Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Finance Committee has moved the important provisions of this bill to the Senate floor and I urge that the bill be passed.

The current Tax Code does not adequately deal with the special circumstances that some in our military face. One of the most important provisions, in my view, is providing for an above-the-line deduction for overnight travel expenses of National Guard and Reserve members.

I have taken a personal interest in a provision included in this measure that provides that descendants of current or former active military personnel may be members of veterans organizations. Without this provision, many local veteran posts which operate food operations will find themselves having to pay unrelated business income taxes as the portion of service to members falls. A large share of the local posts in Iowa are very small operations and this would be a real burden. I introduced legislation in the last Congress and this one which has been included in the bill and I appreciate the inclusion of this provision.

Lastly, I want to discuss the inclusion of a provision that will effectively prevent very rich individuals from reducing their taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. I cannot stress too strongly how disgusting I find this group's behavior. Their number is small, but their cost to the Treasury is significant. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated the savings of this provision at $700 million over 10 years.

Back in 1996, I became very interested in this issue and introduced legislation on the subject. Senator Monynihan took the lead in the Senate and we passed solid legislation at that time. Unfortunately, the House resisted the provision and successfully proposed a mechanism which has proven to be grossly inadequate.

The Joint Tax Committee staff issued an extensive report on this issue earlier this year with considerable cooperation from the GAO and the Treasury. The report found that ``there is little or no enforcement of the special tax and immigration rules applicable to tax-motivated citizenship relinquishment and residency termination.'' It went to say, ``The Joint Committee staff believes that a key reason for inadequate enforcement of the alternative tax regime is the inability to obtain necessary information from individuals.'' With appendices, the report is over 500 pages in length. But it comes down to a simple point: A small number of people continue to evade U.S. income taxes by turning their back on our country because of the weakness of the 1996 provisions. That should stop today.

In both this Congress and the last, I introduced legislation with Senator Stabenow to effectively prevent very rich individuals from reducing their taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. It is a companion to a measure introduced by Congressman Charles Rangel in 2002. The Joint Tax Committee now estimates that it saves $700 million. The savings to the Treasury are important and the reality that people are able to save on their fair share of taxes by turning their back on our country is in some ways even more important. I call them Benedict Arnold.

Under current law, for 10 years after a U.S. citizen renounces his or her citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. taxes, the person is taxed at the rates that would have applied had he or she remained a citizen. In reality, the tax is nominally on a broader based of income and on more types of transactions. In addition, if the expatriate dies within 10 years of the expatriation, more types of assets are included in his or her estate. Unfortunately, the reality is that taxes are very often not paid.

Once a person has expatriated and removed U.S. assets from U.S. jurisdictions, as the Joint Tax Committee report notes, it is extremely difficult to enforce the current rules, particularly for an entire decade after the citizenship is renounced. The measure I introduced simply provides that the very act of renouncing one's citizenship triggers the recognition of tax. So, rather than collecting tax every time an asset is sold over the next decade, my bill treats all of the assets of an expatriate as having been sold the day prior to when the person renounces their citizenship. The taxes are due up front rather than over time. In regard to estate taxes, rather than attempting to collect the tax from the estate of an expatriate not in U.S. jurisdiction, my measure taxes the inheritance of an heir who remain in the U.S. in such a way as to remove any tax benefit from the renouncement of citizenship.

Revenue of $700 million from these very few former citizens is a significant amount of money that must be made up by loyal Americans in the form of higher debt or taxes that Americans will face. Last year, the Senate passed this measure as a part of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act but, unfortunately, the House opposed this provision.

I am hopeful that the Senate will strongly resist any effort to weaken these provisions in any way. This is a matter where the Senate should insist that the loopholes be completely closed. It is an area where lobbyists for the Benedict Arnolds should have no success in their efforts to escape their tax obligations.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its

immediate consideration, amendment No. 396.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, what we have is a very unfair system on reimbursement for beneficiaries. Here is a chart that shows the national average is about $5,490 per beneficiary in reimbursement. There are 34 States below that. My State of Iowa is $3,000 per beneficiary per year; New Mexico, $3,700. You can see all these States down here; we pay the same taxes, we pay the same Medicare taxes as every other State, yet Iowa receives $4,300 per beneficiary less than the top State in the Nation. All this amendment does is it provides $25 billion over 10 years to the Finance Committee to bring up these States. It does not take from the States at the top; it only adds to the States at the bottom, and even some of the States at the top will be helped because it helps the rural-urban inequity. So some of the States at the top that have rural areas will actually benefit, but this brings up the bottom States.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the budget resolution before us eliminates 46 important education programs, programs such as rural education, dropout prevention, arts education, the Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress, Gifted and Talented, Ready To Learn, the National Writing Project, Parental Assistance Information Centers, a number of them--46 programs that have been broadly supported by both the House and the Senate on the Republican and Democratic sides.

These are programs that go to meet certain specific kinds of needs like rural education, where small schools do not have the wherewithal to get in grants. They do not have the economies of scale. They have specific transportation needs.

Mr. President, what this amendment will do--it does not add any money. It simply restores these programs. It would be $2.2 billion the first year, $24 billion over 10 years, offset by a reduction in the tax cut. All it does is simply restore the programs.

I assume some of these will be restored as we go through the process. But if we don't have it in the budget, that means we are going to take it out of title I, we are going to take it out of special education, and other areas. Let's put the money in there now to pay for these programs.

Mr. President, this amendment is as phony as a $3 bill. It provides for 2 years of funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and then you drop off the face of the Earth. And it gets the money from--where? It gets it from nowhere. It is play money.

Later on, I will have an amendment that will really fund that. I have been working on an amendment with the Senator from Nebraska that will really put the money in there and get us fully funded for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by 2011. It will not be funny money, and it will not fall off the face of the Earth in 2 years like the Gregg amendment.

I ask for defeat of this amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

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

I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. President, my amendment simply holds the size of the tax cut to $350 billion. Any tax cuts beyond $350 billion would have to be offset under my amendment or they would face a budget point of order requiring 60 votes. Many colleagues may say, wait a minute, I thought that was what the underlying amendment does. The underlying amendment still allows for $940 billion in tax cuts in the future. It does reduce down to $350 billion the amount of tax cut under reconciliation, but it still allows for $600 billion more in tax cuts.

My amendment says $350 billion, and cap it at that. No more. Any tax breaks beyond that would either have to be offset or it would require 60 votes to overcome a point of order. It is very simple. It is a cap of $350 billion on tax cuts.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers are with Iowa families who have loved ones serving their country in the Middle East. When faced with the difficult and sometimes terrible duty of war, the men and women of our armed services have never let us down. We have the best trained soldiers, the best technology, and the best military commanders in the world. I have full confidence in their performance. My hope is for a swift conclusion and a lasting peace in the entire region. It is also my deep hope that innocent civilians in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East suffer a minimum of harm.

