Floor Statements

Mr. President, as President Bush gears up for a possible war in Iraq, we have been treated to repeated announcements of troop deployments and callups of Reserve forces. A fourth aircraft carrier battle group centered around the USS Theodore Roosevelt is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and the Navy is reportedly prepared to send up to three more carrier battle groups to the region. Two Marine amphibious groups of seven ships each are also already in the gulf. Military installations around the Nation are taking on an empty, shuttered feeling as unit after unit after unit packs up, says goodbye, wipes the tears away from their faces, from the faces of loved ones, and ships out. This is happening more and more and more all over this country.

National Guard and Reserve forces have been mobilized not only to go to the Persian Gulf but also to guard military installations around the United States. And more and more and more, one will look at dinner tables and at countless workplaces, and there they will see vacant chairs, vacant spots.

The 300th Chemical Company, headquartered in Morgantown, WV, was ordered, on January 3, 2003, to report to Fort Dix, NJ, in anticipation of deployment to some as yet undetermined final destination.

West Virginia: one State, the 35th State in the Union. Every Senator here can look at his or her own State and see what is happening, see the same thing happening as I am seeing in West Virginia. These troops may be gone for a year. They may be gone longer.

Other West Virginia Guard and Reserve units have already been called up, including members of the Bluefield-based 340th Military Police Company. That is on the southern border of West Virginia, on the border with the State of Virginia. And then there is the Romney-based 351st Ordnance Company. Romney is in the northeastern part of West Virginia, a community that changed hands 56 times in the Civil War.

There, too, we see vacant chairs at the dinner tables. We see the families, the spouses with the children, spouses who have remained behind. They and their children bow their heads at mealtime and say: ``God is great. God is good. And we thank Him for this food. By Thy goodness all are fed. Give us, Lord, our daily bread.''

And the same scene is repeated and repeated in Kansas, in Florida, in California, in Washington, in Oregon, in Virginia, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and on and on and on. And pretty soon it adds up.

Then there is the Kenova-based 261st Ordnance Company and the Bridgeport-

based 459th Engineer Company. Kenova is down near Huntington in southern West Virginia. Bridgeport is adjacent to Clarksburg in the north central part of West Virginia.

Everywhere one looks, one sees these men and women departing, leaving--to return when? We know not when, and in some cases perhaps never.

West Virginia Army National Guard members have been recalled to active duty, as have members of the Charleston, WV-based 130th Airlift Wing and the 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg.

So over and over and over again, we see this happening, day after day after day.

West Virginia is playing an active role in our Nation's military operations, and the story is the same in the other 49 States and the District of Columbia around the Nation as, week after week after week, small town newspapers display the smiling portraits of guardsmen and reservists called into the active service of their country.

I suggest to other Members of the Senate that they take a look at what is happening within the borders of their own States, the States they represent in this great Chamber, and they will see what I see when I look at West Virginia.

Even the Coast Guard is sending 8 of its 49 patrol boats and two port security units--some 600 personnel--to the Persian Gulf. By mid- February, some 150,000 or more service personnel are expected to be in the Persian Gulf region, with the total expected to top 200,000 by early March--not even a month away.

These new deployments to the Persian Gulf come on top of many other ongoing military operations around the globe. Approximately 9,000 U.S. service personnel remain active in Afghanistan battling Taliban forces and continuing to root out Osama bin Laden's followers. We spent $27 billion in Afghanistan. Now we have upped that by an additional $10 billion; 27 plus 10, that is $37 billion that the war in Afghanistan and the adjacent region has already cost, $37 billion; $37 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born; $37 billion spent in Afghanistan and the region.

And where is Osama bin Laden? Where is he? Thirty-seven billion dollars? Yes. And has the countryside been subjugated? No. Only the city of Kabul, perhaps in the daytime.

I went to Kabul 48 years ago with a codel from the House of Representatives, flew up the Khyber Pass in that landlocked country, Afghanistan. There it is today, the same country, landlocked, still ruled by tribal men warring with one another.

Approximately 9,000 U.S. service personnel remain active in Afghanistan, battling Taliban forces and continuing to root out Osama bin Laden's followers. Yes, there it is. American service men and women all around the globe, around that globe around which Jules Verne wrote that great novel, ``Around the World in Eighty Days.''

Military and political tensions in South Korea are as high as they have been at any time since the Korean war. I remember that Korean war, yes. Here we are, a half century later, with thousands of our American fighting men and women still there looking across the divided country that separates South from North Korea. Over 51,000 U.S. personnel live in South Korea, including 35,654 active duty military personnel. I visited there when Syngman Rhee was President. I visited the Korea Parliament. Men wore overcoats in the Parliament. It was cold. Can you imagine men and women seated in this Chamber in their overcoats? It is the dead of winter, isn't it? Yes, it is.

Some 6,900 U.S. forces remain in Bosnia as part of the NATO Operation Joint Force. By mid-February, by this short count, 201,554 American service personnel will be far, far away, far from home, far from the lights of home, far from the warm fireplaces of home, far from the sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers and wives and children and husbands and children engaged in dangerous missions around the globe. This figure does not include forces permanently stationed in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere but those on temporary deployment. These deployed troops will be supported by many more military forces based in the United States.

And how much are we debating that? Little is being said. Scarce to nothing is being said on the Senate floor as we prepare to go to war in all likelihood in a foreign land. Little or nothing is being said in this Chamber or in the other Chamber about what may happen at home once the attack upon Saddam Hussein is unleashed. Are we under a gag rule? What is going on? I can scarcely believe my eyes and my ears when I look about me. I sometimes say to someone, pinch me, pinch me. Is it real?

What has happened to the U.S. Senate, this great forum, the greatest upper body in the world, the U.S. Senate? What has happened? What would the Framers think if they could come back and see this Chamber, austere, practically vacated? Of course, they knew nothing about television in their day. They didn't know that a few Senators could sit back in their offices because they didn't have the kind of offices that we have in our day either. But what would those Framers think?

What would the 39 signers of the Constitution of the United States think if they could sit in these galleries and look down upon this Chamber today? What would George Washington have to say about that? What would James Madison have to say, or John Blair have to say? Or Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, what would he say about that? What would Hugh Williamson have to say? How would he feel about it? How would Benjamin Franklin gauge the situation if he saw the U.S. Senate today as we are about to prepare to launch an attack upon a sovereign nation that has not attacked our own country? Benjamin Franklin, what would he say?

What would David Brearley say as he looked about him and saw few Senators discussing the greatest issue of all--the issue of war and peace? What would James Wilson say? What would John Dickinson say? What would Thomas Fitzsimons have to say about it? What would Abraham Baldwin or William Few say about it? These were signers of the Declaration of Independence. Would George Read have any questions to ask? How far have we fallen short of the expectations of those who framed this Constitution? Here it is. I hold it in my hand. There were 39 signers. How about John Langley? Rufus King; would he rise to his feet and have anything to say? What would Nathaniel Gorham and Nicholas Gilman say about this?

Would they say: Awaken, awaken, take to the ramparts. In musical terms, the operational tempo of the U.S. Armed Forces has moved from adagio, which is slow, to allegro, which is fast, and is rapidly moving to prestissimo, as fast as possible, or too fast.

No one wants our military to go to war without the resources that it needs, and we will certainly do everything within our power if our forces are sent into war by the executive. The Senate has attempted to wash its hands of the matter and hand the matter over to the President of the United States: Here it is; it is all in your hands. We have relegated ourselves to the sidelines. Yes. No one wants our military to go to war without the advantage of overwhelming force. But in this new era of terrorist attacks in the homeland, I have some concerns that we are leaving America unguarded as we attempt to initiate and sustain so many military operations overseas.

Oh, yes, we see the national alert, the orange alert. Well, the forces that remain here to protect the American people are fast dwindling. How long before they dwindle more and more and more? Yet we are on ``orange alert.'' Where are the policemen, the National Guardsmen, the reservists, the firefighters, and the schoolteachers-- those all about us in our daily walks as citizens? More and more, we look to the right and then we look to the left and we see a vacant spot here and there. Yet we are on orange alert. Where are those who are to guard this country when it is on orange alert? Where are they?

I am not alone in thinking our country is vulnerable to another massive terrorist attack. On Friday, Attorney General Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge announced to the Nation that credible, corroborated intelligence reports required an increase in the homeland security alert level. Yet look about you, and everywhere to the north, east, west, and south one sees line after line, busload after busload, planeload after planeload of National Guardsmen, reservists, men and

women leaving their spouses, their children, shedding their tears, going away--miles away, hundreds of miles away, thousands of miles away across the seas. When will they see one another again?

In light of this danger, it is almost bizarre that our military continues to run at full tilt to ready for war in the Persian Gulf. It is as if two ships are passing in the night--one filled with our soldiers headed for the hot sands of the Arabian Peninsula, the other carrying terrorists headed for our shores. Time after time, this administration and its Department heads have put this Nation on alert. If the risk to the American people were not so great, the situation would be almost comical.

If an attack strikes a city in the United States, who will respond? Governors might wish to call out the National Guard in order to respond to an attack and restore order, but will any units be left to pick up the phone? The military's only mobile chemical and biological laboratory has deployed to the Persian Gulf. Chemical decontamination units, like Morgantown, West Virginia's 300th Chemical Company, have been called up and shipped out. Gone. The vacant chairs are still there. The vacant pews in the local churches are still there. But the men and women are gone. Many of our Nation's policemen, firemen, and other first responders are members of the National Guard and Reserves. They have been called up, and they have been shipped out, leaving one important national security job for another.

It would be a mistake to assume that these troops would soon return home after defeating Iraq in battle. We may be lucky, pray God. The supreme fact in this universe of universes is a Living God. Men can study and plot and plan all they want to as to what created this Earth, created the universe, and created man, and come up with this idea and that thesis and that hypothesis, one after another. But the remaining supreme fact is that there is God. I hope God will give this country the good judgment, the wisdom it needs in the days ahead. We may be lucky. It may all be over in a day or two. Someone may be able to talk to Saddam Hussein and get him to leave and go somewhere else. Who knows? But suppose we are not lucky.

Saddam Hussein's military is not as strong as it once was, but there is still the looming specter that one sees at night when the shades of darkness have fallen. One hears the rustling robes of night, those sable robes. One sees the specter, the possible specter of hand to hand to hand, building to building to building, block by block by block, street fighting in the megalopolis of Baghdad. That could become real.

Then what will those who seem to be impelled to drive our Nation into war say, those who seem to look upon this forthcoming trial as but a video game? We press a button here, press a button there, poof, it is gone; Saddam Hussein is out of it, and his legions have been conquered and decimated and destroyed. Just a video game.

I sometimes pinch myself as I sit down and watch the television. I wonder, can it be real that these people who have never shot a shot in their life probably--I cannot complain about that; I have not shot a shotgun either--but they are all for going to war. What do they have to lose? I do not know. But I wonder what is happening in our country today when everything is bent for war.

Turn on the television set. The first television set we had at my house was in 1955. I was in my third year in Congress, my second term, and went home one afternoon, took some mail with me and was sitting after supper--we still think in terms of supper at my house, not dinner. We do not wear these monkey suits, certainly not as much as we used to. So we do not put on these fancy suits and go out to dinner at night.

There I sat. I was signing my mail, and my wife and I sat there with our two daughters. She said: Robert, what do you see? Take a look around the room. What's new? I looked around the room. And there it was--a black-and-white television set, 1955.

That is the year when the House of Representatives passed legislation providing that the words ``In God We Trust'' will be on the currency of this country--``In God We Trust.'' Those words were already on some of the silver coins, but we passed legislation in that year, 1955--it was June 7, 1955, when we passed legislation providing that the words ``In God We Trust'' would be on our currency. Here it is. It is right on there. Here it is on the $1 bill, with the greatest President of all, George Washington. There it is on that bill.

That was June 7, 1955, and on June 7, 1954, we had passed in the House of Representatives legislation adding the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance.

There we were, sitting around my living room. I turned on that black- and-white television set. Ah, I wish I could call those days back. There was Jackie Gleason and ``The Honeymooners,'' really a wholesome, fun picture. Then there was Matt Dillon in ``Gunsmoke.'' And there was Elliott Ness in ``The Untouchables.'' Those were the days, black-and- white television.

Anyhow, I turn the television on now in the evenings, when I can bear to look at it for a little while, and the same old story over and over is just beating into my ears; this go to war, this beating the drums of war. That is going to be a game. We hear that the game is over. This is not a game, as the French President reminded our own. This is not a game, and it is not over. But there I hear it every night over and over and over and over again. That is all the American people hear, this ``going to war'' theme.

I hope we will be lucky. I hope we will be. I hope we will find a way out of going somehow. I think this Senate ought to debate it. I think we ought to talk about it in this Senate. What would those Framers say if they could see the Senate today, tucking its tail between its legs and running away from this, the greatest issue of our time: War and peace.

Nothing is being said about it. Are we afraid to ask questions? Is it unpatriotic to ask questions? I say to these pages--we have a new flock of pages and they are all these fine young people who come into this Chamber. They are such wonderful young people--I say to them: What did you think before you came here? Did you expect to hear some great debates about the greatest issue of our day, our time? Did you think you were going to come here and hear about the problems of war and peace? Are you disappointed? Have you been disillusioned? You are not hearing it, are you? Here we are silent.

Is it deemed to be unpatriotic to ask questions? The American people out there want us to ask questions. How much is it going to cost? We have already spent $37 billion now through the end of last December in Afghanistan, in that region. Where is Osama bin Laden? Where is he? $37 billion. He was wanted dead or alive; $37 billion and still no Osama bin Laden. Now our troops are going to be sent to a foreign land, some of whom will die, will have their blood shed in the hot desert sands of a foreign country. And how many people there will die? How many men and women and children, little children, boys and girls, will die unless we are lucky and the bullets do not fly?

Our troops could be forced into a wild goose chase for Saddam Hussein, just as Osama bin Laden has eluded our grasp for the last 14 months. We could get lucky; we could win the war in a matter of days. Saddam Hussein could be served up to us on a silver platter by his generals who are desperate to save their own lives. But is that the end of the story? That is not the end of the story. Someone will have to occupy Iraq and purge the government of the Baathist Party elites who might wish to succeed one dictatorship with another dictatorship. Someone will have to calm the situation in the North where the Kurds might seek to form their own country, which is a serious concern for our ally Turkey.

If the United States goes forward with a war with only token support from some of our allies, it is not hard to see that we will also bear the greatest burdens in the occupation of Iraq. Who knows that it is going to be all that easy?

They should sit down in front of their television set tonight, as they listen to those talking heads as they gloss over the serious question of war and peace and they talk about going to war as though it were a video game.

Somebody is going to die. America has lost men and women in wars, large and small, over these 215 years since ours became a republic. People always

die in war. Have we discussed this one? Have we debated it? Have we asked the questions our people expect us to ask?

Suppose we get into a war and it does not go well. Suppose it turns out to be something other than a video game. Then our people back home will say: Where were you?

The first question that was ever asked in the history of mankind was asked in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, when God searched for Adam and Eve and He asked the first question that was ever asked: Adam, where art thou? Old Adam and Eve were over behind some bushes, wearing some fig leaves, trying to hide from God.

