A bill to extend waivers under the temporary assistance to needy families program through the end of fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, last year when I voted to support passage of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, I voiced concerns about several flaws in the legislation. I called for the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to monitor implementation of the new law and to craft corrective legislation in the 108th Congress. One of my chief concerns with the HSA was a subtitle of the act that granted an extraordinarily broad exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, in exchange for the cooperation of private companies in sharing information with the government regarding vulnerabilities in the nation's critical infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the law that was enacted undermines Federal and State sunshine laws permitting the American people to know what their government is doing. Rather than increasing security by encouraging private sector disclosure to the government, it guts FOIA at the expense of our national security and public health and safety.

On March 16, we mark Freedom of Information Day, which falls on the anniversary of James Madison's birthday. Madison said, ``A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' As a long- time supporter of open government, I believe we must heed Madison's warning and revisit the potentially damaging limitations placed on access to information by the HSA.

I rise today to introduce legislation with my distinguished colleagues Senator Levin, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Byrd to restore the integrity of FOIA. I want to thank my colleagues for working with me on this important issue of public oversight. This bill protects Americans' ``right to know'' while simultaneously providing security to those in the private sector who voluntarily submit critical infrastructure records to the newly created Department of Homeland Security, DHS.

Encouraging cooperation between the private sector and the government to keep our critical infrastructure systems safe from terrorist attacks is a goal we all support. But the appropriate way to meet this goal is a source of great debate--a debate that has been all but ignored since the enactment of the HSA last year.

The HSA created a new FOIA exemption for ``critical infrastructure information.'' That broadly defined term applies to information regarding a variety of facilities--such as privately operated power plants, bridges, dams, ports, or chemical plants--that might be targeted for a terrorist attack. In HSA negotiations last fall, House Republicans and the administration promoted language that they described as

necessary to encourage owners of such facilities to identify vulnerabilities in their operations and share that information with the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. The stated goal was to ensure that steps could be taken to ensure the facilities' protection and proper functioning.

In fact, such descriptions of the legislation were disingenuous. These provisions, which were eventually enacted in the HSA, shield from FOIA almost any voluntarily submitted document stamped by the facility owner as ``critical infrastructure.'' This is true no matter how tangential the content of that document may be to the actual security of a facility. The law effectively allows companies to hide information about public health and safety from American citizens simply by submitting it to DHS. The enacted provisions were called ``deeply flawed'' by Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation in a November 20, 2002 Washington Post op-ed. ``Too Many Secrets,'' Washington Post, November 20, 2002, at A25. He argued that the ``loophole'' created by the law ``could be manipulated by clever corporate and government operators to hide endless varieties of potentially embarrassing and/or criminal information from public view.''

In addition, under the HSA, disclosure by private facilities to DHS neither obligates the private company to address the vulnerability, nor requires DHS to fix the problem. For example, in the case of a chemical spill, the law bars the government from disclosing information without the written consent of the company that caused the pollution. As the Washington Post editorialized on February 10, 2003, ``A company might preempt environmental regulators by `voluntarily' divulging incriminating material, thereby making it unavailable to anyone else.'' ``Fix This Loophole,'' Washington Post, February 10, 2003, at A20.

The new law also 1. shields the companies from lawsuits to compel disclosure, 2. criminalizes otherwise legitimate whistleblower activity by DHS employees, and 3. preempts any state or local disclosure laws.

The Restore FOIA bill I introduce today with Senators Levin, Jeffords, Lieberman, and Byrd is identical to language I negotiated with Senators Levin and Bennett last summer when the HSA was debated by the Governmental Affairs Committee. Senator Bennett stated in the Committee's July 25, 2003 mark up that the administration had endorsed the compromise. He also said that industry groups had reported to him that the compromise language would make it possible for them to share information with the government without fear of the information being released to competitors or to other agencies that might accidentally reveal it. The Governmental Affairs Committee reported out the compromise language that day. Unfortunately, much more restrictive House language was eventually signed into law.

