Floor Statements

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the contribution of our distinguished colleague.

We have two speakers on our side ready to go forward, and we will rotate, as the case may be. But we now have the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense within the larger committee, a man who has dedicated much of his lifetime to defense issues, beginning in World War II with his distinguished service in the Army Air Corps.

I would hope the chairman might make reference to the work that has been done in his committee with reference to the issues relating to international terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea, because there is some challenge to the Senate as an institution as to whether or not we are giving attention to these issues. Within the last day or so, I put into the Record a very long recitation of what the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate has been doing. I know the Committee on Appropriations, particularly the subcommittee, has been very active. We also are likely to hear from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. His committee has also been doing a great deal of work.

We all recognize the value of debates in this historic Chamber, but there is much work going on within the committee structure by individual Senators in their town meetings. So, collectively, this institution has a good record of addressing the serious issues of our time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is always a great pleasure to listen to my distinguished colleague.

I wonder if I might just make reference to a point of history. Give or take a year or so, both of us lived through the World War II period. You were a distinguished aviator with the Air Corps. I was a mere sailor in the closing months. You got overseas and, fortunately, my generation didn't have to go because of the courage of Harry Truman.

I thank the Senator very much.

We have to use history as a rearview mirror to explain the complexity of the times. You will recall that period in 1937 when the war clouds were gathering in Europe, and Neville Chamberlain went over to see whether or not he could reconcile the situation involving Hitler and the extraordinary buildup of his forces. The world was apprehensive. Chamberlain emerged from the meeting and flew back to London with a piece of paper that said ``peace in our times.'' And then we know the tragic events that unfolded after that, with the invasion of Poland in 1939, and then down through and into France in 1940, and the entrapment of the British forces at Dunkerque. The whole world came in on top of us because we failed to heed what was absolutely manifest--that Hitler was a despotic dictator, with the then-current generation of weapons of destruction, and he unleashed them on the whole world as we stood by.

Mr. President, I fear the same consequences now. That is why I commend our President for his steadfastness, tenaciousness, courage, and wisdom in addressing these issues and not flinching or blinking, but staying the course and trying, as he said last night, to make diplomacy work, but recognizing that if diplomacy fails, we have to step into the breach and lead.

The Senator mentioned the only nation is the United States, but I know he wishes to include Great Britain.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I wish to associate myself with his comment about the great team of advisers the President has. They have time and again gone into the forums of the world to indicate the necessity for strong action and strong leadership at this time. We certainly have it in this President and his administration. I thank my colleague.

I see, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very grateful for the services of our distinguished colleague from Indiana and his long experience in the Senate and now having risen to new heights in his distinguished career as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

I have also enjoyed a very warm and strong relationship with my colleague through the years. He is too modest to talk about it, but he served in the U.S. Navy in a position as adviser on foreign policy to the then-Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Burke. He watched many of the key issues on the world scene unfold.

I made reference to the Chamberlain speech that we will have peace in our time. I addressed this colloquy to Senator Stevens who, like me, lived through that era. I wonder if the Senator might have some comments on it. It is so appropriate that the world be reminded that there have been parallels in history where we have been faced with the rise of a dictator, and the dictator possessed vast arsenals of weapons and had a proven track record of having used the weapons against other people and other nations, and how this is the time for the strongest leadership, which I believe is being offered by our friend. It is being offered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

How severely we regret the leadership of France and Germany, certainly nations venerable in history, having lived through so many periods of turbulence on that continent, cannot recognize today the parallels of years past. I wonder if the Senator might have a viewpoint on that, particularly with reference to France.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If I might bring another issue to the forefront on which he has a great deal of experience? As this debate is taking place in the Senate Chamber this morning, Hans Blix presumably is addressing the Security Council. I, frankly, think that the inspection process under his leadership--they have tried and tried hard. What the world fails to realize is that Saddam Hussein, having observed the first

inspection process, has carefully made his infrastructure, which has gone on creating the weapons of mass destruction, be they biological, chemical, or indeed his vigorous efforts to acquire a nuclear capability. They have gone right on throughout this entire period of time. And they have been constructed in such a way that they are moveable. He did that recognizing that at some point in time another inspection regime could be imposed upon him by the United Nations, as was done with Resolution 1441.

I think the inspectors have tried. They have unearthed very little. They have not received the cooperation from Saddam Hussein that was the predicate on which Resolution 1441 was adopted. It simply said you are to cooperate, the inspectors to verify and destroy. But in reality the inspectors have been converted to a group trying to search out, given the failure of cooperation, where these weapons might be located.

I will discuss later this morning a letter I received yesterday from the Central Intelligence Agency, under the signature of George Tenet, responding to the cooperation that our country has given the inspection efforts of Hans Blix, by virtue of sharing the intelligence information we had with regard to the location of probable caches of these weapons.

In fact, it has not borne out to be very fruitful because of Saddam Hussein's skill of moving these caches, of moving the infrastructure of manufacturing in such a manner that they cannot be detected and discovered without his cooperation, which he has steadfastly refused to give. Our President addressed that issue last night.

I wonder if my colleague would comment a little bit on the inspection process. As we are speaking, Blix is giving his most recent report. As you know, there are statements to the effect, from other nations, that perhaps the period of time should be extended. The President last night, when confronted with those questions, simply said, as I think he should and very properly said: Time will tell.

I invite the Senator's observations.

I thank my distinguished colleague. I guess what both you and I find so perplexing is how responsible world leadership, most particularly France and Germany, which have seen the same facts, have access to basically the same intelligence, and cannot reach those logical conclusions which our President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain have reached.

I must say, if I could just ask the indulgence of my colleague, my father served in World War I as a doctor in the U.S. Army in the trenches in France. My most prized possession, I say to my good friend, is on the wall in my Senate office. For these 25 years that I have been here, on that wall hangs this Croix de Guerre awarded him by the French Government for his heroism in the trenches for administering healing to Americans, British, Frenchmen, and Germans. I sometimes thought myself, and when the French ambassador visited my office a few days ago, in a courteous way I pointed it out and I said, you know, I am thinking of taking it down, but perhaps better judgment will prevail in your leadership. And therefore for a while I am going to leave it up, in the hopes that reality can be brought to bear.

I thank my colleague for his time.

I recognize the order entered into at the direction of both the majority and minority leaders of the Senate was that the Senate would proceed this morning on the debate with regard to the worldwide situation on terrorism with an emphasis on Iraq, North Korea, and other areas, and the time under the control of the Senator from Virginia, the time having been equally divided, is rapidly approaching the 2-hour mark which is the halfway.

I see a colleague desiring recognition, but I remind that colleague, who courteously advised me that perhaps the subject matter was not that in the order, but I would have to say the time that he uses would have to be charged to the other side.

I have some maybe 15 minutes remaining under the control of the Senator from Virginia, which I will hold in reserve for such rebuttal as may be required on the issues specifically recited in the order before the Senate.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, we have, under the order that now is in effect, morning business until 12:30. I see four colleagues, at least I have been notified, two on this side, two on that side, who desire to continue the debate on matters of national security. I am wondering if I might suggest a framework and then see if we can have a mutual understanding.

Time is moving. On my side, the distinguished Senator from Utah and the distinguished Senator from Alabama desire 4 to 5 minutes each. They have been here for some period of time. If they were to take those periods, then the other side would allocate their time as they desire, and perhaps we would be willing to extend the time to accommodate such additional time as you might desire.

I don't know that we are wasting any time. We are just trying to do our best. We have been here since 9:30. We have had the chairmen of the Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees and this humble Senator.

Let us try the following. That would not leave the Senator from Virginia, who has control of this side of the debate, any time whatsoever to provide for some rebuttal.

With that understanding, I thank my good friend from Connecticut and I thank my good friend from Massachusetts.

We will proceed to have the Senator from Utah, followed by the Senator from Alabama, for not to exceed 5 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I welcome the opportunity now to listen, and perhaps engage in colloquy with my two good friends, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Massachusetts. We have been at this debate 2 hours 10 minutes. We are delighted to have them join us.

Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to have one or two questions, by way of a colloquy?

Why do we not just agree now to extend the time by 30 minutes, equally divided between the two of us? That will take us to the hour of 1 o'clock.

Certainly. The Senator from Massachusetts has been most patient.

I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended to the hour of 1 o'clock, the time equally divided between myself and my colleagues on the other side.

With reference to two points that you make, Senator, first--I copied in my notes--you questioned was the United States ever genuinely engaged in the inspection process, some words to that effect.

Mr. President, we are entitled to an honest difference of opinion. My colleague and I debated last night in a public forum on this very issue. But I believe our Government has been very thoroughly engaged in the inspection process, trying to support it.

