Floor Statements

Mr. President, I object.

Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

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

I thank the Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thou, too, sail, on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

We know what Master laid thy keel,

What workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,

Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,

What anvils rang, what hammers beat,

In what forge and what a heat

Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!

Fear not each sudden sound and shock,

'Tis of the wave and not the rock;

'Tis but the flapping of the sail,

And not a rent made by the gale!

In spite of rock and tempest's roar,

In spite of false lights on the shore,

Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!

Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,

Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,

Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,

Are all with three,--are all with thee!

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my colleagues to offer an amendment to boost transportation funding for the 6-year period to be covered by the next highway bill.

The enactment of a new surface transportation bill will be a mammoth task for the 108th Congress. No group of Senators is more familiar with the depth of this challenge than the principal cosponsors of this amendment.

In my more than 56 years in elected office, I have always served in a legislative body. I served in the West Virginia House of Delegates and the West Virginia Senate. I served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before joining the Senate roughly 45 years ago. Over all those years, I have been called on to vote on thousands of amendments. As such, I learned a long time ago to take careful note, not just of the substance of each amendment, but also who is offering it.

As such, I ask all Senators to take careful note of the principal cosponsors of this amendment. They include the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee; the chairman and ranking member of that committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation; the chairman and ranking member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee; the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; and, the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

What unites all these Senators is an acute knowledge of the challenges that stand in front of us as we seek to reauthorize the TEA- 21 law. What also unites us is an acute knowledge of the true needs of our transportation system, whether it is the need to renew our aging highway infrastructure or expand the capacity of our mass transit systems. While we are required to reauthorize every 6 years, many of us face these issues every year. Indeed, both Senators Bond and Reid, in addition to their authorizing responsibilities, serve with me on Senator Shelby's and Senator Murray's Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. Just last month, we all worked together to reject the Bush administration's attempt to cut highway spending by some $8.6 billion. We were successful in restoring almost every penny of that cut.

But when we assess the current conditions of our highway system and the growing demands our society places on that system, each one of us knows that holding steady at the current level of funding is simply not adequate. And that is what brings this bipartisan group of Senators to the floor today. Together, we are offering an amendment to substantially boost our level of investment in both highways and mass transit. And we ask all Senators to join with us in this effort.

In a just a few weeks time, the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee will begin in earnest to draft their portions of the surface transportation bill. During that time, I expect that each of my fellow Senators will be approaching the chairman and ranking member of these committees to articulate the most critical transportation needs for their states. For some Senators, their focus will be deteriorating highway bridges; for others it will be alternative fuel buses, or the widening of existing highways or the construction of new highways. Some Senators will be focused on the need to provide seismic retrofits of bridges near earthquake faults while other Senators will be looking for new commuter rail lines or even ferry terminals.

No matter what the transportation needs are in their State, I implore each and every Senator to reflect seriously on these needs before they come to the floor and vote against this amendment.

Much has been said over the last week about the need for this budget resolution to be based on the true budgetary realities that we face as a nation. We need to focus on the real world cost of the war. We need to focus on the real costs of a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our Medicare recipients.

Here are some other real world facts that we must attend to:

Approximately 30 percent of the bridges along our Nation's highway system are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

It would require $42 billion more in annual investment to actually make progress to improve the conditions of our Nation's highways. Put another way, if we continue as a nation to provide only inflationary increases in the current rate of highway spending, the condition of our Nation's highways will just continue to deteriorate.

These are not the observations of Robert C. Byrd--they are the observations of the Bush administration's own report on the Condition and Performance of our National Transportation System.

We must face these realities head on as we draft the next surface transportation bill. And to do so, we are going to need more resources--far more resources than are called for under the budget resolution we are currently debating.

So I urge all Senators to join with me and the leadership of both the transportation authorizing committees and the transportation appropriations subcommittee in setting us on a path where we can make meaningful improvements to our highway and transit systems. I commend the bipartisan leadership of the transportation authorizing committees and I intend to stand with them as we seek to advance the cause of our Nation's mobility and prosperity.

Madam President, I believe in this great and beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution and its inimitable history. I have marveled at the wisdom of its Founders and Framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart.

No more is the image of American one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have succeeded in isolating ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few but feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason: This is not a war of necessity, but a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11, at least up to this point. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al Qaida, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of some of the passengers who were on board that plane.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of Western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to territorial borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the Twin Towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to ``orange alert.'' There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country--my country, your country, our country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends and calls them irrelevant? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions, scores of millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians--women, children, babies, old and young, crippled, deformed, sick--in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland.

May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her thoughtfulness and her characteristic courtesy.

Amendment No. 264

Mr. President, I speak with reference to the Conrad amendment No. 264, which was voted on earlier today. I had hoped to speak prior to the vote on that amendment, but I was unable to do so.

Mr. President, the amendment that was before the Senate at that time was one of simple common sense. The President, last night, spoke to the Nation of imminent military action. The American people know that war is looming. The Senate knows that war is looming. And yet the budget resolution before the Senate ignores that war. It ignores the obvious costs that are staring all of us square in the face. This Senate ought to be up front with the Nation and anticipate the costs of war in this budget.

Last night, I went to the White House with a number of my colleagues from this body and from the other body. The message I carried was a simple one. I will support the funds as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to ensure the safety of the men and women in our Armed Forces. They did not ask for this mission. They did not ask to go overseas. But they are there. They are ready to carry out their orders. They are ready to defend America. I will not flinch when it comes to their safety and support.

But I do not support the policy that sent them there or that sends them there even though they will not have the support and endorsement of the United Nations.

What I will not support is a blank check for this administration to allow military action in Iraq to slowly creep into other operations, into other lands. We have seen how the goal of disarmament in Iraq has changed to fighting terrorism in Iraq, to ousting the leadership of Iraq, to bringing peace to the Middle East through war in Iraq, to forcing Saddam Hussein and his sons from Iraq. Is it any wonder that I and others worry what goal may be next? Where is this preemptive strategy taking us? Where are we taking the world?

I have stood in this Chamber time and again to warn of the dangers of this policy of preemptive strike without imminent threat. I have urged the President to step back and reconsider his decisions. But the administration has its eyes shut, its ears covered, its mind closed. The decision, apparently, has been made.

This is a war that does not have to be. This is a war that could be avoided. But the President has placed this Nation on the road to war, and there is little hope, if any, of turning back.

In the coming days, we will hear again from the President. I hope that, as he gives the command to commence military action, he and his administration will be looking at several moves ahead.

Reconstruction and peacekeeping will be huge tasks. The American people must be prepared for the strains of

these missions. We should not feed them rosy scenarios that a war will be painless or that an occupation would be of minimal length. Nor should we keep them in the dark. It is imperative that, in times of crisis, the American people can maintain trust in their Government.

We must repair our alliances. Already our move to war has had fallout for our closest ally, Britain, with the resignation of Britain's Foreign Secretary. There is an ever-increasing chance of serious repercussions in the Middle East. We will need the combined political strength of all of our friends and allies, and the process of repairing our ties must begin immediately.

Winston Churchill once said about war:

The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that

once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of

policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable

events.

It is those unforeseeable and uncontrollable events that may be precipitated by a war with Iraq that keep me awake at night. I wish I could share the President's confidence that the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his regime will set into motion a peaceful revolution in the Middle East. Perhaps it will. We may be lucky. But I have watched too many decades of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East to believe that yet another war can serve as a reliable road map to peace.

It is true that no one can predict the final cost of this war. But it certainly is not zero. That is what the President has asked us to budget, zero, and that is what the resolution would budget. Absolutely nothing. It is as if the looming war where simply a figment of one's imagination.

If only that were the case.

Yes.

Mr. President, I have had no answer. I received no answer, no estimates whatsoever. And the administration, through some of its department heads, has said: That is impossible. It is impossible. And why should we do that? That would be--if I may use my own words--a wasteful exercise. The administration has sent forth no estimate.

Of course, we all understand that there can be no hard and fast estimate at this point. Many of us have been Members of this body and/ or the other one through previous wars. We know how difficult it is to come up with solid estimates. But we also know when an administration is leveling with us. After all, we are the elected representatives of the American people. They send us here. They are entitled to know the answers to these questions. The American people are entitled to know what is the best estimate at this particular time and, under the conditions the administration foresees at this point, what are the best estimates of the actual cost of the war in treasure and blood, what is the best estimate with respect to the occupation of Iraq, the morning after, reconstruction in Iraq. But we get nothing. We get nothing from the administration.

The administration treats the elected representatives of the American people with seeming contempt. When the representatives of the people ask those questions, the answer, may I say to the Senator, is what it was then: We don't have the estimates.

The administration is no nearer now than it was then in giving it to us. I think it is our duty to continue to ask.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind remarks. He is overly charitable, and I deeply appreciate them.

Amendment No. 272

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his statement. I, too, will support Professor Bybee. I have no problem with doing that at all.

May I say that Professor Bybee can be proud that Senator Larry Craig has spoken on his behalf. Senator Craig is one of the most articulate Senators not only at this time in this body, but having been in this body for more than 44 years now, I can say that I have seen a lot of articulate speakers but Senator Craig is one among the foremost of those. I would treasure his support of my nomination if I were indeed a nominee for any position.

Madam President, has the Pastore rule run its course for today?

Madam President, I believe the Senate is in executive session.

I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in legislative session.

Is there any limitation on time?

I thank the Chair. I will speak perhaps, as I see it, 40 minutes or less, which is something worthy of commenting on in itself.

There is an axiom in military planning that countries tend to prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. Some historians blamed the incredible death toll of World War I on military commanders who failed to realize that the days of set-piece battles, as in the days of the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars, were over. Some have also pointed out that the countries that were overrun in the opening months of World War II were those that were best prepared to engage in trench warfare.

As our own Republic continues to ready for war in Iraq, there has been the alarming tendency to see this next war as a replay of our 1991 campaign to liberate Kuwait. Some have taken to calling the impending conflict ``gulf war II,'' as if we could win this conflict in 2003 by rewinding the tapes of smart bombs dropping on their targets in 1991. I fear that many have succumbed to an intellectual and moral laziness that views the coming war through the lens of our victory in 1991.

This next war in Iraq will not be like the last. Twelve years ago, there was a war in one act with an extensive list of players opposing an aggressive antagonist. Now, the curtain is about to rise on a war with the same lead character, Saddam Hussein, but only one great power opposing him, that great power being the one superpower in the world today, the United States. Many countries that played supporting roles in the last war look as though they will, this time, serve more as extras, seen only in the crowd scenes without supporting roles. Most ominously, we do not know how long this costly drama might last. It may last a month. It may last 2 months. It may last a week. It may last 2 days. Who knows? I do not know. But this conflict will be played out in many acts.

As in the last war, the coming battles will draw heavily on U.S. air power, followed by the use of our ground troops to destroy the Iraqi army. That is where the similarities between 1991 and 2003 begin and end. The ultimate goal in the coming war is not to roll back an invasion of a small, oil-rich corner of desert that borders the Persian Gulf. This time, the goal is to conquer the despotic government of Saddam Hussein.

In the 1991 gulf war, our victory was followed by an orderly withdrawal of our troops, so that they may return to their hometowns to march in ticker-tape parades and be honored with twenty-one gun salutes to acknowledge a resounding American victory on the battlefield.

It may not be the same in 2003. Our forces do not have the straightforward task of pushing the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. The aim is to push Saddam and his associates from power. This could involve house-to-house fighting or laying siege to Baghdad and other urban centers, where seven out of ten Iraqis live. The United States will have to manage religious, ethnic, and tribal rifts that may seek to tear the country apart. According to a declassified CIA estimate, we must contend with the increasing chance that Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against our troops as they march toward Baghdad.

After all of this, more work awaits. A U.S. invasion of Iraq with only token support from other countries will leave us with the burden of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. The United States will find itself thrust into the position of undertaking the most radical and ambitious reconstruction of a country since the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II.

The likely first step in a post-war occupation would be to establish security. No rebuilding mission could possibly occur if the Iraqi army still has fight left in it or if Iraq's cities are in chaos. Establishing security could well prove to be more difficult than defeating Iraq's military. Saddam Hussein could go on the lam, forcing our military into a wild goose chase. Surely Iraq could not be considered secure if its evil dictator were to be on the loose.

Creating a secure environment in Iraq also means dealing with difficult situations. How will our military deal with hungry Iraqis taking to the street in mobs? What are we going to do about civilians exacting revenge on those who had oppressed them for so long? How will we prevent violence within and among Iraq's multitude of tribes, ethnic groups, and religions?