The February 10 Post editorial called the Leahy-Levin-Bennett language ``a compromise that would accomplish the reasonable purpose'' of ``encouraging companies to share information with the government about infrastructure that might be vulnerable to terrorist attack without such broad harmful effects.'' Id. The Post editorial was titled, ``Fix This Loophole,'' which is exactly what my colleagues and I hope to accomplish with the introduction of this bill. Id.

The Restore FOIA bill would correct the problems in the HSA in several ways. First, it limits the FOIA exemption to relevant ``records'' submitted by the private sector, such that only those that actually pertain to critical infrastructure safety are protected. ``Records'' is the standard category referred to in FOIA. This corrects the effective free pass given to industry by the HSA for any information it labels ``critical infrastructure.''

Second, unlike the HSA, the Restore FOIA bill allows for government oversight, including the ability to use and share the records within and between agencies. It does not limit the use of such information by the government, except to prohibit public disclosure where such information is appropriately exempted under FOIA.

Third, it protects the actions of legitimate whistleblowers, rather than criminalizing their acts.

Fourth, it does not provide civil immunity to companies that voluntarily submit information. This corrects a flaw in the current law, which would prohibit such information from being used directly in civil suits by government or private parties.

Fifth, unlike the HSA, the Restore FOIA bill allows local authorities to apply their own sunshine laws. The Restore FOIA bill does not preempt any state or local disclosure laws for information obtained outside the Department of Homeland Security. Likewise, it does not restrict the use of such information by state agencies.

Finally, the Restore FOIA bill does not restrict congressional use or disclosure of voluntarily submitted critical infrastructure information. The HSA language was unclear on this point, and even the Congressional Research Service could not say for certain that members of Congress or their staff would not be criminally liable. Homeland Security Act of 2002: Critical Infrastructure Information Act, February 29, 2003, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL31762, at 14-15.

These changes to the HSA would accomplish the stated goals of the critical infrastructure provisions in the HSA without tying the hands of the government in its efforts to protect Americans and without cutting the public out of the loop.

The Administration has flip-flopped on how to best approach the issue of critical infrastructure information. The Administration's original June 18, 2002, legislative proposal establishing a new department carved out an FOIA exemption, in section 204, and required non- disclosure of any ``information'' ``voluntarily'' provided to the new Department of Homeland Security by ``non-Federal entities or individuals'' pertaining to ``infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism'' in the possession of, or that passed through, the new department. Critical terms, such as ``voluntarily provided,'' were undefined.

The Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to query Governor Ridge about the Administration's proposal on June 26, 2002, when the Administration reversed its long-standing position and allowed him to testify in his capacity as the Director of the Transition Planning Office.

Governor Ridge's testimony at that hearing is instructive. He seemed to appreciate the concerns expressed by Members about the President's June 18 proposal and to be willing to work with us in the legislative process to find common ground. On the FOIA issue, he described the Administration's goal to craft ``a limited statutory exemption to the Freedom of Information Act'' to help ``the Department's most important missions [which] will be to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.'' (June 26, 2002 Hearing, Tr., p. 24). Governor Ridge explained that to accomplish this, the Department must be able to ``collect information, identifying key assets and components of that infrastructure, evaluate vulnerabilities, and match threat assessments against those vulnerabilities.'' (Id., at p. 23).

I do not understand why some have insisted that FOIA and our national security are inconsistent. Before the HSA was enacted, the FOIA already exempted from disclosure matters that are classified; trade secret, commercial and financial information, which is privileged and confidential; various law enforcement records and information, including confidential source and informant information; and FBI records pertaining to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism. These already broad exemptions in the FOIA were designed to protect national security and public safety and to ensure that the private sector can provide needed information to the government.