I provide today some tangible evidence in the sense that I have a letter from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, addressed to me with a copy to my distinguished colleagues, Senator Levin and Senator Roberts, in which they set out for the record exactly what we have done by way of giving the U.S. intelligence regarding likely sites where weapons of mass destruction could be in the process of being manufactured, stored, or otherwise. We have cooperated mightily in this effort.

I think that corroborates the assertion of the Senator from Virginia that our Government is engaged. I just read one paragraph here, Tenet stating we, the United States:

. . . have now provided detailed information on all of the

high value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

That is in rebuttal to your comment about genuine engagement. I think that shows good faith.

Second, this rush headlong?

As the Senator well knows, 1441 was adopted on November 8. Immediately thereafter the United Nations began to put in place and formalize work that Blix had been doing for some period of time.

As you well know, the United Nations contemplated that there could be a second inspection regime, and Blix was put in office and began his work some months before. Had he undertaken to go into Iraq as quickly as I think feasible from a logistics standpoint, and having with him trained individuals, and he has been there basically since the latter part of November, early December--am I not correct in that?

The reason there has not been greater productivity by Blix--I think he has tried diligently--is the absolute lack of cooperation of Iraq, to which my colleague from Connecticut has agreed.

Here we are now. Our President and the Prime Minister and other nations of the coalition of the willing, having called up their reserves, called up their guard, transported the forces and put them in place. I was visiting there with Senator Levin, Senator Roberts, and Senator Rockefeller 10 days ago. We have placed them there. As the Senator from Connecticut I think quite properly said, in fairness, their presence has, indeed, supported the diplomatic efforts undertaken by the President and others in the United Nations, which is still going on.

Our President said last night that we will wait and see what the Blix report comes forth with. He has come forth again today. With due respect to Blix, he tends to be somewhat contradictory.

In previous reports he quite actively deplored the fact that Iraq has not been more cooperative and that lack of cooperation has hindered his efforts. As the Senator well knows, the concept of this inspection was not that Blix and his team had to find the weapons; it was that Iraq was to cooperate and show where the weapons are so Blix could supervise their destruction.

This thing got totally, as we say as sailors, off course because of the need for Blix to do both the destruction, which he is now supervising, of a modest cache of missiles, and at the same time trying to search, using U.S. intelligence and intelligence from other nations, for the sites.

I say to the Senator, I see no basis for saying that this President, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, or others are rushing, as you said, headlong to try to utilize force as the final solution. We have been at this thing 12 years. Blix has been in business since November.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts.

I ask unanimous consent that the time the Senator from Virginia consumed in this colloquy be charged to his allocation and the time consumed by the Senator from Connecticut be charged to the other side.

I thank my colleague. I hope to have more to say on this.

Of course.

Mr. President, I welcome the question from my colleague. He is a very valued member of the Armed Services Committee.

We had briefings this week by the Department of Defense, and indeed a representative from the Department of State, on the plans now being formulated by the Bush administration, should force be necessary, as to exactly what we would do with respect to the questions raised by my colleague.

First and foremost, our forces, as they would move in, are responsible for the objective of trying to keep Iraq together and constituted as a nation, as it is today. It is the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the consequent regime change that are the goals. Now, they are to provide first protection for the nongovernmental organizations which stand ready to assist our country. In other words, we will be making an effort to feed and care for the people of Iraq, as well as outsiders. That is the highest priority. So we are to provide a secure framework in which the people of Iraq can be cared for as best they can under wartime conditions.

With respect to factions in Iraq and their desire to fight among each other, we are going to do our best to contain that. Our goal is to have Iraq as a nation, with its present boundaries, remaining intact. We are bringing in experts to put out any fires Saddam Hussein may set at the oil wells. We are bringing in people to establish, as quickly as possible, a secure framework in which the people of Iraq can begin to select their own leadership and government in due course. So there has been a lot of planning.

As to the exact rules of engagement that commanders, as the Senator and I understand, will issue to their troops, at the moment I do not have those orders. But I assure the Senator that we are contemplating the challenge to maintain the integrity of Iraq as a nation. That could well involve stopping the civil strife between factions. But a lot of planning has been done.

I think the administration has been subjected to undue criticism because the planning as yet has not been fully made public. But it is there, I say to the Senator.

Mr. President, I assure my colleague that we are greatly concerned about the safety of our service personnel as they undertake this mission, if it has to be done. I visited with them, together with Senators Levin, Rockefeller, and Roberts. They are ready.

The Senator raises, quit properly, the record we had first in Kosovo. I happen to have visited there during the early part of that securing of it by the United States and other forces. I assure the Senator that the rules of engagement were spelled out. I remember American servicemen guarding the Serbian churches from destruction. I remember instances where they would carefully respond to protect the Serbs, who were at that point in time in minority status, so to speak. So we performed that mission, and we did it admirably, together with a coalition of nations.

We will have other nations assisting us in this engagement. Then you bring about Afghanistan. That is a country, historically, that has been fought over by factions. We visited there a week or 10 days ago. There is relative quietude there. There is no severe amount of factional strife today; that is, outbursts of actual casualties and the like. Tensions are present. We are trying to reconstitute an armed forces under the Government of Afghanistan now. So we have a good track record on that.

Yes. We met with President Karzai. I assume you saw him when he visited here. Incidentally, the French are very active in the training of those forces, and the Germans are taking an active role in the training of those forces. It is coming together, I say to the Senator.

Mr. President, I would like to also--if I may, on my time--address points raised by my colleague from Massachusetts. Quite properly, the Senator raises the issue of North Korea. The President addressed that last night.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record his comments.

These are in strong rebuttal of my colleague's comments. I will read what the President said with reference to North Korea:

Well, I think it is an issue. Obviously, I am concerned

about North Korea developing nuclear weapons, not only for

their own use, but perhaps choose to proliferate them, sell

them.

The President is working in a national multilateral forum to try to address this problem because it is regional in that Russia, Japan, South Korea and, indeed, China have a heavy stake in seeing that the Korean peninsula does not become nuclearized.

It is clear as that, I say to my friend, and I think the President, in a very responsible way, the initial approach to this, a multilateral approach, the approach my colleague is urging on the President with regard to Iraq, is applying in the Korean peninsula situation. It does not preclude possibly bilateral discussions at some later date and time.

Second, on the issue of Iraq, the question is time, months. Time is not on our side. The President addressed this very explicitly last night in his remarks. He simply said that his concern--and I will put the text in the Record--his concern is, again, the question of proliferation.

No one in this Chamber thus far, in the weeks and the months we have debated this issue, has denied Saddam Hussein has enormous caches of weapons of mass destruction which he has failed to declare and which the inspectors have failed to destroy because of the inability to locate them through lack of cooperation from Iraq.

What is to prevent Saddam Hussein, if he has not already done it, from taking small amounts of these weapons and allowing an international terrorist organization, be it al-Qaida or others, to take this material and begin to carry it to places throughout the world, whether it be Europe or the United States, and dissemble it?

I bring back the tragic aftermath of the discovery of anthrax sent to Members of this body. Postal employees lost their lives. One of our Senate office buildings was shut down. We suffered a severe blow as a consequence of an unopened envelope which contained but a few ounces, if that, of this material. And Saddam Hussein, it is documented, has tons of it, undeclared, not found, and all of this could have been achieved if he had cooperated with the inspection regime which was initiated in November of last year.

Time is not on our side. The failure of the United States and the coalition of willing nations, principally Great Britain, not to act is not in our interest. The price of inaction is far greater than the price of action.

As I listened to my colleague from Massachusetts--and he has spoken very eloquently on these subjects over the past several days. I admire his courage to get out and lead in this debate. It is an important debate. It is taking place across the Nation. But I cannot find in my colleague's comments where he specifically has a program whereby to force Iraq to cooperate. Why is it that he has not emphasized the need for Iraq to cooperate and what steps should our country, Great Britain, or others do to force that cooperation, other than the steps we have taken thus far, which have not proved fruitful?

Yes, here and there Saddam Hussein steps up and does some little thing to buy time, but he would not have needed that time if he had cooperated and began that cooperation when the inspection regime began last November. Mr. President, wherein does the Senator lay out a program to compel Iraq to cooperate?

Mr. President, I say to my good friend, a couple of letters are about to be handed to him. They are in the Record. He is mistaken in the facts. The letters cite what we have done over an extensive period of time--over the last 3 or 4 months. I personally, together with the former chairman, Senator Levin, now ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, have consulted with Director Tenet on this matter. We have been in a room with the actual person entrusted to convey on a daily basis to Hans Blix this information. It has been going on for months. It did not just start.

Let me read one paragraph, and then I will yield.