No, one cannot hide from God. One cannot hide from the Creator. And we will not be able to hide from our constituents if this war goes sour, if it goes south. They will ask: Robert Byrd, where were you when they voted to turn this matter over to the Commander in Chief, turn it over to the Chief Executive, hand it over to him and wash your hands? Were you there, Robert? Did you wash your hands on that day? Where were you?

We will be asked the question. I kind of hate to look at myself in the mirror and ask myself that question, Where were you when you turned your back on the Constitution of the United States, which says Congress shall have power to declare war? Did you turn that over to the President, Robert Byrd? Did you vote to turn that authority over to the President? If you did, did you sunset it so that that same power would not be in the hands of the next President? No, the Senate did not even want to sunset it.

What would those Framers say to us? Where were you? You stood up at that desk, put your hand on the Bible, and said you would swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Where were you on that day?

If the United States goes forward with a war with only token support from some of our allies, it is not hard to see that we will also bear the greatest burdens in the occupation of Iraq. Then look in the shadows, look into the shadowy mists halfway around the world, and see what is there. North Korea, with its nuclear programs. Now we are becoming a little afraid of Iran. We are becoming wary of Iran, which is third in the forces of evil that have been named. Are they next?

The Department of Defense has so far been reluctant to hazard a guess at how many troops might be required and how long their mission might last. Perhaps those numbers--we are talking about a postwar Iraq, a post-Saddam Iraq. The Department of Defense has been reluctant to hazard a guess at how many troops might be required and how long their mission might last. Perhaps those numbers are too alarming to discuss at this point, but one British think tank has estimated that occupation of Iraq may require 50,000 to 200,000 troops and cost $12 billion to $50 billion per year for 5 years, perhaps more.

Who knows what the ultimate costs will be--$200 billion, $300 billion, $500 billion, a trillion? Add up all of the costs. So long as this occupation continues, how is the National Guard supposed to help our States in the homeland security mission? Our police forces can hardly pick up the slack. They are already working full tilt, performing the myriad tasks that keep our streets and schools safe 24 hours a day, with crime increasing 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

Just because the threat of terrorist activity is higher does not mean that run-of-the-mill villains go on vacation. Just because Osama bin Laden is still on the loose does not mean that the John Allen Muhammeds of the world will decide not to go on random nationwide shooting rampages.

At a time when port security has become increasingly important, and in which we have learned what a tiny fraction of incoming ships and containers are being searched for weapons of mass destruction, the Coast Guard is reducing its interdiction capability by sending one- sixth of its patrol craft to the Persian Gulf.

How many more Haitian refugees will be able to land on our shore? How many more drug shipments will make it in? How many ships in distress will have to wait to get help? How many terrorists will be able to land on our shores? One key problem, in trying to balance the demands of States for National Guard to perform homeland security missions with the deployment of guardsmen to deal with international crises in Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps elsewhere, is that the military reserves are the well from which the Active-Duty Forces must draw for units with unique skills. If the military needs large numbers of military police, engineers, or civil affairs specialists, it has no choice but to draw from the Reserve components.

Our military is arranged so that the Active Forces alone simply are not able to carry out long periods of conflict or peacekeeping missions. The Department of Defense has announced that it will seek to realign some units so that our Active-Duty Forces will be better able to perform specialized missions without drawing so heavily from our citizen soldiers. But would the Framers have questions about how this will be done? How will it be done? Will the 300th Chemical Company be ripped out from its home in West Virginia and sent to a military base hundreds or thousands of miles away? If so, on whom would Governor Weiss of West Virginia then call if a chemical attack were to occur in my State?

Each Senator should ask themselves the same question about their own State. The President has repeatedly said our country is in this war on terrorism for the long haul. We should not seek Band-Aid solutions to important problems. Realignment of Reserve and Active Forces might make sense for fiscal year 2004, but what are we going to do about the problem today? What needs to be done to prepare for 10 years down the road? I will not be here.

You may not be here or you may be here, Mr. President. But that problem will face this country. Years will come and the years will go, problems will come ever nearer. Let us start by asking some tough questions.

Do we need more Active-Duty forces to do everything that the President is asking our military to do? If so, can we increase our recruiting to find more Americans who are willing to serve in the military? Do we want to go back to the draft? That question may come ever closer.

While the White House is prepared to dedicate ever greater sums to our military, have we underestimated the manpower requirements for the war on terrorism or for nationbuilding in Afghanistan or for a war in Iraq or for maintaining our security guarantees to South Korea? Let us not shy away from asking these questions simply because we are afraid of honest answers that could expose a weakness in our military planning.

Our States, cities, and towns are in a homeland security crunch. Security demands are increasing. State budget deficits are soaring. Ask the Governors of this land about their budget deficits. Ask them about the shortfalls within their own States. Perhaps the homeland security crunch could not have been avoided completely, but its effects could have been mitigated.

In November 2001 I offered a $15 billion package to address urgent homeland security needs. Did the White House support it? Did the White House support that package? No. This White House opposed it.

In December 2001 I proposed $7.5 billion in homeland security funds. Did the administration support that? No. The administration shaved that down to a fraction of its size. Wouldn't our communities be better prepared today for the current terrorism warnings, for the current orange alert, if those funds had reached our communities more than a year ago?

With the homeland security crunch now affecting virtually every State in the Union, one would think that we should have learned a lesson. Have we?

Just last month I offered a $5 billion amendment to H.J. Res. 2, the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations legislation to fund these programs that the President had authorized in earlier legislation. Did the White House support my amendment? No. The White House opposed that amendment, terming it ``new extraneous spending.'' How about that?

My opinion differs from that of the White House. I believe that providing funding for programs that have been requested and authorized, and which are critical pieces of homeland security, is just as critical as going for the

public acclaim that comes from proposing a bureaucratic reorganization.

Words, and promises, need to be backed up with the money to make those words a reality. Empty promises and hollow rhetoric, no matter how stirring, how bedecked in flags and bunting, will not protect our families, our neighbors, and our fellow citizens.

Iraq is not the only crisis on the American agenda. Hundreds of thousands of troops are shipping out for distant lands while the threat of terrorism is growing here at home; while the Nation, for the first time, is being put on orange alert.

These troops have our support and our prayers for their safe return. The families they leave behind also need the very best that we can do for them. They need our prayers, and they need more than our prayers; they need to have programs designed to improve their safety and security funded and implemented, not put on hold.

Having lost the $5 billion, then I sought to come through with a $3 billion homeland security amendment. The same thing happened.

I hope the view from the White House will expand to focus, not just beyond our shores, but also within our shorelines. We must not leave America unguarded.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished whip for his comments. I thank him for his work that he performs here daily for his country, for his State, and for his colleagues in the Senate.

Madam President, has the able Senator from Arizona relinquished the floor?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, President Bush last night warned the American people to brace for war with Iraq. In his State of the Union Address, he vowed that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, the United States will ``lead a coalition'' to disarm him.

Although the President stopped short of a declaration of war, his message was clear: In his view, Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent danger to peace and security in the world, and the United States is prepared to wage war, with or without the support of the United Nations, to remove him from power. The chain of events that President Bush set into motion last year when he inducted Iraq into what he called the ``axis of evil'' appears on the verge of spilling over into battle and bloodshed.

The President's remarks come amid a firestorm of protest from some of our closest allies in Europe and the Middle East over the apparent willingness of the United States to ride roughshod over the United Nations and dictate to the rest of the world the terms of Iraq's disarmament. The President in his State of the Union speech once again made clear that Iraq will be dealt with on his timetable, at his hands, according to his agenda.

Mr. President, I am fully cognizant of the danger presented by the possibility of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in the hands of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. I am fully cognizant of, and frustrated by, the fact that Iraq has consistently flouted the United Nations mandates to disarm, and has apparently shown only token cooperation with the current inspection regime. Iraq has much to answer for, and the President is correct in demanding that Iraq respond to the United Nations.

What concerns me greatly, however, is that this President appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations. He has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of other nations and has vowed that the United States will lead an assault on Iraq regardless of the judgment of the United Nations. President Bush has

made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a personal crusade, and in his zeal to pursue his goal, he has failed to make the case to the American people out there and to our allies abroad that the United Nations is dragging its feet, that war is the only option left, and that war cannot wait.

The President in his address alluded to tantalizing evidence that Saddam Hussein is in collusion with al-Qaida and that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction which it is hiding from the United Nations weapons inspectors. But the President has yet to present that evidence to the public or to demonstrate why it constitutes an immediate cause for war. If the evidence is as compelling as the President indicates it will be, surely the member states of the United Nations will close ranks behind the United States and demand the forcible disarmament of Iraq.

The President also set what appears to be a new deadline for the United Nations. On February 5, he said, the United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene to hear evidence of Iraq's illegal weapons programs and its links to terrorist groups. I look forward to learning the details of that meeting. I wonder why the President is holding back for another week if he has such information today, and perhaps has had it for some time. I am confident that the U.N. weapons inspectors would welcome such evidence, not next week but today, so that they could do their jobs more effectively. I wonder why the Senate has not been given this evidence. I wonder why the American people, who are being asked to send their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters into the battle zone, have not been made privy to this important evidence.

Perhaps the answer lies in the followup comment by the President, when he said: ``We will consult, but let there by no misunderstanding. If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.'' Despite all his comments to the contrary, it appears that the President has predetermined that war with Iraq is the only recourse left.

If war is the answer, the support of the international community is essential. I believe that it would be a grave mistake for the United States to preempt the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and initiate an invasion of Iraq without first seeking the express support of the Security Council. The United States is already seen by many as an aggressor in the Middle East. Speculation is rife in Europe that the United States is pressing to invade Iraq to give the U.S. control of the Iraqi oil fields. America's reputation in the court of world opinion is in tatters.

Unfortunately, the President's State of the Union speech did little to allay the worries of the American people or the international community. The President signaled to the world that America is ready for war with Iraq, but he did not explain why Iraq suddenly presents such ``a serious and mounting threat'' to our country, our friends, and our allies that war is the only option. How is it that the threat from Iraq is more serious than the threat from North Korea? How is it that the threat from Iraq appears to have eclipsed the threat from al-Qaida to our own country and the threat from other terrorist organizations?

Nor did the President attempt to prepare the American people for the possible consequences of war with Iraq--the terrible toll on the lives on innocent Iraqis, the potential for hundreds or thousands of battlefield casualties of American service men and women, the sharply increased threat of terrorist attacks on America and its allies. The President promised that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would liberate the people of Iraq, but he made no mention of what the American people could expect from a postwar Iraq. The President made no mention of the burden the United States would have to bear to ensure that a postwar Iraq did not devolve into chaos.

In his State of the Union Address last year, the President declared a global war on terror, and he called on all nations of the world to come together to combat the curse of terrorism. In his speech last night, the global war on terror got remarkably short shrift. ``We are working closely with other nations,'' the President said. ``We have the terrorists on the run.''

Unfortunately, having terrorists on the run means that terrorists have escaped our dragnet and, according to intelligence assessments, are actively plotting new attacks on the United States and its allies. We still do not know the fate of Osama bin Laden. We may have him on the run, but we also fear that he continues to pose a real and imminent threat to the United States. And unlike Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden has demonstrated his willingness to attack American citizens at home and American interests abroad.

But instead of rallying the international community to the continued need to cooperate in fighting global terrorism, the President's policies and the President's rhetoric are polarizing the world.

Mr. President, I believe the Senate has a duty to speak to the issue of war with Iraq, and I believe that the United States has a duty under international law to work within the structure of the United Nations charter. If we indict Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he has failed to disarm in accordance with the United Nations resolutions, how then can we turn around and act against him without United Nations support? What signal does the United States send to the world regarding respect for international law? The United Nations is acting responsibly. Iraq, if not fully cooperating, is at least straitjacketed. America's allies are calling on us to give the inspectors time to do their work. This is not the time for precipitous action on the part of the United States.

For these reasons, I am today introducing a resolution urging that the U.N. weapons inspectors be given sufficient time to complete their work and calling for the President to seek a United Nations resolution specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any offensive military operation against Iraq.

Now, it may come to be that war is the only way to subdue the malevolence of Saddam Hussein. But that is not a decision for the United States to make unilaterally. President Bush, in November, galvanized the United Nations to act on the issue of Iraq. For that, the President is to be commended. Now he must follow through on his pledge to work with the United Nations. The United Nations has demonstrated in the past 2 months that it is willing to act responsibly and vigorously in addressing the issue of Iraq's disarmament. No one could accuse chief weapons inspector Hans Blix of sugar-coating his interim report to the U.N. Security Council on January 27. He made clear that Iraq is not adequately cooperating on matters of substance. He made clear his frustration with Iraq. But he did not slam the door on the possibility of disarming Iraq without resorting to war.

As long as that door remains open even a crack, as long as Iraq is not actively threatening its neighbors or the United States, as long as the United Nations can maintain a stranglehold on Saddam Hussein's ambitions, I believe that we have a duty to the American people to strive to find an alternative to war. If war it must be, then it should be a coordinated undertaking authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the member states of the United Nations--not a preemptive strike initiated by the President of the United States.

Mr. President, the consequences of war are incalculable. Before we take such a momentous step, before we place the lives of American military personnel and innocent civilians in harm's way, we should stop to reflect on the possible consequences, and we should redouble our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the disarmament of Iraq. If war is the only recourse, it must be a war endorsed and fully supported by the United Nations.

Mr. President, if it must be war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be. But we may not be lucky. I think of the words of Croesus, when he said to Cyrus the Great of Persia:

There is a wheel on which the affairs of men revolve and

its movement forbids the same man to be always fortunate.

Mr. President, I shall have more to say as the days come and go on this matter that is so vital to the American people and to their futures and to the futures of our children and grandchildren and their children.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator for his thoughtful and gracious remarks. I thank him also for his cosponsorship of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which I have just submitted. I thank him for his contributions to that resolution.

It is my understanding he will be submitting a resolution. We have discussed that as well, and I hope he will add my name to his resolution. He can be sure that, the Lord willing, I will be speaking on this matter from time to time, and I know that he will join me, as I hope others in this Senate will join us. I think it is time for the American people to hear more from the Senate. I do not think they have heard enough from the Senate on this matter that is so vital to them, to their loved ones, to their fortunes, and to their futures.

As far as the Lord enables me to do so, I intend to have more to say on this subject. I thank the Senator. I know he will have more to say. Again, I thank him for his remarks and for his cosponsorship of the resolution.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Stevens a resolution commending Mr. Art Rynearson who is retiring as Deputy Legislative Counsel of the Senate on January 31, 2003. I have had the pleasure of working with Art on many laws relating to foreign policy matters.

I wish to join with Senator Stevens, and with all Senators, in expressing our deepest gratitude to Art Rynearson for his long years of service to the United States Senate. He has been part of the Office of Legislative Counsel for more than 26 years, including the last 4 as Deputy Legislative Counsel; and during that time he has provided valuable assistance to me and to my staff.