I know the views in the country have been divided as to the need for and the wisdom of this war. Right now, we need to support the men and women who are serving this country. This war and the reconstruction work that follows will not be easy and many of our troops may bravely face risks. They are doing their duty and sacrificing for our security. We need to keep them all in our thoughts and prayers and be fully behind them. That is something on which we can all agree.

Right now, over 3,200 Iowans are serving: 2,200 in the National Guard, 1,760 are overseas, and over 1,000 in our Reserves here and abroad. We are proud of our Iowa, that Iowans are protecting our homeland.

In my home State of Iowa, I know there have been some concerns about our vulnerable areas in this time of Washington. I want Iowans to know I will be working with my fellow Senators to ensure our homeland is protected. As our Governor, Tom Vilsack, said today, it will take the resources of our Federal Government to keep our communities safe. I intend to work to make sure Iowans and all Americans have the protections we need here at home.

If I could have 2 minutes.

I thank my colleague.

(The remarks of Mr. Harkin are printed in today's Record in the debate on S. Res. 95.)

Will the Senator yield?

Let me ask a question on process. A lot of us would like to offer amendments. This thing gets plugged up and goes on hour after hour. If the Senator wants to be in until midnight, that is fine. I have an amendment I would like to offer, but should I offer it at 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12? I would like some idea of where I am going to be in the queue, but just to say come and offer amendments is not very conducive to an orderly process. So if there is some kind of queue, will there be time limits put on these amendments so we have some idea of when we should come over to offer our amendments? Since we are not going to have any votes, it would be nice to have some idea of when we could come over and offer our amendments.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding. I will speak on the situation in Iraq. I find it almost surreal that we are here debating the budget--it is important, obviously, for what will happen to the future of our country--but I note that at least the British House of Commons just today committed a whole day of debate on Iraq. Then they will vote on a resolution. It looks as though Prime Minister Blair will win the resolution in the House of Commons, but at least they are having a debate. We would think that would be happening here in the Senate, that we would have at least 1 day of debate about whether or not our President is doing the right thing.

I watched the President last night, and it looks as if his mind is made up. In fact, I think it has been made up for a long time. I was disheartened to learn that the United Nations is withdrawing its inspectors. They have been making some progress, but they are now being pulled out.

Last October, I was one of 77 Senators who supported the congressional resolution on Iraq. The resolution, in the version that we passed, supported diplomatic efforts to enforce the Security Council resolutions. And if all peaceful means failed, it authorized the use of force so we could defend the national security of the U.S. and enforce Security Council resolutions.

At the time, I said that going to war should be the last resort. It was clear then--and it is clear now--that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and that weapons of mass destruction in his hands are a grave danger to the international community. But I said then--and say now-- there is a right way and a wrong way to confront him and disarm him.

In voting for the resolution, I say to my fellow Iowans and to my fellow

Senators, I was clear I was not voting for immediate war with Iraq. I wanted to provide maximum leverage for the President to persuade the Security Council to approve a tough, new resolution for inspections and disarmament.

Since October, this approach has had some success. The Security Council passed a strong resolution, and inspectors went back into Iraq for the first time since 1998. Faced with a united world, Iraq has generally let the inspections take place. After some resistance, Iraq has begun to allow some overflights and interviews with scientists. And they are destroying their al-Samoud missiles, as the U.N. demanded.

Now clearly, there are huge gaps in Iraq's cooperation. They have stonewalled in providing required information on their former chemical and biological weapons. And, as Secretary Powell described to the Security Council, they appear to have tried to deceive U.N. inspectors. But as far as we know, the disarmament of Iraq had begun. It certainly has not been completed and verified. But the process was underway and should have been allowed adequate time to bear fruit. Yet now war is going to start.

Back in October, the President, perhaps reluctantly, agreed to work through the United Nations in seeking disarmament of Iraq through peaceful means. I now have to wonder if President Bush really meant it. Almost from the day inspections began, the administration has been proclaiming their end.

Back in January, the President gave ``a matter of weeks, not months.'' But from the start, the inspectors themselves have said it would take months or years for them to complete their work.

And I regret to say that we have not been helping the inspectors adequately. As I said after Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N., rather than complaining about truck convoys weeks after the fact, we should help the U.N. stop and inspect them with real-time intelligence. But according to a CBS News report from February 21, U.N. inspectors said our intelligence--U.S. intelligence--has just led them ``to one dead end after another.'' These U.N. inspectors called the intelligence we gave them ``garbage after garbage after garbage.''

The administration has not even been clear on what we want from Iraq. The resolution I voted for referred to enforcing Security Council resolutions. Now, while there are a lot of those, the key one demanded disarmament of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, and of their long-range missiles.

After hundreds of inspections, the U.N. has found no evidence of ongoing programs for weapons of mass destruction. They did find that some missiles go a few miles over the limit. Iraq declared those, and is now destroying them. Nobody is saying that Saddam Hussein's obsessive pursuit of these weapons is suddenly over, but we sure do not have much evidence there to justify an invasion and full scale war.

So the administration tries to bring in September 11 and the fear that Hussein will give his weapons of mass destruction--assuming he has some--to terrorist groups. But no one has ever shown that Iraq had any involvement in the September 11 attacks. And even U.S. and British intelligence officials describe evidence of Hussein's links to al-Qaida as weak.

A recent Washington Post graphic showed 20 key terrorist organizers. They were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and several other countries, but not one was from Iraq.

So now the administration talks about fostering democracy throughout the Middle East. That is a noble goal. But it is hard to grow democracy out of the barrel of a gun. It seems more likely that a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq will lead to more extremism and terrorism in that region.

In any case, our goal was supposed to be enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions and defending U.S. national security. The resolutions are about disarmament in Iraq, not about rebuilding governments in that region.

Further, the administration has been throwing out allegations about Iraq without bothering to back them up. First, they claimed Iraq has been trying to buy uranium, based on documents that turned out to be forgeries. They pointed to a British intelligence dossier that turned out to be copied from academic papers several years old. They talked about close ties to al-Qaida based on an alleged facility in an area of Iraq that Hussein does not control and on one visit to an Iraqi hospital.

The Vice President, on Sunday, claimed that Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear weapons,'' a bizarre claim, but the U.N. has found no evidence that Iraq ever had nuclear weapons to reconstitute or that they now have an active program to make them. But after the Vice President said that, he turned around and then said something else. I am reading here from the Washington Post of this morning, Tuesday: ``Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq.''