Prior to enactment of the HSA, the FOIA exempted from disclosure any financial or commercial information provided voluntarily to the government, if it was of a kind that the provider would not customarily make available to the public. Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Such information enjoyed even stronger nondisclosure protections than did material that the government requested. Applying this exception, Federal regulatory agencies safeguarded the confidentiality of all kinds of critical infrastructure information, like nuclear power plant safety reports (Critical

Mass, 975 F.2d at 874), information about product manufacturing processes and internal security measures (Bowen v. Food & Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1991), design drawings of airplane parts (United Technologies Corp. by Pratt & Whitney v. F.A.A., 102 F.3d 688 (2d Cir. 1996)), and technical data for video conferencing software (Gilmore v. Dept. of Energy, 4 F. Supp.2d 912 (N.D. Cal. 1998)).

The head of the FBI National Infrastructure Protection Center, NIPC, testified more than five years ago, in September, 1998, that the ``FOIA excuse'' used by some in the private sector for failing to share information with the government was, in essence, baseless. He explained the broad application of FOIA exemptions to protect from disclosure information received in the context of a criminal investigation or a ``national security intelligence'' investigation, including information submitted confidentially or even anonymously. [Sen. Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Hearing on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Toward a New Policy Directive, S. HRG. 105-763, March 17 and June 10, 1998, at p. 107]

The FBI also used the confidential business record exemption under (b)(4) ``to protect sensitive corporate information, and has, on specific occasions, entered into agreements indicating that it would do so prospectively with reference to information yet to be received.'' NIPC was developing policies ``to grant owners of information certain opportunities to assist in the protection of the information (e.g., by `sanitizing the information themselves') and to be involved in decisions regarding further dissemination by the NIPC.'' Id. In short, the former Administration witness stated:

Sharing between the private sector and the government

occasionally is hampered by a perception in the private

sector that the government cannot adequately protect private

sector information from disclosure under the Freedom of

Information Act, FOIA. The NIPC believes that this perception

is flawed in that both investigative and infrastructure

protection information submitted to NIPC are protected from

FOIA disclosure under current law. (Id.)

Nevertheless, for more than five years, businesses continued to seek a broad FOIA exemption that also came with special legal protections to limit their civil and criminal liability. That business wish list was largely granted in the Homeland Security Act.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Governor Ridge, I expressed my concern that an overly broad FOIA exemption would encourage government complicity with private firms to keep secret information about critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, reduce the incentive to fix the problems and end up hurting rather than helping our national security. In the end, more secrecy may undermine rather than foster security.

Governor Ridge seemed to appreciate these risks, and said he was ``anxious to work with the Chairman and other members of the committee to assure that the concerns that [had been] raised are properly addressed.'' Id. at p. 24. He assured us that ``[t]his Administration is ready to work together with you in partnership to get the job done. This is our priority, and I believe it is yours as well.'' Id. at p. 25. This turned out to be an empty promise.

Almost before the ink was dry on the Administration's earlier June proposal, on July 10, 2002, the Administration proposed to substitute a much broader FOIA exemption that would (1) exempt from disclosure under the FOIA critical infrastructure information voluntarily submitted to the new department that was designated as confidential by the submitter unless the submitter gave prior written consent, (2) provide limited civil immunity for use of the information in civil actions against the company, with the likely result that regulatory actions would be preceded by litigation by companies that submitted designated information to the department over whether the regulatory action was prompted by a confidential disclosure, (3) preempt state sunshine laws if the designated information is shared with state or local government agencies, (4) impose criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment on government employees who disclosed the designated information, and (5) antitrust immunity for companies that joined together with agency components designated by the President to promote critical infrastructure security.

Despite the Administration's promulgation of two separate proposals for a new FOIA exemption in as many weeks, in July, Director Ridge's Office of Homeland Security released The National Strategy for Homeland Security, which appeared to call for more study of the issue before legislating. Specifically, this report called upon the Attorney General to ``convene a panel to propose any legal changes necessary to enable sharing of essential homeland security information between the government and the private sector.'' (P. 33)

The need for more study of the Administration's proposed new FOIA exemption was made amply clear by its possible adverse environmental, public health and safety affects. Keeping secret problems in a variety of critical infrastructures would simply remove public pressure to fix the problems. Moreover, several environmental groups pointed out that, under the Administration's proposal, companies could avoid enforcement action by ``voluntarily'' providing information about environmental violations to the EPA, which would then be unable to use the information to hold the company accountable and also would be required to keep the information confidential. It would bar the government from disclosing information about spills or other violations without the written consent of the company that caused the pollution.