While overseeing the Office of Legislative Counsel as President pro tempore, I appreciated the great dedication and professionalism Art Rynearson displayed in carrying out his duties and responsibilities. I know that his departure will leave a void that is difficult to fill as he is truly a part of the institutional memory of the Senate. In passing this resolution, the Senate recognizes his years of commitment to the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish Art Rynearson and his wife, Mary Linda, well in his retirement.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, have these priorities been established already and agreed to with Mr. Stevens?

What the distinguished whip is trying to do is simply to lay the prioritization in the Record, so Senators will not have to wait around; they will know when their amendments are going to be called up?

Perhaps, when Senator Stevens is back on the floor, you can get that consent. I would hope so.

Reserving the right to object, it was my understanding we were going to have three rollcall votes.

This is the third vote. But this new request, what is this?

For the moment, I object.

Mr. President, I stated earlier that for the moment I object.

I too appreciate Senator Crapo's devotion to the SNRA. I am pleased we have been able to provide funding for this worthy project in the past and are near completion.

I look forward to working with the Senator during the conference.

Mr. president, I, too, thank the Senators from Virginia and Arkansas for raising this issue and for their strong support of State wildlife conservation efforts, I will give every consideration to this request as we discuss this program during a conference with the House of Representatives.

The Senator from South Carolina is correct. The Rivers and Trails Program provides significant benefits to local governments and organizations for river restoration, the preservation of open space, and the development of trail and greenway networks. Certainly, the staff's technical expertise in ecologically sensitive trail construction would be appropriate for the Charles Towne Landing project.

I understand the concern of my colleague regarding this matter

and thank you for raising it. The Committee realizes the importance of funding for these schools that rely on the Federal Government for 100 percent of their funding. I can assure the Senator that the Committee is supportive of the Bureau of Indian Affairs school system, and I will do what I can to see that higher levels of funding for School Operations are provided during conference with the House.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota, a Member of our Subcommittee, for bringing this item to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota for bringing this matter to our attention. I, too, will work with him during the conference in support of his request.

Mr. President, today I voted in favor of the Edwards amendment requiring a 6-month delay in four New Source Review, NSR, rules so that a study by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, could be carried out. I support a commonsense approach to making air quality improvements while also increasing our economic growth. I have long been a supporter of the steel, coal, chemical, forestry, and other interests in my State. Still, the Edwards amendment, requiring a short 6-month delay with a study regarding the health and environmental impacts of these four rules, was imperative in my mind. Evidence of this administration's intransigence is ubiquitous across the many agencies. Congress has the right and responsibility to get important information in order to make more informed decisions. A better understanding of the health and environmental impacts of these new rules is an important part of that decisionmaking process.

When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1977, Congress established the NSR program to prevent serious deterioration in the Nation's air quality. The intention of this program was to strike a delicate balance between making important improvements in the Nation's air quality while also allowing existing factories, powerplants, and other facilities to meet our changing energy, economic, and social needs.

Over the years, it has become evident that these NSR regulations are very complicated requiring many thousands of pages of guidance. This red tape has led to much industry uncertainty and litigation. For a number of years, the EPA has been examining and documenting these problems, and the NSR program is in need of reform. Even as we must maintain our air quality, NSR should not be an impediment to making commonsense improvements at industrial facilities.

However, Members of Congress have made numerous requests of the administration regarding its justifications for promulgating these new rules. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has not adequately responded to these congressional requests for information on the potential impacts of these NSR reforms. While I do not support efforts to halt this important reform effort, I believe that this administration must be more responsive to the interests of Congress so that the public has a more complete understanding of these issues and their effect on our Nation.

Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the Senator from Maine. I can't think of a better person

to have on my side, if I were Governor Ridge, than the distinguished junior Senator from Maine. If I were feeling otherwise, I would be almost persuaded--remembering that old Baptist hymn we used to sing in West Virginia, ``Almost Persuaded,'' I would be almost persuaded to vote for him, if I had intended to otherwise. In this case, I think I will join her in voting for Governor Ridge.

So I salute her.

Now that the nomination has been reported unanimously to the Senate by the Governmental Affairs Committee, it seems certain that Tom Ridge will be confirmed by an overwhelming margin to be the Nation's first Secretary of Homeland Security.

And, while organizing 28 agencies--some say 22. I have heard that there are 28 agencies and offices--within a new Homeland Security Department will be a difficult task, to say the least, Senators seem to be confident that Governor Ridge is qualified to handle the job. I think that is the case. Governor Ridge appears to have the necessary qualities and experience to serve admirably as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. But I hope he understands that his new job responsibilities will involve more than just overseeing a new Department intended to protect our homeland.

Despite the objections of some Senators, this new Homeland Security Department has been empowered with wide-ranging authorities, and its officers will have prime access to information about the American public. With that access comes the potential for abuse.

We have already seen the administration pushing the legal envelope in the fight against terrorism--so much so that phrases such as ``enemy combatants,'' ``material witness warrants,'' and ``military tribunals'' have become synonymous with terrorist-related arrests here at home. We have seen the development of a parallel legal system for both U.S. citizens and noncitizens in which terrorist suspects may be investigated, jailed, tried, and punished without the legal protections long guaranteed by the American legal system.

Given the origins of this new Homeland Security Department--from the crafting of a secret plan in the bowels of the White House, to the refusal of the Homeland Security Director to testify before the Congress, to the expanding cloak of secrecy that has fallen over this administration--it is essential that Governor Ridge understand that he will be responsible not only for defending the homeland but also for defending against the abuse of power inside the new department.

As the department's first Secretary, Governor Ridge will set the precedents for how this new department uses its authorities in the name of homeland security. How far this department can peer into the lives of the American public will, in large part, be influenced by Governor Ridge.

The Congress will continue to perform its oversight role and to be on the lookout for abuses of power. But Senators will vote to confirm Governor Ridge today with the expectation that he understands and respects the oversight role of the Congress, and that he will never mislead the people's representatives or the people themselves about the actions of the department.

Most importantly, when the Senate votes to confirm Governor Ridge today, as I believe it will, it should be with the expectation that he respect the constitutional doctrines of checks and balances and separation of powers.

We have seen this administration running the Federal Government, to a disconcerting degree, from within the confines of the White House. We have seen how the President's advisors--whether they be his economic advisors, his national security advisors, or his homeland security advisors--can direct numerous Government actions, insulated from the Congress and the American public, by keeping the decisionmaking process inside of the Oval Office.

Over the last year, the White House has scrupulously avoided answering the questions of the Congress, as this branch has tried to assess our Nation's homeland security vulnerabilities. It is this body--this body--that must pass laws and provide funds to tighten up our borders, to hire inspectors, to buy vaccines, to prevent more terrorist attacks. But all too much, when we have looked for information on which to base our decisions from this administration, our requests have largely been denied. So today, we will vote to confirm Governor Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security and to answerable to us--answerable to the Congress, to both House of Congress--and to the people we represent.

This new department must not be just a public relations front, while the real work of debate on strategies and crafting of policies is being conducted inside the Executive Office of the President, protected from public scrutiny. The decisionmaking process with regard to the safety of our communities must remain open to the public, not hidden away. This is the only way that we can work to ensure that our Government operates within the legal boundaries established by the Congress, and that it does not threaten the privacy rights and civil liberties of the American public. That is the only way that we can be sure that this massive new department, in which so many have invested so must hope, actually does what it is supposed to do.

I intend to support the nomination of Governor Ridge, and I will do so with the hope he understands that he is charged with not only protecting the American public from overzealous terrorists but also with protecting their civil liberties from an overzealous new bureaucracy. And only time will tell. But time will tell. And so I express my support and shall cast my vote with the fervent hope that Governor Ridge will not blindly follow the President but that he will respect the institutional role of the Congress and be faithful to the Constitution and to the people whose liberties and safety may depend upon the decisions he, Mr. Ridge, will make.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I am willing to enter into a time agreement. I think that is good. I wonder how many of my colleagues will want to have 2 or 3 or 5 minutes. I do not want to leave my friends out of the equation. As far as I am personally concerned, I could do with 45 minutes.

Yes.

That is fine, and an up-or-down vote.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska has been very gracious in proposing that I, as the author of the amendment, have 45 minutes and that he, the manager on the other side, have 15 minutes.

My hearing isn't too good at this point. I am trying to clarify.

Yes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Alaska again. He is, in Shakespeare's words, ``a man after my own kidney.'' He offers me three times as much time as he intends to claim. What does that tell you? That tells you he is a very fair man. And it also tells you he is very sure of his votes. We saw, yesterday, how well disciplined the Republican majority is. Every man, every woman, right down the line--no variation, no veering off course--straight to the object, no matter what the contents of the amendment, no matter what its attributes, votes it down. I say this with all due respect to Senator Stevens. But he is sure of his votes, which indicates to me that the other side has caucused, they have said they are going to say no to every amendment we offer on this side. I respect them and I admire them for their discipline.

Now, Mr. President, to the amendment.

After the election--remember the election, my friend from Rhode Island, who presides this morning over this Chamber with a degree of discipline and poise and aplomb that is so rare as a day in June--after the election, the President of the United States threw down the gauntlet and insisted that total discretionary spending not exceed $751 billion. He said: That is it. That is the line. That is the mark. No more. That far but no further.

To meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was forced to reduce the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by $9.8 billion. What a change. What a change a few months can make.

These 11 bills were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, when we had 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans, and--to the man and to the woman--we had a bipartisan vote, a unanimous vote, in support of these 11 bills. And now, because the President has drawn a line in the sand and sent the message to the Republican majority: Cut it. Cut it--and we see the discipline on the other side of the aisle-- everybody is marching to the tune of the President of the United States on that side of the aisle. So what he says goes. He says: That far. It will go this far, and no further.

All right. So to meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was forced to reduce the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by $9.8 billion. Let's see how everybody votes today.

This shortsighted and arbitrary ceiling on spending forced Senator Stevens to make dramatic reductions in priority programs designed to defend our homeland, educate our children, improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs.

The legislation before us also includes a 2.9-percent across-the- board cut in all domestic programs. Get that, an across-the-board cut in all, not just some but all domestic programs. This provision, buried in 1,052 pages of legislative text, will exacerbate the cuts that are already made in the bill. A cut of 2.9 percent now, or $11.4 billion, in domestic spending is no technical adjustment.

The President insisted that there be a vote on going to war with Iraq before the election. He insisted that he must have that vote. The Republicans insisted that we must have the vote on Iraq before the election so that the impending election would affect the outcome of that vote. I wonder why they didn't say: Let's vote on the 11 appropriations bills before the election, with the across-the-board cut of 1.6 percent and then with the addition yesterday of 1.3 percent, making a total of 2.9 percent across the board. How would that have been before the election? How would that have been perceived before the election if we had this vote then? If we could have only had the vote that is about to come, if we could have had it before the election, what a difference that would have made.

Here we are now. This country is faced with a cut of 2.9 percent, or $11.4 billion, in domestic spending. This is no technical adjustment. This is a real cut. Nor can it be fairly characterized as capturing the savings from agencies operating under a continuing resolution for 4 months. Don't you believe that. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 was simply inadequate when it came to critical domestic programs. The President proposed to freeze domestic spending, excluding homeland security, and last summer the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, on a bipartisan unanimous vote, an allocation that provided just enough additional resources, about $11 billion, to cover the cost of inflation for domestic programs. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted for that. Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted for that.

With those additional funds, the committee was able to restore essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut, such as veterans medical care, highway funding for the States, education programs, the new No Child Left Behind law, Amtrak, and State and local law enforcement.

Now what a change. Now the President has not only insisted on virtually eliminating the $11 billion increase that the committee approved last summer, but by including this 2.9-percent cut in domestic programs, spending will actually be cut overall by 1 percent. It is also deeply troubling that some of this $11.4 billion across-the-board cut is being imposed on domestic programs to pay for increases in mandatory programs.

The mandatory side of the Federal budget is going through the roof unchecked, going through the ozone layer, while the domestic programs that are being funded through the annual appropriations process are being squeezed--like I squeezed my grapefruit this morning. The domestic programs that are being funded through the annual appropriations process are being squeezed.

Approximately $4 billion of the $11.4 billion across-the-board cut is included in the bill to pay for increased mandatory spending in Medicare, in assistance for needy families, and for drought relief. While these are important programs, should our veterans have to pay for them with longer lines at hospitals and clinics? Hear me. I am asking you, the people out there who are listening and watching through the electronic eye, I am asking you. I am asking my friends on the other side of the aisle, while these are important programs, should our veterans have to pay for them with longer lines at hospitals and clinics? How many pregnant women and infants have fewer meals through the WIC program? How about that? The silence is deafening.

Should we fail to meet our commitment to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health over 5 years? I think not. And the Senate, based on previous votes, thinks not.

Once we start down this road of paying for increases in mandatory programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop?

When I came to Congress more than 50 years ago, I seem to remember that the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses controlled something like 90 percent of the domestic spending programs. My memory is not infallible, but it was a tremendous figure over today's. We have been hearing in recent years that the Appropriations Committees have control over about one-third of the total expenditures.

Now what we are doing, with these mandatory programs, you might refer to them as backdoor spending. Congress, and the Appropriations Committee, has absolutely no control over that. That change has come about in my 50 years in Congress. Now what we are going to do is pay for some of those mandatory programs with an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending.

Now, go back and face your constituents. I wish we had this vote before the election. This is the vote we should have had before the election. Once we start down this road of paying for increases in mandatory programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop? There will be no stopping it.

There is only $385 billion of domestic funding for fiscal year 2003. We are talking about funding that is important to 290 million people in this great Nation. Are we going to pay for the new prescription drug benefit with cuts in domestic programs? Are we? There simply is not enough domestic spending in the entire budget to cover such mandatory costs.

Let's be sensible about this matter. Let's forget politics for a moment. An across-the-board cut of 2.9 percent is a real, honest-to- goodness cut that would change people's lives across this Nation. Where do you stand? Go back to your constituents, tell them where you stand.

What was the first question that was ever asked since the human race began? In reading the Book of Genesis, the first chapter, the first question ever asked was when God walked through the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day, before the shades of night had fallen, and he was looking for Adam and Eve. They had eaten of the forbidden fruit.

I know some people think it is old-fashioned to refer to the Holy Bible. I don't. Right there in that first chapter of Genesis you will find the greatest scientific treatise that was ever written, giving the chronology of creation, and the scientists don't dispute that chronology as it is laid down there. But God went through the garden and he asked: ``Adam, where art thou?'' Adam was hiding. He and Eve had gotten over behind some bushes. They were hiding. Can you hide from God? They found they could not. But they were hiding over behind some bushes. God went through the garden and said: ``Adam, where art thou?'' I say to my friends, you are going to be asked by the people: Where were you? Where were you? Where were you when these cuts took place? Where were you?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. I am getting to that. I want Senators to answer the question from their veterans, where were you?

Yes, where were you?

That is just one example, and it is a shameful--not just a disgrace, it is a shame, a shame. This across-the-board cut is not a careful choice. This cut would result in ham-handed reductions in veterans' programs, public health programs, education programs, and homeland security programs. Yes, this is a shame.