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's ``Meet The Press,'' the

vice president argued that ``we believe he has, in fact,

reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' But Cheney contradicted that

assertion moments later, saying it was ``only a matter of

time before he acquires nuclear weapons.'' Both assertions

were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director

general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who

reported that ``there is no indication of resumed nuclear

activities.''

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi

efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents.

Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had

significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence,

linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear

weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in

Bush's State of the Union address.

Well, on and on and on it goes.

After I listened to the President last night, and after going through all the false assertions that they have made--what the Vice President said on national television on Sunday, without a shred of evidence-- reminds me of two ships called the Maddox and the Turner Joy, that supposedly in the late summer of 1964 were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.

I ask Senators, go back and read the Senate debate on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in August 1964--our two ships attacked in the open ocean, attacked by vessels from North Vietnam. That led to a drumbeat to pass the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which gave the President the authority to engage in full scale war in Vietnam.

What did we learn later? We learned later that there never was such an incident. Neither the Maddox nor the Turner Joy was ever attacked. This was all fabrication, all total fabrication.

But I ask, what elected official, what appointed official in the Johnson administration or later in the Nixon administration was ever held to account for that? Yet 50,000 lives later, we recognize what led us into Vietnam.

Can I ask for another 5 or 7 minutes.

I appreciate that.

So, Mr. President, we almost have before us another Maddox and Turner Joy: a claim that Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons, but the evidence is not there.

The President himself said, last October:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of

hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel,

Turkey and other nations--in a region where more than 135,000

American civilians and service members live and work.

Those are the President's words.

But:

Inspectors have found that the al-Samoud 2 missiles can

travel much less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the

targets Bush named.

The constant beating on the drums of war, along with the shifting goals--last night for the first time I heard that it is not just Hussein who has to leave but also his sons; the goal was regime change, then it was disarmament, and now it is regime change and a family thing, to get the family out--the dubious allegations, the lack of support for inspections, make it look as though

this administration has been set on war from the beginning and has just been casting about looking for support for their war all along.

Is war justified? I have absolute confidence in the men and women of our Armed Forces. Faced with war, they will win, and will do so with courage, discipline, and skill. But even with our overwhelming strength, even assured of victory, war is a terrible prospect. Thousands of innocent people will die. Iraq will be left in chaos. We will be left to occupy a country most likely for years, left with the responsibility on our taxpayers of rebuilding it.

America has always been reluctant to engage in war. And this will be the first war ever in which we have invaded where there has not been an imminent threat.

I believe there are at least four tests that must be met before we go to war. First, we must face an imminent threat. That has not been shown. Could Saddam be a threat down the line sometime? Perhaps. But we could contain him with inspections, and not just a handful but 500 or 1,000 inspectors--there is no limit on how many inspectors we could have; we could put in 1,000 inspectors. Would that cost more money? Sure. A lot less than a war.

So we must face an imminent threat, and that has not been shown.

Secondly, war should be the last resort, not the first. Even if a threat is demonstrated, we should launch a war only after we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives, as we required in the resolution last fall. In this case, we clearly have not.

Third, we must have substantial support among our allies and work with the United Nations. The agreements Saddam Hussein has violated are with the U.N. He didn't make those agreements with the United States, he made them with the United Nations. So since it is not a bilateral problem, it is a multilateral problem, we should be working through the United Nations. There is no doubt we can win a war against Iraq on our own--no doubt about that--but we are going to need the other nations to help rebuild Iraq after the war.

Finally, before we go to war, the fourth thing we need is a full debate in the Congress. Thus, I applaud Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy for their resolutions to move the debate forward. But now the clock has run out. I can't for the life of me understand, why the British House of Commons can have a full day of debate today on whether or not to pass a resolution to go to war, but the U.S. Congress can't.

I think back to our own Revolution which gave us the power. It is in the Constitution of the United States that only Congress has the power to declare war. And there can be no mistake about it. This is not an intervention. This is not military police activity. This is not defending ourselves against an imminent threat. This is an invasion and a full-scale war against a country.

I believe the Congress, and only the Congress, has the right to do that, and we have not even had the debate. It is time we have the debate.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this amendment, because the provision in the Budget Resolution on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known more commonly as ``ANWR,'' has no place in this resolution.

There are so many great things about our country. And one of them is the progress made to protect our natural resources, including wildlife refuges such as ANWR. ANWR--which constitutes just five percent of the area of Alaska's North Slope--is the last remaining stretch of the North Slope that is closed by law to oil and gas development. Even if the oil in this small patch there were plentiful, which it is not, the provision in this resolution still would not be the path we want to choose.

The oil in the refuge could supply only a tiny percentage of our needs, and is not worth the likelihood of permanent damage to wildlife in this vital habitat. A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences highlighted the current damage to Alaska's North Slope from energy production. For example, animals have been affected in different ways, including direct mortality and displacement, reduced reproductive rates of birds due to enhanced predator populations, diversion of bowhead whale migrations, and altered distributions and productivity of caribou. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences report concluded that while new technologies have reduced some effects from energy production, expansion in new areas is certain to exacerbate existing effects and generate new ones. I see no need to risk an American treasure in an environmentally-damaging hunt for this very limited, unsustainable fossil fuel source.

The long-term solution to our fuel needs is to tap a variety of renewable

energy sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, wind, and biomass, as well as energy efficient technologies such as hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

My continual support for ethanol is only strengthened by the topic on the table right now. Ethanol offers a much more environmentally friendly and economically sustainable energy option than the short- sighted approach embodied by the ANWR drilling plans. Fuel that is 80 percent ethanol--developed over the next decade or two--will dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil and foreign fuels.

Another source of renewable energy is soy diesel. For example, over 30 buses in Cedar Rapids, IA, now run on soy diesel.

The transition to cleaner, domestically-produced fuels offers near and long term benefits, and we must start investing now in these renewable fuels. Pinning our energy hopes on reaping a relatively small amount of oil from an ecologically fragile area is not a long term strategy. It is, in fact, very short-sighted, and will not meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The Department of Energy has estimated that without drilling in the Arctic refuge, we'll import 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020. If we do drill, the department says we'll still be importing 60 percent of our oil in 2020, when ANWR production will reach its peak, according to the Energy Information Agency. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge contains less economically recoverable oil than the U.S. consumes in 6 months. Oil company executives confirm it would take at least 10 years of exploration and development before this oil would reach markets. That's scarcely a compelling case for despoiling this environmental treasure.

And with 10 year build-up, this is not a short term, immediate stimulant for our economy. The revenue won't be seen for years, and it will be a small amount at that! Instead, we should focus on developing new domestic energy sources in this country by supporting the development of renewable fuels.

Further, we shouldn't be authorizing this kind of policy in a budget. Inserting controversial policy changes into a budget measure via reconciliation instructions shortchanges the normal legislative process by limiting debate. This ANWR debacle short circuits the normal legislative process used for consideration of controversial policy issues of this magnitude in the Senate.