I am not convinced that, right now, the Administration has any idea of how

to deal with these scenarios, or the dozens of other contingencies that might arise while the United States serves as caretaker to a Middle Eastern country.

The United States will then be faced with the task of providing for the humanitarian needs of 23 million Iraqis, 60 percent of whom are fully dependent on international food aid. The United State will have to make sure that roads and bridges are rebuilt so that humanitarian assistance can get through to where it will be needed. That would be largely our responsibility. That would not be the case if we were being attacked, if the United States were being attacked by Iraq, if the United States were confronted with an imminent and direct threat from Iraq. If that were the case, then we would not be so morally responsible for cleaning up the mess, for reconstructing, for rebuilding that which we will have destroyed.

That is not the case. We will have to make sure that roads and bridges are rebuilt so humanitarian assistance can get through to where it will be needed. Electrical systems will have to be repaired. Who knows, some in this country may have to be repaired when that attack is launched. But we are talking about the morning after now, the postwar Iraq.

Electrical systems will have to be repaired so that doctors can operate in their hospitals. Water systems must be maintained to provide drinking water to the country as it enters the scorching summer months and to provide sanitation to prevent the spread of disease. Telephone systems will also be needed to communicate with the distant parts of a country that is the size of France, or a country that is seven times the size of West Virginia.

Protecting or rebuilding this critical infrastructure may become a huge task in itself, as Saddam Hussein is apparently planning a scorched earth defense of his regime. Such a scorched earth defense could involve setting oil fields ablaze. It could involve blowing up dams. It could involve the destruction of bridges over rivers, two of the oldest rivers in the world, the Euphrates and the Tigris, in a country that when I was in school many years ago was referred to as Mesopotamia, the land between the two great rivers. Such a strategy on the part of Saddam Hussein could involve sabotaging water supplies or destroying food sources. U.S. military officers are now reporting that Iraqi troops dressed as U.S. soldiers may seek to attack innocent Iraqi civilians in an effort to blame the West as being responsible for war atrocities.

If we are successful in deposing Saddam Hussein--and I don't have any doubt we will be successful in doing that; there is any number of scenarios by which Saddam may be deposed. He may be assassinated. Assassinations do occur, as we read today in the newspapers about an assassination. Saddam Hussein may turn tail and run. He may want to live and fight another day. He may decide to fight to the death. He may be willing to die himself while others die around him. Who knows. But there is no doubt in my mind that he will be deposed, one way or another.

But in any event if we are successful in deposing Saddam Hussein and limiting the loss of life among our troops and those of Iraqi civilians, the United States will have to reform the government of Iraq. According to an article that appeared in the Washington Post on February 21, the post-Saddam plan crafted by the administration calls for the U.S. military to take complete, unilateral control of Iraq after a war, followed by a transition to an interim administration by an American civilian. This interim administration would purge Iraq of Saddam Hussein's cronies and lay the groundwork for a representative government. General Barry McCaffrey, who commanded ground troops during the 1991 war, estimated in the article that the occupation would take 5 years.

Let us remember that Iraq once had a colonial government under the flag of Great Britain from 1920 to 1932. Iraqis revolted against British troops, leading one of the great men of the 20th century, one of the great men of all time, Winston Churchill to refer to the country as ``these thankless deserts.''

Have you ever been in a sandstorm in the deserts of the Middle East? It is quite an experience.

If the United States is to administer Iraq for a period of years, we will run the risk of being viewed as a new colonial power, no matter how pure our intentions. Those who may greet us as liberators in 2003 may increasingly view us as interlopers in 2004, 2005, 2006, and beyond.

The United States will also face the task of reforming Iraq's military. Fearful that a weak Iraq could fuel the ambitions of other regional powers, the Department of Defense is now considering how to take apart Iraq's million-man army and rebuild it into a smaller, more professional force. While details are still wrapped in secrecy, it appears that the United States will have a major hand in retraining and re-equipping the post-Saddam Iraqi army. We are already trying to build an Afghan national army of perhaps 70,000 troops, but a new military for Iraq would have be several times that size. One thing is for sure, the arms industries must be salivating at the profits that could be made from building a new, modern Iraqi army from scratch.

These occupation and reconstruction missions are all difficult risks and difficult tasks. No wonder the ranking general in the British military, Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, said in an interview published in a London newspaper on February 23:

In my view, the post-conflict situation will be more

demanding and challenging than the conflict itself.

We had better hear that. We had better take note of that. Let's hear again what the British military general says. The British general, Sir Mike Jackson--here is what he said in an interview published in a London newspaper on February 23 of this year:

In my view, the post-conflict situation will be more

demanding and challenging than the conflict itself.

In other words, the war we may soon face in the Persian Gulf will be an entirely different campaign than was the war in 1991.

Congress and the American people, the people in the galleries that extend from sea to shining sea, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border, the people, the American people, those out there who are looking upon this Chamber through that electronic lens, those people, the people need to know how long we can expect to occupy postwar Iraq.

Last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman estimated that a military occupation of Iraq would take 2 years. That estimate is hard to believe. Gen. Douglas MacArthur believed that the occupation of Japan after World War II would take no more than 3 years. It lasted 6 years and 8 months. The first U.S. military governor in Germany, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, anticipated that the United States military would ``provide a garrison, not a government, except for a few weeks.'' Instead, the first phase of the occupation of Germany lasted 4 years.

These types of missions have their own momentum. We have had United States troops in Bosnia for 7 years and United States soldiers in Kosovo for 3\1/2\ years. Let us not forget that Gov. George Bush, as a Presidential candidate in 2000, said he would work to find an end to those peacekeeping missions. But the United States is now looking at a peacekeeping mission in Iraq that dwarfs our deployment to the Balkans in every respect.

I find it utterly confounding that a President so opposed to nation building would then launch into military scenarios that so clearly culminate in that very outcome. I have to wonder--I have to wonder if this President is simply so driven to act that he cannot see that action itself is not the goal. How far along was this administration in planning military action in Afghanistan before the question of what postwar Afghanistan would look like even came up? There seems to be at least some forethought about postwar Iraq, but how thoroughly has it been forethought? How thoroughly has it been thought about? How thoroughly has it been scrutinized?

The information given to Congress--that's that legislative branch up there, the people's representatives. Why, those people down in the White House view the legislative branch with contempt, with disdain. Why should they let those people up there know what they, the people on Mt. Olympus, are thinking? The information given to Congress and to the American people, who pay all of us in public office--we

are the hired hands. I am one of the hired hands. So is the President of the United States. He is just one of the hired hands. Then why should we view those people, who pay us, with such contempt that we don't think we ought to let them in on these secrets?

Oh, we don't have to tell them. We don't have to tell the people's elected representatives in Congress. We don't have to tell them. We'll let them know what we estimate the cost to be when we send up our bill, when we send up a supplemental appropriations bill.

Congress and the American people should also know how much it will cost to occupy Iraq. At least there must be some estimates that have been carefully wrought. The Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, is standing by his estimates, given to the Armed Services Committee, that ``several hundred thousand'' troops would be required to occupy Iraq. There is an Army Chief of Staff who doesn't back down. There is an Army Chief of Staff who doesn't break and run. He said this a few days ago. His estimate was disputed by the Defense Department. But General Shinseki didn't cower. He is standing by his estimate, given to the Armed Services Committee, that several hundred thousand troops would be required to occupy Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office has provided estimates, based on an occupation force of 75,000 to 200,000 American troops, it would cost $1 billion to $4 billion--from $1 billion to $4 billion--per month.

I said that right. The cost of occupying Iraq has been estimated to be $1 billion to $4 billion per month. How much is that money to us peons? Under $4 billion. That is $1 to $4 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Perhaps that can give us hillbillies a little better feel of what we are talking about; $1 billion to $4 billion per month. That is $12 billion to $48 billion per year; $33 million to $130 million per day; $23,000 to $93,000 per minute. And these enormous amounts do not include the cost of rebuilding Iraq.

One estimate by the United Nations Development Program says that at least $30 billion will be needed for reconstruction in the first 3 years after a war. The actual cost, of course, could be much higher.

If the United States initiates war against Iraq in the coming days, maybe a week--I find it a little hard to think it will be 2 weeks, but it could be. If the United States initiates war against Iraq in the coming days, we will be hard pressed to share these staggering costs with our allies. We have foolishly engaged in a war of words with some of our most powerful European allies, countries which could have been valuable partners in rebuilding Iraq if war were proven to be inevitable.

Instead, it looks like the American taxpayer--you out there looking in this Chamber--the American taxpayer will be alone, all by himself, in shelling out billions of dollars for new foreign aid spending.

Some have suggested that Iraqi oil might take care of the post-war costs. According to the United Nations, if Iraq's oil production reached all-time highs, about $16 billion in revenue could be generated each year. Right now, Iraq's legitimate oil sales are supposed to buy food and medicine for the starving and ill. After a war, however, those funds could be subject to claims by Iraq's creditors, who are owed at least $60 billion in commercial and official debt. There is also the issue of $170 billion in unpaid reparations to Kuwait.

Mr. President, the big, black, endless pit we will find in Iraq after a war will not be filled with cheap oil for our gas-guzzling cars. The pit--that bottomless pit--that we will find in Iraq will have to be fed with enormous amounts of American dollars.--Courtesy of whom? Courtesy of Uncle Sam.

The irony of investing huge amounts of money to rebuild Iraq when we have urgent needs here at home has not been lost on late-night comedians. One talk-show host commented that if President Bush's plan to provide Iraqis with food, medicine, supplies, housing, and education proves to be a success, it could eventually be tried in the United States, too.

The comedians are on their toes. They are not overlooking any bets.

If the United States leads the charge to war in the Persian Gulf, we may be lucky and achieve a rapid victory. I hope we will be lucky. Perhaps the odds for being lucky are, I guess, 90 to 1. But we may not be lucky. But even if we are lucky, we will then have to face a second war--a war to win the peace in Iraq. That war will not be over in a day, or a week, or a month, or a year. That war will last several years, perhaps many years, and will surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

In the light of this enormous task, it would be a great mistake to expect that this will be a replay of the 1991 war. The stakes are much higher in this conflict.

Despite all of these risks and costs, it seems the administration continues to move our country closer and closer and closer to war. It seems we have already lost patience. We have already lost patience. We have stopped listening. This administration, this President, has stopped listening. The superhawks that surround him have stopped listening, if they ever were listening. It seems we have already lost patience for a regime of arms inspections that might take months to play out. But going to war will require our commitment to Iraq to last years--years.

The problems with Iraq are not going to be solved when 700 cruise missiles and 3,000 bombs land on that country in the opening days and the opening nights of war. Assuming victory--and I assume victory--we will be on the hook. You know what that means. We will be on the hook to rehabilitate Iraq. And I fear that the rebuilding of that ancient country with its ancient artifacts--a country that goes back to the mists of biblical years, of Abraham, and Issac, and Jacob, and Joseph-- a country, a land of Ur, and a land between the two great rivers--after the rebuilding of that ancient country, there will have to be another act of U.S. unilateralism. There you are--another act of U.S. unilateralism for which the American people are ill prepared.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if the distinguished Senator will yield briefly--

Madam President, may I thank the distinguished Senator for his overly charitable comments concerning this Senator. And I am indeed grateful. I am grateful for the fact that he on several occasions here during his short career thus far in the Senate--I predict that it will be a long career, if he wishes to make it a long one--has stood with me with regard to several important subjects--subjects that deal with the Constitution, deal with this institution, and that deal with war and peace.

I thank him for standing shoulder to shoulder and toe to toe. I thank him likewise for what he brings to the Senate--vigor and fresh insights, vision that is beyond today's 24 hours, a man whose kinsman served in the Constitutional Convention from the State of New Jersey, and whose signature on that Constitution will be there until kingdom come.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator from Minnesota yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is making a great speech. It is great because of the quotations the Senator from Minnesota has given to us today about that Constitution.

The Senator was one of the lonely 23 who voted not to give to this President, or any other President--not to attempt to hand over to this President or to any other President--the power to declare war, which is found in the eighth section of article I of the Constitution of the United States.

A nominee for a Federal judgeship came to me the other day. I said: Where in the Constitution is the power to declare war lodged? He didn't remember. I said: Where in the Constitution is the vestment of the power to appropriate moneys? He knew it was there, but he didn't know in what section that was to be found. Of course, I

didn't have any problem in reminding him where both were to be found.