If this is compassion, the shedding of tears means nothing. Where is the compassion when it comes to spending money to send our men and women overseas, with all of this big, loose talk that we hear, and we are spending money hand over fist. Nobody suggests cutting a nickel or a dime when it comes to putting money in the military. There is no across-the-board cut there.

The taxpayers elect us to make careful choices. So I thank the distinguished Senator for bringing out this inequity.

The Women, Infants and Children Program, which provides essential sources and nutrition to millions of low-income families, would be cut by $138 million. If food costs and program demands continue to climb, this cut could mean that 224,689 eligible women, infants, and children could be turned away from the WIC program later in the year.

At a time of heightened concern about the safety of our Nation's food supply, the Food Safety Inspection Service would be cut by $22 million, eliminating the salaries of 490 food safety inspectors.

Last fall, at an Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller testified. He said:

I have a hard time telling the country that you should be

comfortable--

This is Mr. Mueller talking. The Director said that the FBI is focusing on the threat of terrorists who would use military action against Iraq as a pretext to strike America. That is what he said. That is not what I am saying. That is what he said. Yet, this across-the- board cut would result in the FBI losing 1,175 agents, including 188 agents through attrition, 90 agents through current vacancies, 110 agents that were requested in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and 787 agents from the agency would have to be laid off.

Yesterday, my friend, Mr. Gregg, the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, said in so many words, but I think they all added up to this: The FBI is flush with cash. Well, after this across-the- board cut, the FBI will be scrounging for pennies. How about that song, ``Pennies from Heaven.'' I don't know where the pennies will be coming from, but they are going to be pretty scarce, that is sure.

At the same Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller, in discussing the potential for terrorist attacks in America, focused attention on certain high-risk sectors, such as transportation, energy, and agriculture. The FBI has sent warnings urging extra precautions in those sectors. Yet, this across-the-board cut would reduce funding for security at our nuclear powerplants by $18 million. This cut will result in a reduction of more than $280 million in funding for the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard, two critical agencies whose mandates are to protect our airports and our ports.

A reduction of this size will require the Coast Guard to conduct fewer port security patrols and further degrade their efforts in the areas of drug interdiction, marine safety, and fisheries patrol. Coast Guard ships will spend more time sitting at the dock for the lack of fuel, money, and operating funds.

The Customs Service would have to cut 1,600 positions, including agents and inspectors, at our Nation's seaports. Now this is serious. This is not just play money. This is serious.

The administration has continually stated that places of national interest have specifically been targeted by terrorists for attack, and yet this arbitrary cut would reduce funds for the U.S. Park Police, resulting in approximately 35 fewer Park Police officers at the very same time that the agency is beefing up its antiterrorism efforts at our most visible national symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and the Jefferson Memorial.

With these additional cuts, total funding in the bill for homeland security programs would be reduced to less than $24.4 billion. This is virtually a freeze at the level for fiscal year 2002. At a time of heightened vulnerability at home, the FBI will be losing agents, the Customs Service will be losing inspectors at our ports, the Food Safety Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration will be losing food inspectors, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be losing Border Patrol agents.

In addition, the resources to help State and local governments train and equip first responders for potential terrorist attacks with biological, chemical, or nuclear agents will be cut--that is right, cut--by 2.9 percent. Is this any way to govern? I think not.

Environmental cleanup activities would be cut by $203 million. Such a cut would delay short-term cleanup milestones at Hanford in Washington State, Savannah River in South Carolina, as well as in Idaho, in New Mexico, in Nevada, in Ohio, in Kentucky, yes, and even at Rocky Flats in Colorado.

Let's talk about the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program would

be cut by $192 million, eliminating services for 2,722 children, adding to the 2,800 children that the National Head Start Association claims would be displaced by the President's budget. This cut would result in the elimination of services to a total of 5,522 children in fiscal year 2003.

The budget for the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $778 million, scuttling the plan to double NIH's budget over 5 years. A 2.9- percent cut would reduce VA medical care by $692 million. How about that? This would result in 230,000 fewer veterans being treated and 1.8 million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics.

Go to the veterans the next time you go home; go around your State and tell the veterans what you have done. Tell them you have cut the money for their clinics. Tell them you have cut the money for VA medical care. Tell those veterans, look into their eyes, tell them we have cut their money. Yes, I voted to cut it. I voted to cut it.

Last year, though, I did not vote to cut it. When we reported out those bills last year, we supported it. So this would result in 230,000 fewer veterans--let me say it again, 230,000--being treated and 1.8 million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics.

This cut would also result in 236,000 veterans remaining on VA's waiting list to see a doctor because the VA would not be able to hire additional staff to reduce the backlog of veterans waiting to see a doctor. These across-the-board cuts are simply not acceptable. They are real cuts.

If Senators care about health care for our veterans, if you care about homeland security, if you care about the National Institutes of Health, you should support this amendment regardless of political party; you should support this amendment.

I urge Members to support my amendment to strike this arbitrary and ill-considered cut.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have left?

I thank the Chair.

How much time does the Senator want?

I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

How much time remains?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senator from

Alaska, nobody has accused the Senator from Alaska of anything that is wrong, any underhanded tricks, any tactics that are inappropriate. The Senator from Alaska is trying to do the bidding of this President. And the bidding of the President is we will take an arbitrary figure.

Here are Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg and the members of their committees--they work hard. They determine what is right for the FBI and for the other items in their budget. They make that determination based on their hearings, based on the testimony that is educed from those hearings, based on common sense. These two Senators I have mentioned have been in this business for a long time. They know what they are doing.

Then to come along with an arbitrary figure--I am not accusing the Senator from Alaska of anything. I would be the last to do that. If he wants to cut out the add-ons, let him do it. He can cut out mine if he wants and cut out his. We are not going to play blindman's bluff here. If you want to, cut those out. Those add-ons are for the people we represent, for the installations in our home towns. We can defend those add-ons. There is nothing I care about being secret on as to those add- ons.

But what I am talking about here is the fact that we are not exercising good judgment based on facts. What we are doing is taking an arbitrary figure that is set by this administration downtown, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska is doing a good soldier's work.

I would never complain about the Senator from Alaska. But I would say to you, Mr. President, these are real cuts. These are real cuts. And it is unwise to cut across the board. That is not the way to make cuts. That is not the way to reduce spending--across the board. That is unfair. It is unwise. That is what we are doing.

Yes, I yield.

How much time do I have?

Save me 1 minute, I say to the Chair.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And this amendment impugns the good judgment of the Senator who is now speaking to me and his counterpart from Pennsylvania.

Those two Senators have chaired that committee and they have worked hard. They have used their good judgment based on the testimony and based on the facts.

They are saying to these two Senators and the members of that subcommittee: Forget your experience, forget your wisdom, forget what you say. We are going to have an arbitrary figure. It doesn't mean anything; it is just a figure. And you are going to suffer. Your people are going to suffer--your people back home, my people.

It is unwise. It is unfair. It is unjustified. It is unreal. And I say every Senator in this body ought to think, ought to look in the mirror when he or she casts this vote and be ready to go back home and tell his constituents or her constituents: I did it.

Mr. President, this record is going to follow Senators.

I thank the Chair. I reserve my 1 minute.

Mr. President, the President says, ``Remember the deficits.'' I say remember the $1.6 trillion tax cut that was enacted by this body and the other body last year. I say, let us not enact a $670 billion tax cut that this President and this administration is suggesting Congress pass. Tax cuts will add to the deficit.

This is where the deficit cuts lie. These are not mere computational exercises. These are not mere budgetary exercises. These are real cuts. These mean something to the people out there in connection with their safety, their health, their welfare, and the security of their homeland. I say, Senators, look in the mirror when you cast this vote.

Mr. President, I hope Senators will listen.

Rarely in recent memory has the United States faced more profoundly serious and complicated challenges to our global leadership. We are beginning our second year of war in Afghanistan, our second year of chasing after Osama bin Laden, and at the same time the Pentagon is feverishly mobilizing for possible war in Iraq. Meanwhile, North Korea is firing up its nuclear production facilities and warning of a third world war in Asia if the United States dares to interfere.

Suddenly large swathes of both the Middle East and Asia are on the brink of open warfare, and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is facing enormous tests. Even our allies are questioning our real intentions and our ultimate ambitions. This is certainly not the time for rash words or hasty action, but it is most definitely the time to take a long and sober look at where the United States has been and where it may be headed.

The administration's doctrine of preemption and the testing of that doctrine in Iraq have thrust the United States into a new and unflattering posture on the world stage.

In many corners of the world, America the peacemaker is now seen as the bully on the block. I believe it is time for this administration to review our national security strategy and its take-no-prisoners approach to international relations. In working through the complex process of developing strategies to protect the world from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, we must also work to restore the image of the United States to that of strong peacekeeper instead of belligerent bully.

Terrorism is a global threat and it demands a global response. We must seek cooperation, not confrontation. The contrast between the administration's handling of the crisis in Iraq and its handling of the crisis in North Korea is a perfect illustration of why a doctrine that commits the United States to the use of preemptive force, unilaterally if necessary, to prevent unsavory regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a flawed instrument of foreign policy.

I am relieved that the administration, despite North Korea's alarming rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive U.S. military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power.

Mr. President, the Pastore rule, as I understand it, has run its course. The Senator is talking about the Pastore rule.

Mr. President, this debate is germane. I have not finished my speech yet. I hope the Senator will show me the courtesy that I would show him.

What is the Chair's ruling?

Mr. President, there is $3.9 billion in this bill in defense funding for related activities. What I am saying, I think, is very germane to what we are talking about. The Senator from Arizona hasn't shown me the courtesy of even hearing my speech.

Mr. President, I am speaking about the defense of this country. This bill involves the defense of this country. There is $3.9 billion in this bill for national defense.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me go back in my speech and pick up where I was interrupted. I have been in Congress more than 50 years. There have been 11,707 Members of the House and Senate since the Republic began. I am the fourth--only three Members, men and women, of all the 11,707 men and women elected to both Houses in the Congress exceed me. And here I am making a speech on what I consider to be important, and I think it is very germane to what we are talking about. We are talking about the national defense of this country when we have this appropriation bill up. We are talking about the expenditures for the military in this bill. We are facing a situation in which we may be spending more and more and more money for the military. I thank the Chair for the ruling. I am just sorry I was interrupted on this matter. I would not interrupt the Senator from Arizona concerning germaneness on a speech he maybe making at any time. I would not do that.

I will back up and then pick up where I was interrupted. I am relieved that the administration, despite North Korea's alarming rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power, and has finally agreed to at least talk with the North Korean government and to work with other nations in the region toward a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

The situation in Iraq, however, appears to be heading in the opposite direction. Iraq, which, by all accounts, does not have nuclear weapons, and is presently the subject of scrutiny by U.N. inspectors, is under the heavy threat of a preemptive U.S. attack. The airwaves are awash with video snapshots of brave young American soldiers bidding tearful goodbyes to loved ones. When it comes to Iraq, America's war machine seems to be cranked up to a fever pitch. This is going to cost money, real money. We have talked about a 2.9 percent across-the-board cut here in domestic discretionary spending. Nobody is saying anything about a cut in military spending, no. I am not advocating that. I want to face up to the situation that confronts us. I want the American people to start looking and listening to what is going on.

Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the power to decide--we did that; Congress did that over my obstreperous objection, vociferous objection; Congress did that. Twenty-three Members of the Senate did not do that. Twenty-three Members decided to vote against handing this power over to the President, the power to declare war. Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the power to decide why, when, how, and where we will wage war against Iraq, the question of whether we should wage war has largely been overlooked.

It is past time to remedy that omission. Where is the debate on the wisdom of actually resorting to force? Is that going to cost money? Where is the debate? How much is it going to cost? How many men and women in the Armed Forces are we likely to lose? What may happen here at home in the

war against terrorism? Where is the urgency? Why not let the inspectors do their job? Why are our allies backing away?

Congress made a serious mistake in passing the open-ended use-of- force authorization last year, but we only compound that mistake by sitting idly by while the Pentagon draws up war plans--costly war plans--and sends our young men and women abroad.

Now is the time for informed debate. Here we are about to go out for a recess. It is time for us to look at this matter. It is facing us. Now is the time for informed debate, and now is the time for a public examination of where we are headed and why.

The President has stated repeatedly that he has not decided whether to invade Iraq. We must take him at his word. It is my hope that he will not rush to judgment. The situation demands a careful and thorough examination of the views of our allies, the costs in money, the costs in lives, the risks before any final conclusion that war is the only recourse.

Congress must be part of that debate. The United Nations must be part of that debate. A vote taken last fall should not constrain Members of Congress from reevaluating the situation in light of recent developments. However bad it was--and it was very bad, I think--the use-of-force resolution passed by Congress last October did not impose an oath of silence on Congress or on the American people. It did not prohibit the continued questioning of the administration's decisions with regard to Iraq. This may be difficult to do when the war drums are beating, but that is sometimes the uncomfortable role of the true patriot.

Mr. President, without so much as a whisper of debate, our Nation is actually mobilizing to attack a sovereign state before U.N. weapons inspectors have even made serious headway in their work. Is this what the policy of preemption means: That we preempt evidence and move to attack based on suspicions?

The administration's new policy of preemption has repercussions far beyond Iraq. Other nations are watching what we are doing. North Korea is one of those nations. Even Brazil is reported to be contemplating the development of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against possible attack.

Iraq and North Korea are both charter members of the President's infamous ``axis of evil,'' and yet at the same time that the President is turning the heat up on Iraq, he and his administration have been vigorously downplaying the crisis in North Korea.

Iraq has at least allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into the country. North Korea threw them out. Iraq, to the best of our knowledge, does not currently have nuclear weapons. North Korea, on the other hand, has brazenly admitted that it is working to develop nuclear weapons, and there is evidence that it already has some nuclear capability. Iraq at least is going through the motions of cooperating with the United Nations. Meanwhile, North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threatened to resume missile testing, and declared that U.N. sanctions will mean war. Yet the United States is mobilizing for war with Iraq while politely tiptoeing around the far more dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula.

The President, in the same breath that he assails Saddam Hussein, has gone to great lengths to assure the world he has no intention of invading North Korea. Is it any wonder that our allies are scrambling to make sense of America's foreign policy? Is it any wonder that the new image of the United States has caused turmoil and puzzlement even among our staunchest allies?

I am sure many of our friends around the globe wonder why diplomacy can remain an option with a regime as treacherous and threatening as North Korea and yet can be taken off the table when it comes to a much weaker Iraq. I wonder if the administration has calculated enough the ramifications of a military solution in Iraq not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of bloodshed and hardship in the Middle East and terrorist attacks here at home.

What is the message we convey to the world if we are eager to apply a doctrine of preemption on those countries with limited ability to defend or counterattack and yet waffle over a preemptive response to dangerous regimes with the firepower to get back? Are we not, in effect, saying that nuclear weapons and long-range missiles can provide small countries with an insurance policy against a U.S. preemptive strike? The unanticipated result of this doctrine of preemption may be to unleash a global scramble to acquire the means to deter the United States from unprovoked attacks. We could be at the brink of a new type of arms race, unleashed by fear of a preemptive U.S. strike.