I worked on a bipartisan basis with many interested stakeholders from environmental, civil liberties, human rights, business and government watchdog groups to craft a compromise FOIA exemption that did not grant the business sector's wish-list but did provide additional nondisclosure protections for certain records without jeopardizing the public health and safety. At the request of Chairman Lieberman for the Judiciary Committee's views on the new department, I shared my concerns about the Administration's proposed FOIA exemption and then worked with Members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, in particular Senator Levin and Senator Bennett, to craft a more narrow and responsible exemption that accomplishes the Administration's goal of encouraging private companies to share records of critical infrastructure vulnerabilities with the new Department of Homeland Security without providing incentives to ``game'' the system of enforcement of environmental and other laws designed to protect our nation's public health and safety. We refined the FOIA exemption in a manner that satisfied the Administration's stated goal, while limiting the risks of abuse by private companies or government agencies.

This compromise solution was supported by the Administration and other Members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and was unanimously adopted by that Committee at the markup of the Homeland Security Department bill on July 25, 2002. The compromise which I now introduce as a free standing bill would exempt from the FOIA certain records pertaining to critical infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities that are furnished voluntarily to the new Department and designated by the provider as confidential and not customarily made available to the public. Notably, the compromise FOIA exemption made clear that the exemption only covered ``records'' from the private sector, not all ``information'' provided by the private sector and thereby avoided the adverse result of government agency-created and generated documents and databases being put off-limits to the FOIA simply if private sector ``information'' is incorporated. Moreover, the compromise FOIA exemption clearly defined what records may be considered ``furnished voluntarily,'' which did not cover records used ``to satisfy any legal requirement or obligation to obtain any grant, permit, benefit (such as agency forbearance, loans, or reduction or modifications of agency penalties or rulings), or other approval from the Government.'' The FOIA compromise exemption further ensured that portions of records that are not covered by the exemption would be released pursuant to FOIA requests. This compromise did not provide any civil liability or antitrust immunity that could be used to immunize bad actors or frustrate regulatory enforcement action, nor did

the compromise preempt state or local sunshine laws.

Unfortunately, the version of the HSA that we enacted last November jettisoned the bipartisan compromise on the FOIA exemption, worked out in the Senate with the Administration's support, and replaced it with a big-business wish-list gussied up in security garb. The HSA's FOIA exemption makes off-limits to the FOIA much broader categories of ``information'' and grants businesses the legal immunities and liability protections they have sought so vigorously for over five years. This law goes far beyond what is needed to achieve the laudable goal of encouraging private sector companies to help protect our critical infrastructure. Instead, it ties the hands of the federal regulators and law enforcement agencies working to protect the public from imminent threats. It gives a windfall to companies who fail to follow federal health and safety standards. Most disappointingly, it undermines the goals of openness in government that the FOIA was designed to achieve. In short, the FOIA exemption in the HSA represents the most severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act in its 36- year history.

In the end, the broad secrecy protections provided to critical infrastructure information in this bill will promote more secrecy, which may undermine rather than foster national security. In addition, the immunity provisions in the bill will frustrate enforcement of the laws that protect the public's health and safety.

Let me explain in greater detail. The FOIA exemption enacted in the HSA allows companies to stamp or designate certain information as critical infrastructure information, or ``CII,'' and then submit this information about their operations to the government either in writing or orally, and thereby obtain a blanket shield from FOIA's disclosure mandates as well as other protections. A Federal agency may not disclose or use voluntarily-submitted and CII-marked information, except for a limited ``informational purpose,'' such as ``analysis, warning, interdependency study, recovery, reconstitution,'' without the company's consent. Even when using the information to warn the public about potential threats to critical infrastructure, the bill requires agencies to take steps to protect from disclosure the source of the CII information and other ``business sensitive'' information.