Statement for the record: The American intelligence

community has--

That is past tense--

has provided extensive intelligence and other support to the

United Nations on Iraq and WMD, and potential inspection

sites for over 10 years. There is, therefore, a very strong

common understanding of sites of potential interest to the

inspectors, whether UNSCOM inspectors or UNMOVIC inspectors

or IAEA inspectors. When the current round of inspections

began, the Intelligence Community assembled several lists of

suspect sites, which we combined into a common list in early

January. This list consisted of high, moderate, and low value

sites, depending on our assessment of recent activities

suggesting ongoing WMD association or other intelligence

information that the sites were worth inspecting.

We have now provided detailed information on all of the high value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and IAEA.

The letter continues to detail what has been done over a period of months, I say to the Senator. It just did not start yesterday.

Go on to the second paragraph.

Mr. President, I think this letter answers Senator Kennedy's first statement: We have just begun to provide information.

Mr. President, in fairness, this letter is part of a very complex and long dialog between Senator Levin and various members of the administration. Were he here today, he would say he is still not satisfied with regard to this issue.

At one point I recognized that one member of the administration said to him, Senator, I gave you incorrect numbers at one time and I am now correcting them. I think a good-faith effort has been made by the administration to resolve such differences as Senator Levin has had.

Having been in most, if not all, of the discussions with Senator Levin at the time he raised these important questions, the preponderance of the facts shows unequivocally our Nation has cooperated fully on the matters of intelligence. I stand by that. I heard the National Security Adviser state that, the Director of Central Intelligence state that, and others. We have cooperated.

Have there been some disjoints of timing and perhaps numbers? I cannot say it is perfect, but there has been overall sincere cooperation.

We have had an excellent debate today. I thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor, both on my side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. We have met the test of the Senate addressing this question.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be allowed to proceed as in morning business for such period of time as he may require.

Madam President, if it is agreeable to the managers of the bill, I would be pleased to address my remarks at this time to the important matter before the Senate--the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reduction.

I rise to express my strong support for the ratification of the treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reduction, more commonly known as the Moscow Treaty.

In my career as a public servant, I have had a number of opportunities to work with the former Soviet Union and with the current Russian Federation.

I remember when I was Secretary of the Navy, I was asked to negotiate over a period of 2 years an executive agreement in the years 1970 to 1972 between the United States of America and the then Soviet Union. That executive agreement applied to the naval forces which I was privileged to be associated with at that time as Secretary of the Navy. It was a very important executive agreement. It is still in existence today. It has been used as a pattern for other nations for executive agreements between themselves and other countries. It related to how we operated our ships and aircraft in the international waters of the world--operated them in a manner that provided the maximum degree of safety to the vessel or aircraft itself and, of course, the crews who operated those platforms.

We had experienced, in those days, incidents not unlike the one provoked by North Korea just days ago--where one of our aircraft, on a routine mission, in international airspace, operating under clearances given by the international programmers of airspace--when we were broached upon, as we use that phrase in the military, by North Korea's fighter aircraft. And, indeed, that broaching took the form of actions that bordered on literally hostile actions, in my judgement. But time will settle out that event.

I just mention this chapter of history as showing my support for the people of Russia and the need for our two nations to work together. I still look upon Russia as a superpower, certainly in the arena of diplomacy, the arena of world economics. Indeed, I have profound respect for their armed forces today, even though those armed forces are somewhat significantly reduced in size.

But against that background, I remember so well a number of trips to the Soviet Union. I remember so well one with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, when he put together a delegation. We were the first Members of Congress to meet with then- President Gorbachev. It was a momentous day for all of us, having traveled those long distances, and then waiting in the anteroom, and then being escorted in to see that figure of history, a very important figure of history for Russia. I have a lot of respect for President Gorbachev.

I remember another codel with Robert Dole, again, leader of the Senate, as was Senator Byrd. We went to visit President Yeltsin. At this time, I note, the delegations to visit President Putin certainly have not been large in number. I am not so sure that is for the good of our two nations. I would hope that Russia might look more favorably upon delegations of the Senate to come and visit with their leaders of today.

In any event, I commend Senators Lugar and Biden for their leadership on this issue. It has been exemplary. I think this Chamber can take rightful pride in each of those individuals--one the former chairman and one, of course, Senator Lugar, the current chairman of the distinguished Foreign Relations Committee.

I certainly commend President Bush for his vision and leadership in negotiating this treaty and establishing a new strategic relationship with Russia. It is truly remarkable how our country's relations with Russia have evolved and deepened over the past 2 years. Groundbreaking U.S.-Russian cooperation on the war on terrorism has been critical to our success in Afghanistan and more broadly in our efforts to root out terrorism and deny terrorist groups safe havens and access to money and destructive weapons.

On the subject of destructive weapons, the Nunn-Lugar program, I have had a strong interest and support for that program from the very day it was conceived. I remember Sam Nunn had a small breakfast and sat down. What an audacious concept. We stood there in awe, as the cold war was very much in evidence in those days. But I think the bold foresight of Senators Nunn and Lugar to envision this program has reaped a great deal of mutual benefit for both nations and, indeed, perhaps the world at large, to further limit the proliferation of not only weapons of mass destruction but the materials by which those weapons are made.

Equally remarkable is President Bush's success in implementing the bold vision he set forth in his May 2001 speech at the National Defense University for a new strategic relationship with Russia. President Bush decided to move the U.S.-Russian relationship beyond the cold war not incrementally,

but in a bold leap. He articulated the controversial view that it would be possible to pursue a vigorous missile defense program to respond to the growing proliferation threats of the post-cold-war world, and at the same time dramatically reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals.

President Bush set out to break the cold war linkage of restraints on missile defense to reductions in nuclear weapons, and he did so in a way that caused no harm to U.S. relations with Russia. No harm--I would say, indeed, it brought about a strengthening of those relations. This was a remarkable accomplishment. There were many who thought it could not be done. But their fears proved unfounded. President Bush deserves our respect and admiration for leading the world out of its conventional cold war mindset.

Russian President Putin shares in that credit. He, too, exercised admirable vision and leadership when he understood and convinced doubters in his own country that U.S.-Russian relations had evolved to the point where the ABM Treaty was no longer critical to Russian security. Because the United States and Russia no longer threatened each other, the ABM Treaty was no longer a necessary linchpin in regulating what used to be a U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race.

If I might just digress a minute, again, in my years of 1969 to 1974, being the Navy Secretary, and my early years in the Senate, when we experienced so many periods of tension with regard to the cold war, there was always an underlying theme, which I will describe as follows. I remember President Reagan used to say, ``Trust but verify''--a very magical phrase that captured the relationship between our two nations. But there was the feeling among the professional military who were responsible for these awesome weapons of mass destruction--and I think a feeling among those who negotiated, as did I in a very minor way on the Incidents at Sea Agreement--that the bottom line, the Russian Government, the Russian military were always there with a measure of prudent, sensible realization of these weapons, and there was an inherent responsibility in all of those individuals, both in Russia and in the United States, and their respective Governments, to exercise that judgment.

The concept of deterrence, the concept of massive retaliation always had the underlying theme that individuals had sound judgment as to any final decision, and that sound judgment would be exercised.

That is not true today with Saddam Hussein. We cannot find, in the history of his dictatorship over Iraq, that level of sensible responsibility as it relates to weapons of mass destruction. And I question whether that exists with North Korea today. I am not here to use any words of condemnation, but underlying the cold war period was that sense of some security with regard to the ability of those in possession of weapons to use good judgment, even in the times of the greatest of tensions.

President Bush's readiness to negotiate a legally binding nuclear reduction agreement was instrumental in persuading President Putin that the new strategic framework proposed by President Bush--including withdrawal from the ABM Treaty--would serve Russian interests. The result: A treaty that was negotiated in record-breaking time, will bring sweeping mutual reductions in deployed nuclear weapons, and will enhance the national security of both the United States and Russia.

The Moscow Treaty is unlike any treaty we have had before. It is the first arms control treaty to embrace the new Russian-U.S. strategic relationship. In negotiating this treaty, both sides consciously rejected the cold war mentality of distrust and hostility that previously had required lengthy negotiations and extensive legal structures and detailed verification regimes to ensure that both sides would abide by their treaty obligations.

This simplicity puts the focus where it belongs--quickly achieving deep, equitable reductions in deployed nuclear weapons.

This breakthrough treaty will reduce the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals from their present levels of approximately 6,000 strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads over the next decade. These reductions, which amount to about two-thirds of the warheads in the Russian-United States arsenals, are the most dramatic in the history of arms control agreements. Such reductions are clearly in our national security interest. Russia is no longer perceived, or in actuality, an enemy. Our strategic arsenals, swollen by the cold war, no longer need to be sustained at such high levels.