But the Senator from Minnesota today is referring to the Constitution of the United States, written in 1787, signed by 39 individuals, among whom was one kinsman of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton, and his name is found in that illustrious roll of signers from the State of New Jersey, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Mark Dayton, voted to uphold the Constitution, concerning which he has stood before that desk of the Presiding Officer with his hand on the Bible and swore to support and defend that Constitution.

This Senator who sits in front of me, I now put my hand on his shoulder, Senator Kent Conrad, he was among the 23, yes. He was on that illustrious roll to which someone in ages hence will point. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, sits here on the floor today. He, too, was one of the 23 who stood for the Constitution on that day, when a majority of the Senate voted to shift the power to declare war to the President of the United States. But 23 Senators voted to leave that authority where the Constitution puts it: namely, in Congress.

What would Jonathan Dayton have said could he have spoken on the day that those 23 Members stood up for the Constitution--21 Democrats, one Independent and one Republican--what would Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey have said if he could have spoken to the Senate that day? What would his advice to us have been?

I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may ask a question without losing my right to the floor.

How did I vote on this question the last time we voted?

I thank the distinguished leader.

I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. President, I see two other Senators here who have been waiting. I have the floor, do I not?

I thank the Chair. I hope I can yield to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--for how long?

Ten minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and then I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, my next-door neighbor, for 15 minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and that I will then be recognized as I am now recognized.

I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the Pastore rule run its course today?

It has. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I shall speak out of order, not long. My guess is that I will speak for 20 minutes or less.

Mr. President, the United Nations is in diplomatic disarray today as the foreign ministers from the world's most powerful nations scramble to find some scrap of common ground on the question of war with Iraq.

What a difference a few months makes. Last November, under the leadership of the United States, the 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, strengthening the weapons inspection regime and giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

The rapidity with which that unity has unraveled is astounding. What began as a constructive process to gain international support for war against Iraq has disintegrated into insults, accusations, and finger- pointing among the key members of the Security Council. Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States. With his insistence that the United Nations declare the inspection regime a failure and immediately authorize war against Iraq, the President has opened a chasm between the U.S. and Great Britain on one side and the remaining permanent members of the Security Council on the other.

Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant-- one of the most over used words in the English language as of today, I would say, and as of the last several days.

Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant if it does not authorize immediate war against Iraq, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is countering that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations will violate the U.N. charter.

The knock-down, drag-out in the Security Council has tarnished the images of both the United Nations and the United States, and it has imperiled the political career of at least one world leader, one foremost leader, President Bush's staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

What a high price to pay for the President's insistence on blindly following a war-first, war-now policy on Iraq. What a high price to pay.

Despite feverish activity this week on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain to persuade a majority of members of the Security Council to support a second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, the President and his chief advisers have made it clear that the activity is merely window dressing and that the United States is prepared to act with or without U.N. support. For the Bush Administration, war with Iraq seems to be no longer a question of if, but when and the window on ``when'' is rapidly closing.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, declared over the weekend, ``There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it's important to know that we believe the authority is there.''

In other words, the die has been cast. As Caesar said when he crossed the Rubicon, ``the die is cast.'' The rhetoric has hardened. U.S. forces are in place and poised to attack. The U.N. Security Council has been relegated to a classic Greek chorus of tragic protest while the United States takes center stage. The President has stopped listening.

The administration's strategy for war with Iraq is so far advanced that not only does the President have war plans on his desk, he also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is soliciting bids from a handful of U.S. firms for a contract worth as much as $900 million to begin the reconstruction of Iraq. According to the Journal, the contract would be the largest reconstruction effort undertaken by the United States since the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With post-war contracts already in hand, can the onset of war be far behind?

My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is not a necessity. I believe it is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent direct threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein. There is no question about that. But we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this Nation, the United States, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq.

In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the U.N. on war with Iraq. The U.N. weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work. Citizens by the thousands--nay, by the hundreds of thousands-- have taken to the streets in countries around the globe, including the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, to protest the war.

The day after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, ``We are all Americans!'' Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed September 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this Administration's heavy- handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq.

The latest report of the U.N. weapons inspectors only heightened the tensions in the Security Council and helped to precipitate the current scramble for a new resolution. On Friday--March 7--chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reported progress in the disarmament of Iraq and predicted that the inspection process could be completed in months-- ``not years, nor weeks, but months.''

At the same meeting, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts--by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. ElBaradei said the inspectors have found no evidence--none--that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked.

Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq.

The world is awash in anti-Americanism. The doctrine of preemption enshrined in the Bush administration's national security strategy the policy on which the war with Iraq is predicated has turned the global image of the United States from that of a world class peacemaker into what many believe is dangerous warmonger.

The President is on the wrong track in insisting on rushing into war without the support of the international community, and specifically the United Nations. Not only is America's reputation on the line, but so is our war on terror. The recent arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two of

his cohorts in Pakistan is evidence that the United States is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al-Qaida organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the Middle East.

Pakistan's cooperation is particularly important in the war on terror, and yet the majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to war with Iraq. How or whether Pakistani opposition to the war against Iraq will affect the war against terror is one of many unknowns.

The United States cannot bring down al-Qaida alone. We need support and cooperation from friendly nations in the region. We risk losing their friendship, and possibly causing major upheavals in the Middle East, if the President defies world opinion and launches a U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

Yes, I am happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Yes.

Yes.

Undoubtedly.

Unquestionably.

It is a dramatic example and a most somber and chilling one. I thank the distinguished Senator for his observation.

The President may be lucky. We may be lucky. If we launch this war on Iraq, we may be lucky. I hope we will be. But we may not be.

The cost of war and the potential casualties--not only to American military personnel but also to innocent civilians in and around Iraq-- are unknowns. The impact of war on the fragile fabric of the Middle East is also unknown. The administration seems to think that war with Iraq will pave the way to peace and democracy in the Middle East, but I believe that is merely wishful thinking. Saddam Hussein is not the cause of the strife between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Saddam Hussein's downfall will not erase the deeply rooted conflict between the two sides.

War against Iraq may prove to be a fatal distraction from the war on terror. It could be. The danger to Americans today is from al-Qaida. Intelligence officials predict that war with Iraq will precipitate a new wave of terrorism against the United States and its allies and will serve as a powerful recruiting tool for anti-American extremists.

We need to keep the pressure on al-Qaida. We need to strengthen our defenses against a terrorist attack here at home. We need to focus the resources of our Nation on the war on terror and dismantle the al-Qaida network before it can mount another catastrophic attack on the United States.

The hour is late; the clock is ticking. But if the President would only listen to voices outside his war cabinet of superhawks, he might discover that it is not too late to stop the rush to war. There is still a chance that Saddam Hussein can be disarmed and neutralized short of war. As long as that possibility exists, the United States should drop its resistance to any slowdown in the march to war and should begin to talk with, and listen to, the other members of the Security Council.

The prospect of regaining unanimity within the United Nations on the question of Iraq is dim at best, but as long as there remains even a glimmer of hope, it is in the best interests of both the United States and the other members of the Security Council to regroup and strive to achieve that goal. The world community deserves nothing less.

Yes, I yield without losing my right to the floor. I am about finished.

They have been looking for one. They have been entitled to one. And now they have received one.

Thank God.

Thank Providence again.

Indubitably, that is the way I see it. That is my opinion. I believe there is ample evidence of that fact. The world itself at large wishes to see that, wants to see that and hopes for that.

Precisely so and importantly, emphatically on the second observation the Senator has made.

In other words, the morning after, what happens in Iraq? What does that cost? If we destroy much of Iraq, we have a responsibility to help to rebuild it. That is going to be a tremendous cost. I am afraid this administration has not thought that element through.

Moreover, the administration has not told the Congress very much about that, what the cost of that may be, what the administration's plans are in that case. I think that is a very soft underbelly of this whole matter.

The Senator is preeminently correct. Let me add, as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will never yield to anyone when it comes to supporting America's fighting men and women who have been sent abroad, and those at home, once the war begins.

I do not believe this war is necessary. But I will support to the last degree the men and women who have to go. They didn't ask to go, but they have to go; they are answering the call. I will support them on the Appropriations Committee to the furthermost of my ability.

Yes.

The Senator is right on point. This doctrine is exceedingly dangerous. It not only will set a precedent, it has set a precedent, as we have seen it begun to be put into play in Iraq. It will be a precedent. There will be a blotch on the escutcheon of the United States from now and until kingdom come. It is a dangerous precedent. Can't the Senator see that already it is beginning to have an impact on other nations, as we watch North Korea, as we watch Iran--why, those countries and others are going to say, well, if this bully on the block is going to do this, we had better get ready and get our things in order. Maybe we had better get ready to hit him or others within our reach. This is a genie that we will regret ever having let out of the bottle.

No question about it. The President--whether it is a Republican or a Democrat--has an inherent power under the Constitution. If there is an imminent threat about to be carried out against the United States, of course, the President has a responsibility and a duty to act first.

No question. But even without the U.N. Charter, we have the inherent right. It is under the Constitution. I will be the last person to give up on that right.

Absolutely. We are taking a reckless course in advocating this doctrine. It is a nefarious doctrine, and it is scaring the world to death today. No wonder we are looked upon as being warmongers. When our friends begin to fear us, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland--who is one of the foremost thinkers in this body. I have been in this Congress for 50 years now, and I have seen some thinkers. I remember John Pastore, for example, who was a thinker. The Senator from Maryland is a thinker. The Senator is right on point in what he is saying. This is a dangerous doctrine, a reckless doctrine. When our friends begin to fear us, we are in trouble.

It has vast implications. I will say to the Senator that some of us have trouble going to sleep at night as we ponder this question. I thank the Senator for his observations today and for the service he has rendered not only to the State of Maryland but to this country. I think the Framers of the Constitution would be proud of Paul Sarbanes. I think Paul Sarbanes could very well have been one of the 39 signers of the Constitution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? I thank the distinguished Senator. When he speaks of respect for the Senator from Maryland and for this Senator, may I say it is mutual. I have great respect for the Senator from Utah. There have been few occasions--not many--when we have differed on the floor. I have tremendous respect for him, for his leadership, for his dedication to his country, and for his State.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator, who is a gentleman. The old saying is: ``He is a gentleman and a scholar.'' I have known him and worked with him, confided in him and with him for these many years. I cherish his friendship.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. WARNER [continuing]. To meet with President Gorbachev. I remember that day as if it were yesterday.

Yes.

Yes.

The Senator is correct, yes.

Yes. I believe on that occasion former Senator Sam Nunn was with us.

Yes. And Senator Mitchell.

Yes. It was a fine delegation.

That was the first Senate delegation to go and meet with him, yes, it was.

I thank the Senator for remembering that occasion.

north korea

Mr. President, while the United States continues its relentless march to war against Iraq, a crisis that is potentially far more perilous is rapidly unfolding halfway around the world on the Korean peninsula.

While Saddam Hussein hunkers down in Baghdad, under the thumb of the United Nations weapons inspectors, and is being forced to begin destroying some of his most prized missiles, North Korean leader Kim Jong II is aggressively taunting the United States and moving full speed ahead toward restarting his nuclear weapons program.

Over this past weekend, the North Koreans took their defiance and contempt of the United States to a new level when four North Korean fighter jets intercepted an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane in international airspace over the Sea of Japan.

According to news reports, the armed North Korean jets came within 50 feet of the American plane and shadowed it for 22 minutes. Initial reports suggest that one of the North Korean pilots may have engaged his radar in preparation for firing an air-to-air missile moments before the U.S. aircraft aborted its mission and returned safely to its home base in Kadena, Japan.

This latest action by North Korea is a marked escalation of the recent tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Not since it shot down an unarmed U.S. surveillance plane in 1969--more than 30 years ago--has North Korea engaged in aerial confrontation with the United States. That last weekend's provocation by the North Koreans ended without incident is a relief, but it is not a reprieve from concern. Given the hostility and volatility of the North Korean government, this latest confrontation could easily have ended in disaster--a major disaster.

The White House branded North Korea's actions as ``reckless behavior,'' and the Pentagon promptly dispatched 24 long-range bombers to Guam in a move that was seen by some as a not-so-subtle warning to Kim Jong Il that a military response to North Korea's increasing bellicosity is not outside the realm of possibility. But the President has given no indication that he is willing to address the North Korean crisis head-on by engaging North Korea diplomatically in an effort to defuse tensions. To the contrary, the White House appears determined to continue to proceed in its no-talk policy toward North Korea while it focuses the vast weight of its energy and resources on preparing for war with Iraq.