The law also contains an unprecedented provision that threatens jail time and job loss to any government employee who happens to disclose any critical infrastructure information that a company has submitted and wants to keep secret. These penalties for using the CII information in an unauthorized fashion or for failing to take steps to protect disclosure of the source of the information are severe and will chill any release of CII information--not just when a FOIA request comes in, but in all situations, no matter the circumstance. Criminalizing disclosures not of classified information or national security related information, but of information that a company decides it does not want public--is an effective way to quash discussion and debate over many aspects of the government's work. In fact, under the HSA, CII information is granted more comprehensive protection under Federal criminal laws than classified information.

This provision of the law has potentially disastrous consequences. If an agency is given information from an internet service provider, ISP, about cyberattack vulnerabilities, agency employees will have to think twice about sharing that information with other ISPs for fear that, without the consent of the ISP to use the information, even a warning might cost their jobs or risk criminal prosecution.

This provision means that if a Federal regulatory agency needs to issue a regulation to protect the public from threats of harm, it cannot rely on any voluntarily submitted information--bringing the normal regulatory process to a grinding halt. Public health and law enforcement officials need the flexibility to decide how and when to warn or prepare the public in the safest, most effective manner. They should not have to get ``sign off'' from a Fortune 500 company to do so.

While the HSA risks making it harder for the government to protect American families, it makes it much easier for companies to escape responsibility when they violate the law by giving them unprecedented immunity from civil and regulatory enforcement actions. Once a business declares that information about its practices relates to critical infrastructure and is ``voluntarily'' provided, it can then prevent the Federal Government from disclosing it not just to the public, but also to a court in a civil action. This means that an agency receiving CII- marked submissions showing invasions of employee or customer privacy, environmental pollution, or government contracting fraud will be unable to use that information in a civil action to hold that company accountable. Even if the regulatory agency obtains the information necessary to bring an enforcement action from an alternative source, the company will be able to tie the government up in protracted litigation over the source of the information.

For example, if a company submits information that its factory is leaching arsenic in ground water, that information may not be turned over to local health authorities to use in any enforcement proceeding nor turned over to neighbors who were harmed by drinking the water for use in a civil tort action. Moreover, even if EPA tries to bring an action to stop the company's wrongdoing, the ``use immunity'' provided in the HSA will tie the agency up in litigation making it prove where it got the information and whether it is tainted as ``fruit of the poisonous tree''--i.e., obtained from the company under the ``critical infrastructure program.''

Similarly, if the new Department of Homeland Security receives information from a bio-medical laboratory about its security vulnerabilities, and anthrax is released from the lab three weeks later, the Department will not be able to warn the public promptly about how to protect itself without consulting with and trying to get the consent of the laboratory in order to avoid the risk of job loss or criminal prosecution for a non-consensual disclosure. Moreover, if the laboratory is violating any state, local or federal regulation in its handling of the anthrax, the Department will not be able to turn over to another Federal agency, such as the EPA or the Department of Health and Human Services, or to any State or local health officials, information or documents relating to the laboratory's mishandling of the anthrax for use in any enforcement proceedings against the laboratory, or in any wrongful death action, should the laboratory's mishandling of the anthrax result in the death of any person. The law specifically states that such CII-marked information ``shall not, without the written consent of the person or entity submitting such information, be used directly by such agency, any other Federal, State, or local authority, or any third party, in any civil action arising under Federal or State law if such information is submitted in good faith.'' [H.R. 5710, section 214(a)(1)(C)]

Most businesses are good citizens and take seriously their obligations to the government and the public, but this ``disclose-and- immunize'' provision is subject to abuse by those businesses that want to exploit legal technicalities to avoid regulatory guidelines. The HSA lays out the perfect blueprint to avoid legal liability: funnel damaging information into this voluntary disclosure system and pre-empt the government or others harmed by the company's actions from being able to use it against the company. This is not the kind of two-way public-private cooperation that our country needs.

