Floor Statements

Mr. President, the appropriations bill, the omnibus bill, as we call it, will be here soon. I wanted to comment about stories pertaining to a provision I have in the bill and the change I sought to make in it.

The Tongass language in this omnibus bill that will come back to the Senate is the same language in the bill when it passed the Senate. It was not challenged in the Senate. The language provides that the record of decision for the 2003 supplemental environmental impact statement for the 1997 Tongass Land Use Management Plan shall not be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review.

During the consideration of the omnibus bill, I did suggest some modification of that language. It led to considerable discussion in the press. I might add there are a whole series of provisions in this bill as it comes back that were modified in conference by many Senators, many Members of the House of Representatives. The process by which we do that in many ways has been discussed by other Senators. At a later time I want to discuss the process by which Senators comment upon the work of other Members of the Senate.

In any event, for instance, in the Los Angeles Times, Senator Boxer said:

The stewardship proposal could allow logging of 10 million

acres in California if the riders remain in the bill. I

intend to discuss them at great length on the Senate floor.

My amendment did not apply to California at all.

The Senator from California also is reported as saying in another release I have that:

This is a dangerous backdoor attempt to silence the public,

states, and localities, and to stop our citizens from going

to court to protest these destructive riders.

The provision to stop going to court was in the Senate bill.

In another article in the Grand Forks Herald, there is this statement:

The riders would remove Alaska's Tongass and Chugach

forests from protection under the national roadless policy

and require the Forest Service to offer timber sales to meet

market demand regardless of the effects on habitat and the

forests' other resources.

I could go on and on with these articles that are in the papers and in the news releases throughout the country.

What I want to do is set the record straight on what the situation is in the Tongass and how we got where we are today. It is a long saga. It takes a little while to relate to the Senate.

In 1997, after 10 years of planning and $13 million of the taxpayers' money, the Tongass Land Use Management Plan was completed. I opposed that plan because it contained drastic reductions in the timber harvest. I thought the levels were much lower than they needed to be. There were numerous scientists who found the Tongass could sustain far greater development support than what was included in the report.

Today, just 6 years later, that plan seems like the golden age of the Tongass timber industry. I now find myself defending that plan, which Democrats and environmentalists then supported because those same extreme environmentalists and their friends from the previous administration have done so much damage to Alaska's timber industry since that time.

The Tongass Land Use Management Plan reduced the allowable sale quantity (ASQ), for the Tongass to 267 million board feet. That is the plan I am talking about that we are now defending. Of the allowable 267 million board feet of timber, less than 220 million board feet would be economically harvestible under the plan. It provided access to only 676,000 acres of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest.

Furthermore, it established that timber harvesting on Federal land would be managed over 100-year and 120-year rotations. These rotations provided more than enough time for forest revitalization.

The Tongass is the only forest in Alaska in which timber may be harvested. I call the Senate's attention to this. Our other forest, which is 5.5 million acres, the Chugach, is under a forest management plan which has reduced timber harvesting to zero. This renders the Chugach forest almost completely closed to logging. There are some small inholding tracks that could be logged, but none of them are being logged, to my knowledge. Last year less than 1 million board feet of salvageable timber ravaged by disease was sold from the Chugach. There is no real commercial harvest there.

Many groups and individuals frame the current debate about the Tongass as an argument about whether or not the forest should be saved. The terms of the 1997 plan made by the Clinton administration make it clear that framing the issue this way is very misleading. The 1997 plan set aside 93 percent of all forested areas in the Tongass National Forest in my home State.

Under the Tongass amendment I asked Congress to approve, that land will remain completely untouched. It will not touch any of the land, 93 percent, that is reserved, set aside. It would remain completely untouched. Clearly the vast majority of the Tongass has already been saved for future generations. Yet they want more. There is 7 percent of the forest that is still open to logging under the agreement made in 1980.

My State's timber industry has experienced a swift decline, threatening thousands of Alaskan families who depend upon that industry for their livelihood. Today timber communities in southeast Alaska have been devastated by unemployment due in large part to jobs lost in the timber industry. I point out to the Senate this bill we will vote on tonight will contain $3.1 billion for the farm community that has been devastated by about a 15 percent reduction in income. My timber industry will receive nothing even though it has been totally devastated by the actions taken by the Clinton administration.

The Tongass once supported 4,000 timber jobs. Today two-thirds of those jobs have disappeared, and all of them will disappear if the roadless policy is applied to the area set aside for logging in the Tongass format and the Tongass Land Use plan.

In the last 10 years, diseased supply and frivolous lawsuits waged by extreme environmental groups have led to the closure of all of our pulp mills. There is not a single pulp mill left in Alaska. When those mills closed, they took southeast Alaska's best jobs with them. I hasten to point out, as I said, when farming fell 15 percent, Congress declared a disaster. That is $3.1 billion we put up for the farmers. They are no different than loggers. The only difference is, loggers have been affected by actions of the Department of Agriculture. It is the Department of Agriculture that asks us to protect the farmers.

The situation in the Tongass has not only cost us thousands of jobs, it has also cost the Government valuable tax dollars. The Government may soon have to pay the Alaska Pulp Company $750 million for the Clinton administration's illegal cancellation of timber contracts in the Tongass. That money should be paid to Alaska's workers.

The rapid decline in Alaska's timber industry is due to two main causes: the

Clinton administration's policy barring logging and roadbuilding on 58.5 million acres of national forest, including the Tongass, and frivolous lawsuits brought by the multibillion-dollar environmental lobby in an effort to lock up public resources on public land.