I am committed to protecting and preserving our wilderness areas, parks, forests and wildlife. I cherish these resources, and I will continue to do what I can to see that they are protected. I am likewise committed to energy security for our Nation. The only way truly to achieve that goal is with renewable sources of energy available right here in our country.

Because of the concerns I have stated here, I am opposed to the Budget Resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to write a bill that would open up ANWR so that the Federal Government can receive revenue from drilling in that fragile area. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important amendment.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act. It designates 9.1 million acres of Federal public lands in Utah, managed by

the Bureau of Land Management, as a wilderness area under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation affords lands an extra level of protection--preserving the land in its ``wild'' state for future generations.

I know that citizens all across America, including many in Iowa, have enjoyed the wilderness in Redrock. Or some folks may never have visited that great place and just want it to be protected because it is so precious.

The redrock canyons of Utah are famous, even to many who have never been there. The dramatic cliff walls, sculpted by wind and water into swirling crimson towers have been captured in stunning photographs. Pink sandstone arches stretch across creek beds and gold-toned crevices slice through massive slabs of rock. These are refreshing sights we must save for generations to come.

And we must preserve Redrock for its invaluable wildlife. For example, some of Utah's last healthy populations of longhorn antelope and bighorn and sheep roam this isolated and majestic desert landscape.

Thanks to the Bush administration's rush to turn over public land for energy production, this unspoiled place is now in grave danger. The Interior Department has fast-tracked oil and gas leases and projects, opening the door to habitat destruction, road building, and industrial pollution. These precious lands should not be the target of energy production when we have bountiful sources of renewable energy, including sources from agriculture that can also help farmers and rural communities.

At a time when the administration is willfully neglecting our public lands by rejecting adequate funding for them, proposing oil and gas development in them, and increasing destructive logging practices, we need to protect these areas from such assaults.

Utah's unique Redrock Wilderness area should be designated as wilderness and protected from environmentally destructive activity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act. It designates 9.1 million acres of Federal public lands in Utah, managed by

the Bureau of Land Management, as a wilderness area under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation affords lands an extra level of protection--preserving the land in its ``wild'' state for future generations.

I know that citizens all across America, including many in Iowa, have enjoyed the wilderness in Redrock. Or some folks may never have visited that great place and just want it to be protected because it is so precious.

The redrock canyons of Utah are famous, even to many who have never been there. The dramatic cliff walls, sculpted by wind and water into swirling crimson towers have been captured in stunning photographs. Pink sandstone arches stretch across creek beds and gold-toned crevices slice through massive slabs of rock. These are refreshing sights we must save for generations to come.

And we must preserve Redrock for its invaluable wildlife. For example, some of Utah's last healthy populations of longhorn antelope and bighorn and sheep roam this isolated and majestic desert landscape.

Thanks to the Bush administration's rush to turn over public land for energy production, this unspoiled place is now in grave danger. The Interior Department has fast-tracked oil and gas leases and projects, opening the door to habitat destruction, road building, and industrial pollution. These precious lands should not be the target of energy production when we have bountiful sources of renewable energy, including sources from agriculture that can also help farmers and rural communities.

At a time when the administration is willfully neglecting our public lands by rejecting adequate funding for them, proposing oil and gas development in them, and increasing destructive logging practices, we need to protect these areas from such assaults.

Utah's unique Redrock Wilderness area should be designated as wilderness and protected from environmentally destructive activity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Madam President, I wanted to discuss my votes on S. 3 and its amendments. I have long supported a ban on late term abortions. However, S. 3 would not do that because it would be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court because it does not contain a health exception. Both in 1973 and in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that a government may regulate late term abortions with an exception to both life and health of the woman. The Court specifically ruled in the 2001 decision in Carhart--that Nebraska's law was too vague and did not contain the required health exception. Therefore, I supported the amendments offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin to ban late term abortions because they both contained the requisite health exceptions, and which I believe the Supreme Court would uphold.

I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment, 52 to 46, affirming Roe v. Wade. A woman's constitutional right to make a private decision in these matters is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. As a father, I have struggled with this issue. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to insist that my personal views be the law of the land.

So what should Congress do? Pass a late term abortion ban that the Supreme Court will uphold; increase funding for family planning and abstinence-only education and mandate insurance coverage for contraception. All of these fall within the rules under Roe v. Wade-- that established a woman's fundamental right to choose.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, the amendment I have offered basically expresses the sense of the Senate in support of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. With all of the legislation that continues to come up and chip away at Roe v. Wade, I decided it was important for us in the Senate to go on record that this historic decision was appropriate and should not be overturned.

I let the clerk read the full text of the amendment because it is very short and to the point. I offered this amendment 4 years ago on similar legislation that came before this body. The disposition of that amendment at that time, if I am not mistaken, was 51 to 47 in passage. There were some who were

concerned about a couple of the findings. The difference between this amendment and the one I offered 4 years ago is basically two findings have been removed and the only findings left are just the findings that pertain only to Roe v. Wade.

This amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Basically, it puts us on record of saying the decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, was appropriate and should not be overturned. I believe it is important that we remind ourselves about this decision as we get into the debate on this so-called partial-birth abortion--especially when this bill changes. That is different than what it was 4 years ago, as we try to parse words, trying to anticipate every medical procedure that might be performed by a doctor, getting into issues this Senator does not believe we are adequately prepared or equipped to do in terms of knowledge of all of the ramifications of certain medical procedures.

I want to make sure with all of this going on that we send a strong signal to the women of this country that Roe v. Wade is appropriate, it was a good decision, and it is not going to be overturned.

I assume maybe there are those in this body who want to see it overturned. I can accept that as their opinion and their view, but I think it is important for people to know where we stand on that decision.

As we all know, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade as a challenge to a Texas statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless the woman's life was at stake. The case had been filed by Jane Roe, an unmarried woman, who wanted to safely and legally end her pregnancy.

Siding with Roe, the Court struck down the Texas law. In its ruling, the Court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy ``is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'' But the decision also set some rules.

The Court recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute, and that any State has a valid interest in safeguarding maternal health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life. A State's interest in ``potential life'' is not compelling, the Court said, until viability, the point in pregnancy in which there is a reasonable possibility for the sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.

A State may, but is not required, to prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman's life or her health. I add that for emphasis, ``or her health.''

This is what my resolution is all about: To say that we agree that Roe v. Wade was an appropriate decision and it should not be overturned.

The constitutional right to a private decision in this matter is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship.