I am increasingly alarmed that this administration's military and diplomatic fixation on waging war with Iraq is serving to overshadow and possibly eclipse the mounting crisis in North Korea.

Benign neglect is a dangerous policy to apply to North Korea. The nation is isolated and its people are starving. Kim Jong Il is hostile, erratic, and desperate for cash. He is also armed and heavily fortified. In open testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 12, CIA Director George Tenet noted that ``the United States faces a near-term ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) threat from North Korea.''

According to intelligence estimates, North Korea already has one to two nuclear weapons and continues to develop the Taepo Dong-2 missile, which has the capability of reaching the United States with a nuclear- weapon-sized payload.

Recent relations between the United States and North Korea were far from good to begin with, but since October, when it was revealed that North Korea had a secret program to produce enriched uranium, the resulting nuclear standoff between the United States and North Korea has gone from bad to worse.

In a period of just over 4 months, North Korea has moved swiftly and boldly to take the necessary steps to resume the production of nuclear weapons. Following the disclosure of its covert nuclear program in October, North Korea in December expelled U.N. inspectors from its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, removed U.N. monitoring seals and cameras, and announced it would reactivate the facilities. In January, a month before last, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and appeared to begin moving its stockpile of nuclear fuel rods out of storage. Just last week, on February 27, American intelligence sources concluded that North Korea had, indeed, reactivated the Yongbyon facility. The significance of starting up the reactor is that it could, over time, provide a continuing source of plutonium for nuclear weapons, which North Korea could either stockpile or sell. If North Korea also begins reprocessing its nuclear fuel rods, some U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that it could begin producing bomb-grade plutonium within a matter of weeks, a process that could yield enough plutonium for five to seven bombs by this summer.

In other words, North Korea could begin grinding out the essential components of nuclear weapons for its own use or for sale to the highest bidder even before the first volley is fired in Iraq.

At the same time that it has been ratcheting up its nuclear activity, North Korea has also been ratcheting up its rhetoric and its military saber-rattling. In February, a North Korean MiG fighter jet crossed briefly into South Korean air space for the first time in 20 years. On February 24, North Korea rattled the inauguration of South Korea's new president by test firing an anti-ship missile into the sea. Earlier, North Korea threatened to abandon the armistice that ended the Korean War.

And just this week on March 3, Kim Jong Il warned that nuclear war could break out if the U.S. Government attacks North Korea's nuclear program, while President Bush explicitly raised the possibility of using military force against North Korea as a ``last resort'' if diplomacy fails.

The pattern of increasingly hostile words and actions on the part of North Korea, coupled with the moves it appears to be taking toward building up its nuclear arsenal, make North Korea one of the most volatile and dangerous spots on Earth today. The Bush Administration's inattention to the problem and its unwillingness to engage in diplomacy with North Korea are only exacerbating an already precarious situation.

Under the circumstances, North Korea presents a far more imminent threat than Iraq to the security of the United States. It is ironic that the President has made it clear that a military response to the crisis in North Korea would be considered only as a last resort at the same time that he is massing forces in the Persian Gulf region to launch a preemptive military strike, possibly within a matter of weeks, if not days, against a much less potent threat to the United States.

What is particularly frustrating is that the North Korean crisis might never have reached the proportions it has reached had President Bush taken a different tack with respect to North Korea when he came into office. Today's nuclear standoff with North Korea is, in many ways, a replay of a similar crisis in 1994, when North Korea pushed the envelope on its nuclear program, nearly precipitating a military response from the United States. That crisis was resolved when the Clinton administration reached an agreement, called the Agreed Framework, to freeze nuclear production in North Korea in exchange for fuel oil and light-water reactors. Unfortunately, when he took office, President Bush put relations with North Korea in the deep freeze by heaping suspicion and disdain on the North Korean Government, branding Kim Jong Il a ``pygmy'' and including North Korea in the ``axis of evil.''

Even so, the current crisis might well have been defused weeks ago, before the two leaders started exchanging threats of war, had the United States agreed to talk directly to North Korea, as our allies in the region have been pleading with us to do. Instead, the administration drew a line in the sand, insisting that the United States would not be blackmailed into one-on-one talks with North Korea. As a result, the Americans and the North Koreans have been talking past one another for the past 4 months, and the progress has been all downhill.

It has come to the point that, whether by accident or design, the situation in North Korea could rapidly disintegrate from a war of words and gestures

into a war of bullets and bombs perhaps even nuclear bombs. As it stands now, North Korea has shown no evidence that it is willing to back down from its nuclear confrontation with the United States, and the United States has shown no evidence that it is willing to talk to North Korea.

Stalemate and neglect are not effective tools of foreign policy. Wishful thinking is not an effective tool of foreign policy. The situation in North Korea is a crisis, and the United States must come to grips with it. We must open a dialog with North Korea.

To ignore the peril presented by North Korea and its nuclear ambitions is to court--to court--disaster.

Frankly, the longer the United States procrastinates and lets North Korea set the agenda, the harder it will be to deal with the situation diplomatically. If we do not act quickly, we may inadvertently paint ourselves into a corner as we have done in Iraq.

It does not have to be that way. It is time for both nations to stop posturing and start talking. It is time for the United States to deal with the crisis in North Korea. I call on this administration to address the growing peril in North Korea, and to fully engage in a diplomatic effort to resolve what may well become an international problem of epic proportions. We can, and must, be firm, but we cannot remain aloof. We can, and should, insist that other nations with a stake in the future of North Korea be at the table, including China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, but we can wait no longer for those nations to take the lead.

The situation in North Korea is serious, but it is not yet desperate. The window to initiate diplomacy is not yet closed, but the longer the United States drags its feet, the narrower that window becomes. It is time to start talking to the North Koreans. If the United States takes the lead, our allies in the region are likely to follow. But it is the United States that must lead the way. The only practical way to solve the crisis in North Korea, before it erupts into chaos, is with patience, skill, and determination at the negotiating table. Let us begin now, before it is too late.

I would be glad to.

I think the Senator is correct.

I think that is a good approach normally, if there is time and if there is an indication that those other nations are going to take that lead. That is one thing. But there is not time here. There is not the indication that the other nations are going to take that lead.

So I say we need to act more expeditiously. I do not think we can afford to wait. This is a crisis that is developing, and developing quickly, and there is every indication that if we continue to wait, Kim Jong Il is going to take additional steps. I understand he may have one or two nuclear weapons now, and he is fast getting into the position where he will be able to manufacture a weapon a month and then faster. We do not have the luxury of waiting until these other nations finally decide they want to do this.

They seem to be reluctant. They have not shown any dexterity in moving in to fill this void up to now. I do not think we can afford to wait.

In addition, yes, other nations have thought we acted too fast. They have done that in spades with respect to Iraq. We have gone hellbent into that. It seems the President has been determined to conduct a war in Iraq from the beginning almost. I would say as far back as last August he had said there were no plans. That was the response we received from all of the people in the administration. I know once before the Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Powell, in answer to a question from me, said: There are no plans.

The administration and its functionaries must have taken Members of Congress as fools when the administration continued to at that time say, well, the President has no plans. Anybody could see through that. He may not have plans today. He may not have plans on his desk. That was the way it was phrased: He had no plans on his desk. It takes only a fool not to be able to see through that. Perhaps he does not have plans on his desk, but there may be plans on some other desk somewhere that the President knows about, or the President may have plans tomorrow. He is certainly not immune to knowledge of what is going on all around him. After all, he is the Commander in Chief, the top man in the executive branch; he is supposed to know what is going on.

So while we were fed that line by the administration, they simply did not want to tell us, and they do not want to tell us yet. It is not that they do not want to--that other nations have a right to complain about this administration moving pellmell into a situation without waiting for other nations, without wanting to wait for other nations. Not only that, but the administration treats us the same way in the Congress.

The administration does not want to tell us what the cost of this was is going to be. They say it is such a range of costs that it might change from day to day. They do not want to say what it will be now because, who knows, maybe tomorrow it will be different. Well, of course, that is to be expected. But I think the administration ought to be honest, upfront, and sincere with the elected representatives of the people in Congress, and say now this is the situation today, Senator, as we see it. We think the range would be somewhere between A and B. That can change, Senator. Mr. Chairman, that can change. It can change tomorrow. But as of today, we cannot pinpoint the exact figure, but it would appear that it would be thus and so.

Now, if the war lasts longer than a week, lasts longer than 2 weeks, 10 days, or 3 weeks, it may cost more. Of course, if we win the war, and win it quickly, it will not cost much. But then there is the problem of the morning after. What is the cost going to be

in helping to rebuild Iraq? If we are going to be responsible for destroying a great portion of it, we have a responsibility of rebuilding it. So, the cost would be, the estimate would be, thus and so.

If the administration would come before the Appropriations Committee and address it like that--we understand that any administration would find it difficult; it would be impossible to be sure as to what the costs would be. But if an administration sits down with the congressional committee and says: Here is the situation; we estimate it to be thus and so, because we think the war will not last more than a week, or 10 days, or 2 weeks, or a month; if it lasts longer, it will cost more--that is being honest and forthright with the elected representatives of the people. We understand that. We were not born yesterday. But to just say, ``We do not know exactly,'' what does the administration think that Members of Congress are fools?

We can see all that. We know all that. We know these things are difficult to figure. But when we also know that estimates are being kicked around internally, we believe we are entitled, on behalf of the people, to know what those estimates are.

I thank the Senator.

I think we are going pretty far from the subject that I started out with today. I was talking about the fact that we are not paying the kind of attention that should be paid; we are not addressing the real crisis that is developing. We are not looking at the real peril that is facing this country; namely, North Korea. We are being distracted by the developing situation in Iraq, which, as far as I am concerned, does not present to this country anything near the peril, the danger, that we are confronted with in North Korea.

Now, if the distinguished Senator wishes to engage in a freewheeling debate on the whole subject matter, fine, we will do that another day. But I am addressing the Senate on the need to open talks with North Korea and not wait for other nations to take the lead. We need to take the lead ourselves. Every day counts. Every 24 hours counts. We are already seeing this situation advance quickly. As long as Kim Jong II thinks we are going to be distracted with Iraq, he is likely to take further advantage of the situation. That is the issue I am addressing.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, I hope the President will display this kind of desire to engage in multilateralism more so than he has with respect to Iraq. This is the approach I favored all along. We should get the United Nations, be sure the opinion of the world is with us in Iraq, and get the support of the United Nations.

I have a resolution I introduced some time ago urging we seek a second U.N. resolution. If the President would show more interest in a multilateral approach to that situation, I think many would feel better. I recall his saying, I think, to the U.N.: If you don't do it, we will. If the U.N. doesn't do this, I will--or we will.

That kind of an attitude has not been to my liking, certainly, and it does not show enough concern about the opinions of other nations, and it does not show enough desire to have the support of other nations. But this President is determined, apparently, to have a war in Iraq, even if he has to go it alone. That has been the impression I received thus far. When he says to the U.N., if you don't do it, I will, or we will, that doesn't show any great inclination to wait on other nations to help join in that situation.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I think we certainly need, more and more, to debate this situation. I think we have not debated it enough. I believe that where we missed the boat was last fall when this Congress turned over to the executive branch the authority, by a resolution, virtually to declare war. I think Congress was wrong in doing that. I voted against that resolution. I am proud of the vote that I cast at that point. I think Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to declare war, and I think we shift aside our responsibilities and our duties under the Constitution when we attempt to shift

that duty and that responsibility and that authority over to the Chief Executive of the United States.

The time for debate was then. It is not too late to debate it now. I have been attempting to say a good bit from time to time on this matter, and will continue to, if we have much time left. But time is closing in on us, as I see our troops massing on the borders of Iraq. I don't think there is much time left to debate. But as long as that time remains, I think we ought to utilize it. We ought to tell the American people what their losses are going to be and what the cost is going to be to them.

That is where I think the administration is falling down. It ought to let the American people know the sacrifices they may have to make and what the cost of this war is going to be in terms of money, in terms of lives, and in terms of our image before the world--what it is costing us there. So let's have more from the administration on this point.

Of course there are always two sides to issues. Preston County, WV, is a great buckwheat flour-growing area. They make fine buckwheat cakes. But there is no buckwheat cake so thin that there isn't two sides to it. So there are two sides.