First, let me talk about the plan implemented by the Clinton administration's final days in office. When Congress passed the Tongass Act in 1947, we set what we called the ASQ level for the Tongass at 1.38 billion board feet per year. That level was slowly eroded. In 1980, the level was reduced to 450 million board feet per year under the Alaska National Interest Lands Act. In 1997, the Tongass land management plan further reduced the level to 267 million board feet. By 2001, the harvest level in the Tongass was only 48 million board feet-- from 1.3-plus billion board feet to less than 48 million board feet. When you talk about a disaster, clearly this drastic reduction is one of the most serious disasters for the timber industry.

To give my fellow Senators some perspective, Southeast Alaska has more than 18 million acres of forest land, 95 percent of which is in a national forest and only 850 timber jobs left today. Arkansas has 19 million acres of forest land, 8 percent of which is national forest and 43,000 timber jobs.

Pennsylvania has 17 million acres of forest land, 2 percent of which is in a national forest, and 82,000 timber jobs.

New York has 19 million acres of forest land, 4 percent of which is national forest, and 51,000 timber jobs.

Last year, while Alaska harvested 34 million board feet, New York harvested nearly 900 million board feet of timber.

This history and disparity between how national forest lands are administered in other States and how they are administered in Alaska shows that reductions in the ASQ levels are unfair, unreasonable, and unlawful.

The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provided the proper balance between protecting and preserving Alaska's heritage and providing economic and social opportunities to the people of the State of Alaska. That 1980 Act specifically prohibited the changes the Clinton administration made to the Tongass management plan in 1999. Section 708(b) of the 1980 Act specifically states that there will be no ``further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of national forest systems lands in the State of Alaska'' without the express authorization of Congress--none. We call that one of the ``no more clauses.'' That was the one concession Congress gave to us when it withdrew over a hundred million acres of our State for national interest lands and disallowed any type of development by the people of the State of Alaska.

Section 1326 of that same act--again, deemed the ``no more clause''-- prohibits review of any future conservation area greater than 5,000 acres without congressional approval. Clearly, the study of the 18 million acre Tongass was not authorized; it was not previously reviewed by Congress.

The roadless plan was first announced by the Clinton administration in 1999. I hope Senators will listen to this. In the fall of 2000, I received a call from the Clinton administration assuring me as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Senator from Alaska that the Tongass would be excluded from the roadless plan. The proposed rule upon which hearings were held specifically excluded Alaska.

Let me consider that now, and I hope the Senate will consider it. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Clinton administration sought my help on many issues in the year 2000 as we considered the 2001 appropriations bills. I was in a position then to hold them to their commitment on the roadless areas.

After the election was over and the appropriations bills had passed, President Clinton personally applied the roadless plan to the Tongass by Executive order. It was not included in the proposed rule upon which hearings were held, but at the last minute the President personally added Alaska to the plan.

In their rush to lock up Alaska on their way out the door, the administration ignored the concerns of my State, the Alaskan Natives, and our timber communities, and they specifically violated the law.

Lawsuits brought by extreme environmentalists have created an equally troubling situation. The lawsuits have forced the Forest Service to keep revising its plans. The groups filing these suits are abusing the National Environmental Policy Act, an act which I cosponsored along with Senator Jackson in the 1970s.

As a cosponsor, I believe I knew the original intent. When we passed that act, we intended it to be used to assess the environmental impact of major Federal decisions. Radical environmentalists have used it to create an absolute barrier to resource development or commercial use on any public lands.

Each time we complete an environmental impact study, it costs the taxpayers up to $10 million and locks up public resources for years. In effect, this practice has created a class of professional environmental lawyers whose only practice is to prevent the utilization of resources on public lands.

I have been a lawyer for 50 years and I have never seen such development. I have never seen such single-minded people who use a law designed to protect our environment to produce income for themselves, at a cost to the taxpayers and the people of this Nation.

No one seeks to limit due process or debate on these issues, but the extremists have exhausted the time period for a reasonable review process. I ask colleagues to remember new roadless areas are illegal in Alaska under these clauses I have read, unless specifically approved by Congress. This would not even be an issue if the Clinton Justice Department had raised the ``no more clause'' when they defended the Tongass land management plan in Federal court. Neither did the Federal district court judge.

Mr. President, I have a letter from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, one of our major political subdivisions in Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this letter is from Roy Eckert, borough manager, concerning amendments relating to Tongass timber.

I want to put into the Record another letter that has been written to the Secretary of Agriculture and signed by Petersburg city council member, of the Recreation/Wilderness Program manager of the Tongass National Forest, Bill Tremblay. It is a factual letter setting forth parts of the comments that I have made. I hope Members of the Senate will read it.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I go back to my original statement. I have been here going on 35 years now and I have never seen people make statements that are so unfounded and unfactual about things that I am doing.

I am warning the Senate that if Members of the Senate accuse me of doing things that are not proper and they are absolutely unfactual, I intend to come here and, on a basis of personal privilege, bring those Senators to the floor and demand an apology. This has gone too far. Senators are saying my amendment covers 9 million acres. It does not. It protects 1.7 million acres. The reason we are discussing this here today is that at the last minute, the Clinton administration added my State to the roadless rule. Notwithstanding the fact that the Clinton administration called me personally and said Alaska would not be included in their roadless rule plan because they knew of the provisions of ANILCA. No hearing was ever held on the implications such a rule would have on Alaska, no hearing was held on the proposal, and no request to Congress to include Alaska in the roadless area was ever made. I have never seen anything more deceitful than the conduct of the Clinton administration in their pursuit of the roadless rule.

