on

[Page: H1958]

International Relations. In addition, for the information of the Members, I will submit the document in its entirety for printing into the Congressional Record.

   Let me remind Members that this document is pursuant to legislation and the statute that we passed last year. This is not a declaration that we are in any specific type of activity at this time. It only is the pursuit of the statute that was passed last year.

   Any further announcement will be shared with the Congress.

   THE WHITE HOUSE,

   Washington, March 18, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

   Dear Mr. Speaker: Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

   (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

   (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

   Sincerely,
George W. Bush.

--

   Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law 107-243

   This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by the United States, working for more than a dozen years with cooperating foreign countries and international organizations such as the United Nations, in an intensive effort (1) to protect the national security of the United States, as well as the security of other countries, against the continuing threat posed by Iraqi development and use of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) to obtain Iraqi compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions regarding Iraq. Because of the intransigence and defiance of the Iraqi regime, further continuation of these efforts will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.

   This report also explains that a determination to use force against Iraq is fully consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, as Congress found when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Iraq continues to harbor and aid international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the safety of United States citizens. The use of military force to remove the Iraqi regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of, the international war on terrorism.

   This document is summary in form rather than a comprehensive and definitive rendition of actions taken and related factual data that would constitute a complete historical record. This document should be considered in light of the information that has been, and will be, furnished to Congress, including the periodic reports consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

   1. THE GULF WAR AND CONDITIONS OF THE CEASE-FIRE

   On August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United States and many foreign governments, working together and through the UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security in the region.

   President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January 16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United States to achieve U.S. and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary means to ``implement Resolution 660,'' to implement ``all subsequent relevant resolutions,'' and ``to restore international peace and security in the area.''

   Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States, other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy, multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained intransigent. The President ordered the U.S. armed forces, working in a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq.

   On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the cease-fire.

   2. IRAQ'S BREACH OF THE CEASE-FIRE CONDITIONS: THREATS TO PEACE AND SECURITY

   Since almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire, Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998, Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the cease-fire led military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under threat of ``severest consequences,'' Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted'' access for their inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation, causing the inspectors to leave the country.

   On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years.

   3. RECENT DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PEACEFUL MEANS REJECTED BY IRAQ

   On September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and security. The White House background paper, ``A Decade of Deception and Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations'' (September 12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct: ``For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.''

   The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio: ``Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.''

   In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq ``has been and remains in material breach'' of its disarmament obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one ``final opportunity'' to comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing this final

[Page: H1959]

opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed defiance and deception.

   For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a ``currently accurate, full and complete'' declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction (``WMD'') and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The 12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete, inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had previously identified.

   In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats; undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6, 2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or missile procurements.

   Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on January 27, 2003 that ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it.'' Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that Iraq's declaration of December 7 ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.'' Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in response to the threat of use of force.

   On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal proscribed materials.

   Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7, 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR 1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly after, as the President observed on March 17, ``some permanent members of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq.''

   The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the appearance of progress on process is meaningless--what is necessary is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents, proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

   The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons, repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998 in Public Law 105-235, ``Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security.'' Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that ``[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.''

   In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that: ``Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.''

   Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means will adequately protect the national security of the United States from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the restoration of peace and security in the area.

   As the President stated on March 17, ``[t]he Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.'' Further delay in taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ only diplomacy and other peaceful means.

   4. USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WAR ON TERROR

   In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings concerning Iraq's support for international terrorism. Among other things, Congress determined that:

   Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

   Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.

   It is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.

   In addition, the Secretary of State's address to the UN on February 5, 2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in document forgery and explosives to al Qaida. Other terrorist groups have been supported by Iraq over past years.

   Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States and our allies. These actions violate Iraq's obligations under the UNSCR 687 cease-fire not to commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. Iraq has also failed to comply with its cease-fire obligations to disarm and submit to international inspections to verify compliance. In light of these Iraqi activities, the use of force by the United States and other countries against the current Iraqi regime is fully consistent with--indeed, it is an integral part of--the war against international terrorists and terrorist organizations.