Another great strength of this treaty is the flexibility it accords our leaders to meet the uncertainties both in the international security environment and in the technological status of our nuclear stockpile. September 11 was a vivid reminder that we are vulnerable to attack in ways we never imagined. It is critical to our national security that our leaders retain the maximum flexibility to respond to emerging threats and changes on the world scene.

The witnesses who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during our committee's review of the military implications of the treaty unanimously supported ratification of the Moscow Treaty. General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated:

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I all support

the Moscow Treaty. We believe it provides for the long-term

security interests of our nation. We also believe that it

preserves our flexibility in an uncertain strategic

environment.

Throughout its history, the Senate Armed Services Committee has played a critical role in assessing the national security impact and military implications of arms control agreements negotiated by the executive branch. Based on the hearings conducted by the Armed Services Committee and subsequent analysis, I am convinced that the Moscow Treaty advances the national security interests of the United States and deserves the Senate's unqualified support.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join all of us in giving our advice and consent favorably to ratification of the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. President, I see others about to address the Senate. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I thank him for those remarks. I made reference to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia moments ago in addressing this treaty and recalled when he led a delegation of which I was privileged to be a member----

And President Gorbachev said, we have this amount of time. And you very graciously, as the leader of the delegation--Senator Thurmond was with us as well----

Anyway, it was a brilliant dissertation between yourself and at that time President Gorbachev, and it was a historic meeting. I said on the floor moments ago, I only wish we could do more of that with President Putin because I felt those delegations--I went on two delegations to the Soviet Union with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

They were very meaningful and helpful.

Yes. The Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell.

Senator Mitchell, Senator Sarbanes.

Yes, it was, but it was under your leadership. You were the first Member of Congress to go and meet with President Gorbachev.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, will the Senator entertain a question?

Mr. President, over my years in the Senate, I have had the privilege many times of working with my distinguished colleague. I have listened very carefully to his remarks. The bulk of the facts the Senator relates with regard to how North Korea has violated the framework agreement are accurate. I think his assessment of the potential threat as to how they address the serious issue of nuclear weapons is correct. But I respectfully say I believe this administration has been pursuing a policy--now my colleague may differ--of diplomacy to resolve this dispute. Our President recognizes the seriousness.

As the Senator said, the bombers were promptly dispatched. My understanding was that that mission of those bombers had been in the planning for some time and, coincidentally, they were dispatched right after the eve of this very serious incident by which the hostile aircraft broached our unarmed aircraft. The Senator was dead accurate in his characterization of that serious incident.

The point I wish to make is that I think our President has taken the correct tack at this time in diplomacy of saying that there may come a time in the future on bilateral talks, but at this juncture of this serious situation--and our President fully recognizes and I think shares with my colleague from West Virginia the seriousness of it--the multilateral approach; namely, that the talk should initiate with a table at which Russia, of course, South Korea, Japan, and China are there to participate. That is the way this administration quite appropriately desires to approach it.

I believe Secretary of State Powell, in his most recent trip to the region not more than 10 days to 2 weeks ago, clearly said that out of that multilateral approach could evolve the situation whereby bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea would follow.

Am I correct in my summary of how the President is approaching this? The Senator may have differences with it, but at least for the basis of our debate, I think I am correct.

We have clearly not had the opportunity to fully exhaust the potential of a preliminary round of multinational talks such that these nations believe they are a partner with the United States. Now we may take the lead, but so often our Nation is criticized that we are the ones who are saying, you do this, you do that. Rather, in this crisis I think our country is saying that we want to work together with other nations as partners in addressing this issue before the possibility of bilateral talks.

Mr. President, if I might reply to my good friend, first on the issue of diplomacy, I do believe our President has worked very hard with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and other heads of state of the nations willing to proceed on the diplomatic route.

Today we had a speech by the Secretary of State. I don't know if my colleagues had an opportunity to read it as I have. But it clearly says we are on a diplomatic course. No decision has been made to go to war.

What little success the diplomats have had to date--and I frankly think Resolution 1441 was a high water mark of this whole controversy-- is owing to the fact that this President had the courage to put our troops in forward deployments to back up the words of the diplomats and to send a signal to Saddam Hussein and others that we have a commitment to those men and women there, 200,000 of them in that gulf region. I visited the gulf region just 10 days ago. They are there as a symbol of our commitment to make diplomacy work.

I recognize the Senator and I were with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld the other day when my good friend from West Virginia expressed, as he has done now, the question of cost estimates. But the Secretary of Defense said he believed at this time he could not give those projections which would enable, I think, some very serious and finite parameters to be established.

My good friend might recall President Clinton one time--I am not here to be political--said about the Balkans, we would be home in a year. I think the Senator remembers that because he and I collaborated on an amendment to require the other nations to come forward with their allocation of commitments to try to resolve some of the problems in that region. I remember we stood toe to toe on that.

Here we are, 8 years later, and we are still in the Balkans with a not insignificant force. We have learned from that and experienced the need to exercise caution with regard to the questions of casualities. How well I remember being in the Chamber in 1991. The projected casualities we might encounter in the gulf war of 1991 were in the estimates of the tens of thousands. We thank the dear Lord that it did not in any way near approach that amount, although this country did lose brave soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and experienced the wounding of others in that very important conflict.

The better side of prudence is being demonstrated here by the President and his Secretaries who are entrusted with dealing with the Congress. I printed in the Record earlier today, I say to my good friend, a recitation of a number of hearings the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I am privileged to say my colleague serves, has conducted. That committee has, in connection with our debates on Iraq, held a number of briefings and so forth, in which I have been in attendance, on Iraq. Those are helpful for the public in its important debate now, and which I respect the diversity of opinions on Iraq, as I respect the opinions of my colleague from West Virginia. Nevertheless, I think our Senate has taken a constructive role in addressing that conflict.

I thank the Senator. We did start out on that subject, but I wished to make reference to other statements the Senator made.

Going back to the question of Korea, I think your concerns are important, as are mine. I simply say I think our President is vigorously trying to exercise leadership in world diplomacy with a multilateral approach with the nations of Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan at this point, and I have not read into any of the statements or actions that would say that after the full exploration of the multilateral approach, hopefully participation by those nations as partners, possibly of a bilateral approach--indeed, the Secretary of State has made an offering of food to care for the tragic situation of starvation in the North Korean section of that peninsula.

Mr. President, I think we have somewhat debated this issue. I believe the President has made strong overtures to the international community. Certainly he gave a brilliant speech in the U.N. He is working within the Security Council. Our Secretary of State has addressed the issue today. Perhaps at another time I would very much be privileged to engage our distinguished colleague in a debate on the subject. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, if I might say in conclusion, to those who perhaps take views different from I and others, I hope that debate would include very clearly a message to Saddam Hussein in Iraq that his lack of cooperation is the root cause of the problem today.

So I thank my colleague for this opportunity. Maybe at a later date we can get into a further discussion.

Mr. President, I share those concerns. My State has likewise contributed many reservists and guardsmen. As a matter of fact, I have been working with colleagues today on a question relating to that.

Were it not for the sacrifices of those individuals, the reservists, active duty, and many others, we would not be where we are trying to solve this problem diplomatically.

Say what you want about this President, I have seen a measure of courage in this fine man that I have not seen in others. He has all along said: The buck stops on my desk, and I accept responsibility.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I accept that challenge. I thank my friend.

The public, today, across this Nation is exercising our greatest freedom, freedom of speech. Central to many town meetings, central to the media today, are the issues relating to Iraq. I find this strong and thoughtful debate, no matter on which side of the issue individuals or writers may be, extremely important at this key time in America's history.

I have been fortunate to be on planet Earth somewhat longer than many, and I have been fortunate to have been on the scene and been in a position to observe World War II, Korea, Vietnam and, this being my 25th year in the Senate, together with my colleagues in this Chamber over these many years, these wonderful years, I have been in a position to observe, and if I may say with some modesty, participate in those decisions facing our Nation as it relates to national security.

I have said many times of recent that this particular framework and decisions facing this President, President George Bush, this very courageous President, are as complicated, if not more complicated, than any I have ever seen in this span of my 76 years.

I commend our President and his team--Secretary of State Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and many others. I followed, as I hope other colleagues did, another brilliant speech given today by the Secretary of State--no equivocations, respect for others and their views, but clearly staying the course, a course on which our Nation embarked to pursue diplomacy to resolve these issues. Iraq is foremost in our minds but close in parallel to significance is the Korean peninsula. There, again, we are being confronted with a situation that requires the strongest of commitments and the strongest of diplomacy. And our President, again, is guiding that diplomacy such that we should address this issue in a multilateral context. I think he is on the right track.