I intend to pursue this now. I would hope that before my colleagues make statements on the floor or to the media, they review both the Tongass amendment and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. I am literally warning Senators that we are going to have it out here on the floor of the Senate if they keep accusing me of doing something which I have not done. That, to me, is a violation of the Senate rules.

When Judge Singleton ordered the Forest Service to review 9.7 million roadless acres, the Forest Service complied. They reviewed the Potential wilderness and roadless areas even though it was in direct violation of ANILCA. There wouldn't even be a review if the Clinton Administration had not ignored ANILCA, which specifically prohibited such review.

Alaskans seek two remedies to the current problems with Forest Policy in the Tongass. First, we want the Forest Service to uphold the law and declare the roadless rule in the Tongass an unlawful violation of

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had an inquiry. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Yes.

It is 5 minutes and 3 minutes, is that correct?

All right.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, under the previous

consent request, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report on H.J. Res. 2 and that it be considered under the following limitation: 20 minutes of debate equally between myself and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; 10 minutes under the control of Senator Dodd; 15 under the control of Senator Boxer; further, that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

I am pleased to add that addition to my request. I am pleased to modify the request so the Senator's request is complied with.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous consent request for the time being, and I ask unanimous consent that my right to be recognized to call up the report remain the same.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his nice comments. I can only say I regret deeply that I will not have the privilege he will have tonight, to go home to that beautiful young child. We know he protects children because of his great interest in children at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed, according to the previous order, to the consideration of conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2, that it be considered under the following limitation: 15 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 20 minutes between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; further, I ask that following the yielding back or use of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I withdraw the request.

Yes.

Certainly.

Is there some limitation?

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

That is all?

Mr. President, I am not ready to lay down the bill. I have no objection to the Senator having 15 minutes, as the rest of us have, in terms of morning business.

That's correct.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2 under the previous agreement.

Mr. President, this is probably a historic occasion because we are presenting to the Senate--as my colleague, Chairman Bill Young, presented to the House--11 appropriations bills in one omnibus bill, a bill that covers the balance of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2003.

We are in this position because of considerations of the last Congress. I will not take the time of the Senate to try to discuss why we did not pass those bills last year, but when we commenced this year and I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee once again, it was my determination that we should proceed with those bills and make sure we had them completed and to the President for his signature before we were forced to enter into the budget process for fiscal year 2004.

It was a very difficult process. I want to thank my good friend and Chairman Bill Young in the House, who did as we requested to get the Senate to adopt two continuing resolutions. One we passed and it has extended the time for consideration of these bills. That time will expire on February 20. We will soon get another continuing resolution to take us over to, I believe, February 24, so the President will have a chance to review these bills before he must sign them. I do believe the President will sign this bill when it is received by him.

It was early this morning that the conference report on H.J. Res. 2 was filed in the House. I was discussing with other Members of Congress as early as 2 a.m. this morning some of the provisions of this bill. It is a very controversial bill, I know. There are many portions of this bill that if I were alone and had the sole right to write the bill, I would not incorporate in this bill. This bill includes 11 separate appropriations bills. The conference report includes 16 divisions. It is a long bill.

I see my friend from Arizona in the Chamber. I acknowledge it is a very difficult bill to go through in a very short period of time. I appreciate the consideration he and his staff are giving to the bill, as he usually gives to our appropriations bills.

I see my colleague from West Virginia is in the Chamber, and when he is ready we will ask that the Senate turn to the consideration of the bill. I want to talk about some of the background of the bill before we begin making statements on the bill and what is in it.

This has been a very difficult process for all of us. I want to say to the Senate that following the election, I outlined to our staff, and our staff director Steve Cortese, a process I hoped we would follow to get these bills passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee staff has been working on these 11 separate bills since the end of the year. We have had bipartisan cooperation. The process we followed in the Senate was that we had 11 teams. They were made up of the 11 subcommittees that would have handled the bills had they been handled individually. These bills were primarily the result of the interaction of the staff director of each of those subcommittees with the staff and the membership of the subcommittee.

We took the product of those 11 teams and put them together into the omnibus amendment I offered to H.J. Res. 2, the one that was brought before the Senate. I might add that in addition, the conference report contains $10 billion in addition to the funds for the Department of Defense and intelligence community for the global war on terrorism. These were added to the bill. This was a reserve that was set aside by my great friend from West Virginia when he was chairman, a reserve for Defense pursuant to the request of the President as he presented the budget for the fiscal year 2003.

It would be my intention to ask the Senate to proceed with statements pertaining to H.J. Res. 2 before it is actually received, before we go on the bill. I hope that meets with everyone's approval. Right now it is a matter of discussing the various provisions of the bill.

There are several other legislative initiatives in the bill. They include $3.1 billion for drought and other agricultural disasters. These funds are offset by reductions in mandatory programs. Medicare and the TANF short-term extensions would give the Finance Committee time to address their matters in a reconciliation bill later this year. There is a .65 percent across-the-board cut to all discretionary accounts in this bill to assure that the total remains within the top line that was agreed to by myself, House Chairman Bill Young, and the President. That is a an arbitrary line, I will admit, but in order to get the bill signed, if we joined them together, it was my judgment we could not risk a final veto from the President of the United States after working so hard to put them all through in one package. So we have worked as closely as possible with all concerned to try and make certain that the bills will be in a form the President could sign it.