Before the 1973 landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that each year 1.2 million women resorted to illegal abortion, despite the known hazards of frightening trips to dangerous locations in strange parts of town; of whiskey as an anesthetic; of ``doctors'' who were often marginal or unlicensed practitioners, sometimes alcoholic, sometimes sexually abusive; unsanitary conditions; incompetent treatment; hemorrhage; disfiguration and death.

By invalidating laws that forced women to resort to back-alley abortion; Roe was directly responsible for saving women's lives.

Only 10 pieces of legislation were introduced in either the House or Senate before the Roe decision. But in the 30 years since the ruling, more than 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced. The majority of these bills sought to restrict a womans right to choose.

Unfortunately, what is often lost in the rhetoric and in some of those proposals--is the real significance of the Roe decision.

The Roe decision recognized the right of women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. The decision whether to bear a child is profoundly private and life-altering. As the Roe Court understood, without the right to make autonomous decisions about pregnancy, a woman could not participate freely and equally in society.

Roe not only established a woman's reproductive freedom, it was also central to women's continued progress toward full and equal participation in American life. In the 26 years since Roe, the variety and level of women's achievements have reached a higher level. As the Supreme Court observed in 1992:

The ability of women to participate equally in the economic

and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their

ability to control their reproductive lives.

As I have said on many occasions in the past, going back almost 20 years, I do not believe that any abortion is desirable. I do not think anyone does. As a father, I have struggled with this issue many times in the past. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to insist that my personal views be the law of the land, just as I do not think the personal views of the Senator from Pennsylvania, however strong he may hold them, ought to be the law of the land.

So what should Congress do?

If we are truly interested in both maintaining a woman's constitutional right to control her own reproductive life, and at the same time trying to limit the number of abortions in our society, there is action we can take. We can increase funding for family planning. Try getting that through on the floor of the Senate. We can increase funding for abstinence-only education. We have done some of that. We can mandate insurance coverage for contraception. We still need to do that. We do not, but we should mandate it.

We can provide more support for contraception research. Unfortunately, the Senate yesterday decided not to take these steps that could reduce the number of abortions. That was the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe it would establish the one important principle that we should agree on--that we will not strip away a woman's fundamental right to choose, and that is what this amendment does.

Further, I quote from Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in Casey:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own

concept of existence, of meaning of the universe and of the

mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not

define the attributes of personhood were they formed under

compulsion of the State.

I am going to read that again because it is such a profound statement:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own

concept of existence, of meaning of the universe and of the

mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not

define the attributes of personhood were they formed under

the compulsion of the State.

I think that is the essence of this issue, whether we will use the heavy hand of the State to enforce certain individuals' concepts of when life begins, how life begins, when a person can have an abortion, when a person cannot.

Yes, it is true, people are divided on this issue. Some people are uncertain about it. I quarrel with myself all the time about it, because it is as multifaceted as there are numbers of humans on the face of the Earth.

I would not sit in judgment on any person who would choose to have an abortion, especially a woman who went through the terrifying, agonizing, and soul-wrenching procedures of having a late-term abortion because her health or her life is in danger. That must be one of the most soul-wrenching experiences a person can go through. I just do not understand how we can be so presumptuous to think that we in the Senate can answer each one of those individual cases, with all the different facets that may be involved, and yet that is what some in the Senate believe the Senate and the Congress should do.

No, I do not want to sit in judgment on that, and I do not believe any of us ought to.

That is why, again, I think it is particularly important that we cut through all the folderol that surrounds this issue and get to the heart of it, which is Roe v. Wade. This is the heart of what we are talking about.

There are those who want to come along and change it and make it more complex, indecipherable, benefiting maybe one person one way, adding to the detriment of another person another way, so that we are right back where we were before Roe v. Wade was decided.

I believe very strongly that we need to express ourselves on this sense of the Senate resolution. I appreciate the agreement from the manager of the bill and our majority whip to have an up-or-down rollcall vote. I believe it is that important, and I appreciate their willingness to have that up-or-down vote.

I am sure I will have more to say later on. I believe there are 2 \1/ 2\ hours of time divided equally, if I am not mistaken.

How much time have I consumed?

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

I yield whatever time the Senator desires.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

I yield the Senator an additional 5 minutes.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Go ahead. The Senator is engaged in debate. I have a question.

I ask the Senator to yield.

The Senator has been very good about yielding for questions. If the Senator needs more time, I will join him in getting unanimous consent to give the Senator more time, if he needs it, because he has been very good about getting into a discussion. Do not worry about time. We will give you whatever time you want.

I would like the Senator to yield, on my time or his.

Madam President, I wish to ask the Senator a question. There are a number of issues about the Senator's bill that bothers me. One is how tightly it is drawn and it affords no leeway whatsoever for certain special cases. We talked about the health of the mother. A woman who came to see me some time ago--I do not know if this case is atypical, but I know it happened to one person. I know it is happening to others.

She and her husband had been trying to have children. She became pregnant. She found out the child's--basically the brain was outside the head.

I do not know exactly what that all means. Anyway, I do know she was told by her doctor that there was a possibility--he did not know how remote--but there was a distinct possibility that if she carried this child to term, which was going to die right away, that because of other complications she had, she might not be able to have other children. I am telling you this is what was told----

I would prefer we stick with Roe v. Wade which would allow my daughter to go to a hospital and to have a doctor perform a procedure on her that in the doctor's best judgment was the safest for her.

If I can just respond further, if the doctor decided this type of procedure was safer than a cesarean section, for example, which I would submit to my friend from Pennsylvania is every bit as gruesome if you would like to describe it, but it is up to the doctor to decide what is the safest procedure. That is what I would want my daughter to have, so that is why I have my amendment on Roe v. Wade.

I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I am not a doctor. I do not know. That is why these are the kinds of things that are not really up to us to decide to tell a doctor what is the safest and what is not the safest, or how to go about it.

Now, maybe we are getting somewhere. I heard my friend ask me about what I would want my own daughter to do if she was ever confronted with this, and I said I would want her to have the best care. I would want her to have a board-certified obstetrician/gynecol- ogist take care of her in a safe, healthy, legal setting. That is why I have offered my amendment. That is why my amendment is pending right now because I want us to say once and for all again that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, that if, God forbid, my daughter ever had a situation like that, she could go into a hospital, that she would not have the law hounding her, and that she could have a board-certified obstetrician.

So maybe we are getting somewhere. Maybe my friend is now going to support my amendment.

How much time remains on our side?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank the Senator for her stalwart support for all the years I have known her, for the principles and the law of Roe v. Wade, to ensure that the women of America have the right to choose. I thank her for her stalwart support, and I thank her for her comments this afternoon on behalf of this amendment I have offered.

I ask the Senator this question. We heard from our friend from Pennsylvania about certain polls that were taken about a certain procedure and this and that. But this amendment is about Roe v. Wade. Is the Senator familiar with polls taken in this country from women about whether or not they would support keeping Roe v. Wade or overturning Roe v. Wade? Is the Senator familiar with some of those polls?