   Both because Iraq harbors terrorists and because Iraq could share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists who seek them for use against the United States, the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations under UNSC resolutions would be a significant contribution to the war on terrorists of global reach. A change in the current Iraqi regime would eliminate an important source of support for international terrorist activities. It would likely also assist efforts to disrupt terrorist networks and capture terrorists around the globe. United States Government personnel operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government documents and interviews with

[Page: H1960]

detained Iraqi officials that would identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are linked to terrorist organizations.

   The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror, and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world. The U.S. armed forces remain engaged in key areas around the world in the prosecution of the war on terrorism. The necessary preparations for and conduct of military operations in Iraq have not diminished the resolve, capability, or activities of the United States to pursue international terrorists to protect our homeland. Nor with the use of military force against Iraq distract civilian departments and agencies of the United States Government from continuing aggressive efforts in combating terrorism, or divert resources from the overall world-wide counter-terrorism effort. Current counter-terrorism investigations and activities will continue during any military conflict, and winning the war on terrorism will remain the top priority for our Government.

   Indeed, the United States has made significant progress on other fronts in the war on terror even while Iraq and its threat to the United States and other countries have been a focus of concern. Since November 2002, when deployments of forces to the Gulf were substantially increased, the United States, in cooperation with our allies, has arrested or captured several terrorists and frustrated several terrorist plots. For example, on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani authorities, with U.S. cooperation. The capture of Sheikh Mohammed, the al Qaida ``mastermind'' of the September 11th attacks and Osama Bin Laden's senior terrorist attack planner, is a severe blow to al Qaida that will destabilize the terrorist network worldwide. This and other successes make clear that the United States Government remains focused on the war on terror, and that use of force in Iraq is fully consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against terrorists and terrorist organizations.

   5. CONCLUSION

   In the circumstances described above, the President of the United States has the authority--indeed, given the dangers involved, the duty--to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions.

   The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under the U.S. Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

   In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member states, including the United States, have the right to use force in Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq in 1990. This resolution--on which the United States has relied continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in 1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones--remains in effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts, including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

   Accordingly, the United States has clear authority to use military force against Iraq to assure its national security and to compel Iraq's compliance with applicable UNSC resolutions.

4E) Erroneous Justifications for War in Iraq


   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last night. I have no doubt that the President loves this country as much as I do, and he wants to do what is right. My problem with what he said is this: Many of the facts he cites and the things he believes about Iraq and about international law, and I hate to say this, are just plain wrong.

   There is a very good article in today's Washington Post buried on page 13 which is entitled ``Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq,'' which I will submit for the RECORD. It reminds us of some things we have forgotten.

   For instance, does Iraq have nuclear weapons ? Is it trying to make them? The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Commission determined the tubes were for conventional weapons .

   The administration has pointed to 30 pounds of fissile material that was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out to be less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal.

   In his State of the Union Address, the President relied on a report that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, in Africa. That turned out to be a forgery, and it was a forgery that the CIA had warned the administration about.

   Last week the Vice President said Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear weapons .'' Later in the same interview, he said that Iraq would get nuclear weapons , and it was only a matter of time. But the International Atomic Energy Commission, which has people on the ground in Iraq, or did until we told them to get out, says that there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.

   Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found the missiles, determined they could not fly as far as those three countries, but they ordered them destroyed anyway. The Iraqis destroyed them, but the President said Hussein has ordered continued production, apparently based on nothing more than an electronic intercept where someone said they could build missiles in the future.

   Does Iraq have an extensive ongoing weapons program? Well, a graduate student 12 years ago wrote a paper that

[Page: H1928]  GPO's PDF

says so. It was plagiarized by the Blair government and passed on to Secretary Powell and cited in the United Nations as a news-breaking British intelligence document. When I weigh a plagiarized graduate school paper against the U.N. inspector's report, my inclination is to go with the United Nations report.