I have to admit I am sure he will be as disturbed about some of the provisions as I am myself, but I do believe all in all the bill is one the President should be able to sign because we have kept the agreement. We have stayed within the line of the requests made by the President of the United States for funds for fiscal year 2003.

I will take a moment to address the total spending levels in the bill. Last November, Chairman Bill Young and I met with the President to discuss how we might complete the work on these fiscal year 2003 bills. At that time, the President asked that we would hold to the total provided in his budget request, as amended by him. We asked that funds needed for the western firefighting be added to that total to address that emergency. We also agreed at that time there would be no emergency money per se--no amounts added to the bill above the President's request. The President agreed to our request that he would send in a supplemental request for the monies needed for the western fires.

In addition, we discussed the need to fund the election reform bill enacted

by the last Congress and respond to the severe drought facing Midwestern and Western States.

To accommodate all these competing pressures, the bill I presented to the Senate in the form of an amendment to the second continuing resolution sent to the House included a 1.6 percent across-the-board cut to ensure the total spending did not exceed the new total we then faced, which was $751.325 billion.

During consideration by the Senate, amendments were adopted that necessitated increasing that across-the-board cut to 2.85 percent of the total of the bill. That level could not be sustained, and it became a driving factor in our conference with the House and with the administration. We understood that as we went to conference. We took those across-the-board cuts so in conference we could discuss all the programs with the House and with the administration and work out an acceptable compromise.

The challenge facing the conferees was to integrate all the priorities of both the Houses and the administration within the top line of the total requested by the President of the United States. Each of the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members managed to negotiate to resolve their portion of the bill. In other words, as they got to conference, the 11 teams were still involved with working primarily with their portion of this bill. Both the House and the Senate worked to accommodate a set of allocations that would ensure we stay within our fiscal goals.

By allocations, I mean the amount of money available to each subcommittee for the portion of this bill and the portion of the budget that pertained to matters under their jurisdiction.

During the course of these negotiations, we turned on several occasions to the Vice President for his counsel, consideration, and leadership in bridging the gaps between the Congress and the administration. This has been one of the most interesting periods of my life as a Senator, being able to work this closely with the Vice President, who undertook, despite the problems facing the Nation, to give us his attention whenever I called and whatever time I called. In every case, the Vice President worked hard with us to find solutions to the problems that beset this conference.

The conference report, based on the give and take between the House and the Senate, between the Congress and the White House, meets the fiscal targets agreed to by both the House and the Senate. Discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003 will be a total now of $762.713 billion. That total reflects our original base of $751.325 billion, in addition to $1.5 billion for election reform, which the President endorsed over the base request, and the $10 billion for the defense reserve.

The White House also accepted $2.241 billion in advance appropriations for the 2004 education programs, which was an initiative we began on the floor as we tried to increase the moneys allocated to education under the President's No Child Left Behind education program.

In short, we set a target which was the total amount requested by the administration. We met the target and we bring this bill to the Senate, reflecting the priorities of the administration, the House, and the Senate. A great deal of hard work went into this final agreement, with all parties making compromises--and, I must say, sacrifices--to get the job done.

On my own account, as I mentioned earlier today, I was disappointed that a more complete resolution of the Alaska timber problem could not be included in this bill. There have been comments made about my trying to add something behind the scenes and some sort of dark way of moving an amendment that should not have been considered by the conference. There was a provision in this bill as it went to conference dealing with the Tongass Forest in Alaska. We tried to resolve the total dispute over that forest. That has not been possible. As I said this afternoon, I will address the Senate again and again and again until it is resolved.

At the conference meeting, I was compelled to ask Senator Bond to withhold a more comprehensive proposal on the Missouri River, a goal he has sought, and sought very hard, and on which he has worked very hard. I know it was a very difficult thing for my great friend from Missouri.

The House advocated language on coal company compensation that the Senate could not agree to. The House also accepted compromises on Amtrak from the positions advocated by the subcommittee chairman.

The toughest portion to resolve was the drought relief package. I am deeply grateful to the efforts and leadership of Senator Cochran in resolving this matter and meeting the needs of those farmers devastated by recent droughts. His joint role as chairman of the agriculture subcommittee and the authorizing committee made him a pivotal figure in this process and brought before the Senate a proposal which I hope will be acceptable to all involved in farm matters.

I know many others wish to speak at this conference report, and I will reserve any time that might be allocated to me. I thank the distinguished ranking member and our former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, for his partnership and assistance in preparing this bill for the Senate. I know he did not agree with the process. I know he wished we had more time to deal with these individuals bills. But without the work undertaken by Senator Byrd in the committee, reporting all the 13 bills last year, we could not have completed our work under the timetable we faced. It was because of the work he led last year that gave us the ability to deal with 11 different bills that had a prior approval by the Senate and past Congress and gave a jumping off point to play catchup with this process.

I have the deepest respect for the House chairman, Congressman Young, and the ranking member, Congressman Obey. Their constructive approach and determination to finish the work, these 2003 bills, were vital to the conclusion of this conference.

It is with a great deal of humbleness that I come before the Senate and ask the Senate to approve this conference report because I know it is a difficult process. We will approve the largest appropriations bill in the history of the United States because there are 11 together in one package. It is very difficult. There will be portions of this bill with which some people disagree; they could disagree with 1 and love the other 10.

But the process here is such that if we are to do our work for the remainder of this year, if we are going to be able to address the year 2004 appropriations bills, if we are going to be prepared to deal with the possibility of a supplemental for our men and women in uniform who are being deployed throughout the world, if we are going to be able to be partners with the administration in dealing with the crises that face this country in Iraq and Korea, we have to clear this deck.