It seems to me we have just been recreant in not telling the American people what this is going to cost. I have a feeling they don't know very much, from the lack of debate that has gone forward, and from the fact that this administration has not come forward with the facts and told the American people what the cost may be to them. And all the while we see our young men and women being shipped out, as the National Guard goes forth and takes our schoolteachers, our policemen, our firefighters, our lawyers, and our churchmen. It takes people from all walks of life and sends them overseas--for how long we do not know. We don't know. They don't know what the duration will be. They don't know whether they will come back, of course. And I am sure their salaries are suffering when they go over as National Guardsmen.

The people are entitled to know more than this administration has been willing to tell them. So I hope the Senator will join me in urging the administration to come forward with the facts and tell the American people, his constituents and mine, what they may have to pay.

I say to the Senator, courage is fine. I don't think the President lacks courage. Nobody is questioning his courage. But whether he has wisdom or vision or exercises good judgment along with courage is something else. I am simply saying this administration has not been forthright with the American people and has not been forthright with the Congress. We can debate that as long as you wish, but that is the way I see it. At some future time, if the distinguished Senator wishes to debate that, I will be happy to accommodate him.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his kind comments and always for the great services he performs for the American people here in this body.

Madam President, is the Senate in executive session?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in legislative session.

I thank the Chair.

The Budgetary Costs of a War in Iraq

Madam President, since last August, the administration has worked aggressively to convince the American public that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who directly threatens the United States. The President has been unambiguous, and often dangerously blunt, about his passion to use military force to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.

The Bush administration has promoted a vision of Saddam's removal from power quickly, easily, and bloodlessly. Indeed, part of the rationale for support for this war is that America's tremendous military superiority over Iraq will confine a military conflict to a relatively painless contest between the United States' awesome military forces and the relatively weak, conventional military machine of Saddam Hussein.

A swift and simple military victory certainly is one possibility, but in our democratic Republic the administration also has a responsibility to inform the American people that much less pleasant scenarios are also possible and even likely. The Congress has a responsibility to explore all possible scenarios with an eye to the eventual costs of this war. We must not just accept the rosy projections so far offered by the administration. Frankly, I have seen little effort by either the administration or the Congress to inform the American taxpayer about the likely costs of this war.

In both dollars and human lives, the administration has been ominously quiet about its internal calculations and estimates. What is even worse is that the Congress has barely bothered to ask about them.

Earlier this month, the President unveiled his budget for the fiscal year 2004. Even assuming the most primitive and loose definition of the term ``fiscal responsibility,'' that budget request should certainly have included some rough estimate cost for a war with Iraq. Even a range of costs would have been somewhat illuminating.

But no cost estimate was included in the budget of the President's. Now let me repeat that. There is no estimate of the cost of the looming war with Iraq in the President's budget--no cost estimate. That is hard to believe, isn't it? But that is the case. The possible war has dominated the airwaves for months, and yet there is no cost estimate in the President's budget. President Bush mentions the looming conflict in nearly every public pronouncement, and yet no cost estimate to fight the war appears in the President's budget--none. Is the administration trying to tell the people of this Nation it is for free?

When the Defense Secretary presented the President's defense budget to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was asked what the administration projected that a war in Iraq would cost, he would only say that such costs are ``not knowable.'' Let us contemplate that answer: ``not knowable.'' Does the Secretary of Defense mean to say that this great Nation does not yet know what its plans include for a war with Iraq? Is that why the costs are ``not knowable''? Does he mean to say that we do not yet know exactly what we are going to try to achieve in Iraq? Is that why the costs are ``not knowable''? Or does he simply mean to indicate that he does not want to divulge the potential costs, therefore to us they are ``not knowable''?

One must presume that by now the administration would have made several internal forecasts of the military cost of the war using various scenarios, and that the White House Council of Economic Advisors would have prepared for the President a classified study of the projected economic impact of the war. Reportedly, OMB Director Mitch Daniels has been working on war estimates for months, and yet we are told that these costs are ``not knowable.'' None of this information has been made available to the public, nor, I suspect, is it likely to be released in the near future. This Congress--these two Houses; the people's elected Representatives--has a responsibility to demand that information. The people have a right to know. They are going to suffer the costs. Congress must not accept the answer, ``not knowable.'' The American people, I say, deserve to know. They deserve to know the truth.

There was one cost estimate provided by the administration which came from an interview last fall with Larry Lindsey, the President's former economic advisor, who said that a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. He went on to opine that that was ``nothing.''

Yet the White House quickly distanced itself from that comment, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget rebuked that estimate, saying that Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high.''

The OMB Director suggested that the cost of the war would be closer to $60 billion or $70 billion. The Pentagon recently stretched that estimate to $95 billion. I wonder just what we are to make of these conflicting estimates.

How are we to gauge the validity of such widely varying numbers? How are the American people to gauge the validity of such widely varying numbers? Do these figures contemplate other complications? What if casualty estimates grow into the thousands? And they may. What if oil prices skyrocket, sparking inflation and lines at the gas pump and costing the U.S. economy thousands of American jobs? Suppose the Middle East erupts in a tornado of violence, toppling regime after regime in the region.

Even a rudimentary list of the possible contingencies shows that costs may grossly exceed what the administration wants the public to believe.

The Congressional Budget Office reported last September that the incremental cost of just deploying a force to the Persian Gulf--that is, those costs incurred above those budgeted for routine operations-- could be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war, according to the CBO, could cost between $6 billion and $9 billion per month. And after hostilities ended, the cost just to return U.S. forces to their home bases could range between $5 billion and $7 billion.

Regardless of the swiftness of a military victory--it could be swift, but it might not be--there remains the cost of a postwar occupation of Iraq, which the administration says could last for up to 2 years and could mean another $1 billion to $4 billion, or more, per month during that period. On top of that, the United States might face a humanitarian crisis, including rampant disease and starvation, if Saddam Hussein employs a scorched earth strategy in defending his regime. What about the need for a cleanup of biological and chemical weapons if the Iraqi Republican Guard employs them against U.S. soldiers?

Reconstruction and nation-building costs resulting from installing a democratic government in Iraq have to also be thought about. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences projected that the minimum reconstruction and nation-building cost for Iraq could be as high as $30 billion, and that is under the very best of circumstances. Will the administration propose something similar to the Marshall plan for Iraq? The Academy reported that U.S. investments in Western Europe after World War II under the Marshall plan cost a total of $13.3 billion over a 4-year period. That is the equivalent of $450 billion over 4 years if measured as a percentage of GDP in 2002.

Madam President, I am glad to yield.

The distinguished Senator from Maryland is preeminently correct. There is no estimate of what the war will cost in the President's budget.

Astoundingly, the President's budget does not present such a cost. The Senator is exactly right.

It is $95 billion, right under that.

At a minimum, $30 billion.

Yes.

They are indeed. It is amazing.

Scriptures say that the wages of sin is death. We are not being told what the wages of this war are going to amount to. There is no discussion. One may be led to believe that this is going to be like a video game: It will be just over in a matter of moments, in days or weeks. There is no discussion of the cost. There is no estimate.

Now, I find it very hard to believe that the administration has not carefully explored the potential cost of what the American people are going to be asked to bear; and I think the polls we read about, which indicate a pretty high degree of support for the President in his passion to lead us into this war--I don't believe those people who are asked questions have any idea whatsoever as to what the costs are going to be. Why should they? We ourselves don't have any idea. The administration is not presenting us with any estimates of the cost. This seems to me to be strikingly strange.

We are being led into a war--led into a war--by an administration that makes no effort whatsoever to tell the American people what they are likely to pay in treasure, in lives, and especially with regard to a postwar Iraq. I think it is going to be like a bottomless pit.

Oh, yes, glossed over. There seems to be no thought given to it. I want to tell the Senator from Maryland that we on the Appropriations Committee and the American taxpayers are going to learn about it at some point when it is over, and the costs of this war may be colossal.

The time to ask questions is now, not a year from now, not when the body bags start coming back, not when the paying of the toll is coming due.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator, one of the most able Senators I have ever seen in my 45 years in this body and in my 50 years on Capitol Hill. He is on committees that know something about dollars and cents and how they add up. I thank him for his incisive questions.

Madam President, I do yield.

The able Senator is correct.

No, there is no mention of that fact. I must say, I have been informed that figure was inaccurate and that the general who used that figure later retracted the figure.

I am sure it would depend in great measure upon that. I do not think the administration has made any presentation of such a figure at all. I understand the British are going to supply 26,000 personnel, but there is no indication of what the other countries--and there are supposed to be a considerable number of other countries that would be supporting us, but nobody has indicated how many troops those other countries are going to present, and I am not sure they could present a great number. Angola, Cameroon, there are various and sundry other nations, some of which names I am almost unfamiliar with. They are included in this array of allies we are going to have supporting the effort.

(Mr. Cornyn assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank the people of California for their interest in the subject matter, and they certainly should be interested in it.

No one likes to talk about putting a price tag on national security, but these costs simply cannot be ignored in light of our current sagging economy and given a projected budget deficit of $307 billion for the fiscal year 2004. Remember--remember, Mr. President--this Government is going to have to borrow the money to finance this war. The total price of a war in Iraq could easily add up to hundreds of billions of dollars, even a trillion or more, overwhelming a Federal budget that is already sliding into deep deficits and warping the U.S. economy and impacting the economies of other nations for years to come. And, unlike the gulf war in 1991, many of our allies are unlikely to want to help much in defraying these costs.

Right now, the administration is trying to coax other nations to join the ``coalition of the willing'' by paying them, not by asking them to help us pay for the war. A ``coalition of the willing,'' or a COW for short. It appears to me that the U.S. is the ``cow''--the cash cow in this instance. We are the ones who are being milked.

The administration reportedly has negotiated a multibillion-dollar package of grants and loans for the Republic of Turkey for use of its bases to open a possible northern front against Iraq. The administration is negotiating similar multibillion-dollar packages with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and other allies in the Middle East. I wonder if Members are aware of the details of any of these deals in the works or their projected costs over time.

I believe the cost of this war will be staggering.

We know that our Nation's most precious treasure, the lives of our young men and women in uniform, will most certainly be threatened. But we do not know how great the risk is because the administration will not talk about its plans.

In addition, the cost in terms of taxpayer dollars will be absolutely enormous. We hear of negotiations ongoing with Turkey that are in the area of $30 billion. We learn of requests from Israel for $12 billion. In addition, Jordan wants to be compensated. We read that negotiations are underway to provide economic assistance to Mexico, Chile, and various African nations, all of which are members of the United Nations Security Council.

Where will this all end? Where? How many nations will be promised American economic assistance just for their tacit support? And how strong is support that can be bought with promises of American dollars? This is no way to operate. This is no way to fight a war.

If the case against Saddam Hussein were strong enough on its merits the United States would not have to buy the support of the international community. If the world truly believes that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat, then let the world say so clearly. But do not taint that decision, do not taint the possible sacrifice of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen, by prying open the door to war with a blank check from the American taxpayers.

If war is undertaken without U.N. sanction or broad international support, the United States taxpayer can expect to pay the costs of the war for decades and pay the interest costs for decades more.

And that is to say nothing about the larger macroeconomic costs to the economy. The economic ripples of a war could spread beyond direct budgetary costs into international energy markets through higher oil prices. The psychological effects of a war in Iraq, especially if it initiates new terrorist attacks around the globe, could further scare the already jittery financial markets and rattle consumers.

If the war goes badly--and it could. Who knows? If the war goes badly, either through heavier than expected causalities, protracted bloody urban warfare, massive foreign denunciations, chemical and biological warfare, or major terrorist attacks here and abroad, we may be plunging our economy into unfathomable debt which this nation cannot easily sustain.

But even if one discounts these scenarios as unlikely, and sets them all aside, the potential costs of a limited war in Iraq could continue to pile up for years, depending on the total damage to Iraq, the civilian casualties, and the possibility that the war's effects could spread into other countries.

This is a dangerous and damaging game the administration is playing with the American public--with you, you who are looking through those electronic lenses at the Senate. Glossing over the cost of a war with Iraq may make it easier to win short-term support. But without any serious attention to costs, the American people cannot be engaged in a fulsome public discussion about the eventual wisdom of undertaking this war. Public support cannot be sustained to accomplish our post-war goals in Iraq if the Nation has been misled about the duration and difficulty and costs of such a conflict. We cannot treat the citizens of this Nation as if they are children who must be fed a fairy tale about fighting a glorious war of ``liberation'' which will be cheap, short and bloodless. If the President is going to force this Nation to engage in this unwise, potentially disastrous, and alarmingly expensive commitment, he must lay out all of the costs and risks to the Nation.