The scope of the information that is covered by the new HSA FOIA exemption is overly broad and undermines the openness in government that FOIA was intended to guarantee. Under this law, information about virtually every important sector of our economy that today the public has a right to see can be shut off from public view simply by labeling it ``critical infrastructure information.'' Prior to enactment of the HSA, under FOIA standards, courts had required federal agencies to disclose 1. pricing information in contract bids so citizens can make sure the government is wisely spending their taxpayer dollars; 2. compliance reports that allow constituents to insist that government contractors comply with federal equal

opportunity mandates; and 3. banks' financial data so the public can ensure that federal agencies properly approve bank mergers. Without access to this kind of information, it will be harder for the public to hold its government accountable. Under the HSA, all of this information may be marked CII information and kept out of public view.

The HSA FOIA exemption goes so far in exempting such a large amount of material from FOIA's disclosure requirements that it undermines government openness without making any real gains in safety for families in Vermont and across America. We do not keep America safer by chilling Federal officials from warning the public about threats to their health and safety. We do not ensure our nation's security by refusing to tell the American people whether or not their federal agencies are doing their jobs or their government is spending their hard earned tax dollars wisely. We do not encourage real two-way cooperation by giving companies protection from civil liability when they break the law. We do not respect the spirit of our democracy when we cloak in secrecy the workings of our government from the public we are elected to serve.

The argument over the scope of the FOIA and unilateral executive power to shield matters from public scrutiny goes to the heart of our fundamental right to be an educated electorate aware of what our government is doing. The Rutland Herald got it right in a November 26, 2002 editorial that explained: ``The battle was not over the right of the government to hold sensitive, classified information secret. The government has that right. Rather, the battle was over whether the government would be required to release anything it sought to withhold.''

We need to fix this troubling restriction on public accountability. Exempting the new Department from laws that ensure responsibility to the Congress and to the American people makes for a tenuous start not the sure footing we all want for the success and endurance of this new Department. I urge my colleagues to support the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2003.

I ask unanimous consent to print the editorials I mentioned and several letters of support of the Restore FOIA bill in the Record.

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

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

(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.

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

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.

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

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.

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. 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.

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

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

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?

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.

The Senator from Texas is to be recognized next.

I have to ask it be on your time.

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.

Yes.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

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

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

We go to the other side.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

I grant the Senator from Utah 2 minutes.

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

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. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

I specifically ask the Senator from New Mexico be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, today I join with Senators Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords, and Lieberman to introduce the Restore Freedom of Information Act, Restore FOIA, that will provide the public with access to information, while at the same time ensuring that information voluntarily submitted to the government by companies is not improperly disclosed. In order to ensure public access and limit improper disclosure, we need to reexamine some aspects of the Homeland Security Act, HSA, which was rushed through Congress last year, dropping several carefully-crafted, bipartisan measures which had been adopted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, along the way. Dropping those measures left ambiguities in the law that need to be clarified, and today's bill is an attempt to make those clarifications and address certain problems that could otherwise result.

The issue this bill addresses is public access to information in the possession of the Homeland Security Department. Although some seem to want to shroud all homeland security efforts in secrecy, as Judge Damon Keith, writing for the U.S. Sixth Circuit of Appeals, recently warned ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' The principles of open government and the public's right to know are cornerstones of our democracy. We cannot sacrifice those principles in the name of protecting them.

One of the reasons that I voted against the Homeland Security Act last year was because the final bill dropped a bipartisan provision, passed by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, clarifying how the new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, should comply with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. The final bill substituted a poorly drafted provision that could inappropriately close the door on persons seeking unclassified information from the Department related to critical infrastructure.