We have to make up our mind to vote for this bill. I urge every Member to search his or her soul about this process. It is not a perfect process. It is absolutely not perfect. This bill is certainly far from perfect, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances that face us. There are many people here disappointed, as I am, about provisions that affect their own personal State. All I can say is, there will be another day and perhaps we can address some of those provisions on an individual basis as the year goes by.

I deeply thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis. I will later ask to put all their names in the Record because every one of them has been involved. My staff director sent me an e-mail last night at 2:45. I am surprised he thought I was still awake to get it--but I was. But the real problem is this has been a product of hard labor. I hope the Senate realizes that as we proceed tonight.

It is my deep hope that we will vote on this bill tonight because it will add 1 more day to the time that the President has to review the bill. It will take at least 2 days, maybe 3 days, for the enrolling process of this bill to take place. In all probability the President cannot receive this bill, if we pass it tonight, until Monday night or Tuesday of next week. He is entitled the time to review this; all of the staff have to review this before he will sign it.

Having been part of the administration one time, I know what they call the ``enrolled bill process'' in the administration. Each department gets its

time to review a bill passed by the Congress and present their recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget to be put together and given to the President for his consideration before he will sign a bill. That process must have time. We should accord the President of the United States the respect due his office, to give him time to review this bill. I regret deeply I did not get more time for my friend from Arizona to review the bill.

As the years have gone by, we have come to appreciate each other more in terms of the roles we play in this process. The Senator from Arizona is the watchdog of the Treasury as far as this process is concerned. I admire and respect that as far as the Senator is concerned, and I look forward to comments he will make tonight.

My friend from Hawaii is correct. The bill language is the law and controls the operation of the provision. I regret that the Statement of Managers was incorrectly drafted. It should have reflected that three cruise ships will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry.

I also concur with the statements of the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee about the intent of provisions included in this conference report related to the CSP. It was not our intention, in any way, to modify the operation of this program prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2008. I join Senator Cochran in my determination to resolve this matter in an appropriate conference report this year. He has my commitment to work with my colleagues to assure that the Senate acts at the earliest possible date this year on a conference report that is expected to become law that will assure that the CSP operates as established and intended in the 2002 farm bill for the duration of that bill.

I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the distinguished majority leader, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back all time.

Madam President, the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program is a competitive program administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Department of Commerce. The S-K program was established by the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1954 to promote U.S. seafood products around the world and generally support our Nation's fisheries. For the first time in 1979, S-K receipts from import duties on fishery products were transferred to NOAA's base budget to fund an industry/government partnership. However, without my amendment in fiscal year 2003 NOAA would transfer $75 million to it's base budget, leaving only $220,000 for the original purposes of this program-- promoting domestic seafood production. This provision ensures that a little less than 15 percent of those receipts transferred to NOAA will be used for their intended purpose--promoting domestic seafood from Alaska, home to half of the U.S. domestic seafood production.

This bill includes $10 million from the S-K program to market Alaska seafood products and creates the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to administer these funds. This program will help develop and promote high-value fresh and fresh-frozen Alaskan seafood products, allowing Alaska fishermen to better compete in the global and domestic markets.

The Secretary of Commerce will appoint the members of the board and the executive director. In appointing members to the board, the Secretary shall fully consult with and seek recommendations from the Governor of Alaska. The membership should reflect the various aspects of seafood production, distribution, State oversight and the retail of Alaska seafood products. This would include three individuals with experience in harvesting Alaska seafood, two individuals with experience in fish processing, one individual from the Alaska transportation industry, one individual from the Alaska State legislature -preferably with experience on the State of Alaska's Salmon Task Force, one individual with experience in mass market food distribution, one individual with experience in mass market food retailing, one individual with experience in niche marketing of Alaska seafood products, and one individual recommended by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

The board will solicit grant proposals for marketing Alaska seafood from the public, review them, and fund those that will do the most to help reinvigorate struggling sectors of the Alaska seafood industry. These proposals can promote region-specific or species-specific marketing programs that do not undermine existing statewide ``Alaska Seafood'' marketing efforts.

The board may choose to promote the development of new processing technologies to insure the commercial viability of Alaska seafood and improve related transportation costs in delivering these products to market, and will work to improve the overall marketability of Alaska seafood.

I look forward to working with the Secretary of Commerce on establishing the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board and helping the Alaska seafood industry get its message out to the world.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware that Republican Members of the House of Representatives who are not in that caucus because it is purely a Democratic caucus do support this nominee?

I mean in the House of Representatives. The Senator is trying to leave the impression that people of Spanish background in the House of Representatives all oppose this nominee.

Which is all Democrats.

It is all Democrats.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 2 p.m., with the time equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, and that Members be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I come to this Chamber to state my support for John Snow's nomination as the Treasury Secretary. In the 20 years I have known John, I have found him to be honest, capable, and up to the challenge of heading our Nation's Treasury Department. While John and I have not always agreed on issues, I have never found him to be disagreeable. I am confident he will be a valuable member of the President's Cabinet and will work well with Members of Congress.