That is exactly right. I say again to the Senator, when it is defined to people, both men and women, what Roe v. Wade really does in terms of the first 3 months and then after that what the State can do, but with exceptions for life and health of the mother, as the Senator so rightfully pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the American people say yes, that ought to inure to the individual and not to the Government.

I further ask the Senator, would she concur in this view, that perhaps what this is all about is really not about a procedure but it really is about fundamentally getting at Roe v. Wade? I say that to my friend from California because 4 years ago when this came up, this Senator along with the Senator from California offered the same amendment. It said that Roe v. Wade--we recognize it as the law of the land and it should not be overturned.

I yield another 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Is the Senator familiar with the outcome of that vote? That vote at that time--I remember it precisely--was 51 to 47. Two people who are not here had announced they were opposed to it, so it was 51 to 49. By 2 votes, the Senate--49 Senators said Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That is how close we are here. That is why the people of this country ought to recognize that is what this debate is about--getting at Roe v. Wade; nothing more, nothing less.

I thank the Senator.

How much time do I have, Madam President?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Madam President, I yield myself a couple minutes, and then I will close up. I know we have some people who need to vote here shortly.

Madam President, let us be clear about one thing. The amendment I have offered is, I think, as straightforward in its approach as Roe v. Wade is in its decision; that is, it simply just states Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned. That is what we are saying on this amendment.

I have not gotten much into the debate on the underlying bill itself. I may later on. I have left that to others. I just feel very strongly that in all the smoke and fog and haze and debate about this procedure and that procedure, and all of the kinds of philosophical debates that are being made--and some of them are very good. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has been very good about engaging in discussions on the floor. Maybe later on I will get into a little more philosophical debate with him on some of these things.

But this amendment simply is about Roe v. Wade. That is all this amendment is. It is for us to express ourselves, to express ourselves clearly and unequivocally that the Senate believes Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned.

Let us send a signal to the women of this country that we are not going to turn the clock back, we are not going to turn the clock back to what Senator Boxer from California said: the dark days when they went to back alleys.

If my daughter, God forbid, ever found herself in a position like that, as I said earlier, yes, I would want her to go to the best hospital, have a doctor, have a good obstetrician, and not be forced into a back alley. I want it legal. That is what Roe v. Wade is about, and that is what this amendment is about: to keep it safe, legal, and, yes, rare in the United States.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards and Senator Cantwell both be added as cosponsors, and Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor, and Senator Kerry.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss an issue that has arisen out of a technical problem in the farm bill Congress passed last year.

Section 10806(b) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by placing limitations on the use of the term ``ginseng'' as the common or usual name for plants classified within the genus Panax. The purpose of this provision was to address confusion that had arisen from products derived from different plants being labeled as ``Siberian ginseng'', and the like.

However, I must note that the use of the term ``ginseng'' for plants classified in a genus other than Panax was not illegal under Federal labeling laws in place prior to the passage of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. In these types of situations where a labeling change is proposed, the Food and Drug Administration recognizes that, in order to assure an orderly and economical industry adjustment to new labeling requirements, a sufficient lead time is necessary to permit planning for the use of existing label inventories and the development of new labeling materials.

Unfortunately, the ginseng provision Congress included in the farm bill lacked a specific effective date that would have allowed FDA's typical transition period to occur. As one of the lead authors of the farm bill, and as chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee at the time, I want to be clear this was simply an oversight on the part of the Senate and House in writing that portion of the farm bill that needs to be corrected as soon as possible.

I proposed to correct this omission in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for FY 2003, PL 108-7, and supply an effective date of May 13, 2003 for Section 10806(b) Ginseng Labeling of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Unfortunately, in the rush to complete work on that bill, the provision was left out even though no one had any objections to it.

Because it is important to address this as soon as possible, I want my colleagues to know that I plan to offer my amendment to supply an effective date for the ginseng provision again, either on the supplemental legislation we are likely to receive soon or other legislation moving on the floor of the Senate. It is my hope we can more quickly to correct this oversight.

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

Mr. President, there are a couple things I will speak about during this period of time: One, I do want to address myself to the issue now before us; that is, the issue of whether or not Miguel Estrada should proceed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Then I will talk a little while about the events over the weekend as they pertain to the looming war in Iraq.

But as pertains to Mr. Estrada, as long as this person is in front of us on the floor of the Senate, as long as my good friend from Utah keeps taking the floor to ask for a vote on Mr. Estrada, this Senator will continue to take the floor to continue to remind my good friend from Utah of what happened to Bonnie Campbell under the Clinton administration when the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee.

My friend, the Senator from Utah said:

An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask. If the Democrats

have enough votes to defeat Miguel Estrada, I am not going to

complain about it. I might feel badly about it. I might think

it is the wrong thing to do, but they have a right to do

that. If my colleagues disagree, and don't like this, they

can speak out, they can give their reasoning and vote no.

Politics ought to be left out of it.

It is unfortunate we did not hear that when President Clinton's nominees were sent to the Senate for confirmation. In fact, I said the same thing as my friend from Utah said at the time on the nomination of Bonnie Campbell to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Bonnie Campbell is a former attorney general of the State of Iowa, an individual who, by all reckoning, did an outstanding job at the Department of Justice, heading the Office of Violence Against Women.

She was nominated by President Clinton to be on the Eighth Circuit, and we could not even get a vote on her. She received her hearing in May of 2000 and answered whatever questions were propounded to her. She stood willing to produce any and all documents she had ever written for anyone. No, not once did any Republican Senator complain that Bonnie Campbell was not forthcoming. In fact, I am told that not once did a Republican Senator complain that a Clinton nominee did not adequately answer these questions.

So here she was, ready to answer, ready to move on. The hearing was held. She had the ABA stamp of approval. As I said, she had a long and distinguished history in the field of law. There were Members on both sides of the aisle who supported her nomination. Both Senator Grassley and I, from the State of Iowa, supported her nomination.

On September 21, 2000, I said right here:

If, for some reason, you think she is unqualified--I can't

imagine why--then cast your vote, but at least let's bring

the nominee to the floor. This, I think, is a black mark on

the operations of the Senate, another indication of how the

leadership of this Senate refuses to do the people's

business, to let things come out on the floor so we can vote

things up or down.

On October 3, 2000, I said:

It is clear who is playing politics with judgeships.

The Republican leadership of the Senate is playing the most

bold-faced politics. It is not alleged these nominees are not

qualified; it is simply they were nominated by a Democratic

President. That is all.

I have not heard one person on the Republican side tell me that Bonnie Campbell is not qualified to be a circuit judge.