Worldwide terrorism: How many could have foreseen before September 11 that this country would be in the grip, not of state-sponsored terrorism--some state-sponsored but now more the individual. The al- Qaida, the Hamas, you can recite these organizations that challenge our freedoms, our very security, and our most precious security at home.

Yes, America is engaged in this important debate. I commend all. There is a diversity of thought, and I am perfectly willing to listen carefully and heed the thoughts of others. But in that debate a question has arisen, and an important one: What has been, what is, and what is to be, the role of the Congress, and most particularly, the Senate?

The Senate is known and respected worldwide as a debating society; an institution where we have this marvelous opportunity for unlimited debate in certain instances, but most significantly, debate among 100 individuals, well-informed, very conscientious Members who work hard at their duties. We are the world's greatest institution for deliberations, and I am proud, modestly, to be a part. But we symbolize the hope across this world for freedom such as we enjoy in the United States, the hope to fight despair and hunger and political oppression. The Senate so often and carefully addresses those issues day by day.

As there is diversity of views in debate on Iraq across this Nation, there is diversity among Members in the Senate. That is the way it should be. Therein lies our strength. But there are some who have come up with some viewpoints which I simply do not share.

Some in this Chamber have exercised their very right to criticize the body as an institution for what it has done, is doing, and, more particularly in their views, has not done. Some have gone so far as to say, ``We are sleepwalking through history;'' ``this Chamber is hauntingly silent.''

Those are strong words, and words that I heed, and listen to, and in this instance I have great respect for the marvelous Senator who stated those words.

I can remember in the debate on Iraq that we had back in November, 5 hours one day, debating with that particular Senator, whom I admire. So the debate goes on.

But my point is, even though the rafters of this Chamber are not rattling with the rhetoric on Iraq, there are many very important functions going on beyond this Chamber, in the halls of the Senate, in the committee rooms, in the offices of Senators, throughout the entire infrastructure of this institution--in our field offices in our respective States where I and others so frequently meet our constituents. The debate on Iraq is taking place in a responsible way, in my judgment, in the Senate, and this institution is fulfilling its role.

Other Senators have criticized our President. We are really at war now. Yes, I agree that diplomacy is still at work and that final decision to go or not to go is yet to be made by our President, by the very courageous Prime Minister Tony Blair, and other heads of state and government of the group of willing nations, those willing to face up to the need to remove weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. Yes, they criticize the President. But really we are at war now, and I question how severe that criticism should be.

I was with the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Roberts, and the vice chairman, Mr. Rockefeller. The four of us toured Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region. As we were there, missions were being flown in Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and other activities were taking place regarding which I am not at liberty to describe, nor should I describe, here on the floor.

But men and women in the uniform of the United States, and indeed a great many civilians--particularly those of the Agencies and Departments of this Government who perform our intelligence missions throughout the

world--are taking grave risks at this very hour. For that reason, I think we should exercise a measure of restraint and caution exercising our right to criticize, be it the President or criticize this institution. I looked into the faces of those individuals, some who might well have been involved in the recent capture of this individual who allegedly plotted 9/11, planned it, and those plans might well have included the very building in which I am so privileged to stand at this time. We shall learn in due course more and more about the aims of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, the aims of the terrorists who are still planning to strike us.

But let the debate go on. This is a strong nation, and our citizens are of strong mind, and our citizens are of a fair mind. Our citizens are very mindful of those in uniform, and those not in uniform, who today are taking the risks beyond our shores to interdict those who would bring harm to these great United States of America.

Homeland defense, how important that subject is. Our President again has led. We created that Department. But homeland defense begins beyond the shores where the men and women of the Armed Forces and civilians and others are stationed, in so many nations. It begins there for the reason that, to the extent they can interdict, to the extent they can crush the terrorists before their plans are unwrapped to inflict damage on our beloved homeland--that is where homeland defense begins.

So my reply today to my good friends who have taken this institution and called upon it in certain ways, as to what it is doing, I would say most respectfully that the Senate as a body has been, is, and will continue to be responsibly engaged in this debate; responsibly engaged in the consultation as it relates to these issues, consultation with the administration, consultation with our constituents, consultation with heads of governments and states--which I was privileged to do on this trip with my colleagues--consultation with our militaries of the United States and the military leaders of other nations.

There is a broad range of activity by many Members of this body, a broad range of activities that I think are as important as any debate that takes place on the floor of the Senate.

We had a historic debate, as I alluded, last fall. My calculation-- others' may be different--is that debate lasted longer than the one we had in 1991. I remember that debate very well. I was privileged to be one of the coauthors of the resolution, as I was a coauthor of this resolution, this resolution which, after this very lengthy debate, was adopted with a strong vote of support for our President to have the authority to use force--77 strong votes.

But those activities did not end. In other words, there were many activities going on apart from the debate at that time: The same series of meetings and briefings, the same consultations going on just prior to that debate and during that debate. Those same meetings have continued on to this very hour. I am proud of the role of this institution. I am proud of it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chronology that I put together of the meetings in which I have participated with many other Senators. For example, on September 4, a meeting to discuss Iraq with President Bush at the White House; a number of us were there; September 5, a briefing on Iraq with CIA and DOD officials; programs, 25 in number, of all of the times that I have been involved. Most particularly, I am very proud of the record of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Again in the fall, under the able chairmanship of my distinguished colleague here. We have been at business, Mr. President.

Here is the record. Decide for yourselves. I would like most respectfully to encourage the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to likewise put in the Record the activities which they as individuals, they as leaders of their committee, have done in connection with this very important issue, or series of issues facing our Nation today.

The Armed Service Committee and the entire Senate have spent an enormous amount of time reviewing, discussing and debating Iraq. In the Armed Services Committee alone we have had at least twelve hearings or briefings since September 2002 where the issue of Iraq was discussed extensively, if not exclusively. That is in addition to numerous briefings for all Members by Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell and other Administration officials. Also, the President, Vice President and other members of the Administration have hosted countless events for Congressional leadership to exchange views on Iraq.

In October 2002, we had a thorough debate on the floor of the Senate on a resolution to authorize the use of force. That debate exceeded the amount of time we spent debating the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 1991. The resolution passed by an overwhelming vote of 77 to 23.

While there have been many developments since October, the vast majority have all reinforced the case that the authorization for the use of force should remain unchanged. The military buildup has been in support of the President's diplomatic efforts. If anything, the events since October have clearly shown that inspections are not succeeding and there is no compelling evidence that they will succeed in disarming a regime that will not cooperate with the inspectors. We must keep in mind that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs have been designed to operate under an inspection regime. That is why more time for inspections will not produce substantive results--if Saddam Hussein continues to deny, deceive and defy inspectors.

President George Bush wants to build a broad international coalition to confront the threat Iraq poses to global security. Far from ``going it alone,'' he has taken his case to the United Nations. President Bush presented a remarkable speech to the U.N. on September 12, 2002, that brought to the attention of the world the threat this man, Saddam Hussein, represents. Were it not for the leadership of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the world would not be focused on this clear and growing threat to global security.

The U.N. is really the organization that is being tested here. Is it to be a

decisive fore in international affairs that enforces the will of its members, or is it to be the organization that stands in the way of timely, decisive action and takes no action to enforce its mandates?

The United States, Britain and Spain tabled a clear resolution this week that reaffirms U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and the 16 resolutions that came before it, and simply states what is plain to all of us: that Saddam Hussein has failed in this, his final opportunity to cooperate fully with U.N. demands that he destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

The Security Council now must decide whether it will live up to its sometimes difficult responsibilities. By failing to act, the U.N. would only damage its own credibility, not deter the U.S. and the other members of the ``coalition of the willing'' from exercising their rights and responsibilities to protect the security interests of their nations from the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Failure to achieve consensus cannot and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If our principles, our security, our interests are at stake, we must act, in spite of differences with others, and whether or not others choose not to act for their own reasons.

A strong, clear-thinking and decisive UN can make the world stronger and safer, but a UN unable to make difficult decisions will be of little use in dealing with Iraq and other security challenges, such as North Korea.

Resolution 1441, which the security Council passed 15-0, is not about inspections, it is about disarmament. It is about offering Iraq a final--17th--opportunity to turn away from a rogue, non-cooperative status and become a responsible member of the community of nations, in this case by living up to the terms of the cease fire signed 12 years ago.

With other Senators, I had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East and Afghanistan recently, and I can say without equivocation that our brave young men and women mobilizing in support of this mission are the best trained, best equipped fighting force ever assembled, and the best defenders of freedom any country could possibly have in this situation. They are ready, and so is America, to lead a coalition of nations in disarming Saddam, if necessary.

The decision time is rapidly approaching. We will welcome UN support, but, make no mistake: we will do what is necessary, without the UN if need be. America is ready to face that challenge.