Now we will come back to these lines again and again. If I am not here, the American people will still come back to the record that is being written.

What is particularly worrisome is how naively the idea of establishing a perfect democracy in Iraq is being tossed around by this administration. If the administration engages in such a massive undertaking without the American people understanding the real costs and long-term commitment that will be required to achieve this visionary scheme, our efforts in Iraq could end with chaos in the region. Chaos, poverty, hopelessness, hatred--that is exactly the kind of environment that becomes a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

The administration is asking the American public and the international community to support this war. The administration must also put all of its cards on the table. A list of real risks and down sides do the Nation no good locked in Donald Rumsfeld's desk drawer. They must be brought into the sunshine for the people to assess.

The American people are willing to embrace a cause when they judge it to

be noble and both its risks and its benefits are explained honestly to them. But if information is withheld, long-term political support can never be sustained. Once the order is given and the bombs start falling, the lives of American troops and innocent civilians on the ground hang in the balance. Once ``boots are on the ground,'' concerns about the monetary cost of war necessarily take a back seat. This nation will not shortchange the safety of our fighting men and women once they are in harm's way.

But our people and this Congress should not have to wait until our troops are sent to fight to know what we are facing, including the painful costs of this war in dollars, political turmoil, and blood.

In a democratic-Republic, secrecy has no place. Hiding information from the public to rally support behind a war, at the very time when the government should be striving for maximum trust will eventually undermine our nation's strength. This conflict will be paid for with the people's treasure and the people's blood. This is no time to affront that sacrifice with beltway spin and secrecy.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, my favorite Supreme Court Justice was John Marshall. It is not a very hard question to answer.

Mr. President, the language of diplomacy is imbued with courtesy and discretion. Diplomats the world over can be counted on to choose each word of every public statement with precision, for an ill- received demarche could turn allies into adversaries or cooperation into confrontation.

Like most professions, diplomacy has its own lexicon. As John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1969, ``There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception: when an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished.'' And when we hear a seasoned envoy refer to a ``frank and open discussion,'' we know that he is actually talking about a knock-down, drag-out fight behind closed doors. While negotiation can steer great powers away from a course that would lead to war, we can usually count on public statements about diplomacy to be underwhelming--not overwhelming but underwhelming.

There have been exceptional times when bold statements have energized world opinion. When President Reagan stood on the Berlin Wall in 1987 and proclaimed, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' he spoke to millions of Germans who longed to be freed from oppression. While I would not go so far as to credit a single phrase with hastening the fall of the Eastern Bloc, certainly President Reagan's statement reflected the resolve of the West to oppose communism.

There have also been a fair number of bold statements to the world that have backfired. For example, Nikita Khrushchev squandered whatever credit he might have gained through a goodwill tour of the United States in 1959, when he visited the United Nations the next year. The Soviet Premier famously exclaimed to the West, ``We will bury

you,'' while slamming his shoe on the table in front of him. This ill- advised outburst was a vivid depiction of an irrational and out-of- control superpower.

Fortunately, the United States has a tradition in foreign policy of being slow to anger. We have nurtured a reputation of being rational and deliberate. I doubt that Americans would have much tolerance for a president who used the United Nations as a forum for testing the construction of his footwear on the nearest table. It would be a great departure for the United States to use its foreign policy organs as a means to spread divisive rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the tone of our foreign policy in recent months has been in a steady decline. To some of our allies, the United States, through its words and its actions on the crisis in Iraq, is beginning to look more like a rogue superpower than the leader of the free world. Many newspapers in European capitals criticize U.S. policy toward Iraq. Moderate Muslim nations, such as Jordan and Turkey, are growing progressively suspicious of American motives in the war against terrorism. An increasing number of people in Arab countries are coalescing around an outright hatred of the United States.

Let us remember that President Bush came to office promising to change the tone in Washington. I wonder if the current tone of American foreign policy is what he had in mind? One source of alarm is the tone of the National Security Strategy released by the White House in September 2002. In broad strokes, the strategy argues that the United States should use its overwhelming military power to engage in preemptive strikes to prevent others from ever developing the means to threaten our country. The strategy notes a preference for working with allies to keep the peace, but underscores the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally.

The content and the tone of these important pronouncements in the National Security Strategy sparked outcry, in the United States and around the world. The report gave critics plenty of ammunition to make their case that the United States is a 400 pound gorilla that will stop at nothing to get its way. Our strategy leaves much of the world the impression that Americans agree with the quotation of the late Chinese leader, Zhou Enlai, which turned the axiom uttered by the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz on his head: ``All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.''

There are many examples of provocative rhetoric that have escalated the stakes of our standoff with Iraq. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, the President coined an ``Axis of Evil,'' comprised of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In October 2002, the White House press secretary suggested that regime change in Iraq could be accomplished with ``the cost of one bullet.'' On December 30, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam's ``day of reckoning is coming.'' The next day, he chided a reporter who asked about the prospect of war in Iraq by saying, ``I'm the person who gets to decide, not you.'' The President's coarse words did nothing to ease criticism of American unilateralism.

Several members of the President's national security team warned Iraq in January 2003 that ``time is running out'' for Iraq, and that such time was measured in weeks, not months. On Sunday talk show interviews on January 29, the White House Chief of Staff refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq. On February 6, President Bush ominously declared that ``the game is over.'' With each of these statements, the chances of war appeared to grow.

To be fair, the President and his advisors have repeatedly stated a preference for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. But as I speak right now, many Americans believe that war is inevitable. Through words and through action, the United States appears to be on a collision course with war in the Persian Gulf. Stating a preference for a peaceful solution is not enough to alter the heading of our great ship of state.

If our rhetoric toward Iraq is not alarming enough, the last weeks have seen an appalling increase in criticism of our allies and the United Nations.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush delivered a strong and effective speech that urged the United Nations to take action to disarm Iraq. The President said: ``All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations [faces] a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?''

The President threw down the gauntlet, and the United Nations acted. Inspectors have returned to Iraq, and they are doing their job. The inspectors have asked for more time, but the President has now challenged the U.N. to authorize the use of force, or again face irrelevance.

And so, the world is now wondering, which is the greater threat to the relevance of the U.N.: a rogue nation that flaunts the will of the international community; or a permanent member of the Security Council that views the institution as useless unless the institution submits to its will? This hand has been overplayed. More threats of U.N. irrelevance will only portray the United States as a bully superpower.

European allies who do not share our view on the crisis in Iraq have recently been in the cross hairs for verbal bombardment. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has lumped Germany in with Libya and Cuba as the principal opponents of war in Iraq. He also characterized Germany and France as being ``Old Europe,'' as if their economic and political power does not matter as compared to the number of Eastern countries that comprise New Europe.

Richard Perle, a senior advisor to the Department of Defense, has also had choice words about our European allies. In October 2002, Mr. Perle recommended that German Chancellor Schroeder resign in order to improve relations between our two countries. On January 30, Mr. Perle followed up this charge by saying: ``Germany has become irrelevant. And it is not easy for a German chancellor to lead his country into irrelevance.'' Spreading his criticism around, Mr. Perle stated that ``France is no longer the ally that it once was.'' So far as I can tell from press reports, Mr. Perle, who is the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has not been admonished for his inflammatory statements.

Such vindictive criticism of our European allies has had repercussions. According to a new poll, published in the Financial Times Deutchland on February 10, 57 percent of Germans agree with the statement, ``The United States is a nation of warmongers.'' And now we find ourselves in a pointless stalemate with our NATO partners over military assistance to Turkey. If we had been more temperate in our rhetoric, perhaps we could have worked through the anti-American tone of the recent elections in Germany. Instead, we find ourselves escalating a war of words against two great European powers, who were powers--and who were great powers--before ours became a republic.

And so, Mr. President, how we communicate our foreign policy makes a difference. We expect North Korea or Iraq to use inflammatory propaganda to speak to the world, but we are a more dignified nation. There are ways for our country to indicate resolve without resorting to bellicosity. The subtext to nearly every new White House statement on Iraq is that the United States has run out of patience. The administration is signaling its willingness to use an extreme amount of military force against Iraq when many still question the need to do so, when many in our own country still question the need to do so, when some in this Senate still question the need to do so at this time. We need to change our tone.

Impetuous rhetoric has added fuel to the crisis with Iraq and strained our alliances. Before committing our Nation to war with Iraq and the years of occupation that will surely follow, we should repair the damage to our relations with our allies. I urge the President, and the administration, to change the tone of our foreign policy--to turn away from threatening Iraq with war, to turn away from insulting our friends and allies, to turn away from threatening the United Nations with irrelevance. Our rhetoric has gone awry, our rhetoric has gone over the top, from giving an indication of our strength to giving an indication of our recklessness.

I have learned from 50 years in Congress that it is unwise to insult one's adversaries, for tomorrow you may be in need of an ally. I have found in my 56 years in politics that today's opponent may be tomorrow's friend. There will come the day when we will seek the assistance of those same European allies with which we are now feuding. But serious rifts are threatening our close relationship with some of the great powers--the truly great powers of history--some of the great powers of Western Europe. The Secretary of State said yesterday that NATO is at risk of breaking up. Mr. President, it is time that we pause. It is time that we take a look at ourselves. It is time to put our bluster and swagger away for the time being. I urge the President to calm his rhetoric, repair our alliances, and slow down in the charge to war.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, I thank my friend, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted Stevens, and I also thank House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young as well as the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative David Obey, for their hard work in bringing H.J. Res. 2, a joint resolution making consolidated appropriations for fiscal year 2003, to the floor. I thank all of the conferees on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses for their hard work on this legislation.

I join with my chairman in paying our respects to and thanking our staff people, on both sides of the aisle, who have worked long hours for long weeks and for long months on this bill. We are now over 4 months into the fiscal year and the domestic agencies of our Government have had to operate under eight continuing resolutions. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill since July--since July of last year. That is over 29 weeks without sending a regular appropriations bill to the Senate for consideration.

I have been in these premises for more than 50 years. I have never seen such a performance in this half century in which I served in this body and the other body. I have never seen such a dismal performance.

When Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, we produced 13 responsible bipartisan bills. I owed, always owed and sought to give due credit to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Alaska, because he was always so helpful, so cooperative, always so courteous in his treatment toward me and I have always recognized that and always sought to assign due credit, proper credit to him and to his colleagues on that side of the aisle.

The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 was seriously deficient in a number of critical domestic programs such as homeland security, education, veterans medical care, highway construction, and Amtrak. In the bills that were approved in the Senate Appropriations Committee by unanimous votes last summer--the votes of every Republican and Democrat, all 29, 15 Democrats at that time and 14 Republicans, all 29 votes voted unanimously--we added about $11 billion or about 3 percent to the President's request to respond to these shortfalls.

Regrettably, the conference agreement that the House and Senate Republican leadership bring before us this evening cuts back domestic spending by nearly $8 billion, with cuts in homeland security, land conservation programs, Head Start, State and local law enforcement, water infrastructure grants, mass transit, the National Park Service, embassy security, and many other programs.

I am particularly troubled about the cuts in homeland security programs, given the increased threat level under which we are all now living. My colleagues, the security of this Nation is on thin ice. This administration has held back support for critical investments in homeland security, in police officers, in firefighters, in border, airport, and seaport security. As a result of this White House's intransigence, America is woefully unprepared to prevent or respond to another terrorist attack.

In this conference report, spending for our Nation's first responders has been cut by $1.6 billion from the levels approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last summer. Funding has also been cut for border security by $182 million, embassy security by $42 million, and for hiring COPS on the beat by $130 million, enough to hire 1,360 police officers and other personnel.

The American people should know that if there is a chemical or biological attack in their neighborhood, the odds are that the police, the firemen, the medical personnel who will respond may not have either the equipment or the training necessary to help when that help is needed most.

For example, the National Fire Protection Association and FEMA estimate that only 13 percent of the fire departments around the country have fire personnel with the specialized training and equipment to handle chemical or biological attacks.

Why is America so vulnerable? Because this White House is hoping to protect the American people on a shoestring homeland security budget, held together with duct tape.