There are many risks to an inconsistent foreign policy that, in some cases, threatens the use of force as a first response and, in other cases, takes military action off the table entirely. Our national treasure will be increasingly poured into bullets and bombs at a time when homeland security is an equally pressing concern, or even greater concern. Our efforts to preach peace and restraint as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be sabotaged by our own our own foreign policies. American citizens at home will face an increased threat at the hands of terrorists lying in wait for the chance to cripple our economy and derail our war machine, and we will be increasingly hard pressed to prevent terrorist destruction because our resources will be sucked up--sucked up--by the war machine that now drives our foreign policy.

Additionally, if we stay the current course, thousands upon thousands of American families will face a painful uprooting. Many of the men and women who will be sent to Iraq are members of the National Guard and Reserve. Military officials have said that the activation of National Guard and Reserve troops for a war against Iraq could exceed 100,000.

The impact of such a large activation will reverberate throughout the Nation in communities large and small, in the small community of Sophia where I have lived and where I have voted for these many years. On January 7, the Charleston, WV, Gazette reported that a speeding motorist raced through three tollbooths and drove more than 75 miles on the West Virginia Turnpike before any State troopers were available to pursue him. The problem? The State Police force is suffering a severe shortage of troopers. The fear? The situation will get much worse if the 51 West Virginia troopers who are also members of the Guard and Reserve are called up for duty.

This problem is not unique to West Virginia. According to the Charleston Gazette, law enforcement agencies across the nation, whose members are heavily represented in the Guard and Reserve, are worried about the impact of a war on their ability to protect the public. And law enforcement will not be the only profession to be affected by a Reserve call-up. Members of the Guard and Reserve are not just part- time soldiers--they are also full-time members of their communities, holding key jobs. Policemen, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, teachers--their professions run the gamut, and their absences when on active duty leave significant voids for those left behind.

America will be at great risk of terrorist attack--we are told--if we invade Iraq. Shortages among the ranks of health and public safety professionals diverted from their civilian jobs to go to war with Iraq will leave Americans with a perilously thin margin of protection at home just when they are likely to need it most.

We must not be in a rush to initiate war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein is certainly in no position to launch a strike against the United States with thousands of our troops massed on his doorstep. Iraq will not be able to rebuild its ailing military in the coming months or to covertly produce weapons of mass destruction under the watchful gaze of the U.S. military and the U.N. weapons inspectors. Today's headlines reveal that the UN inspectors discovered a cache of empty chemical warheads in an ammunition dump. Who knows what tomorrow's inspections may uncover. Where is the urgency that would drive us to preempt the inspectors before they have adequate time to fulfill their mission. While there is dwindling international support for using the initial findings of the U.N. inspectors as a trigger point for

invasion, there is great support for the overall United Nations arms inspection program. Saddam Hussein is politically isolated, and the world is virtually unanimous in supporting the disarmament of Iraq. I support that disarmament.

To act precipitously now, however, without the full support of our friends and allies, could cost the United States dearly in the long run. Already, some of our strongest allies in the region, most notably Turkey, must chafe at U.S. pressure to join in the war on Iraq. According to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 83 percent of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their country to attack Iraq. And yet our war plans call for the stationing of as many as 80,000 U.S. troops in Turkey. In Europe, the same poll found that large percentages of the population believe that U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the chief reason that we are considering attacking Iraq. These perceptions can only serve to undermine our global influence in the years to come. If the U.S. can seize Iraq for its oil, what other nation might it decide to conquer? These thoughts must be on the minds of those who question our new and belligerent foreign policy.

The possibility exists that the crisis in Iraq can be resolved without a shot being fired. With more time and increased diplomatic efforts, there is a chance that Saddam Hussein could be peacefully forced into exile. But first, the fever pitch of war rhetoric often heard from this White House must subside. If we fancy ourselves a superpower then we must behave as a superpower, with confidence, with wisdom, and with dignity.

Some very important dates are fast approaching. The first is January 27, when the United Nations weapons inspectors are due to present to the Security Council their first formal assessment of Iraqi compliance with U.N. disarmament demands. Their interim report, delivered to the Security Council on January 9, confirmed that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete and insufficient, but the inspectors also reported that they have found no ``smoking guns.''

I was heartened by Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that, despite indications to the contrary, January 27 is ``not necessarily a D-Day for decision-making.'' We must give the inspectors adequate time to conduct a thorough search. While the White House continues to assert that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, it is important to note that the United States has just begun to share key intelligence information on the Iraqi weapons program with the U.N. inspectors. It will take time to pursue those leads. Even our staunchest allies, including Great Britain, are urging the U.S. to slow down on Iraq and let the inspectors do their work. The January 27 report is the first, not the final, step in that process.

The second important date on the near horizon is January 28, when President Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union message. The dueling crises in Iraq and North Korea are grim reminders of his last State of the Union speech when the President branded those nations and Iran an ``axis of evil.''

The President's rhetoric that evening was colorful, but events have proved that it was not wise. I note that the President is now saying that he is ``sick and tired'' of Saddam Hussein. That is just the type of rhetoric we do not need at this volatile time. It only adds to our image of bellicosity. President Bush must resist any urge to personalize our foreign policy and tone down the supercharged public rhetoric which has been flying around for months. Whether George Bush is ``sick and tired'' is not the issue. Whether Robert Byrd is sick and tired is not the issue. It must not be perceived as the President's reason for sending American men and women to shed their blood in the hot sands of Iraq.

America must not be viewed globally as a reckless power which views the world in terms of simply flattening the opposition. We must not continue to brandish our awesome military might, walk away from treaties and cooperative agreements, and ignore nuances and sensitivities.

We are losing friends all around the world, and that is extremely risky business in an age of globalism and terrorism. A great nation should not have to rely solely on the force of its armies to inspire the world's admiration. A great nation should inspire other nations by the example it presents to the world.

The doctrine of preemption is likely to cause us trouble far into the future. Labeling whole countries as ``evil'' invites a response and risks arousing hatreds and passions that are best left sleeping.

Setting the United States up as the ultimate judge of good and evil, with the right to preemptively strike any nation which might pose a threat in the future, is the fastest way one can imagine to make us not only feared but also universally hated.

When one considers that a single angry person in a crowd with a vial of some dreadful, active virus is the equivalent of billions and billions of dollars worth of U.S. military might, it becomes clear that we are making the wrong choices on the foreign policy front.

When tensions across the globe are so high, the President would be prudent to measure his words carefully and reiterate for all the world to hear that he has not yet decided to attack Iraq, that he will fully engage in diplomatic solutions to the North Korean crisis, and that the United States will seek not to initiate war but to apply the soothing balm of patience to an anxious world. I call upon this Administration to cool the rhetoric; reevaluate its doctrine of preemption; initiate a return to the peace table in the Mideast; and go back to the United Nations for a final endorsement before we decide whether to unleash the deadly dogs of war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator. Go ahead.

Mr. President, I begin my speaking with reference to my colleague, Ted Stevens. He is a beacon of reasoning. I was saying to my staff last night--or this morning, I forget; I am almost oblivious to time--here is a man who is standing up for the institution.

It is not the administration's desire that we have a time agreement that allows the minority, the Democrats, to offer amendments with up- or-down votes, with an understanding there will be no stacking of the tree. This is something new in the Senate, in a way, under this administration. Yet this man, Senator Stevens of Alaska, has taken the position the minority is going to have its opportunity--when I say the minority, I am talking about the Democrats--to offer amendments. We will have up-or-down votes. We are not going to stack any tree. This is a breath of fresh air, and I think we ought to recognize this in Senator Ted Stevens' chairmanship. He is fighting for fairness and equality between the two parties when it comes to deliberations on the Senate floor and the offering of amendments. I want to pay this tribute to him. This is really the kind of chairman of the Appropriations Committee a Senator ought to be. We have not always seen this insofar as the other side of the aisle is concerned, when the other side has been in power. We have seen a willingness to run roughshod over the rights of the minority to offer amendments and to debate.

I do not say this to gain any favors from this chairman. He has been around a long time. I have been around a long time. We know we have to give and take, but I point this out at the beginning of this debate. If it were not for Ted Stevens, we would not be debating my amendment today. I would probably not have any amendment up. This is the way the Senate ought to work, a forum for free debate and for amendments to be offered.

So to begin with, I salute him. I admire him. I respect him. It does not matter how this finally turns out. As far as this Senator from the State of West Virginia is concerned, Senator Stevens is my friend, I am his friend, and that is the way it is going to be.

I also recognize that Senator Stevens would probably do things different if it were not for the circumstances that he is in. The administration kept the House from acting on appropriations bills after July of last year. This administration put their foot down, put the brakes on. The House Appropriations Committee chairman, Mr. Young, wanted to go forward with additional appropriations bills. He is another man who is entitled to great credit. Of course, my counterpart in the House, Mr. Obey, is a very knowledgeable and forceful advocate of programs, a very experienced man.

So what I say has nothing to do with Mr. Obey or Mr. Young, but Mr. Stevens is, in a way, swimming upstream. He has the opposition, I am sure, of the administration and, being as fair as he is being, he has the opposition, I would imagine, of the House leadership. The House leadership has not wanted the appropriations process to go forward since July of last year. Of course, I can only assume that the House leadership was carrying the water for and taking its orders from the administration, which I do not exactly agree with when it comes to taking orders and giving orders, if I may use those crude forms of expression.

I pay tribute to this chairman. He is swimming upstream. I expect even on his own side he has a lot of opposition to the fairness he is displaying. I do not know that, but I have a feeling that is true. I have a feeling that is true with respect to the Republican-controlled House and the administration.

I fully understand Senator Stevens' situation. In many ways, I expect his heart is not in the coffin with Caesar. I have a feeling he has great empathy for what he is doing, but he is also trying to get a massive bill through. We failed last year because of the administration's bullheadedness, its stubbornness, its pigheadedness in refusing to go forward with these bills and holding them back so that we would operate on automatic pilot with continuing resolutions, so spending would not be one dollar above last year's levels--if we might speak in general terms.

So I pay him tribute and I pay tribute to the Republican members of the Appropriations Committee who time after time voted to report out these appropriations bills. We had unanimity, complete bipartisanship. What a model for committee bipartisanship that committee was.

Now we come to the situation where in order to get a bill that is made up of

the 11 appropriations bills that were not passed last year, the Senator from Alaska has to come in with some cuts. I do not believe his heart is in those cuts, but he has to make this presentation. He does it forcefully, and I respect him for that.

Having said that, I have to vigorously oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Stevens.

Before I make any further remarks, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow. If she needs more time, let us know.

Will the Senator yield?

I will refer to something----

He is citing a statement of a Deputy Director of Homeland Security; is that it?

Citing that individual as saying that they do not need any additional moneys as we find in the amendment I have offered; is that what he is saying?

I was off the floor, and I want to make sure I heard. I make this comment in that regard. We heard that same tune last year from Mr. Ridge who was at that time the Director of Homeland Security. His comment was with respect to moneys that were in legislation I was offering. His comment was: We don't need any more. We don't need any more money. The same old tune: We don't need any more money. We heard that from Mr. Ridge last year.

I don't speak with criticism of the distinguished Senator who is on the floor, but I am simply pointing out, that is the same old saw, the same old tune we heard last year from the then-designated Director of Homeland Security, Gov. Tom Ridge. He even wrote me a letter.

I had the floor.

I am talking on my time.

He has the floor, but I point out that I had the floor. I had to leave the floor, and I yielded to the distinguished lady from Michigan.

I understand that. I very well know the rules of the Senate. I am not itching for a fight with the Chair. I respect the Chair. I respect the Senator from New Hampshire. But the Senator from New Hampshire, let him understand that I am yielding--I have asked for him to yield on my time, my time.

I only want to point out that we heard that same old tune last year from then-Director Tom Ridge of the Department of Homeland Security. He wrote me a letter--probably wrote the same letter to Senator Stevens at that time--that they didn't need the money we were trying to put in the bill. So we have heard that before.

I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. That is the only point I wanted to make. I wanted to recall for the record that we have heard that same argument before from this administration, at that time through Director Tom Ridge, whom the President of the United States refused to let come before the Appropriations Committee and testify on budget matters.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I yield on the Senator's time.

Mr. President, let me compliment the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. He is a very knowledgeable Senator. He is a reasonable Senator, and he is a courageous Senator. He doesn't always fall in line and do the party thing. But let me say this. He raises a straw man when he talks about computers. We are knowledgeable. He is right on the computers. So we didn't ask to put any money in this amendment for computers.

Let me also say this. Is there anybody in this Chamber who would maintain that we know who is coming into this country and who is going out of this country from day to day? The borders are wide open. We know that. So let it not be said that the FBI and the other agencies, the Border Patrol people, and all of those are awash with money. Don't listen to that. Our country is not secure. This amendment is attempting to make our Nation secure.

With regard to the FBI, we have $46 million. We say we are awash with money, that we don't need any more money. That was a mainstay of the distinguished Senator's argument. I will defer to Senator Hollings because he can best speak to this subject matter with respect to the FBI, and so forth.

But the Senator from New Hampshire says we are awash with money; we don't need any more money. Well, in this amendment, there is $46 million for aviation support, including funding for additional pilots and mechanics, for two Blackhawk helicopters and surveillance aircraft, funding for maintenance and equipment, and other items needed by the aviation program.

This money has been requested by the President of the United States. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing here? This amendment is attempting to, in this instance, with respect to the $46 million--nothing was said about that by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. Now they are sending in their top artillery people over here on this amendment. I hope our top artillery people will come and address these comments.

But let it not be said that we are spending more money on computers. We are not doing it in this amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. We know that, so we did not add money for that.

But there is other money here requested by the President. So let it not be said we do not need that money. Who is right? If a President requests the money, is the Senator from New Hampshire, or any other Senator on that side of the aisle, or any Senator who is opposed to this amendment, willing to stand on the floor and say the President is mistaken, the President does not know what he is talking about, the President does not speak for us?

Yes, I yield.

That is true. And not only the agencies in the executive department, but the distinguished Senator from Utah, for example, talked about cybercrime, cyberterrorism, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett. He is a very knowledgeable Senator on this subject. So in this amendment we have $70,600,000 to combat cybercrime and cyberterrorism. We have taken this from testimony at last spring's homeland security hearings. These are funds that were blocked-- blocked--by the President in the $2.5 billion supplemental.

Hear me now. Who asked for this money? Senators on that side of the aisle have maintained that this is a very, very worthy cause; we need to combat cybercrime and cyberterrorism. This amendment is trying to respond to that need that was evidenced by Senator Bennett at the hearings.

Everybody knows we have a language translation problem in the services. We have heard that from all sources in the hearings that were held by the Appropriations Committee last spring. We heard it from the people at the local level. They could not talk with one another. And there are problems in language translation. So this was a Hart-Rudman report recommendation, and this amendment is trying to respond to that.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I thank the Chair.

How much time does the Senator from New York want?

I yield 6 minutes to the Senator.

Two more minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Recently, former Senators Rudman and Hart released a report that concluded that American transportation, water, food, power, communications, and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorist attacks.