This is not a ``rush to war'' as some have suggested. Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm 12 years ago this month. The United Nations has passed 17 Security Council Resolutions with regard to Iraq and their transgressions against their own people, their neighbors and the international community. Every conceivable diplomatic, economic and military avenue, short of overwhelming force, has been tried. There is one last faint hope that diplomacy can succeed, if Saddam Hussein agrees to fully cooperate and disarm, without further delay. But, it is certainly not a rush to war.

Some have asked, ``why now?'' I would remind those who ask such a question that the risks of further delay or inaction could be far more costly and devastating than confronting Saddam Hussein now. This is a man who has used chemical agents on his own people and his neighbors. This is a man who has had 4 unimpeded years to accelerate and hide his WMD program. This is a man who is attempting to develop new means to deliver weapons of enormous danger well beyond his own borders. This is a man who has ties to terrorist groups who have sponsored terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. We cannot wait for another 9/11 or similar event before we act.

Meeting with leaders in the Persian Gulf region recently, I was persuaded that there is far more support in the entire Gulf region for disarming Saddam promptly than has been reported publicly. Most of Saddam's neighbors want him removed--quickly--so that he is no longer a threat to them, no longer a force for instability in their region, no longer repressing the quality of life of the people of Iraq.

This confrontation with Saddam Hussein is about disarming a dangerous, brutal dictator. But, it is about other things, including freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people. As our President reminded the world in his address to the United Nations in September 2002, ``Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it, and the security of all nations requires it.''

Claims that the Administration has failed to plan or prepare for a post-conflict Iraq and accommodate the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are simply not true. The Departments of Defense and State, along with other interaency partners and international organizations have undertaken extraordinary steps to prepare to meet the security, economic and humanitarian needs of a post-war Iraq. We have received extensive briefings at the staff and Member level detailing these preparations. Can all of the questions be answered definitively? No. To try to do so would be deceiving to our people.

While some have faulted the lack of specificity regarding cost of a conflict or of securing the peace following potential conflict, the Administration has been prudent and honest in its uncertainty about how long any conflict may last and how long it will take to transition to a democratic, free Iraq.

Past administrations have provided quick, unrealistic estimates that satisfied the immediate concerns, but later proved wrong. For example, we all remember the famous claim of the previous administration that we would be out of Bosnia in one year. That was in 1995--we are now beginning our 8th year of military presence in that nation.

I commend this Administration for its honesty. They will share information on costs and duration of any operations when they can have reasonable confidence in the estimates.

Further delay and concessions will not lead to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. He has proven that for 12 years. He must understand through the strength of our coalition--and, if possible, with the UN-- that disarmament without further delay is his only option. As history tells us, ``peace in our time'' with this man will not be achieved by appeasement. This is a time for action.

I will perhaps at a later date expand on the theme I have spoken about today. But the principal reason I come forward is to show this Senator's strong support because of the action of our President, strong support for Secretary of State Colin Powell in my remarks today, and most significantly strong support for the work of this institution, of which I am privileged to be a Member, and for the work they have done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Dodd in the introduction of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act. The SAFER Act establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to fire and rescue departments though the new Department of Homeland Security. This funding will help to cover some of the costs associated with hiring and training new firefighters.

Our Nation's fire departments must be able to hire the necessary personnel in order to meet the ever increasing demands on local first responders. Many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which our fire rescue personnel deal with on a daily basis.

The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based consensus codes and guidelines, issued minimum staffing standards of at least four firefighters per apparatus. Furthermore, local departments are expected to comply with Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, standards, which require a minimum of two qualified firefighters inside and two qualified firefighters outside of a structure fire or similar incident. Except in cases of a known need for rescue, a fire company with less than four personnel cannot enter that structure to fight a fire or respond to an incident until additional firefighters arrive on the scene, ready to go.

I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure not only because of the firefighters role in our homeland security endeavors, but also in recognition of the critical day-to-day services they provide in our Nation's communities.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Dodd in the introduction of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act. The SAFER Act establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to fire and rescue departments though the new Department of Homeland Security. This funding will help to cover some of the costs associated with hiring and training new firefighters.

Our Nation's fire departments must be able to hire the necessary personnel in order to meet the ever increasing demands on local first responders. Many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which our fire rescue personnel deal with on a daily basis.

The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based consensus codes and guidelines, issued minimum staffing standards of at least four firefighters per apparatus. Furthermore, local departments are expected to comply with Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, standards, which require a minimum of two qualified firefighters inside and two qualified firefighters outside of a structure fire or similar incident. Except in cases of a known need for rescue, a fire company with less than four personnel cannot enter that structure to fight a fire or respond to an incident until additional firefighters arrive on the scene, ready to go.

I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure not only because of the firefighters role in our homeland security endeavors, but also in recognition of the critical day-to-day services they provide in our Nation's communities.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Brenda Geist on the occasion of her retirement from the Department of the Navy. Today, we celebrate with Brenda and her family her remarkable 37 years of exemplary and distinguished service to the Navy and the Nation. It is a privilege for me to address the Chamber today in honor of Brenda.

``Far and away the best prize that life offers,'' Teddy Roosevelt remarked, ``is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' When Brenda first began with the Navy Department at the Charleston Naval Station, she understood that supporting the men and women of the Sea Service was indeed work worth doing. Brenda has remained true to this principle ever since.

From the small Navy office on the Cooper River to the many postings around the world that followed, Brenda quickly became recognized by all for her acumen and accomplishments. Understandably, Brenda's talents were ultimately sought by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, D.C. In 1987, Brenda was selected to serve as the director of the Congressional Travel Division for the Navy Secretary's legislative affairs office. Past being prologue, Brenda's record of success continued unabated and has been nothing short of outstanding.

For 15 years, Brenda has been a key advisor to a succession of eight admirals. During her tenure, Brenda planned and coordinated travel around the world for more than 300 congressional delegations. A superb financial manager, Brenda also responsibly managed annual budgets of over $1.5 million--maintaining flawless documents and receiving the highest possible praise at every audit. Every day, her work directly supported the positive, productive interaction of senior Navy leadership and the Congress.

The Pentagon on the Potomac is a long way from the little Navy office on the Cooper River. Brenda's heartfelt commitment to the Navy's officers and sailors, her guiding compass over the years, never wavered.

Sharing this adventure with Brenda is Captain Gary Geist, U.S. Navy Ret., her husband of 24 years, and their children, Jim, Stacey, Darcey, Sam, and Curtis. With the loving support of her immediate Navy family, Brenda time and again, rose to the occasion for her larger extended Navy family.

Mr. President, I invite you and our Senate colleagues to join me and offer our sincere appreciation to Brenda Geist for her years of dedication and outstanding service. We wish her and her loving family ``fair winds and following seas'' as they begin their next adventure together. They will be sorely missed, but most certainly never forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to contribute to the public discourse and national debate we are witnessing with regard to a potential conflict--if diplomacy fails--with Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in Iraq. All of our offices have been inundated with calls, e- mails, and letters from concerned constituents about the consequences of war with Iraq. It is a timely debate of utmost gravity and importance. It is the essence of our democracy.

I, for one, have been supportive of our President's policies and intentions with regard to Iraq. I am firmly convinced that--should our efforts at the United Nations fail to convince Saddam Hussein to disarm--we must decisively end the menace that he represents to the world and to his own people. He has tyrannized his nation, the region and, indeed, the entire world for over two decades. I am proud that our President has shown the courage to bring this present and growing danger to the world's attention. It is not easy to muster the courage, in the face of widespread apprehension, to confront the truly evil elements of our global community. It is easier and more popular to procrastinate and defer decisions.

Our President is a man of principle however, who will not shrink from the dangers that threaten our Nation. He has carefully laid out a case against Saddam Hussein and has brought to the attention of the world the terrible threat this man and his regime represent to our national and global security. I am proud to stand with him and with my colleagues who have given the President the authority he needs to effectively confront Saddam Hussein, with military force, if necessary.

This morning's Washington Post contained a thoughtful editorial on this important subject: ``Drumbeat on Iraq? A Response to Readers.'' It is an editorial that captures, in a balanced manner, the essence of the debate and is, in fact, responsive to the diverse readership of the Post.

I commend this editorial to my colleagues and my constituents. I further thank the Washington Post for this thoughtful contribution to the national debate on this subject. The prospect of conflict is never a pleasant option. The consequences of inaction in this case are unacceptable. Our President has enhanced the security and safety of our Nation by forcefully confronting those who would bring harm to our shores. We can no longer stand idly by. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I fully agree with the conclusion of this Washington Post editorial that, ``. . . a long term peace will be better served by strength than by concessions.'' We must find the strength, as a nation--hopefully as an international community--to act if this last chance for diplomacy fails.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Armed Services for the 108th Congress adopted by the committee on February 13, 2003.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah if he will yield for a question.