As a business leader, a public servant, an academic, John has proven he has the ability to lead our Nation's economic recovery and spur economic growth. I look forward to working with John on our Nation's economic challenges, and I urge a rapid report and consideration of his nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of the Honorable Paul McHale to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for homeland defense and Mr. Christopher Ryan Henry to be Deputy under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct an Executive Session for the purpose of approving the committee budget and the committee rules.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on pending committee business. Then, immediately following, a full committee hearing on Media Ownership: Radio.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on U.S. Borders: Safe or Sieve?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at a time to be determined, to Report out the Nomination of John W. Snow to be Secretary of the United States Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on 30, January 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hold a hearing on The January 27 UNMOVIC and IAEA Reports to the UN Security Council on Inspections in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on The Smallpox Vaccination Plan: Challenges and Next Steps during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, January 30, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

tentative agenda

I. Nominations: Miguel Estrada to be a U.S. Circuit Court

Judge for the D.C. circuit.

II. Bills: S. 151, PROTECT Act [Hatch/Leahy]; S. 153,

Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act [Feinstein/Kyl/

Grassley/Sessions]; S. 205, Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act

of 2003 [Biden/Lugar/Specter/Hatch/Leahy].

III. Committee Resolution Honoring Beryl Howell.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 30, 2003 from 2:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. in Dirksen 430 for the purpose of conducting an organizational meeting.

Madam President, I wish to read from a speech of a President of the United States. In order that there be no question about its source, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks the speech in full be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to read excerpts of the speech. It is too long to read completely in the time allotted to me. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will listen to it because when I heard of this speech in the first instance, I was very impressed by it. I think the Senate should be reminded of it. I will start off with this paragraph, and it is not the first, but I will call attention to it. The President said:

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military

leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf.

Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all

those whom you represent, the men and women of our military.

The President was speaking to the force of generals of the United States.

You, your friends, and your colleagues are on the

frontlines of this crisis in Iraq. I want you and I want the

American people to hear directly from me what is at stake for

America in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the

peace, the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have

taken the position we have taken.

I will now move down in the speech.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The

superpower confrontation has ended on every continent;

democracy is securing for more and more people the basic

freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by

bit, the information age is chipping away at the barriers,

economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked

in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in

this room know very well that this is not a time free from

peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw

nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers,

and organized international criminals. We have to defend our

future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on

the free flow of information and technology. They actually

take advantage of the freer movement of people, information,

and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow

them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological

weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot

allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam

Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his

people, the stability of his region, and the security of all

the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand, first, the past:

How did this crisis come about? And I want them to understand

what we must do to protect the national interests and,

indeed, the interest of all freedom-loving people in the

world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf

war, the United Nations demanded--not the United States, the

United Nations--and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare

within 15 days--this is way back in 1991--within 15 days

his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the

missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration.

That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly

trained international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure

that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good

reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a

terrible arsenal, and he used it, not once but many times. In

a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against

combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary,

and even against his own people. During the Gulf war, Saddam

launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at

the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better part of

the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.

Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false

declarations about weapons that it had left in its possession

after the Gulf war. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence

that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend

the records. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear

declarations 4 times within just 14 months, and it has

submitted 6 different biological warfare declarations, each

of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief

organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program,

defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to

conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many

more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers

of weapons in significant quantities and weapons stocks.

Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just

simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to

Jordan and told the truth.

Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among

other things, an offensive biological warfare capability,

notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;

2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads;

and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors

believe that Iraq had actually greatly understated its

production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all

know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the

untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

He was killed, Madam President.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have

undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the

inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras,

literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect

facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and

our people were there observing it and have the pictures to

prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a

remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the

civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of

mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf

war. This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than

100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational

missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and

biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons

facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other

deadly agents. . . .

That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to

do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the

end of the Gulf war, to do what should have been done within

15 days--within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the

Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is

by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and not

simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a

diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable,

reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to

free, full, unfettered access to these sites, anywhere in the

country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the

integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in

place.

Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence

of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security

Council many times since has reiterated this standard. If he

accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or

continues to evade his obligation through more tactics of

delay and deception, he, and he alone, will be to blame for

the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he

promised to do within 15 days at the end of the Gulf war,

what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in '95,

what the inspectors have done against all odds.

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that

does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining

sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in

the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's

what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for

it so hard. That's why the United States should insist upon

it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply

and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route

which gives him more opportunities to develop this program of

weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the

release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn

commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the

international community has lost its will. He will then

conclude he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal

of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I

guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one

of you who has really worked on this for any length of time

believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our

purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat

posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want

to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I

am quite confident from the briefing I have just received

from our military leaders that we can achieve the objectives

and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all

the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will

leave him

significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the

ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack

his neighbors. And he will know that the international

community continues to have the will to act if and when he

threatens again.

Following any strike, we will carefully monitor

Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If

he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we

will be prepared to strike him again. The economic

sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully

with all U.N. resolutions. . . .

Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the

weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send

our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first

answer. But sometimes it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained

fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary

for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will

do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men

and women under their command. No military action, however,

is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in

uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as

well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We

have seen that constant vigilance pays off, but it requires

constant vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back

every time Saddam has posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to

assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's

intelligence headquarters. When Saddam threatened another

invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the Kuwaiti

border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our

ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down. When Saddam

forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our

control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N.

weapons inspections system itself. Yes, he has tried to

thwart it in every conceivable way. But the discipline,

determination, the year-in, year-out effort of these weapons

inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.

Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam

Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the

weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn

commitment to the international community to do that and to

give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now.

One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes

good on his own promise. . . .

That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the

future I ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past

and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we

still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic

resolution to this and, if not, God willing, a chance to do

the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

That speech was made by President Clinton on February 17, 1998. I find it very strange that my friends on the other side of the aisle-- and they are my friends--are attacking President Bush for having made statements weaker than these statements.