The report highlighted the vulnerabilities created by the miniscule fraction of trains, ships, trucks and containers that are searched for weapons of mass destruction; poor radio communications and equipment and training for police, fire, and emergency medical personnel; inadequate coordination and focus on threats to food safety; lack of lab capacity to test for biological or chemical contaminants; and insufficient sharing of intelligence information with State and local governments on potential terrorist threats.

Not only has President Bush failed--failed, failed--to lead the Nation in addressing these vulnerabilities, he has in fact actively opposed efforts to provide the resources necessary to address these significant weaknesses. The record will show that. When it comes to homeland defense, the President is strong on rhetoric and weak on resources. The record will substantiate that statement of mine.

Under pressure from the White House since September 11, 2001, $8.9 billion of critical funding to address the specific concerns identified in the Rudman-Hart report and in our bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee hearings have been squeezed out of spending bills considered by the Congress. In November of 2001, just 2 months after the attacks of September 11, the President said: Wait.

I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

The President said: Wait, we can wait until 2003 to begin spending more on homeland security.

Now it is 2003. What is the President saying? He is saying: Let's wait until 2004.

Now the administration is saying we don't need more money for fiscal year 2003 because the administration has not spent some of the money that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The administration is leaving itself wide open to justified criticism when it maintains that. So it is saying we don't need more money because the administration has not spent some of the money that was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. What poppycock.

If the administration has not spent essential funds approved by the Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, then the Senate Appropriations Committee should be holding hearings to find out why. Where does the fault lie? Who is right here? Who is wrong? What are we doing?

Very little is being said on the part of the administration these days about protecting the homeland. Everything is go, go, go, go, go. They are sending off our National Guardsmen. We see the tears streaming down the cheeks of the wives and the children and of the guardsmen and reservists themselves. We see this on television every day or so. These people are part-time soldiers, but they are full-time community

workers. They are lawyers. They are doctors. They are firemen. They are policemen. They are State policemen. These people are being sent overseas to fight a war in Iraq, an undeclared war on the part of the Congress.

I yield myself whatever time I need from my time.

It is time somebody says something about what is going on in this country.

Not for the moment. I will shortly.

Mr. President, I don't hear a whimper from the Congress which only a short time ago attempted to give up its constitutional power to declare war to one man. He will determine when, how, and where our military forces will be used in an unprovoked war against a sovereign state that has not attacked us in this new doctrine of preemption. It is a new doctrine.

This Senator is just not going to take this lying down. I don't care how popular Mr. Bush may be. I answer to my constituents, I answer to my Constitution, and I answer to my conscience.

Here we are penny pinching when it comes to protecting the homeland. This administration is not paying enough attention to the protection of the homeland--our country, our people, our institutions, our installations.

I think it is time we called the hand of this administration. If the administration says: We don't need any more money, we are awash with money, well, then, if the administration has not spent essential funds approved by the Congress over 1 year ago for homeland security, the Senate Appropriations Committee ought to be holding hearings to find out why. Let's find out why.

We need these homeland security resources now to meet real needs that have been authorized by the Congress for port security, airport security, border security, nuclear security.

I understand the Senator would like for me to yield. How much time do I have remaining?

I thank the distinguished chair. I yield time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He stood with me when we opposed the Iraq resolution, and we stand together today.

Let me say this, Mr. President: This is not the last word with respect to sending our men and women across the seas to fight a war that has been unprovoked. We have not been attacked. We will have more to say about that later.

We do need to protect this homeland. This amendment will do that. The Senate is at a crossroads. We face a choice: Will we allow partisan politics to rule the day or will we step up to the responsibility to respond to the growing security crisis facing our country? Of course, this administration is not going to support me in this amendment. The administration has opposed every effort I have made in the past to add moneys for homeland security. The administration, the White House, would not let their key point man on homeland security come before the Appropriations Committee in the Senate last year. They said: He is a staff person. Yes, he was, but he was the administration's point man on homeland security. They kept him from coming. Then when we tried to appropriate more money--unanimously--in the committee, what did we get? We got veto threats from this administration.

Now, what does that tell you about this administration? They don't want to work with the Congress. They want to have it their way all the way. They don't want to admit there are weaknesses, admit Congress can be right, and is right on many occasions. No, we don't expect them to support this amendment. They have not supported our amendments in the past.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I see my distinguished chairman and I will be glad to yield the floor for now.

I realize my leader is in the Chamber and wishes to speak on leader time, and we have other Senators who wish to speak. How much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished friend, and he is my friend, but remember that my friend from Alaska said in December a year ago: Now, 4 months have already passed. We have 8 months. Let's wait until 2003. We have already gone through 4 months. Let's wait until 2003.

Now we are hearing the same argument, may I say, from my dear friend: Let's wait until 2004.

We cannot wait.

The distinguished chairman refers to the fact that the President will not like this either. Well, I accord this President the same respect I accord any other President. This President is not infallible, nor is any other President we have ever had.

The problem with what I see in this administration is they want to have it their way with every comma, semicolon, colon, and hyphen. They do not want the Congress to come forward with anything. They are against anything we propose. They have been against everything we have proposed thus far.

Let's take their own argument and turn it on its head. Congress has approved $365 billion for Defense. That is a lot of money. We have never squeezed a penny. We have never denied Defense anything. We do not deny the Defense Department anything they want. When they come up and want more money, we give them more money, almost without questions asked.

On top of the $365 billion for Defense that we have provided, this bill adds $3.9 billion. That is $3.90 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.

Can the Defense Department spend that money? My distinguished chairman asks, can this Government responsibly spend this additional money that Senator Byrd is asking for in this amendment? Well, I ask the same question: Can the Department of Defense spend the money? Can it spend $3.9 billion more? Yes.

We are adding $5 billion for homeland defense on homeland security-- the security of your people, Mr. President, my people, my children, our installations, our institutions, our borders, our country. Can we spend that money, $5 billion for homeland defense and homeland security? Yes, they can spend it, and spend it well.

Let something happen, and then we will see what the polls show. If something happens, let the American people then take a look backward and see how this Congress sought to add monies for border security, for airport security, for homeland security, for port security. Those are monies the administration threatened to veto. It turned its back on them. It turned its back on the $2.5 billion last year. The President refused to sign a bill that provided $2.5 billion for emergency planning. He turned the back of his hand. He turned his back on his own country when he turned down that opportunity to give $2.5 billion for homeland security, to put it in the hands at the local level, the law enforcement people, the health personnel, the people at the local level. He flatly rejected it. Let something happen, and then see what the polls show. Then see where the questions are asked. Then hear what the answers will be. I say a stitch in time saves nine.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator still have time?

Mr. President, I say to the leader, how long ago was it we heard the President of the United States saying, no price is too great a price to pay for freedom? Right? When they talk about war in Afghanistan, they talk about war in Iraq, no price is too great a price to pay.

Where are those voices now from the administration? Where are the voices that say no amount of money is too much to pay? What about this? What amount of money is too much to pay for homeland security? Who knows but when the first shot ricochets in the war against Iraq--which Congress is not declaring--when that first shot is fired, is it possible we may hear some shots fired in our own country; that we may see the terrorists come out of hiding; we may see them come from the veil; we may see them come forward? What will happen then? What will happen then to this Capitol?

What saved this Capitol from being demolished on September 11? A few brave men and women on that plane that went down in Pennsylvania saved this Capitol. Who is to say that these terrorists--we don't have them among us now? Who can say there are not terrorists out here now, waiting, just waiting, waiting for the moment?

And here the people downtown, when it comes to homeland security, when it comes to the protection of our homeland, when it comes to the protection of our families, when it comes to the protection of our churches, our schools, our stores, our jobs--aha, $5 billion is too much to pay, too much to pay; we don't need it.

If you don't need it, don't spend it, and let's have some hearings as to why it isn't spent.

No price is too much to pay. No price is too much to pay for the security of this great land of ours.

I thank the distinguished leader.

Right.

Right.

Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I want to yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his contribution today. I thank both the leader and the assistant leader for what they have contributed to this debate.

Mr. President, we talk about sending our troops, men and women, fathers, brothers, husbands, wives, overseas to fight a war in Iraq. We talk as though it is just a video game. Nobody raised a question. We don't hear a whimper--not a whimper.

We see the pictures on television every day. These people are going away. We see them kissing. We see them waving goodbye. We see them shedding tears. We know that those tears are shed at night on those pillows. There seems to be no thought to the sacrifices that may be in the offing for this country. They talk as though it is a video game, just a matter of pushing a few buttons and we will win.

Well, now, we may be lucky. If we go to war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be lucky. But what if we are not lucky? Where will those who are silent now be? Why don't they raise their voice now? Why don't we ask questions?

I am not one to be driven in a hole. We hear a lot about driving them in the holes and we will go in and get them. Our men--our men--will go in and get them. We talk about driving the enemy into holes in Afghanistan and in Iraq--we will drive them into holes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

We will drive them in the holes; we will go get them. Who is ``we''? It is not I. I don't think I will be going in those holes, driving anybody out. It is going to be those poor men and women who are giving up their salaries as lawyers, as doctors, as teachers, as security people, as law enforcement people, as firemen--they are the people who are going in those holes in Afghanistan. They are the people who are going to go into those holes and bringing out the enemy.

We talk as though it is a video game. I hope and I pray to God that if we do go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I hope Saddam will catch the first plane out to Libya or to some other country. I hope he will. But what if he doesn't? We have to contemplate that.

So I think it is our responsibility here in the Congress to do two things at least: Raise questions, and provide the money for the security of this homeland. We don't know what will happen to this homeland once we open fire in the hot sands of the deserts in the Middle East. We don't know what may break out in this country. Are our water resources fully protected? Are

our energy resources fully protected? Are our nuclear facilities fully protected? Are our borders secure? Are our ports secure? Are our airports secure? Are our people secure? No. And here we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when it comes to fighting and protecting ourselves on the homeland.

How many here, right here in this Chamber today, will feel secure in this very Chamber in the future? I say we had better stop, look, and listen while there is time to stop, look, and listen. I will have plenty more to say on that subject.

But on the subject of homeland security, let it not be said that we are not doing our very best to give this administration all the tools it needs, all that it can possibly usefully use, all that it can possibly efficiently use, to protect this homeland of ours. And who will say that this land is fully protected? Who feels secure in this homeland of ours today? Ask your wives. Ask your mothers if they feel secure. And here we are, quibbling over $5 billion.

Nobody is going to put you in jail if you don't spend it. But if you need to spend it and don't--don't have it, and if you haven't spent it already, why haven't you? Surely we are not perfect. Surely we are not absolutely secure.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish?

How much time does the Senator from Washington want?

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for clarifying a very critical point. I thank her, and I apologize to her for keeping her waiting. She has been on the floor waiting to make this correction. I am glad she made the correction. I hope that Senators will carefully study what she has said. She has pointed to a yawning flaw in the argument of the other side. I thank her for her contributions to her country.

Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to myself.

In this new world, we face a new kind of war--a war on our shores, a war that is different in scope and intensity from any that we have ever faced before. The enemy is no organized army. There is no organized army of infantry, or artillery. The enemy is not an organized army with maps and bayonets. The enemy follows no rules of engagement. The enemy heeds no Geneva Convention. Their weapon is fear. Their application is destruction.

We cannot stand idly by and put our total faith in some new bureaucracy. We ought not be lulled into complacency that the hope of a new government department may eventually make us safer.

This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. That responsibility lies here as well as downtown in the executive branch. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. This Congress has the responsibility to invest the dollars where they are most needed and to focus on the Nation's many serious vulnerabilities. But by blindly supporting the arbitrary figures that are undermining the package before this Senate, we take a dangerous gamble with the lives of the American people. And we do not have that right. We do not have the right to take that danger and gamble with the American people. The White House does not have that right. The President of the United States does not have that right. Let him come before the cameras of the electronic eye. Let him say to the American people that you are secure and you don't need more money; that we don't need to spend another dollar; and that we don't need to spend any more than we have.

I can be mistaken, and I am often mistaken. I don't maintain that I am always right. But I maintain that we have a duty to protect our people. I maintain that in the Appropriations Committee we conducted hearings--lengthy hearings. We heard from administration witnesses. We heard from the people at the local level. We heard from mayors. We heard from Governors. This Appropriations Committee, when I was in charge, unanimously voted out these bills appropriating moneys. Time and time again, this administration turned the back of its hand to the Congress and in so doing to the American people because the people in the Congress are the elected representatives of the American people. The people in the Congress are the elected representatives of those taxpayers out there who send us here. We don't come here at the bidding of any President. No President can say when I have to go home or when I can come to this place. The people of West Virginia determined that, and they are my bosses.

No President is infallible. But this administration, more than any administration that I have seen in my 50 years in Congress, maintains that it is right; that it is always right; that Congress is wrong, always wrong.

We are coming to some very difficult showdowns in this country. Who knows what may happen in the days ahead?

This legislation would cut investments in homeland security. I appreciate the work and the effort Senator Stevens and his staff have put into this package given the arbitrary constraints placed on them by the White House. But the Senate should not allow itself to be handcuffed by the political advisers inside the White House. Who are they? To whom do they answer? They answer to the President of the United States, I guess. They do not answer to the American people.

We should not accept the hundreds of miles of our northern and southern borders remaining unguarded. 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.

This Senator from West Virginia is not now nor will he ever be prepared to accept those dangers. This Senator is prepared to do whatever it takes to close the gaps and to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me.

Since September 11, 2001, the threat of a terrorist attack has only increased. It has not decreased. Administration officials have said time and time again that another terrorist attack will happen. It is inevitable, they say, and it could involve weapons of mass destruction.

Last September, the administration raised its terrorist alert system to its second highest level and closed nine embassies for security reasons.

Last October, the FBI warned of terrorist attacks against railroads.

Last November, the FBI warned hospitals in Houston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington of an imminent terrorist attack. The CIA director warned of terrorist dangers, and testified that once war begins in Iraq--hear me now, hear me--the CIA director warned of terrorist dangers and testified that once war begins in Iraq, Islamic extremists will likely increase their effort to attack us here at home.

It is not to be a video game. Oh, praise God that we will be lucky. We could be. I hope we will be.

Last December, the administration reported that Islamic extremists associated with al-Qaida may have taken possession of chemical weapons. Canadian intelligence told us that al-Qaida was plotting attacks from Canada.

An increasing number of terrorist warnings threats to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us, a war with Iraq that could escalate the threat level, yet this Congress and this President process all of that information and conclude that the best place to find savings is in the funding for homeland security funds. That is simply astonishing.

Our borders remain dangerously unguarded. They leak like a sieve. We don't know if terrorists have crossed into the country, as we saw over the New Year's holiday, when the FBI was frantically looking for suspected terrorists. Do you remember that? They were frantically-- frantically--looking for suspected terrorists who they later concluded had not entered the country after all. Yet this administration wants to cut border security funding by $705 million.

The Customs Service is able to inspect only 2 percent--at most, 5 percent--of cargo entering this country.

We know terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction into our ports, either to blow them up and cause massive economic and physical destruction or to explode those weapons within the interior of the country near a major city. Yet this Bush administration wants to cut port security funding by tens of millions of dollars. Astonishing? Yes, astonishing.