Mr. President, colleagues, this nomination for this Senator is a personal matter, for the reason that I was privileged to-- --

I will phrase it as a question. I just wanted to lay a predicate, a foundation for the purpose of the question. I said this was a personal matter. I assert that because I had the privilege of introducing this distinguished nominee----

I was about to say, I had the privilege of introducing him and I did so for several reasons. One, I carefully examined the distinguished dossier of this lawyer. But am I not correct this is a nomination to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

Mr. President, I was privileged to be a law clerk.

Yes, Mr. President. I shall pose it in the form of a question. I had the privilege of being a law clerk on the same circuit court of appeals many years ago. I ask my distinguished colleague, when a United States Senator goes before the Judiciary Committee for the purpose of introducing a nominee, does not that Senator place his or her credibility before that committee in making those statements?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who has been nominated by our President to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the President with the authority to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to render ``Advice and Consent'' on the nomination.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places the composition of our Judiciary entirely in the hands of the President and the Senate. Therefore, in order for our Judiciary to effectively administer justice, it is incumbent upon the ability of the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government to work together.

Throughout the quarter century I have had the honor of representing the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States Senate, I have conscientiously made the effort to work on judicial nominations with the Presidents with whom I have served. Whether our President was President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush, I have accorded equal weight to the nominations of all Presidents, irrespective of party.

Based on the last several years, I am concerned that we as a body are no longer according equal weight to the nominations of our Presidents irrespective of party. The process has become highly politicized and, as a result, we are ultimately discouraging highly qualified nominees from serving in our Judiciary.

If we as a Senate continue to let partisanship remain the hallmark of the Senate's judicial confirmation process, and we hold up judicial nominees based on their party affiliation, then our judiciary will suffer.

Throughout my 25 years in the United States Senate, I have always carefully scrutinized judicial nominees and considered a number of factors before casting my vote to confirm or reject.

The nominee's character, professional career, experience, integrity, and temperament are all important factors. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to interpret law according to precedent or impose his or her own views. The opinions of the officials from the State in which the nominee would serve and the views of my fellow Virginians are also important. In addition, I believe our Judiciary should reflect the broad diversity of the citizens in serves.

These principles have served well as I have scrutinized the records of over a thousand judicial nominees. One most recent instance that is important for us to remember is my support for the nomination of Judge Gregory to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Judge Gregory was first nominated by President Clinton and subsequently nominated by President Bush. Regardless of which President nominated Judge Gregory, the fact is that he was highly qualified for the federal bench. Therefore, I supported his nomination when President Clinton nominated him late in the 106th Congress, and when President Bush nominated him early in the 107th Congress. Judge Gregory is now the first African American Judge to ever serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and he is serving with distinction.

Judge Gregory's qualifications were clear-cut. Regardless of which President nominated him, he deserved the support of the United States Senate.

The same is true with the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

Mr. Estrada has received a unanimous ranking of ``Well Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. And, in my view, his record indicates that he will serve as an excellent jurist.

Mr. Estrada's resume is an impressive one. Born in Honduras, Miguel Estrada came to the United States at the age of 17. At the time, he was able to speak only a little English. But just 5 years after he came to the United States, he graduated from Columbia College with Phi Beta Kappa honors.

Three years after he graduated from Columbia, Mr. Estrada graduated from Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Mr. Estrada then went on to serve as a law clerk to a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and as a law clerk to Judge Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.

After his clerkships, Mr. Estrada worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, as an assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice, and in private practice for two prestigious law firms.

Throughout his career, Mr. Estrada has prosecuted numerous cases before Federal district courts and Federal appeals courts, and he has argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court.

Without a doubt, Mr. Estrada's legal credentials make him well qualified for the position to which he was nominated. I am thankful for his willingness to resume his public service, and I am confident that he would serve as an excellent jurist.

Mr. President, Miguel Estrada's nomination is a clear-cut case. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.

Madam President, may I say to my good friend, the junior Senator, that he delivered his remarks with great empathy and feeling. I wish to congratulate him. I have come to know him as a man who has intense feelings for people; and as a former Governor the many times he had to respond to catastrophes and loss of life in our State, he certainly has learned how to speak for the families and the survivors, and to speak with admiration about those who made the sacrifice. I thank the Senator for the privilege of serving with him.

Madam President, it is interesting; as the two of us approached the floor, a reporter paused in a very courteous way to ask me some questions. He is doing a study on the demographics of the Senate, and in particular on the number of Senators who have had an opportunity to serve in uniform. I expressed an opinion that I have expressed many times to a similar request. I find that, while it has its advantages, there is certainly no disadvantage to those who have not had the opportunity to serve in uniform. I think we all learn very quickly how to address the responsibilities we have with respect to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States.

But in the few steps that I took walking to the Chamber, I say to my colleague, I did reflect momentarily on two brief periods that I was privileged to serve in uniform at the very end of World War II when I did not see combat as did the spouse of the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, our former colleague, Senator Dole, in no way have I ever put myself in the category of Senators Dole, Inouye, Stevens, Hollings, and many others since then who served in Vietnam with such great distinction on the battlefield. But I did come to know many of my colleagues. Then I served briefly in the Korean war as a ground communications officer in the first wing. But I got to know aviators very well in that capacity. I recall that one of our tentmates did not return, and also our commanding officer lost his life. I was part of the detail that went out to retrieve him from a mountainside.

I empathize, as do the other men and women of the Armed Forces, for the loss of those astronauts who achieved their status through training in the U.S. military. What a privilege it is for all of us who had the opportunity to serve, to serve with others, and to share in their everyday happenings and glory--and sometimes in the status of their death--that we do here, brothers and sisters in the Senate today.

A number of our colleagues had the opportunity to go down to the services. I had to remain here. But I join with my colleagues in our reverent and humble way of expressing our deepest sympathies to the families, to the survivors, to the fellow enlisted military officers who served with these individuals throughout their careers, and to the Nation. The whole Nation is grieving for their deaths.

It is a marvelous thing to see Americans come together from all walks of life and to join in prayers and in other ways--so often in quiet ways--to express our feelings over this tragic loss to our Nation, and indeed to the world, because the world is largely dependent on those nations that have trained those going into space with particular missions. We lost the very brave and

extraordinary military officer from our strong ally, Israel.

While our Nation grieves for the deaths of the seven pioneers in space, for their friends and families, and for the States those brave souls called home, we join in mourning with all States in the Union. And yet we celebrate in a way their entire lives. We in Virginia are united in our solemn remembrance of one of those astronauts, CPT David Brown, whose parents, Dorothy and Paul, live in Washington, VA. My distinguished colleague spoke of his wonderful conversation with his brother today.

In the United States of America, we are a nation of pioneers--blazing trails from the 16th and 17th centuries to build ourselves a new nation, venturing west in the 18th and 19th centuries to fulfill our manifest destiny; and today in the 20th and 21st centuries leaving the outer bounds of our own atmosphere to learn more about this planet and others, and to share that knowledge with the world.

Shuttle launches and landings have become routine over the last several decades, yielding a false sense of security. We now recognize how false it is--for we are shaken to our very core.

Brilliant were the remarks delivered today by our President--and those who gathered with him at the memorial service. President Bush is well known to my colleague as a fellow Governor. They served together. How often the Senator from Virginia told me about the moments they shared when both of them were Governors. But he--not unlike my dear friend, the Senator from Virginia--has a remarkable way to step into a period of mourning and bring strength to the families who remain, and to the Nation. I certainly commend our President.

Over 100 times our brave astronauts have challenged the laws of gravity--I love that phrase; I wrote it myself--the laws of gravity propelling themselves, their shuttles, and their payloads hundreds of miles from the Earth's surface. Their work has yielded a great deal of scientific advancement--especially medical advances--credited with enhancing the quality of life not only of ourselves but, indeed, the world.

Space research, technology, and exploration are major contributors to enhancing our national security, to improving our standard of living, and broadening our scientific knowledge--and to carry on the pioneering traditions of our Nation. NASA has been the driving force for these many accomplishments.

May I say the current Administrator of NASA is a member of our Senate family. In many ways, he worked with this institution. He went on to become Secretary of the Navy, an office that I was once privileged to hold. Our thoughts and prayers are with him. I think thus far he has shown strong leadership in addressing this tragedy, proceeding immediately to try to unearth the facts and to procure the knowledge from all sources, wherever they may be, to try to find the answers for this tragedy.

We are a nation of risk-takers. But with exploration comes inherent risks. We have continually tempted fate through superior science and with the most talented men and women in their fields--astronauts who are the best and the brightest--those who fulfill their dreams and, I think more importantly, who have instilled in generations of young people their commitments and their dreams to perhaps become astronauts or dreams to perhaps one day wear the uniforms of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Air Force.