Since September 11, 2001, the President, with great fanfare, has signed legislation to authorize improvements in security at our airports, security at our ports, and on our borders. The President also announced a plan for State and local governments to vaccinate 10 million first responders for a potential smallpox attack. But the President has not funded that effort, nor has he requested money for it in his budget.

Time after time after time, the administration has talked about homeland security, but time after time after time the administration has failed to invest in homeland security.

Add it up. Add it up. The President turned his back to $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds last August. This past fall the President forced $1.5 billion in cuts to homeland security initiatives in the appropriations bills that unanimously passed the Senate Appropriations Committee last July. Just last month the administration opposed two homeland security funding amendments which I offered on this floor, one for $5 billion, another for $3 billion, and the administration labeled these funds as ``extraneous.''

Those are billions of dollars in homeland security protections that could be at work right now. Those are billions of dollars that could be in place today for new police and firefighter training, for expanded border security, for vaccines against smallpox. Those are billions of dollars that could be helping to protect American lives today. But time after time after time after time, this administration said no, calling those homeland security funds ``extraneous'' and ``wasteful.''

Now, when the President signs the omnibus bill, the administration will proclaim with great fanfare that it held a hard line on Federal spending. I hope that the White House hard line will not result in Americans becoming hard targets for terrorists.

No longer can we nickel-and-dime our first responders. These firemen and police officers and emergency medical teams simply cannot do the job we expect them to do, and that the American people expect them to do, without enough financial support from the Federal Government.

We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport security--an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that first responders and local doctors and nurses do not have sufficient training and equipment to handle wide-ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction. With these looming gaps, what is the administration's great homeland security plan?

What will protect the American people? Will it be duct tape, plastic sheeting, and a new federal bureaucracy? We did not create a new Department of Homeland Security just to be told to buy duct tape and plastic.

When it comes to fighting overseas, this Administration's attitude is to spare no expense. In fact, the Vice President interceded personally over the weekend to include billions of new dollars for Defense Department efforts in this omnibus bill. That is all well and good. But when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this administration relies on duct tape and plastic.

We are in new and dangerous times. No threat can be ignored. The men and women who send us here demand that we protect them. The fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to invest their hard-earned dollars to keep their little ones safe. That is a solemn duty. It is a basic and sacred duty. When the people ask for our best efforts to protect them from madmen, we must not respond with duct tape.

Chairman Stevens and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Young did all they could to produce an omnibus bill that meets the needs of the American people within the low spending level imposed by the administration.

I believe that the most damaging result of the 2003 appropriations process for the Nation and for our States would be for our domestic agencies to be forced to operate under a continuing resolution for the entire fiscal year. Such a full year continuing resolution would reduce domestic spending by up to another $14 billion below the levels in the omnibus.

Chairman Stevens of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chairman Bill Young of the House Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Obey, my counterpart on the House side, did everything they could to avoid operating their Government on a continuing resolution that would go to the end of the fiscal year.

Therefore, I am going to support passage of this legislation. However, I must raise a concern about how this legislation was produced. Over the past several weeks, the Appropriations Committee has worked to craft a conference report to include the eleven spending bills for fiscal year 2003 that were not concluded during the 107th Congress. The Appropriations Committee takes great pride in the bipartisan approach we have maintained over the years to produce bills to fund this nation's necessary programs. The bipartisan spirit of this Committee enables us to carefully balance the needs of all Americans and to successfully craft bills that, with few exceptions, are signed into law.

We all recognize the unusual circumstances surrounding passage of most of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills. Still, I am pleased to report that the general rule of bipartisan cooperation among the members and staff of this Committee has continued to prevail and, thereby, we have before us now a conference report that strives to provide fair treatment for all Senators, at least in terms of the regular 2003 appropriations provisions.

However, notwithstanding the bipartisanship exhibited at the subcommittee level, there have been some serious problems encountered in the formulation of the conference agreement on the omnibus appropriations legislation.

Today's headline in The Washington Post reads, ``GOP Wraps Up Spending Package.'' There is some truth to that statement. Behind closed doors, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees met and settled on a number of the big issues. Vice President Cheney provided the administration's views.

At these partisan meetings, decisions were made on such issues as the overall top line total of the omnibus appropriations legislation, the size of the across-the-board cut, the matter of environmental riders and the substance of the $3.1 billion drought package, along with the offsets from the previously enacted farm bill that were included at the insistence of the White House. These farm bill offsets because necessary when the White House refused to raise the top line by $3.1 billion to accommodate the mandatory spending in the drought package.

More specifically, Division N of omnibus legislation includes a title to provide disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers due to drought and related conditions. This item was included in the bill passed by the Senate in January. However, when this bill went to conference, this item was not made part of the normal bipartisan conference process. In fact, no appropriations subcommittee was even involved in the conference negotiation on disaster assistance. Rather, it seems, the entire negotiation was conducted by the majority authorization committees, and no discussions with minority appropriations or authorization committee staff ever occurred until the final product was presented to the Appropriations Committee just as the finishing touches to the overall omnibus appropriations legislation were being made.

In summary, with no Democrats in the room, the House and Senate Republican leadership designed a program that assessed the $3.1 billion offset against a farm program which one of our colleagues had labored for 5 years to get enacted. The House and Senate Republican leadership chose to cut domestic programs by nearly $8 billion from the bi- partisan bills approved by the Appropriations Committee last summer. There also was no discussion of the decision to include an arbitrary across-the-board cut on domestic programs.

The package was approved by the House and Senate Republican leadership and given to the Appropriations Committees to be laid into the omnibus legislation. The conferees never met to approve the final conference report.

This is no way to develop legislation. When minority Senators are excluded from discussions, it has the effect of disenfranchising the millions of American citizens who are represented by those Senators like myself.

There is not much we can do about this problem now. We are faced with the alternative of operating on a continuing resolution for the rest of the year--which I don't want to do, which Chairman Stevens, Chairman Young, and Mr. Obey have labored valiantly to avoid--which would have the effect of reducing domestic spending by up to another $14 billion below the levels in the omnibus legislation.

It is my hope that in the future there will be a resumption of full bipartisan cooperation for all items that are included in any appropriations bill. If members want to add items to an appropriations bill that are the product of an authorization committee, that committee must adhere to the bipartisan standards of the Appropriations Committee. If they choose not to do so, I strongly suggest that they find a legislative vehicle other than an appropriations bill on which to attach their measure.

Again, I thank the truly distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, for his cooperation, for his many courtesies towards me and towards my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and for his friendship and the friendship of all members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle.

I also thank the staff of the committee. I cannot find the words to adequately express my deep appreciation to the staff people on this committee. They work hard. They work long hours. They work long weeks. They work weekends and are away from their families. And they labor under very difficult conditions in order to help to bring to the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee a measure which can then be brought to the floor and voted on. These staff people performed admirably under tight deadlines, especially during the last 6 weeks.

I look forward to working with my colleague, Mr. Stevens, on the fiscal

year 2004 appropriations process which will begin very soon.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend for his comments. And I thank him always for his statecraft, for his handiwork in the development of legislation on the floor, and for his courage and ability to stand up for what he believes.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Are we likely to be in session this weekend?

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

Madam President, this past Saturday my longtime, good friend, and former staff member, Joe Meadows, passed away.

Joe Meadows was a dedicated, hard-working, conscientious, sincere, and loyal individual. As the mail clerk in my office in the Hart Building, he managed the mailroom for me. He did his

job effectively and efficiently. And everyone else on the staff liked him.

One couldn't help but like Joe Meadows. From time to time, when I went into his section of the office, I would find Joe Meadows with a handful of papers, letters, correspondence, and files in one hand. And with his glasses down over his nose, he would look up over his glasses.

He was a wonderful man. He rarely talked about it, this quiet, soft- spoken, hard-working, unassuming man. He was also one of the best country fiddle players in the United States. He was a bluegrass musician, born in a small coal town in southern West Virginia, on the last day of 1934.

Joe never learned to read a note of music.

Does the distinguished Senator from New York have memories concerning the year 1934?

Well, the Senator, I take it, was not around in 1934?

OK. Well, I was a high school senior in 1934. I graduated that year. And we were hearing talk, in those days, about a gadget that would allow one to see a person as that person spoke or would allow one to see a person who played the violin as the violin was being played. That was a few years right after the invention of the television. Television was invented in 1926. And so I am talking about 1934, just 8 years after television was invented. Eight years after television was invented, 1934.

Oh, we heard about this gadget, as I say. It was coming and would be on the market in a few years. My, what a change that made. 1934; well, the last day of 1934, Joe Meadows was born. He never learned to read a sheet of music, but he could really play it. He could make that fiddle cry. He could make it scream. He did have neighbors and a father who played the fiddle.

He had an extraordinary gift for music: Joe Meadows from the hills of southern West Virginia. He is one of the finest bluegrass musicians I ever heard. Like many lads in southern West Virginia, including myself, Joe Meadows grew up listening to the Grand Ole Opry on the radio. The Grand Ole Opry, I can remember the times when that was all we had to listen to on Saturday night--the Grand Ole Opry.

Yes, I can remember the Solemn Old Judge and Deford Bailey. Deford Bailey played that harmonica. Oh, he could make that harmonica scream. He could make that harmonica play ``Freight Train Blues,'' Deford Bailey. And there was Sam and Kirk McGee. There was Arthur Smith and His Dixieliners: ``Going on down that Dixie line, walking in my sleep''--Arthur Smith and His Dixieliners. He played ``The Mockingbird.'' He could make that mockingbird sing on that violin.

But Joe Meadows could do anything that Arthur Smith could do, and better.

The Grand Ole Opry, that is all we had in those days. On Saturday nights we would square dance and listen to the Grand Ole Opry. There was the Fruit Jar Drinkers. That was kind of a lousy band. I probably shouldn't say that. But I did not think as much of the Fruit Jar Drinkers as I did the Dixieliners, by any means. And Roy Acuff used to sing ``That Great Speckled Bird'' Saturday nights. Saturday nights, 1934.

I graduated from high school in 1934. I liked a pretty, pretty girl, too. She was not in my class. She was in the next class behind me, and she was the daughter of a coal miner. And that coal miner played a fiddle. His name was Fred James.

I took a liking to that daughter of the coal miner. And I tell you, you young ladies, and young men as well, who are pages here, I tell you how I courted my girl, my sweetheart, how I won her hand in marriage.

There was another boy in my class at Mark Twain High School in 1934. His name was Julius Takach. His father had a grocery store at Ury, what we called Cooktown, about 3 miles south of Stotesbury where I lived. And Julius Takach would, every morning, come to school with his pockets filled with that candy and chewing gum, bubble gum, and so on, from his father's store.

Now, I tell you, I made it my business to be the first to greet Julius at the schoolhouse door upon his arrival every day because he would give me some of that candy and chewing gum.

I tell you, it was something to be able to present your girl, your sweetheart, a piece of bubble gum. And I never let her know that I did not buy that, I did not purchase that gum or candy. I did not let her know it was given to me, but it was given to me by Julius Takach.

I would meet her when the classes changed, and I would give her that candy and chewing gum. Boy, what a hit I thought I was, giving that pretty girl that candy and chewing gum.

Well, now, 65 years and almost 9 months after I married that pretty girl, I am here to tell these young men who are pages, that is the way you court your girl, with another boy's bubble gum.

Yes.

Will the Congressional Record please note that there was laughter.

Would the reporter kindly note there was laughter again in the Congressional Record. We have to make that Congressional Record come alive.

Yes.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from New York for his observations. I am very grateful to him.

Like many lads in southern West Virginia, including myself, Joe Meadows grew up listening to the Grand Ole Opry on radio--that was back in the days of the Great Depression--as well as ``Farm and Fun Time'' and other radio programs that featured country and bluegrass music. And Joe Meadows absorbed it all. His ear was fixed on and naturally attuned to the fiddle playing. Joe listened. Joe learned. And later, Joe performed what he had heard. At the age of 16, Joe Meadows began performing with Melvin and Ray, the Goins Brothers, and from there he went on to tour with and recorded with the greatest names in country and bluegrass music including Jim and Jesse, the Stanley Brothers, and the legendary Bill Monroe and his Blue Grass Boys.

Joe Meadows' musical career included 25 years on the road as a professional fiddle player and a 7-year run at the Grand Ole Opry. He had toured Europe four times and Japan once where he was incredibly well received. Before I stopped playing the fiddle, Joe Meadows and I would sometimes sit down on weekends and play our fiddles together. We usually taped our sessions, and then we listened to our recordings together to see how we could improve our

playing. Well, he couldn't improve his playing much, but I had plenty of room to improve my own. I always hoped to be as smooth in handling that bow, that fiddle bow as Joe was. He had complete control of that fiddle bow. I don't think I ever got there, but he never stopped trying to help me.