The FBI lacks the law enforcement personnel to track potential terrorists and disrupt potential terrorist cells already based inside this country. Yet this White House--this White House--the Bush administration wants to cut money for Federal law enforcement personnel by more than $250 million. Irresponsible? Yes, irresponsible.

The President has suggested that a smallpox attack is a big enough risk to the American public that a smallpox vaccine should be made available to the public by the beginning of 2004. Yet this President knows that State and local governments lack the necessary funding to administer the smallpox vaccination plan, let alone provide for the homeland security protections for which the State and local governments are responsible. Never mind. This administration wants to cut aid to the States by more than $500 million.

Our nuclear facilities remain dangerously exposed. Yet this White House, this administration, seeks to cut funding to protect our nuclear facilities by more than $230 million.

Airport security, mass transit security, cybersecurity, water security, embassy security, food safety--these are all critical vulnerabilities and yet the administration wants to whack those moneys by a total of $1.5 billion.

Then, on top of all of those reductions, this bill has an across-the- board cut of 1.6 percent for each and every Federal law enforcement and homeland security initiative across this country. It is a shameful way--a shameful way--to fund the protection of this Nation.

Sound policy decisions cannot possibly be driving these spending cuts. Clearly, these programs need more money, not less. The administration cannot blame these decisions on growing budget deficits because that same administration now argues that deficits don't matter.

It is politics. The administration chose an arbitrary number last year, and it is twisting the arms of the Congress to stick to it. The result is a disaster for homeland security programs.

While our troops overseas are equipped with high-tech gadgets to fight our enemies, our troops left at home will have to defend us with meager resources. Our troops in the desert are bouncing their communications off satellites, while our homeland defenders may have to communicate with twine and coffee cans. This may sound ridiculous, but it is much closer to the truth than many of us would like to believe. When it comes to fighting overseas, this administration's attitude is: Spare no expense. There is no pricetag on freedom. But when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this White House, this administration, prefers to shop in bargain basements.

Delays of this funding for a few months, until the next fiscal year's appropriations bills, translates into more than a calendar year. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we would force first responders to wait for help until the calendar year 2004. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we force our airports and our seaports to struggle with security until the calendar year 2004. These delays do not serve any constructive purpose, and they certainly do not help to protect American lives. If we provide these moneys, the oversight committees should do their job to ensure that the agencies invest these dollars quickly and effectively.

The amendment I have proposed would invest funds where they are most needed. First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted. Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer but was vetoed by this White House.

Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has already signed into law. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate 97 to 0 and that the President signed last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate 95 to 0 and that the President signed into law last November. This amendment would provide funds--hear me now--this amendment would provide funds for the 10 million smallpox vaccinations that this administration has mandated from State and local health professionals.

These dollars address our most critical needs, Mr. President. These funds would help to shore up our defenses and could save lives here at home.

We are in new and dangerous times. No attack should be deemed so unlikely that it can be ignored. The men and women who send us here demand that we protect them, that we protect our country first. The fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to invest the dollars to keep their little precious ones safe. That is a solemn duty that lies on the conscience of every man and woman Member of this body. It is a basic and sacred duty. And may God forgive us if we so cavalierly fail in our duty to protect our people, the American people.

Yes, I yield.

How much time do I have, Mr. President?

How much time?

I thank the Chair.

That is right.

Right. Right.

It will. It will.

Absolutely.

How much time do I have?

On the last amendment, what was the vote?

How many absentees were there on my side?

One Democrat voted against my amendment?

Mr. President, I make another plea to my colleagues, and I speak on behalf of the American people in doing so because it is their security I am talking about. By all let this be heard, by Democrats as well as Republicans. I make this last plea to my colleagues with respect to homeland security. If they will not allow the Government to invest $5 billion to protect the lives of the American people from terrorist attacks, at least let us invest in the most obviously vulnerable segments of our infrastructure.

Now listen to me, colleagues. You are going to have to answer to the American people for your vote. Democrats are going to have to answer for their votes. Republicans are going to have to answer for their votes. You may say, well, I am ready. That is all right. You be ready. You be ready. And the record will follow you. The record will follow you.

You cannot nonchalantly say: Well, we had a caucus and we decided we would have a party-line vote; we would

stand against Senator Byrd's amendment and we would oppose all amendments, et cetera, et cetera--if that is the case. That may be OK here, but wait until the American people look at the record. It was their safety that you are compromising when you voted against this past amendment. I am surprised that we had any votes at all, at least from this side of the aisle, against that amendment. But every Senator has to answer to his own conscience and to his own people. I respect that on any Senator's part.

I will send up an amendment in due time, and I understand the time is limited on this amendment whether I send it up or not, so that is understood to start with.

In the past year and a half, this Senate, and indeed the entire Congress, have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that commit funds for the protection of the American people. This Senate and the entire Congress have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that commit funds for the protection of the American people.

In November 2001, this Senate, by a 100-to-0 vote, approved the Federal Aviation Security Act: a vote of 100 to 0. The President signed this legislation amid great fanfare--how sweet it is. Oh, it was great to pass the legislation. But despite the high-toned rhetoric, the resources to implement this act have been denied.

Last May the Senate passed the U.S. Border Security Act under an array of great speeches, noteworthy speeches. Oh, the speeches, I can hear them yet. I can hear the reverberation of those stentorian tones-- the reverberations around this great Chamber and outside the Chamber as well, and other places.

The border security bill passed the Senate 97 to nothing, and the President very accommodatingly and happily signed that legislation into law. So with a flourish of the pen it became law, a flourish of the pen in the mighty hand of the chief magistrate of this country, a great flourish of the pen. Headlines in the newspaper, excellent paragraphs as to the comments that were made, worthy of keeping in our scrapbooks, may I say.

And then this past November, by a vote of 95 to 0 again--95 to zero? Where was the opposition then? A vote of 95 to zero the Senate passed the Port and Maritime Security Act, giving approval for massive investments at the Nation's seaports. And, again, the Commander in Chief--if I may use that term, if I may pluck that term out of the Constitution--the Commander in Chief signed the bill into law.

Despite these overwhelming bipartisan votes, despite the stentorian rhetoric that came from many voices that spoke as though they had lungs of brass, despite that great rhetoric that accompanied the signing of these bills, the resources have been slow in coming, to say the least. As a result, our Nation's defenses against terrorist attack have remained vulnerable--vulnerable. You better ponder that word.

I have seen more than 85 summers. More than 85 years have passed; 50 of those 85 years have been spent in the Congress of the United States. Never have I seen a Congress that has been more recreant in its duty to stand up against an executive branch that looks with utter contempt on the elected Representatives of the people in this, the legislative branch.

People downtown, many of them it seems, feel that the legislative branch is beneath the dignity of the executive branch. They have nothing but contempt for this branch.

So when this branch comes forward with recommendations as to what is needed to ensure the people's security, the executive branch turns the back of its hand to the recommendations of the legislative branch. And it has done that repeatedly, time after time, over the past year.

The fact of the matter is that the Senate Appropriations Committee in the 107th Congress did its work. It passed all 13 appropriations bills. It did so responsibly. It did so in a bipartisan fashion, in a fashion that was remarkably bipartisan. What we have before us is not merely the last year's committee-passed bills for fiscal 2003 with a nip here and a tuck there to address new budgetary circumstances. The bills that are now before us are shaped around policy completely divorced from reality.

Mr. President, the Chamber is empty. I, too, would like to be sitting somewhere. It is not easy. It is not easy to make this fight. But who cares whether it is easy or not. That is not important. I will give the last vestige of my strength to stand and speak on behalf of the security of the American people. I am putting this amendment before the Senate today, and I am asking Senators to carefully weigh the amendment on behalf of the American people. It is not easy. But never was I more willing to expend my limited energies and my frail voice on behalf of the safety of the American people than I am here today.

I know that what I am saying will fall upon deaf ears in some quarters. But the bill before us now, let me say again, was shaped around sound policy that is completely divorced from reality. If we are to be treated to speeches touting what this administration can do when it controls the Congress, perhaps we should take a close look. The most telling example of what we are in for is demonstrated in how these appropriations bills treat domestic security.

Just yesterday, two distinguished Members of this body, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the General Accounting Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the Nation's air cargo system.

Let me say that again. Two distinguished Members of this body on yesterday, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the General Accounting Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the Nation's air cargo system.

The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected.

Listen to that. How many Senators have ridden on cargo planes? I have. Does it make one pause to reflect upon the fact that so little of that air cargo is ever inspected?

Your life and the lives of others who ride those cargo planes are in the hands of God. He isn't getting much help from this administration, and He isn't getting much help from the Congress of the United States as reflected by this last vote, for example.

The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected.

The GAO reported that:

First, there are simply not enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the existing protocols has taken the proper steps to protect against the use of that shipment by terrorists.

Second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where shipments transfer from company to company.

Third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks and do not always have their identities verified.

Fourth, most cargo shipped by air is never screened.

How many more attacks, how many more warnings, how many more reports will it take before this Congress awakens, before it believes that this Nation is seriously at risk?

Instead of simply paying lipservice to the many vulnerabilities in this Nation, it is time to invest real resources to protect the American people from terrorist attack. We cannot nickel and dime the protections of American lives. Think of your own. National security requires national investments. We hear that freedom has no price. The same can be said of safety--the safety of the American people. The safety of the American people should have no pricetag.

The lessons from September 11, 2001, are clear--as clear as the noonday Sun on a cloudless sky. Terrorists live among us, and they traverse our open borders with relative ease.

We know that the enemy prefers weapons fashioned from the ordinary infrastructure of modern life--trucks, trains, planes, mail delivery, envelopes in the mail, ports, energy sources, cyberspace, spent nuclear materials, and one can go on and on. All of these, we are told, can be easily adapted to cause death, sudden death and destruction, fear and panic.

At home, our technology is deficient, with outdated computers in key government agencies unable to easily

transmit vital information back and forth.

Last April and May, in 5 days of hearings, the Senate Appropriations Committee heard testimony that indicated our adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty and without enormous cost. It can be done on the cheap.

The warnings have been prolific. The warnings that have come down from the various agencies of this administration have made it clear time and again that we are at great risk. This country is at great risk. With these warnings in mind and with the realization of the many gaps in our homeland security network, the men and the women of this Congress are playing Russian roulette with the safety of our people unless we take immediate steps to protect American lives and to avoid future tragedies.

I could go on and on. But Senators already know where we are vulnerable--border security, airport security, port security. We are well aware of the gaps in our protections. If we know where those gaps are--if we know where those gaps are--you can be sure that the terrorists know where those gaps are.

Further delay is unconscionable. Further delay on the part of the elected representatives of the American people is unconscionable. This is not a time for politics. We may think we can play politics. But this is not something with which we can play politics. Further delay is unconscionable.

That is why I offer an amendment that is smaller in scope and more narrowly defined than the one that was just considered by the Senate and defeated by the Senate. This amendment, which I shall shortly send to the desk, would fund the core mandates of the authorization bills which the Congress last approved and the President of the United States has signed into law. What are they? The Airport Security Act, the Border Security Act, the Seaport Security Act. Let us match the rhetoric with resources. Let us fulfill the promises that we made to provide the necessary funds when we voted for and last passed those authorization bills and when they were signed.

I urge Senators to expedite this much needed assistance for our Nation. We must not turn our backs on the efforts to bolster our weaknesses, on the effort to address our vulnerabilities, on the effort to protect American lives, the lives we say may be our own.

Now, the amendment which I am going to send to the desk shortly, I shall explain. This is the summary of the amendment.

This amendment provides $500 million for aviation security--get that, $500 million for aviation security--to implement the law signed by President Bush in November of 2001.

The amendment directs $750 million for border security to implement the law signed by President Bush in May 2002.

The amendment invests $500 million for seaport security to implement the law signed by President Bush in November 2002.

The amendment provides $850 million to State and local health professionals to implement the President's announced plan from December 2002 to vaccinate 10 million first responders and health care workers against smallpox.

Are you going to vote against that? This is your President. This is my President. This is our President. Are you going to vote against that?

Let me say it again, lest you did not hear. This amendment provides $850 million to State and local health professionals to implement the President's announced plan to vaccinate 10 million first responders and health care workers against smallpox. The President mandated that the States--including West Virginia, including New York, including California, including Alaska, including Washington, including Texas, including Florida--and local governments carry out this vaccination plan but provided no financial support to implement it.

Let me say that again. The President mandated that the States and local governments carry out this vaccination plan--we are talking about a plan to vaccinate responders, local responders, and health care workers against smallpox--the President mandated that the States and local governments carry out this vaccination plan but provided no financial support to implement it.

This amendment directs $200 million for law enforcement agencies and other first responders to address the communications conflicts that exist in their current radio systems.

How many times have we heard that the local responders--the fire department people, the law enforcement personnel--could not talk with one another? Law enforcement could not talk with firefighters. Firefighters could not talk with emergency health personnel. How many times have we heard that? How many times did we hear it during the course of those hearings last year in which both parties worked together, in a bipartisan fashion, to have the hearings, to shape the hearings, to determine who would be called, and to pass the legislation implementing the requests of the people from the local levels--the mayors, the Governors, the first responders?

So I say again, the amendment directs $200 million for law enforcement agencies and other first responders to address the communications conflicts that exist in their current radio systems.

The amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect against theft of nuclear materials and to provide increased security at nuclear facilities.

Did we hear Sam Nunn? Did we hear former Senator Sam Nunn when he appeared before the Appropriations Committee in last year's hearings? Did we listen to former Senator Rudman when he appeared there before the Senate Appropriations Committee in those hearings? Senator Nunn, working with Senator Lugar, addressed these problems. And they continue to be very concerned about the problems involved in nuclear security.

This amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect against theft of nuclear material and to provide security at nuclear facilities.

Now, Mr. President, that is all I shall have to say.

I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask that it be read in its entirety so that all Senators will hear it today, not wait until tomorrow to read it in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska need have no second thoughts as to where I stand. I understand the problem he has to deal with and the efforts he is making, trying to do what he sees as the right thing under the circumstances. I can understand that. I sympathize with what he says regarding offsets. But I don't believe all this defense money is offset either. I haven't heard anything about offsetting defense moneys in this amendment. Perhaps I missed something. I haven't heard anything said about offsetting defense moneys.

The $24.7 billion in the bill compares to $24.2 billion for fiscal year 2002. That is hardly a significant increase in our commitment to homeland defense.

For 50 years, I have been supporting funds for the defense of this country. For 50 years, I have been supporting the appropriations for our military men and women. So when it comes to supporting funds for the defense of this Nation, I have been at that job 50 years. I think I am doing that now. I support the moneys for defense. I consider homeland security, homeland defense as much a part of defense, the overall rubric, as anything else or more.

The defense of our homeland is No. 1, as far as I am concerned. We have a war on terrorism going on right here at home. I don't hear much about it anymore. I hear more about fighting a war in foreign lands, across the seas. I hear more about sending our men and our women away from their homes, away from the fatherland, sending them abroad to deal with an enemy that has not attacked our country.