What is critical infrastructure? Critical infrastructure is the backbone that holds our country together and

makes it work--our roads, computer grids, telephones, pipelines, water treatment plants, utilities, and other facilities essential to a fully functioning Nation. It so happens that, in the United States, much of our critical infrastructure is controlled by private entities, often privately owned or publicly traded corporations. To strengthen existing protections for these facilities, the Federal Government asked the companies that own them to submit unclassified information about their facilities to assist the government in evaluating them, identifying possible problems, and designing stronger protections from terrorist attack, natural disasters, or other threats to homeland security.

Some companies asked to voluntarily submit this information feared that it might be improperly disclosed, and sought a new exemption from the Federal Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, to prohibit disclosure of so-called ``critical infrastructure information.'' Reporters, public interest groups, and others feared that, if this FOIA exemption were granted, companies could send important environmental and safety information to DHS under the general heading of ``critical infrastructure information'' and thereby put this information out of the public's reach. To bring these sides together, last July, Senators Bennett, Leahy and I worked out a bipartisan FOIA compromise that codified existing case law with regard to companies voluntarily submitting information. At the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the homeland security legislation, Senator Bennett said that the Administration supported our compromise, but the language was ultimately dropped from the final Homeland Security Act. As a result, the media, public interest groups, and others continue to fear that companies may be hiding important health and safety information that has long been public and should be public behind the mask of ``critical infrastructure.''

To rectify this situation, today we are introducing a bill that would change the existing HSA language in several important ways. First, our bill defines the key term, ``critical infrastructure,'' in a more focused way than the overly broad language in the HSA. To do that, our bill draws from language in existing case law, that has already been tested by the courts. The existing HSA language, it interpreted broadly, could expand the prohibition on disclosing critical infrastructure information to include virtually every aspect of a company's operations, denying public access to a great deal of health and safety information that the public has a right to know. If this expansive interpretation was not the intent of the bill's drafters, then they should be willing to accept our court-tested language.

A second important change that our bill would make in the existing HSA involves the issue of civil immunity for companies that violate the law. As currently worded, the HSA seems to suggest that companies which voluntarily submit to DHS critical infrastructure information indicating that the company is in violation of public health or safety regulations may gain protection from legal action in court to halt or penalize this wrongdoing, even if the information shows that the company is acting negligently. For example, the current HSA provisions could lead to the disturbing situation where DHS learns, through a critical infrastructure submission, that a company is leaking polluted sludge into a nearby waterway in violation of environmental restrictions, but is barred from going to court to stop the pollution because the law appears to prohibit the agency's use of the critical infrastructure information in a civil action. Our bill would eliminate the possibility that the HSA would provide companies with civil immunity under these circumstances.

A third key problem with the existing HSA language is that it includes a provision that could send a Federal whistleblower who discloses critical infrastructure information, even to an appropriate authority, to prison. The language is clear that if a DHS employee discloses unclassified critical infrastructure information, even when acting as a whistleblower who reveals the information to Congress in an act of conscience or patriotism, that whistleblower could wind up in jail. My colleague, Senator Leahy, describes a whistleblower who works at the FAA who blew the whistle on government collusion to coverup failures by airlines to meet tests on airline preparedness. That whistleblower could have ended up in jail had he blown the whistle under today's law. A year in jail is quite a deterrent for a Federal employee who is thinking about blowing the whistle, and we have never before threatened Federal whistleblowers with jail terms. It is a bad idea, and it is counterproductive to homeland safety.

There are other troubling provisions in the current HSA law as well, equally detrimental to the public's right to know. For example, the HSA exempts all communication of critical infrastructure information from the open meeting and other sunshine requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and places critical infrastructure information outside restrictions on ex parte contacts. The HSA also pre-empts state and local sunshine laws, an undue intrusion on the power of the States. The bill we are introducing today would strike all of these unnecessary provisions, and create in their stead a narrow FOIA exemption that balances the prohibition against improper disclosures of critical infrastructure information with the public's right to know.