Then during the month of October 2000, I brought up Bonnie Campbell's nomination seven times on the floor. I asked unanimous consent to go to it on the executive calendar, and seven times the Republican majority objected.

My friend from Utah has talked about the Democrats' double standard. My first instinct is to call that laughable, but in reality, it is outrageous because so many extremely well-qualified Clinton nominees not only never got an up-or-down vote on the floor, they never got a vote on committee. In many cases, they didn't even get a hearing.

I mentioned this a week or so ago. My friend from Utah said Bonnie Campbell's nomination came too late in the last year of the last administration. Well, I know for a fact two of Senator Kyl's district judges were nominated after Bonnie Campbell was nominated, and they were confirmed on October 3, 2000. In fact, I have a list of all the Clinton judicial nominees who were never allowed a vote. There were 79 who were not confirmed--31 circuit, 48 district. Fifty-nine were never even allowed a vote. Allen Snyder, DC Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans; Elena Kagen, DC Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans; Robert Cindrich, Third Circuit, never given a vote by Republicans. I will not read the whole list. There are 59 of them. But obviously one of those is Bonnie Campbell.

As long as Mr. Estrada is going to be here, I will keep reminding people of what they did to someone eminently well qualified who answered all the questions, was open to giving any writings, documents, or whatever anyone had asked of her. Yet she was stopped and wasn't even given a vote.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of all the judicial nominees who were not confirmed that President Clinton nominated, with a list of how many were never even given a vote.

I want to address briefly the issue of whether or not this is anti-Hispanic, something like that. I keep hearing this talk that Democrats are going to be accused of being against Hispanics. Again, we do have to point out some history.

Enrique Moreno, Jorge Rangel, and Christine Arguello were all nominated to the circuit courts by President Clinton, but were never afforded a hearing or vote in the Judiciary Committee under Republicans. My colleague from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, was quoted in the Dallas Morning News of January 31 of this year:

If we deny Mr. Estrada the position on the DC circuit, it

would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic

Americans everywhere.

Well, let's take a look at the reality and the record. There are more than 1,000 local, State, or Federal judges of Hispanic heritage. Yet President Bush has nominated only one Hispanic to any of the 42 vacant appellate positions. This administration has failed to nominate a single Hispanic judge for any of the circuits covering Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, New York, New Jersey, or Puerto Rico, where there are sizable minorities of Hispanic Americans. In contrast, President Clinton nominated 11 Latinos to these circuit courts and 21 to the district courts--quite a difference.

Again, my friend from Utah said on February 12:

What gets me is, we are in the middle of a filibuster of a

Federal judge when the Constitution says we should give

advice and consent, not advice and obstruction, not advice

and filibuster, not advice and unfairness.

Again, I wish I would have heard that when Bonnie Campbell had come up before the committee. As long as Mr. Estrada is here, I will continue, as I have today and as I have in the past, to bring up the issue of Bonnie Campbell because obviously it remains a dark mark on the Senate, one that was held up simply for purely partisan political reasons and nothing else.

Sure, I will yield for a question, without losing my right to the floor.

I ask the Senator, is this the guy who went to get his leg amputated?

He was injured in Afghanistan. I don't remember the name.

Well, I have read about them and heard about them--that there may be some people in and out, or some who may have come in. The most I have heard is the one I think the Senator is talking about, but I think he came there to get his leg fixed or something. No doubt he was well connected with al-Qaida.

But I say to my friend from Utah, the Government of Iraq said they cannot find this guy. Well, our people have said it is ridiculous; of course, you can find him. Well, we cannot find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We have more spy satellites and listening equipment than Iraq ever dreamed of having. I don't know whether this guy is there or not. There have been some in and out of Iraq.

Again, it is very tenuous as to whether or not there are any connections. I am sure the Senator from Utah also knows that there has been a longstanding feud between Osama bin Laden and his fundamentalists and the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. I say a pox on both their houses. But the fact is, in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and those fundamentalists, Saddam Hussein is a secular leader, not a true

Islamist. What they have always wanted was to get rid of Saddam Hussein to put in power a religious government in Iraq. So there never has been, in all the briefings I have ever had, any love lost between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida network. They just have different ideologies and a different way of approaching how they should govern. So, again, they have been trying to make these links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and they have never done it.

I say to my friend from Utah, there is an interesting piece in the Sunday Washington Post. When they caught Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the most dangerous men in al-Qaida, they captured him in Pakistan. On page A-26, there was a picture of all the high-value targets, those who have been involved with al-Qaida. No. 1 is Osama bin Laden. And then there is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the one they just caught. Then there is Abu Zubaida, still at large. Others have died or have been captured.

What is interesting about all of this--tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, is Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. Zawahiri is Egyptian. Saif Al-Adil is Egyptian. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is Pakistani. Then down here is a Jordanian, a Palestinian, a Saudi, a Yemeni, an Indonesian, a Kuwaiti, and an Egyptian. One thing kind of leaps out at you: Not one of them is an Iraqi.

You would think that if Iraq were so closely tied in with al-Qaida, they might have some operatives in there. Not one is Iraqi. So we are going to go kill a lot of innocent Iraqis, innocent civilians, women and children. Where are the Iraqis in that lineup? You would think, with that list, we would go to war against Egypt. Look at all the Egyptians--or even the Saudis. Look at all the people who are in tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 of the high-value targets, and more than just a few are Saudis. Maybe that ought to be the target of our invasion.

After all, we know it has been the Saudis who, with their deep pockets, have been funding the fundamentalists in their efforts in that part of the world. It is the Saudis, with their deep pockets, who have been buying and paying for Al-Jazeera television with all of the inflammatory tirades against the United States and Israel that come across that television station. Not Iraq. It wasn't Saddam Hussein paying for that. It was the Saudis paying for it.

So over the weekend we have the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, perhaps, as they say, the brains behind al-Qaida, and the brains behind September 11--the operations chief and mastermind. That is a great capture. I applaud the FBI agents, CIA agents, whoever was involved in tracking this guy down and getting him. They did a great job, and I hope they get whatever commendations and medals that is appropriate for that. But there is someone else that also helped capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and that is the Government of Pakistan.

I have taken this floor many times in the past several years to talk about our relations with Pakistan and how through the years, clear back to the founding of Pakistan as a nation, they have been on our side in every war. There isn't one conflict in the world that the U.S. has been involved in that the Pakistani Government and troops have not been on our side. Even in Haiti we had Pakistani soldiers with us. In Korea. In Vietnam. In the gulf war in 1991, Pakistan was there with us. Every single time that we have had a capture and a turnover to us of a terrorist, it has been Pakistan that has helped us.