   

[Time: 19:00]

   But this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper. The President also threw in some misconceptions about international law. He believes that various U.N. resolutions add up to enough authority to go to war. That is not true. When the President takes his oath, he agrees to follow the treaties in article 6, clause II: ``This Constitution and all treaties made shall be made under the authority of the United States and shall be the supreme law of the land.''

   When we go to war in Iraq, we are breaking that law. Now I hope the President, who still has 2 days to do some thinking, will consider drawing back from the brink.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last night. I have no doubt that the President loves this country as much as I do, and wants to do what is right.

   My problem with what he said is simply this: many of the facts he cites and the things he believes about Iraq and about international law are--and I hate to say this--just wrong.

   There is a good article in the Washington Post today called ``Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq,'' which I will submit for the RECORD. It reminds us of some things we have forgotten.

   Does Iraq have nuclear weapons ? Is it trying to make them?

   The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International Atomic Energy Commission determined that the tubes were for conventional weapons .

   The Administration has pointed to 30 pounds of ``fissile material'' that was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out to be less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal. In his State of the Union Address, the President relied on a report that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger that turned out to be a forgery, and a forgery that the CIA had warned the Administration about.

   Last weekend, on Meet the Press, Vice President CHENEY said Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear weapons .'' Later in the same interview, he said Iraq would get nuclear weapons and it was ``only a matter of time.''

   But the International Atomic Energy Commission which has people on the ground in Iraq--or did until we told them they should get out--says ``there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.''

   Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found the missiles, determined that they couldn't fly as far as those three countries, but ordered them destroyed.

   The Iraqis destroyed them, but the President says Hussein has ordered their continued production--apparently based on nothing more than an electronic intercept where someone says they could build missiles again in the future.

   Does Iraq have an extensive, on-going weapons program? Well, a graduate student wrote a paper that says so and it was plagiarized by the Blair government, and passed on to Secretary Powell and cited as a newsbreaking British intelligence document.

   When I weigh a plagiarized grad school paper against the U.N. inspector's report, my inclination is to go with the U.N. inspector's report--but this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper.

   The President also threw in some misconceptions about international law in his speech last night. He believes that various U.N. Resolutions add up to enough authority for the U.S. to launch an air and ground invasion of Iraq.

   This is not true. When we joined the U.N., we signed a treaty. The treaty says a member state can attack another country under two conditions--when attacked or in imminent danger of attack or when an attack is authorized by the Security Council.

   The President said last week that we were going to the Security Council for authority and we'd have a vote ``no matter what the Whip count is.'' Well, we didn't. We didn't because we were going to lose.

   Mr. Bush came up here to the Capitol steps on January 20, 2001 and said, ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That's the Oath of Office, friends.

   The Constitution he pledged to uphold says, Article 6, Clause 2: ``This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.''

   Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land, on a par with the Constitution. The Constitution says so. We aren't supposed to pick and choose.

   We've never before in the history of the United States invaded another country without some kind of immediate provocation. But from now on, under the Bush Doctrine, we're going to invade when we think it's a good idea whether the Security Council agrees or not.

   This is a dangerous course--and it's especially dangerous when the information used to decide whom to invade is so very, very bad.

   Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the President to pull back from this course of action, to re-examine the so-called ``facts'' he's relying on and to find another path. Let us pray that he does.

• [End Insert]

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2003]

   Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq

(By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank)

   As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged--and in some cases disproved--by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

   For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear weapons .'' Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons . Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

   But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence--such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium--has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.

   In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 ``if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed ..... biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax.'' He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders ``have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years.''

   But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping ``terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction ] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.''

   In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' the vice president argued that ``we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons .'' But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was ``only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons .'' Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that ``there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.''

   ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons . ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and ``it was highly unlikely'' that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

   Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was ``wrong'' about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.

   Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraq efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

   In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.

   Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled ``even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.'' But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

   Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing ``the power of freedom to transform that vital region'' and said ``a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.'' But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff

[Page: H1929]  GPO's PDF

and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.

   In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, has October, Bush said, ``Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations--in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.''

   Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.


Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.