If one reads this statement in full, the President of the United States, then speaking to the generals who command all our forces, told them to be ready. He had just had the briefing. He had the briefing that convinced him in 1998 that he might have to act as President to take military action against Saddam Hussein.

Five years later, another President is saying the same thing, and he is attacked. We never attacked President Clinton. We never doubted his sincerity. But now my friends--and they are my friends--are saying that this President does not know what he is doing. I believe the President knows what he is doing, and I think he made a masterful statement last night of the position in which the United States finds itself. It is not different from the position President Clinton was in in 1998. Should he be in this position now? Should we have done something in the interim? The answer is simply yes. We should have done something years ago--gone to the U.N. and said: If you are going to have any meaning in the world at all, you must insist that Saddam Hussein obey the mandates you have issued.

I come from a State that has a great many of our military planes, and I talk to our military pilots wherever I travel in the world. One thing is clear: Our pilots, our Air Force pilots have been enforcing the no- fly zones since 1991. They have been flying every day in harm's way. They have been shot at nearly every week. We retaliated, retaliated, retaliated, but young men and women are up there tonight flying planes over portions of Iraq, at the insistence of the United Nations that we prevent Saddam Hussein from having any aircraft in those zones in the north and south. We are following their request. We are carrying out that operation at our expense and with our pilots, with our planes, and we have been doing it now since 1991.

How long will this continue? How long do we have to fly to prevent Saddam Hussein from having weapons in the air that are really minuscule compared to what is on the ground--weapons of mass destruction, that President Clinton described adequately and succinctly and honorably in 1998.

Madam President, I think it is high time we came together. I am sincerely disappointed that we do not have a uniform force here, that we do not have a uniform force right here on the floor of the Senate saying: Mr. President, we understand that you--as did President Clinton--have in front of you a horrendous decision to make. When do we have to go in and destroy these weapons?

How many weapons has he created since 1998? How much more difficult will it be to find those weapons than it would have been in 1998? I say in all sincerity, as one who has watched over the Defense Department's appropriations now since 1981, either I or my friend from Hawaii, the two of us jointly have done that job. We have been to this part of the world of the Persian Gulf many times.

This is an awesome problem that faces the President of the United States. We should help him, not challenge his decision and what he is doing. He is asking the world to come together to demand that Saddam Hussein do what he agreed to do in 1991, as President Clinton repeatedly said in his statement, and as our President, President Bush, has said before the U.N. in a masterful statement he made when he went before the U.N.

The time is now for us to come together and realize we are approaching decision time. I served in combat in World War II, and many of us know the awesome days we went through then. They were nothing compared to what this world will be if Saddam Hussein ever uses those weapons of mass destruction. I think we have changed our way of life. We have changed our lifestyles. We have already been affected by his collusion with the al-Qaida force, and those people who are part of that terrible force.

President Clinton called it the unholy axis. President Bush called it the evil axis and has been criticized for saying so. President Clinton said we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century, and I say things are worse today than they were in 1998.

I am one of those who gets these intelligence briefings. I have told my wife when I come home after those briefings I find it hard to think about the work I have to do other than just think about these terrible intelligence reports. This is not a simple world we live in, but it is a world in which I believe the freedom-loving people look to us for leadership. I say, thank God we have a leader who means what he says, and I am willing to follow him when he says it is necessary to use force if that day ever comes.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks

and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the

superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this

most recent, very difficult problem. Thank you, General

Shelton, for being the right person at the right time. Thank

you, General Ralston, and the members of the Joint Chiefs,

General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCI

Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger. Senator Robb, thank you for

being here, and Congressman Skelton, thank you very much, and

for your years of service to America and your passionate

patriotism, both of you, and to the members of our Armed

Forces and others who work here to protect our national

security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military

leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf.

Before I left the Pentagon I wanted to talk to you and all

those whom you represent, the men and women of our military.

You, your friends, and your colleagues are on the frontlines

of this crisis in Iraq. I want you and I want the American

people to hear directly from me what is at stake for America

in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the peace,

the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have taken the

position we have taken.

I was thinking, as I sat up here on the platform, of the

slogan that the First Lady gave me for her project on the

millennium, which was: Remembering the past and imagining the

future. Now, for that project, that means preserving the

Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and

the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means

making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to

get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad

slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult,

more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment,

I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have

neither remembered the past nor imagined the future. So,

first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting

the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our

security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The

superpower confrontation has ended on every continent;

democracy is securing for more and more people the basic

freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by

bit, the information age is chipping away at the barriers,

economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked

in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in

this room know very well that this is not a time free from

peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw

nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers,

and organized international criminals. We have to defend our

future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on

the free flow of information and technology. They actually

take advantage of the freer movement of people,

information, and ideas. And they will be all the more

lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear,

chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to

deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam

Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his

people, the stability of his region, and the security of all

the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand, first, the past:

How did this crisis come about? And I want them to understand

what we must do to protect the national interest and, indeed,

the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf

war, the United Nations demanded--not the United States, the

United Nations demanded--and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare

within 15 days--this is way back in 1991--within 15 days his

nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to

deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he

promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly

trained international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure

that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good

reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a

terrible arsenal, and he had used it, not once but many

times. In a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical

weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a

foreign adversary, and even against his own people. And

during the Gulf war, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi

Arabia, Israel, and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at

the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better part of

the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.

Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false

declarations about the weapons that it had left in its

possession after the Gulf war. When UNSCOM would then uncover

evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would

simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its

nuclear declarations 4 times with just 14 months, and it has

submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each

of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief

organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program,

defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to

conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many

more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers

of weapons in significant quantities and weapons stocks.

Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just

simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to

Jordan and told the truth.

Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among

other things, an offensive biological warfare capability,

notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;

2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads;

and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors

believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its

production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all

know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the

untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have

undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the

inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras,

literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect

facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and

our people were there observing it and have the pictures to

prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a

remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the

civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of

mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf

war. This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than

100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational

missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical

biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons

facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other

deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and

closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity,

Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their

ambition by imposing debilitating conditions on the

inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been

inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in

Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. By comparison--when you

hear all this business about ``Presidential sites reflect our

sovereignty; why do you want to come into a residence?''--the

White House complex is 18 acres, so you'll have some feel for

this. One of these Presidential sites is about the size of

Washington, DC. That's about--how many acres did you tell me

it was--40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms

here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the

whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect

whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass

destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feedstocks

necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that

Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological

munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the

capacity to restart quickly its production program and build

many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past,

here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly

and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic

solution. The inspection system works. The inspection system

has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after

obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work

deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked.

That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to

do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the

end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within

15 days--within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the

Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is

by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and not

simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a

diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable,

reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to

free, full, unfettered access to these sites, anywhere in the

country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the

integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in

place.

Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence

of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security

Council many times since has reiterated this standard. If he

accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or

continues to evade his obligation through more tactics of

delay and deception, he, and he alone, will be to blame for

the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he

promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf war,

what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in '95,

what the inspectors have done against all odds.

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that

does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining

sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in

the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's

what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for

it so hard. That's why the United States should insist upon

it.

Now let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply

and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route

which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this

program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press

for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the

solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that

the international community has lost its will. He will then

conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an

arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I

guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one

of you who has really worked on this for any length of time

believes that, too.

Now, we have spent several weeks building up our forces in

the Gulf and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our

force posture would not be possible without the support of

Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC States, and Turkey.

Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces,

bases, or logistical support, including the United Kingdom,

Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and The Netherlands,

Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina,

Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, and our friends and

neighbors in Canada. That list is growing, not because anyone

wants military action but because there are people in this

world who believe the United Nations resolution should mean

something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved,

because they remember the past, and because they can imagine

what the future will be, depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our

purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat

posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want

to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I

am quite confident from the briefing I have just received

from our military leaders that we can achieve the objectives

and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all

the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will

leave him

significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the

ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack

his neighbors. And he will know that the international

community continues to have will to act if and when he

threatens again.

Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's

activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to

rebuild his weapons of mass destruction we will be prepared

to strike him again. The economic sanctions will remain in

place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolution.

Consider this: Already these sanctions have denied him $110

billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be

today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations

he would have hidden around the country if he had been able

to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military

rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern

suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq,

making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again

and threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the

weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send

our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first

answer. But sometimes it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained

fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary

for me to exercise the option of force, you commanders will

do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men

and women under their command. No military action, however,

is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in

uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as

well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We

have seen that constant vigilance pays off, but it requires

constant vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back

every time Saddam has posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to

assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's

intelligence headquarters. When Saddam threatened another

invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the Kuwaiti

border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our

ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down. When Saddam

forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our

control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N.

weapons inspections system itself, Yes, he has tried to

thwart it in every conceivable way. But the discipline,

determination, the year-in, year-out effort of these weapons

inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.

Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam

Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the

weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn

commitment to the international community to do that and to

give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now.

One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes

good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the

20th century and warns us of what we must know about the

21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience

that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is

firmness, determination, and, when necessary, action. In the

next century, the community of nations may see more and more

the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with

weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide

them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals,

who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would

follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the

knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face

of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council

and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send

a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that

the international community does have the wisdom and the will

and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.

That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the

future I ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past

and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we

still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic

resolution to this and, if not, God willing, a chance to do

the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the auditorium.

In his remarks, be referred to President Saddam Hussein of

Iraq.

Mr. President, I rise to commend Mr. Art Rynearson, the Deputy Legislative Counsel of the Senate, who retires on January 31, 2003, after serving in the Senate for more than 26 years, including more than 3 years as Deputy Legislative Counsel.

As President pro tempore of the Senate, it is my pleasure to oversee the work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I appreciate the great dedication and professionalism Art Rynearson has displayed in his role as an attorney in the Office and in his service as Deputy Legislative Counsel.

The Office of Legislative Counsel plays a very important role in the legislative process. We all rely upon the attorneys in the office to provide legislative drafts to effectively carry out our legislative policy. Mr. Rynearson, in his role as Deputy Legislative Counsel, has helped to see that we are all served well by a professional, career, and nonpartisan staff.

In addition to his service as Deputy Legislative Counsel, Art Rynearson served for more than 26 years as the principal drafter in the Senate on virtually all matters relating to international relations, international security, immigration and the State Department, and all matters relating to Senate consideration of international treaties. He served the Senate well in that regard, with a commanding knowledge of international law and the dedication to put in long hours in service of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution, and I am proud to have known and worked with Art Rynearson. He has served his Nation well for over 28 years, including 2 years with the Library of Congress. I wish Art and his wife, Mary Linda, the very best for the future, especially time spent enjoying their retirement.