We are sending those men and women at great cost. Are they fully prepared? I don't know. I hear that they are not fully prepared to meet and contend with biological weapons, which might be lodged against them. I understand that there is equipment--by way of protecting our troops from biological warfare--that is unaccounted for, and there is equipment that is untested.

I am not for pinching pennies when it comes to our troops. I will support those troops as they are sent across the seas by air and by water, perhaps against their own personal will, certainly at great cost to themselves personally. They give up salaries; they give up the wages of sweat and labor and work and thought; they give up those wages to go abroad, to answer to the call of a war overseas; they give up home and fireside, warm quarters at home, where they can be with their families, where they can be with their wives, children, parents; they sacrifice their own businesses--small businesses perhaps--and their own professions. I am for every penny; I am not for pinching pennies when it comes to our men and women who are sent overseas. For 50 years I have never been for pinching pennies.

I am not for wasting money. I often think of myself as the last warrior in Vietnam, the last man to come out of Vietnam. I stood at the elbows of the then-Commander in Chief, Richard Nixon. I supported him in his efforts to protect our men who were sent overseas, sent to Cambodia, sent to fight the Vietcong across the borders in Vietnam, to deal with people in the Vietcong located in Cambodia and striking our own men. I stood by the Commander in Chief in those days, and we were under a Republican administration at that time. I stood with that President, at times against my own then-majority leader. I don't know how many other Senators in this body would do that. But my credentials are pretty good when it comes to supporting and standing up for defense.

But today I am pleading on behalf of the unprotected men and women, boys and girls, in this country who may be subject to terrorist attack at any moment. I am pleading with my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle to forget politics and to vote for what is right and to vote for the security of the American people.

I am trying to support funds here for the legislation that we passed--with great fanfare--to protect the airports, to protect the ports, to protect the borders. I am fighting for funds to provide vaccinations for those first responders, the people at the local level who will possibly have to deal with biological and chemical warfare. So when you say stand up for the defense of the country, count me No. 1. I am up there first in the ranks.

Mr. President, this is not a political matter. I note that, again, the Deputy Homeland Security Adviser, Mr. Steve Abbott, wrote Senator Stevens to strongly oppose amendments to Senator Stevens' bill that would ``add extraneous spending.''

Well, can you imagine extraneous spending to protect our homeland? This amendment is not about politics; it is about a vulnerable nation. Any Member who has told his or her constituents that he or she will work for homeland security should vote for this amendment. Our President has signed an authorizing bill to improve port security, border security, airport security, and he has called on State and local governments to implement his smallpox vaccination plan. All right. Step up, belly up to the bar here. Let's put the money where our mouth is. This amendment funds those important programs.

Mr. President, I hope other Senators will come to the floor and speak on behalf of this amendment. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska at any time he wishes.

Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I may consume. I will not be long. I think Senators ought to be aware that a vote can take place on this amendment momentarily, virtually.

Let me simply say, in closing my remarks on this amendment, I think the record is clear, and I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his having accommodated me, and those Members who may wish to speak on the previous amendment that I offered and on this amendment. He has done everything he possibly could do to accommodate us. We have not been cramped for time on these amendments. I again want to thank him for his fairness, absolute fairness.

I also want to thank the two leaders for their fairness. I thank our new Republican leader for his fairness. He has been willing to debate this matter at considerable length. I am not aware if he has pressured my colleague, Mr. Stevens, to cut the debate short, not have the debate, to try to thwart the efforts on the part of Members on this side to call up amendments. I am not aware of any effort toward that end. I am only aware of the fact that we have been allowed ample time to debate. I have been allowed ample time to offer amendments, other Members on my side allowed to offer additional amendments dealing with education, dealing with Amtrak, and other matters involved in homeland security.

I thank Senator Stevens again. I thank Senator Frist. I think this is a good indication on his part that we are going to debate matters in this forum and that we are going to be allowed to call up amendments. That is what the Senate is all about. That is why we are here. That was the beauty of the Great Compromise of July 16, 1787, when it was decided there would be two bodies and that the size of one body would be determined on the basis of population, while in the other body States would speak with equality. A small State would be equal with a large State and with the largest States in our numbers here. That is what the Senate is all about.

I am glad to see that in this instance we are being allowed to work our will. The Senate is being allowed to work its will on this important matter. We have offered the amendment. We have had our say. We have not been shut off at the pass. There has not been an effort here to gag the Members. We have had our say. I do not ask for anything else. That is the Senate.

I say that to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who now presides over this Senate with a degree of dignity and aplomb and poise that is so rare as a day in June. When I see our former colleague, our quondam colleague, Howard Baker, I want to pass along to Howard Baker a good word concerning the new Senator from Tennessee who sits in the Chair today, as

he listens. He is sitting at the desk. He is not reading newspapers. He is not reading letters. He listens to what is said. That is the appropriate role of a Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, we do not have any complaints. I am ready to have a vote. I do not think I have anything else to say at this point, so I yield the floor. I am ready for a vote.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, on July 26, 2002, just 6 months ago, the Committee on Appropriations, on a unanimous, bipartisan vote reported a Transportation Appropriations bill that included $1.2 billion in funding for Amtrak.

At that time, Amtrak had just weathered a severe financial crisis. Amtrak's President, Mr. David Gunn, testified before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, just a few weeks into his tenure, and described to us the desperate financial conditions he found when he assumed control of the railroad.

It was only through a combination of a $205 million supplemental appropriation that our Committee approved back in July, as well as a temporary loan by the Bush Administration against the railroad's 2003 appropriation, that the railroad survived and continues to run to this day.

That Amtrak funding crisis served as a wake-up call for many of us in Congress as well as for the millions of Amtrak riders and the millions of commuter rail riders whose train service depends on a viable operating Amtrak system.

However, when the new Republican majority drafted its new appropriations bill for the Transportation Department, it singled out Amtrak for a whopping $374 million cut, a reduction of over 31 percent.

Amtrak's new President, David Gunn, has made clear in letters to me and to Senator Stevens, Senator Shelby, Senator Murray, and others that a funding cut of this kind will mean certain bankruptcy for Amtrak by this coming Spring.

Now many Senators will speak on this amendment, including a great many that represent the states along the Northeast Corridor.

These Members will speak to the impact of an Amtrak bankruptcy on the very fine rail service that we have between Boston and Washington, DC.

These Members will speak on what a bankrupt Amtrak means for their daily commuter lines that are either operated by Amtrak under contract or operate over Amtrak's property. But as a Senator from West Virginia, I want to speak today on what Amtrak means to rural America. Amtrak does not just stop in cities like Boston, New York, and Washington, DC.

Amtrak serves communities like Beckley, WV; Hinton, WV; Alderson, WV; Charleston, WV; Huntington, WV; Martinsburg, WV, and, Harpers Ferry, WV. These are some of the communities in my state that are served by Amtrak.

I can tell you that for a great many of the citizens in those communities, the Amtrak train may be the only way into town and the only way out. When you talk about long-distance travel, the situation is no different in the great many other communities that are served by Amtrak: communities like Pascagoula, MS; Lordsburg, NM; Crestview, FL; Gilman, IL; Wilson, NC; Libby, MT; Winona, MN; Fort Morgan, CO; White Salmon, WA; Sun River, OR; Fulton, KY; Ardmore, OK; and Weaverville,

Madam President, I would like to ask a question of either the manager of the bill or the majority leader.

According to the agreement, an up-or-down vote did not seem to be agreed to on the amendment.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, first, I thank my esteemed colleague and dear

friend, Senator Ted Stevens, for his characteristic courtesy, and for his friendship, and for the cooperation he has shown to me over many years of working together.

I thank him for joining with me, last year, in reporting out of our committee all appropriations bills before the close of July.

I thank all of the Republican members as well as the Democratic members of my committee who voted unanimously to report those 13 bills out of the Appropriations Committee, without a single vote cast against those bills.

I am sorry that the situation has developed, as it has, when I must oppose the distinguished Senator's amendment. I always do whatever I have to do to meet my own conscience and to deal with requirements that are incumbent upon me as the chairman of the committee or as the ranking member of the committee, whichever is my role at the particular time.

I do not like to be in a position of differing with my friend from Alaska, but there are times when we do have to differ. In this case, I find myself at odds with him, but I want to say here that it is only for the purposes of advancing this bill. It certainly does not cut across our friendship, as far as I am concerned, when I have to differ with Senator Stevens, and differ with him vigorously. He is still my friend.

I understand what he has to do, as he sees his responsibilities. And I have to do what I have to do as I see my responsibilities. Our friendship is unaffected. I want to assure him of that, as far as I am concerned.

Last July, almost 6 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut.

We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for veterans medical care. We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway funding. The President proposed only a 1 percent increase for education programs. He would have turned the No Child Left Behind bill into another unfunded mandate. Our bill provided a 6 percent increase for education, including key funding to reduce class size.

We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating. We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for State and local law enforcement programs.

We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs that our Nation's fire and police organizations support. We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud. We provided $400 million for election reform.

Now this White House believes that these increases represent wasteful and unnecessary spending. Last year this White House worked with the House Republican leadership to slow the appropriations process down. The House has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

Let me repeat that. The House of Representatives has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 6 months.

The domestic agencies of the Government are now operating under the sixth--the sixth--continuing resolution, which expires on Friday, January 31.

My friend, Senator Ted Stevens--who is the very able ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, who will soon succeed me as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and who has already succeeded me as President pro tempore of the Senate--and I worked together to produce those 13 bi-partisan bills last summer. Each of those 13 appropriations bills was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee with a unanimous vote--not a single vote cast against any one of the 13 appropriations bills.

After the election, however, the President indicated his determination to limit discretionary spending to the arbitrary figure of $751.3 billion. This level will necessitate cuts of $9.8 billion from 11 of the bills approved last July. After providing for modest increases for homeland security programs, the substitute that Senator Stevens is forced to offer provides for a virtual freeze in all other domestic spending.

I oppose the $9.8 billion cut that is contained in the substitute. The needs of the American people for homeland security, for education, for transportation, for veterans, for public health, and for other programs have not gone away. The needs are still there as plain as ever.

I am not being critical of my colleague, Senator Stevens. I am not being critical of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young of Florida. However, the President has now thrown down the gauntlet and is insisting on a $9.8 billion reduction, resulting in cuts in priority programs designed for what? Designed to defend our homeland, to educate our children, to improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs.

I am extremely disappointed, not with Senator Stevens or the other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee or my friend, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, or his ranking member, Mr. Obey, but with this administration, with this White House and its lack of vision and knowledge regarding the needs of the people of this country.

With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills this year that would increase spending demands for many of these same important programs. Last January he signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. The President signed the No Child Left Behind Act which had passed the Senate 87 to 10 and which endorsed additional resources in important education programs for our children. Last May, the President, Mr. Bush, signed a border security bill with great fanfare, which had passed the Senate 97 to nothing, which authorized strengthening glaring and dangerous weaknesses in our border security. Last July, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which had passed the Senate 89 to nothing, and which addressed shameful corporate fraud that bilks innocent people. In October, Mr. Bush signed the election reform bill with great fanfare which had passed the Senate 92 to 2 to help State governments overhaul the Nation's outdated and corruptible electoral system. In November, President Bush signed legislation which had passed the Senate 95 to nothing to improve security at our ports.

Yet in order to reduce our bills by $9.8 billion, the omnibus legislation that we will consider this week will cut education by $1.5 billion. It will cut homeland security programs by $1 billion, including cuts of $627 million for border security, $23 million from port security and $132 million from first responder funds. It will cut Securities and Exchange Commission funding below the levels in Senator Hollings' bill by $94 million.

This omnibus legislation will reduce Head Start funding by $202 million. It will reduce job training by $534 million. It will reduce low income home energy assistance by $300 million.

The new omnibus bill will cut Amtrak funding by $374 million, a level that will result, I am told, in the termination of Amtrak service.

In addition, the bill includes 1.6 percent across the board cut on all domestic programs. This represents a $435 million cut in the National Institutes of Health. It represents a $182 million cut to Education for the Disadvantaged. It represents a $372 million cut in Veterans Medical Care. On top of these cuts, every homeland security initiative in this package is reduced by 1.6 percent. This is no way to govern. We must move forward on this legislation. As much as I chafe about these mindless cuts, we cannot allow the domestic agencies of our government to continue operating on automatic pilot for the rest of the fiscal year. The people elected us to make choices about how we invest their tax dollars. There will be amendments offered in the coming days to restore some of the cuts contained in the substitute to be offered by Senator Stevens for homeland security, for education, and for other worthy programs. I urge Members to consider these amendments carefully and to ponder the impact of the reductions in this bill.

These should not be up or down party-line votes. When the Congress

passed, with broad bi-partisan votes, and President Bush signed, authorization bills for homeland security, for port security, for border security, for investigating corporate fraud, and for No Child Left Behind, we all recognized that these programs required adequate resources. We did not vote to address these critical problems with rhetoric alone. We have heard plenty of rhetoric. We collectively decided that these were real problems that needed real solutions. To solve these problems requires resources, not empty promises. I urge every Member to reflect on their support of these authorization bills as they decide how to vote on amendments that will be offered in the coming days. Let's make the rhetoric match the resolve.

While I oppose the $9.8 billion in cuts which are being required by the administration as the price to move these bills, I recognize that an even worse alternative is to fail in our duty to enact appropriation bills and allow the United States Government to operate without sufficient funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. I believe my colleague, Senator Stevens, is of a similar frame of mind. He is doing what he sees as his duty. He is a good soldier. He has my profound empathy.

This is the U.S. Senate. We are 100 Senators who have taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We serve with Presidents. We don't serve under any President, I have served with 11 Presidents, not under any President. The votes that we will take on this important legislation, especially those relating to the defense of our homeland and the education of our children, are not about politics. They are about doing what is right and what was promised to the people of this country.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the $9.8 billion of cuts contained in the substitute compared to the fiscal year 2003 bills reported last July by unanimous vote in the full Appropriations Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this Nation faces a turning point as we are challenged once again by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, or when, or how they will strike. With endless warnings in mind, and with a clear realization of our many homeland security gaps, it is time that Congress invest the necessary resources in homeland security to match its rhetoric and to match the rhetoric of this administration. So I have offered an amendment that would accomplish three goals:

First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted--every member, 29 members of the Appropriations Committee, with 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer of last year, but which was rejected by this White House.

Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has signed into law. This amendment would fund the Airport Security Act that created the Transportation Security Administration and placed rigorous, new safety standards on the Nation's airports. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 and that President Bush signed into law last November.

These dollars address our Nation's most critical needs. These funds would help to shore up our Nation's defenses and save lives at home.

The Congress has voted to create the Department of Homeland Security, but that Department is months--if not years--away. I read in the Washington Post today about the slowdown in the fulfillment of that dream, but that Department is months--if not years--away from being a strong defense against terrorist attacks. There are many details to be worked out. We cannot wait to address gaps in our Nation's defenses while this new Department is organized. Terrorists will not wait to attack. We cannot afford delay. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record at this point so that all Senators, members of the press, and the people at large may read on tomorrow the contents of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the motion to reconsider is not being made. I think it should be made so that the record will so read.

I move to reconsider the vote.

What are the resolutions? Will the clerk state them.