Joe Meadows was not only naturally endowed with a strong and supple bow arm, the good Lord blessed him with a great pair of fiddler hands.

I never have had the pleasure to observe anyone whom I liked to listen to better than I liked Joe Meadows. He had nimble, quick fingers, and he used them beautifully.

The bluegrass and mountain music and old-time fiddling world has lost a great musician. I have lost a good friend. West Virginia has lost a good and gracious son.

My wife Erma and I extend our deepest condolences to Joe Meadows' family and to his many friends.

Let fate do her worst.

There are relics of joy,

Bright dreams of the past

That she cannot destroy.

They come in the nighttime

Of sorrow and care,

And bring back the features

That joy used to wear.

Long, long be my heart

With such memories filled,

Like the vase in which roses

Have once been distilled.

You may break, you may shatter

The vase, if you will,

But the scent of the roses

Will hang, 'round it still.

Madam President, to contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experience. On this February day, as this Nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

My wife says to me at night: Do you think we ought to get some of those large bottles, the large jugs, and fill them with water? She says: Go up to the attic and see if we don't have two or three there. I believe we have two or three there.

And so I went up to the attic last evening and came back to report to her that, no, we didn't have any large jugs of water, but we had some small ones, perhaps some gallon jugs filled with water. And she talked about buying up a few things, groceries and canned goods to put away.

I would suspect that kind of conversation is going on in many towns across this great, broad land of ours. And yet this Chamber is for the most part ominously, dreadfully silent. You can hear a pin drop. Listen. You can hear a pin drop. There is no debate. There is no discussion. There is no attempt to lay out for the Nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

What would Gunning Bedford of Delaware think about it? What would John Dickinson of Delaware think about it? What would George Read think about it? What would they say?

We stand passively mute in the Senate today, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion concerning the prudence or the imprudence of engaging in this particular war. I can imagine hearing the walls of this Chamber ring just before the great war between the States, a war that tore this Nation asunder and out of which the great State of West Virginia was born.

But today we hear nothing, almost nothing, by way of debate. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. It is not going to be a video game. It may last a day or 6 days. God created Earth, and man, the stars, the planets, and the Moon in 6 days. This war may last 6 days. It may last 6 weeks. It could last longer. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No, this coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This Nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, at an unfortunate time--the doctrine of preemption, no small matter--the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but which may be threatening in the future.

The idea that the United States may attack a sovereign government because of a dislike for a particular regime is a radical, new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our hit list, or some other nation's hit list.

High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack on Iraq. What could be more destabilizing? What could be more world shattering? What could be more future shattering? What could be more unwise than this kind of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of so many nations so closely together?

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances. One wonders what is going to happen, and about what is happening to the United Nations. One should pause to reflect on what is happening there at the United Nations, formed 54 years ago. And we say: If you are not with us, you are against us. That is a pretty hard rule to lay down to the United Nations. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you don't see it our way, take the highway. We say to Germany and we say to France--both of whom have been around longer than we--if you don't see it our way, we will just brush you to the side.

Do we fail to think about a possible moment down the road, a bit further on, when we may wish to have Germany and France working with us and thinking with us, standing with us, because there is a larger specter, at least in my mind, looming behind the specter of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. There looms a larger specter, that of North Korea, which has one or two nuclear weapons now, and others within reach within a few weeks. So there are huge cracks, I say, emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11, 2001.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay away from their hearthside, away from their homes, away from their loved ones, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may have to face, perhaps in the near future. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection, while we are being told that a terrorist attack may be imminent. What about those communities like little Sophia, WV?

Yes, I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished Senator from Illinois who is a graduate of the other body where I believe he served on the Appropriations Committee.

He serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I need only respond

in a brief way at this point to the incisive question which the distinguished Senator has asked. I refer him to the Congressional Record upon several occasions last year when I said to the Senate that I was bringing to the floor, or said to the Appropriations Committee, that I was bringing an amendment up dealing with homeland security, and I shall do that again, hopefully before this week is over.

Let me say briefly in response to the able Senator, time and time again the Senator has worked with me and with every other Senator on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, to report measures from the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously that provided moneys for homeland security.

I remember our providing $2.5 billion--$2.5 billion--for homeland security. We designated it in the committee as an emergency item, and all that remained to be done--all that remained to be done--in order to have that $2.5 billion immediately flow to the policemen, the law enforcement officers, the firefighters, the health emergency personnel all over this country, all that needed to be done was for the President of the United States to attach his signature and likewise designate that $2.5 billion as an emergency.

How little to ask. But how much it would have meant to the first responders in the many towns and cities and rural communities in Illinois, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, and cities and hamlets all over this country if the President had but condescended in that moment to sign his name on that item, making it an emergency item.

The law requires that for an item to be declared an emergency item, both the Congress and the President have to designate the item as an emergency. Congress did its part, and, in that case, that involved $2.5 billion. The President literally gave the back of his hand to that effort on the part of the elected representatives of the American people in this Chamber and on that committee. He gave the back of his hand to that effort on the part of Congress to provide $2.5 billion for the local responders and people in the health laboratories all over this country, for border security, airport security, port security, and all of the many facets that are involved in homeland security. He turned his back on that effort.

Then last year, I believe in November of this past year when we had the omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate, I offered an amendment, a $5 billion amendment, an amendment making $5 billion available for homeland security. Did the administration support that amendment? No, the administration fought it, and the amendment went down in flames, as it were, on the floor of the Senate on virtually a party-line vote.

That $5 billion would have gone a long way, would have been out there today when we have this orange alert scaring the American people--I am not saying it is not appropriate to have an orange alert, but we have seen alert after alert after alert, and in spite of the alerts that have been so often set forth in this country by the administration's own people, the administration, the President, have turned their backs on these efforts of the Senate Appropriations Committee by unanimous votes, including the Republicans on the committee, to provide ample moneys for homeland defense.

Again, having lost the $5 billion, I came back with an amendment providing for $3 billion. We slimmed down--you can go to the store and get the Slim Fast at the Giant. I go to the store and do the shopping for my wife. She does not need Slim Fast, but I sometimes get Slim Fast. Well, we slimmed fast that $5 billion and brought it down to $3 billion, thinking we would pick up some votes with the administration's support.

Did we get any more votes? No, the administration was against the $3 billion, and today they are telling us all, we better be on watch day and night.

Yes.

The Senator is preeminently correct. His mention of William Manchester reminds me of that great book, ``The Glory and the Dream'' by William Manchester who wrote about the Great Depression. In fact, Herbert Hoover was the first President to have a telephone on his desk in the White House. ``The Glory and the Dream.''

Yes, we have had time to prepare. In many respects, we have failed. Our committee on which the distinguished Senator from Illinois sits conducted hearings and requested that the Homeland Security Director, former Gov. Tom Ridge, appear before the Appropriations Committee to testify concerning the needs of homeland security in this country. Did he come? He probably would have come but his boss, the President, said, no, he shall not come. So we conducted 5 days of hearings on homeland security in those early months of 2002. As a result, we brought to the floor legislation based on the testimony that had been adduced from witnesses from all over this country--mayors, Governors, and first responders.

This legislation, to a large extent, was pretty much sneered at--it is hard to respond in any other way--by the administration. Based on the testimony of those witnesses, we tried time and again to bring to the Senate and pass legislation that would provide for the needs of those local responders, the people at the local level, in the effort to prevent terrorist attacks and in the effort to deal with terrorist attacks once they occurred. We got no help from this administration.

Did the people out there know it? Some of us attempted to tell the American people about these efforts, but the press has not picked up on it very well. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also shortstaffed. The mood of the Nation is grim, is the only way I know how to put it. The economy is stumbling. Economic growth is worse than it has been in 50 years. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This administration, now in power for a little over 2 years, must be judged on its record. I believe that record is dismal. In that scant 2 years, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion. How much is that? That is $5,600 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.

Let me say that again. In that scant 2 years--I am talking about the last 2 years--of this administration's record, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the human eye can see. This administration's domestic policy has put many of our States, including my own, in a dire

financial condition, underfunding scores of essential programs for the people, the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses.

This administration has fostered policies that have slowed economic growth. This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I have been talking about that.

This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders to the north and to the south, and to the east and to the west, where the great oceans form the borders.

In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill, kill, kill.

This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order, crippling entities such as the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as being a well-intentioned peacemaking, peace loving, peacekeeping nation.

This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy on its head. It has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders and which will have consequences for years to come, calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil--as though we are not evil, as though there is no country that is not evil--denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant. These types of crude insensitivities can do our great Nation no good.

We may have massive military might, and we have, but remember we have had massive military might before. How many millions of men marched to the drums of war only 60 years ago? Thirteen million American men under arms, was it? Millions.

While we may have massive military might today, we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and the friendship of our time-honored allies, as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages this economy.

Our military manpower is already stretched thin, and they are taking them from our States every day. Yesterday, I talked to the Senate about the vacancies, about the empty seats at the dinner tables in the homes of many West Virginians, because of the National Guard and Reserve departures every day from the State of West Virginia. Yes, there they come. They are law enforcement officers. They are State troopers. They are road builders. They are doctors. They are teachers. They are Sunday school teachers. These are the men and women who keep the lights burning when the snows fall and darkness comes. But on whom will we depend when these men and women are gone to foreign lands to fight a war if a war faces us here at home, a different kind of war.

Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy.

As I say, our military forces are already being stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations that can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far. Yes, we bombed those caves. We ran them into the holes, but they could not hide. We ran them out of the holes, and we ran behind them to get them. But there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan, as well, is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism, and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war, one must also secure the peace?

Yet we hear little, precious little, about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? There are some who think so.

To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own very potent nuclear arsenal? What are we about to unleash here? The genie is getting out of the bottle. Can it ever be put back? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian Governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard for the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of 2 short years, this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

We have heard it asked, Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? The question can be shortened: Are we better off than we were 2 years ago?

One can understand the anger and the shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this Chamber is hauntingly silent--silent. What would John Langdon of New Hampshire say about that? What would Nicholas Gilman of New Hampshire say about that? What would Rufus King and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts say? What would Alexander Hamilton, who signed the Constitution, from the State of New York, say about the silence in this Chamber? What would Dr. Samuel Johnson of Connecticut say about the silence in this Chamber? What would William Paterson or William Livingston or David Brearley or Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, the signers of the Constitution, have to say about the silence in this Senate which they created? What would Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, James Wilson, Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania, have to say? What would Thomas FitzSimons or Gouverneur Morris, who signed the Constitution on behalf of the State of Pennsylvania, have to say about the silence that rings and reverberates from these walls today, the silence with respect to the war on which we are about to enter? What would they have to say? What would their comments be? Gunning Bedford, George Read of Delaware, Daniel Carroll, Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer of Maryland. These and more.

What would these signers of the Constitution have to say about this Senate which they created when they note the silence, that is deafening, that emanates from that Chamber on the great subject, the great issue of war and peace? Nothing. Nothing is being said except by a few souls. Yet this Chamber is hauntingly silent--hauntingly silent on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq. Think about that.

Oh, I know Saddam Hussein is the person who is primarily responsible. But how about us? How about ourselves?

Yes, there are going to be old men dying. There will be women dying. There will be children, little boys and girls dying if this war goes forward in Iraq. And American men and women will die, too.

Iraq has a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15.

Over 50 percent of the population in Iraq is under age 15. What is said about that? This Chamber is silent--silent. When it is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare, this Chamber is silent. The rafters should ring. The press galleries should be filled. Senators should be at their seats listening to questions being asked about this war, questions to which the American people out there have a right to expect answers. The American people are longing for information and they are not getting it. This Chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual here in the Senate, and business as usual means it is pretty quiet. There is not much going on in the Senate. Business as usual.

Oh, I know it may be scare talk to talk about what may happen in the event of a terrorist attack. But when the Twin Towers fell, it wasn't scare talk. When hundreds of local firefighters and police officers, law enforcement officers died as the walls of the Twin Towers came tumbling down, it wasn't scare talk. It wasn't scare talk.

We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I pray that this great Nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.

But I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is now to find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps--just perhaps--there is still a way, if we allow more time.

Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum--I withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the Senate in executive session?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in legislative session.