Finally, I would like to include in the Record two examples of situations that could occur under the language in the HSA but would not occur under our bill. These disturbing examples were provided by Dr. Rena Steinzor, Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, on behalf of the center for Progressive Regulation.

Case Study Number 1 is the following:

A large Midwest utility decides to replace an old coal burning electric generation unit with a new one. The new unit, much larger than the first, will produce significantly greater air pollution emissions. The company could mitigate these increases by installing additional pollution control equipment, but decides it does not wish to incur the expense. It begins construction and simultaneously reports its plans to the DHS as ``critical infrastructure information,'' so Federal security experts will know about its increased capacity to generate electricity.

A Department of Homeland Security employee, visiting the plant to consult on government purchases of power during emergency situations, notices readings on internal gauges reflecting the dramatically increased emissions. She telephones EPA to report the situation. EPA issues a Notice of Violation to the company, and threatens to bring an action for civil penalties, but is instructed to desist by DHS officials who inform EPA that the HSA prohibits disclosing the information provided to the agency in court and that DHS wants to list the company as an emergency supplier capable of providing expanded electricity production in an upcoming report to Congress. EPA drops its enforcement action, and the DHS employee not only loses her job but also is prosecuted criminally.

Case Study Number 2 is the following:

Lobbyists representing companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Homeland Security routinely submit materials describing their companies' products in glowing terms. They arrange repeated trips for government purchasing agents to exotic locations under the guise of briefing them regarding the technical aspects of the products. All of this information is designated as critical infrastructure by the companies, and is therefore protected from disclosure and oversight by the media or possibly even individual members of Congress who could see the information but not reveal it.

The Homeland Security Act was never intended to protect polluters or special interests from public scrutiny. But as these examples demonstrate, that is exactly what could happen if the current, vague language in the law is not corrected. The bill we are introducing today would make the needed corrections.

On January 17, 2003 at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee, I questioned Governor Ridge about these problems with the current wording of the Homeland

Security Act. I asked him whether the HSA could have the unintended consequences of providing protections for wrongdoing while impeding access to necessary information to protect public health and safety. Governor Ridge replied: ``[T]hat certainly wasn't the intent, I am sure, of those who advocated the Freedom of Information Act exemption, to give wrongdoers protection or to protect illegal activity, and I will certainly work with you to clarify that language.'' If that was not the intent, then let us fix the vague, and potentially dangerous provisions that are in this bill.

I would also note, for the record, that many organizations have endorsed our bill including the following:

American Association of Law Libraries, American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for Democratic Action, American Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper Editors, Arab American Institute, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Associated Press Managing Editors, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Children's Environmental Health Network, Clean Production Network, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Cook Inlet Keeper, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Council on Professional Association of Federal Statistics, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Environmental Defense, Federation of American Scientists, Freedom of Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Fund for Constitutional Government, Government Accountability Project, Greenpeace, Magazine Publishers of America, Maryland Pesticide Network, National Federation of Press Women, National Newspaper Association, National Press Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, Newsletter & Electronic Publishers Association, Newspaper Association of America, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, OMB Watch, Pesticide Action Network, North America Powder River Basin Resource Council, Privacy Activism, Privacy Times, Project on Government Oversight, Radio- Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Society of Professional Journalists, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, University of Missouri School of Journalism, West Harlem Environmental Action Working Group on Community Right-to-Know.

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

each a debt we will never be able to repay. We can never forget that it is because of them--and not us--that the rights enumerated in our Constitution are guaranteed. Whether it is freedom of religion, the press, or freedom of speech, it has always been the efforts of our soldiers that have provided us with a platform from which to speak, and the ability to exercise these and all our rights. Even those who have spoken out against their efforts have our soldiers to thank for their right to do.

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.

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

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.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

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.

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

I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bingaman.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Bill Nelson.

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.

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

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

Will the Senator from Texas yield for an inquiry?

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?

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?

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

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?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

How much time remains?

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

I yield 1 minute to Senator Landrieu and 1 minute to Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

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.

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.