Last night I was privileged to attend a public meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations and of the four members of the chiefs of the services and/or their designated persons, who spoke brilliantly. In the cross questions, they addressed their pride in those men in uniform who achieved the status of astronaut--most particularly, at least two of them knew personally two of those who were lost on this mission.

I was so proud of the way they spoke and talked with resolve as to how we press on in space, and how generations upon generations will be coming behind to take their places, not unlike the men and women of the Armed Forces who throughout the world today are standing watch over our freedom, most particularly in the stressful situations of the Korean Peninsula and, indeed, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. How proud we are of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

The Columbia crew trained for their mission for years and in an instant our Nation has lost seven brave brothers and sisters;

Commander Rick Douglas Husband, U.S. Air Force Colonel, father of one daughter and one son; hometown, Amarillo, TX;

Pilot William C. McCool, U.S. Navy Commander, father of three sons; hometown, San Diego, CA:

Kalpana Chawla, Ph.D. in aerospace engineering, hometown Karnau, India;

Michael P. Anderson, lieutenant colonel, U.S. Air Force, father of two daughters; hometown, Spokane, WA;

Laurel Blair Salton Clark, commander, U.S. Navy, mother of one son; hometown, Racine, WI;

Ilan Ramon, colonel, Isreli Air Force;

And David M. Brown, captain, U.S. Navy; hometown, Washington, VA.

I am proud to stand here today on behalf of all Virginians to honor his memory and celebrate his life.

How proud Virginia, his parents, his friends, and his family are of this distinguished man: CPT David Brown. In his last words from space, CPT Brown wrote an e-mail to his parents in Virginia. My colleague referred to an e-mail he wrote to his brother. This is an e-mail he wrote to his parents:

If I'd been born in space, I would desire to visit the

beautiful Earth more than I ever yearned to visit space. It's

a wonderful planet.

Quiet, confident, heroic, adventuresome, dedicated to the welfare of others, and always seeing the best in our world: CPT Brown.

My colleague enumerated the details of his family and his education, but I do wish to recount one story. His parents were not surprised by his choice. Paul and Dorothy Brown watched their son grow up in the Westover section of Arlington with a clear sense of adventure. He flew with a friend in a small plane at age 7. And while at William and Mary, he worked two jobs just to gain the dollars for his flying lessons.

In a speech to students last September, CPT Brown predicted that at some point a shuttle flight would end with the loss of crew and aircraft. But he encouraged the young people to have ``a big vision, accept the risks and be persistent in pursuit of [your] goals.''

Last Christmas, CPT Brown had a conversation with his brother Doug, who asked what would happen if something went wrong in space. He simply said: ``Well, this program will go on.'' And the remainder of that conversation my dear colleague put in the Record.

We are a nation of patriots. Not only must we remember these brave men and women of the Columbia, but all men, all women in uniform, who protect this great Nation. And I suppose since 9/11 each of you in this Chamber, like I, stop quietly when you see the uniform of a fireman, a policeman, or a medical worker, or those who form the vast infrastructure in this country and take risks day and night so we can enjoy the highest quality of life of any nation in this world.

I say to our Armed Forces on deployment around the world, who have been dispatched for the cause of protecting freedom, and to our police and firefighters, you are in our thoughts and in our prayers every day. Ours is a grateful Nation for the risks you and your families--and I underline families--take.

Today we must mourn our loss: the crew of the Columbia. Tomorrow we will continue their work. I emphasize that. Our President said that. Tomorrow we will continue their work, their search for knowledge, and their exploration of new frontiers.

We will remember them with reverence, just as we remember the settlers at Jamestown in 1607, and the expedition of Lewis and Clark in 1803. We will remember them, just as we remember our lost soldiers, sailors, and airmen, who have given their lives--generations of lives-- to protect our freedoms. And we will remember them, just as we will remember the others who have fallen in space, who dared to dance among the stars. We remember them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am deeply moved. A hero I am not, my dear fellow. I served twice in active duty for brief periods, and I benefited greatly in that service.

I try today, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to return to the men and women of the Armed Forces more than what I received by way of training and other benefits from serving in the military. My tours of active duty are inconsequential compared to the glorious careers of the persons who we honor today and, indeed, all others really that I have served with and see on the far-flung battlefields of the world as I travel through their posts, and will do soon again, to do what I can to benefit their lives, their welfare, their safety, and that of their families.

But I think, my dear friend, we should note that we have present in the Chamber today the visiting Chaplain who comes from the State of Virginia. I think it is a matter of consequence that he is here today in the time that you and I speak. And he, too, expresses, as he did in the opening prayer, what is in his heart today, as he is in this Chamber, participating and listening to our speeches. So we are fortunate. We thank the guest Chaplain.

I will withhold until after the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the President for the selection of Gordon England for the post to which the Senate will confirm him soon in the newly created Department of Homeland Security.

I have had the privilege of working with Mr. England for some time now. Since he assumed the duties of Secretary of the Navy, we immediately became friends--because we had known

each other while he was in the private sector, but, of course, I having had the privilege of serving as Secretary of the Navy some many years before, we were sort of a band of brothers--those of us who are privileged to serve in the greatest Navy in the world, and particularly in the post as a civilian boss. We have worked together these many years.

I want the record to reflect the extraordinary qualifications of this nominee. The Navy will miss him. But duty calls so often. It did in this instance because the President and Secretary Ridge wanted to draw on someone who had a proven record of management capabilities. Gordon England exhibited that record while he was Secretary of the Navy. He will exhibit it as the hands-on operator of the management decisions in assisting the distinguished Secretary, Mr. Ridge.

I am very pleased with this nomination.

I want to mention just a few things about the distinguished career of this fine person.

He began his career with Honeywell Corporation working as an engineer on the Gemini space program before joining General Dynamics in 1966 as an avionics design engineer in the Fort Worth aircraft division. He also worked as a program manager with Litton Industries on the Navy's E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.

By coincidence, these are programs I worked on somewhat when I was Secretary, Under Secretary, and then, of course, while I have been here in the Senate serving now 25 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation from 1997 until 2001 and was responsible for two major sectors of the corporation--first, information systems, and international.

Previously, he served as executive vice president of the Combat Systems Group, president of General Dynamics Fort Worth aircraft company. Before that, he served as president of General Dynamics land systems company producing land combat vehicles.

He has had this management experience, particularly in high-tech areas. Much of the Homeland Defense Department function will be going to the private sector, encouraging that private sector to design state- of-the-art and beyond--I stress ``beyond''--technology to meet the many unknowns with which our Nation and other nations are confronted in this battle against worldwide terrorism.

Mr. England is a native of Baltimore. He graduated from the University of Maryland in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. In 1975, he earned a master's degree in business administration from the M.J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. He served as a member of the Defense Science Board and was vice chairman of the National Research Council Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry.

It is an extraordinary record.

If I may say with the greatest respect to our President and to the new Secretary that his first Deputy, Gordon England, in the Department of Homeland Security, I think, can help avert what could come about as a tug of war between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense as it regards budget matters. Both have the highest priorities, properly accorded by our President, and indeed I think the Congress. Homeland defense is just starting. As their cash flow and appropriations come in, I hope they will be adequate to meet the needs of this new Department. If they are not, I hope we can find other means by which to finance those requirements. They should be given top priority financially and support-wise because they will guard us here at home--augmenting what is in place already by way of the National Guard, the North Command and the other commands of the Department of Defense--many other things that are in place in bringing together the various and disparate agencies and departments and put them under this one head.

I am going to be ever watchful--and I think my good friend, Gordon England, likewise--to advise the Secretary of Defense and to advise the Secretary of Homeland Security. We cannot ever witness a budget war between these two strong and powerful and vitally needed Departments. Gordon England is eminently qualified to see that doesn't happen. Homeland defense starts beyond our shores in the forward-deployed positions of the men and women of the Armed Forces all over the world.

For example, on the battlefields of Afghanistan, we have made great progress.

I had the privilege just this morning of meeting with General Franks to talk about the progress he has made and the challenges that remain in Afghanistan. But he has, in large measure, achieved a goal of stemming the flow of terrorism from that troubled piece of land to other places in the world and will continue to fight that battle.

That is the clearest example I can give right now of where we have to stop terrorism before it comes to our borders. Hopefully, it can be interdicted there and certainly interdicted before it gets into hometowns in America.

Those two Departments must be adequately funded because they will work together to protect this great Nation.

I wish my old friend good luck, fair winds, and flowing seas, as we say in the Navy. He is eminently qualified to take on this position.

I thank the Chair.