The first bombers at the World Trade Center caught--almost a dozen years ago now--were turned over to us by Pakistan. The shooter at the CIA in the mid-1990s who killed so many people escaped and went to Pakistan. Pakistan caught him and turned him over to us. The bombers of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were caught by Pakistan and turned over to us. And now this is the latest in a long string of terrorists who have killed Americans here at home and abroad. Here is the latest. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured in Pakistan.

Yes, with the help of our FBI and CIA, and I don't know what other intelligence agencies, but it mentions the FBI here, but also with the help of the Pakistani Government. It could not have happened unless President Musharraf and others came to our aid and assistance to capture this guy. Yet how do we treat Pakistani Americans? So many Pakistani Americans who are in this country, who have been working, many have children who are Americans, have provided health care in our country in many cases and in many situations. They are university professors, businesses entrepreneurs all over America. Yet we have told them they have to march into INS and get fingerprinted and do all this within a month. In other words, it is treating Pakistani Americans as if they are part of this network of Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Jordanians, and everybody else. One might find a Pakistani in there someplace, I do not know.

The Pakistanis have always helped us out, and they are continuing to help us out today. We need to help them to combat terrorism in their own country.

After the war in Afghanistan was over, there were over a million refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They now think it is probably between 1 and 2 million. We provided little--I can almost say no help to the Pakistanis to take care of these refugees, to help them get resettled, and, as far as I know, we are not doing anything to help them now to get back into Afghanistan to resettle. They remain a burden on the Pakistani Government.

It makes one wonder sometimes just what our response is going to be if, in fact, we do have a war in Iraq and we have an occupation, when we see how we have treated the Pakistanis for all these years.

There were a couple other interesting events this weekend. The Iraqi Government has continued to destroy some of the Al-Samoud missiles. I think it is up to 10 now. They said they destroyed six more missiles. There is an interesting quote in the paper this morning. It said:

``If it turns out at an early stage this month that America

is not going to a legal way, then why should we continue?''

Saddam Hussein's scientific adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi,

said Sunday.

In other words, what he is saying is--I read the story--we are willing to destroy the missiles, it takes time, but if the United States is going to commit war on us anyway, why should we?

A Senior U.S. official--

There is always one of those--

said today the White House remained unimpressed with Iraq's

move. ``The standard for cooperation demanded by U.N.

Resolution 1441 is full and immediate, not grudging and

late,'' the official said. The resolution approved last fall

authorized a new round of weapons inspections in Iraq.

You wonder sometimes what the rush to judgment is. If we can continue with more inspectors and Iraq continues to destroy the missiles, and to continue the containment policy on Saddam Hussein, isn't that what we want?

There is another unnamed military source that says these missiles have questionable accuracy anyway. I am told they went over the line by 26 miles.

It was 100 kilometers, and they went over by 26 miles. I had a conversation this weekend with someone who said: These missiles could be used to hit Israel or hit Europe or maybe even America. That is not the case at all. They went 26 miles over the line. Again, it was more than what was allowed and they should be destroyed and they are being destroyed.

I guess the point I am making is why are we in such a rush to say that is not enough; we are going to go to war anyway? As I said at the beginning of my remarks, every time I listen to Mr. Wolfowitz, it seems as if this man has made up his mind: We are going to war no matter what, unless, as I read between the lines of what he is saying, someone assassinates Saddam Hussein and they set up a government and invite us in to run operations, then maybe we will not go to war. That seems to me about the only scenario that would keep a war from happening, according to Mr. Wolfowitz and those around him.

The other important event that happened this weekend was the vote in the Turkish Parliament. The vote was close. We lobbied heavily. We put up, I do not know, I am told $15 billion or $26 billion--take your pick--to get the Turkish Government to allow us to use their territory for our troops, for loading troops, the provisioning of troops, and the movement of troops across

Turkish national territory to Iraq. Even with that, the Parliament turned it down. It was a close vote, but they turned it down.

Then I saw a poll--you can get a lot of information off the Web on the weekend when you are working on these issues--there was a poll taken in Turkey. I do not know, I have no knowledge of how accurate this poll is or who took the poll, but it was a public opinion poll that showed that 94 percent of Turkey's citizens were opposed to the war in Iraq--94 percent. Even if the poll is off a little bit, one can understand why the Turkish Parliament was so reticent even in the face of billions of dollars of U.S. money pouring in.

Someone said on the floor last week, this is not the coalition of the willing; it is the coalition of the bought confronting Iraq. If we have to go to those measures, $26 billion is what I was told--I stand corrected if that is not right. Even if it is $15 billion or someplace in between, we are not funding education, we have a problem in Medicare, our deficits are going out of sight, but somehow we have $26 billion to give to Turkey to allow our troops to go across their territory. That should raise some real questions as to what is happening here.

Lastly, one has to question what is it we are about underneath it all?

Again, I read from a speech that President Bush gave last week to the American Enterprise Institute and some of the comments that were made regarding that issue. President Bush said in his speech that we are going to have an Iraqi Government that will be representative of the people and that we would ensure that happened.

I went back because I wanted to check to make sure this was official, so I looked at the White House document that was sent to us on January 20, 2003. It is the report from the President required by the Iraqi resolution that was passed by Congress last fall.

Of course, it was supposed to have been in in 60 days. It was just another 30 days overdue. I read it over. There is an interesting part in the report that President Bush signed and sent to us. I will venture to say that not many Senators have read this report. But it is called the ``Future of Iraq.'' It is in the report of the President sent to us on January 20. I am going to quote from it. It says:

Should it become necessary for the United States and

coalition armed forces to take military action against Iraq,

the United States, together with its coalition partners--

Who are getting fewer and fewer, by the way--

will play a role in helping to meet the humanitarian,

reconstruction, and administrative challenges facing the

country in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. . . .We

will work to transfer authority as soon as practical to the

Iraqis themselves, initially in an advisory role. . . .The

U.S. is fully committed to stay as long as necessary to

fulfill these responsibilities, but is equally committed to

leave as soon as the Iraqi people are in a position to carry

out these responsibilities themselves.

Interesting. ``The U.S. is fully committed''--I do not remember us ever having a debate about that commitment, that we are committed to stay as long as necessary to fulfill these responsibilities, but are equally committed to leave as soon as the Iraqi people are in a position to carry out these responsibilities themselves.

The question is: Who decides that? Who decides when the Iraqi people are in a position to carry out these responsibilities themselves?

There is a quote in the paper from Youssef Ibrahim from the Council on Foreign Relations. He said:

I think Arabs almost without exception would welcome more

democracy and more freedom of expression and to be liberated

from the police states they all--in one form or another--live

under.

Mr. Ibrahim goes on:

It does not follow that they would trust America to do this

for them. The view over there is totally different from the

view expressed here.

Critics also warn that the Bush administration must overcome a credibility gap borne of long memories and unpopular U.S. policies.

University of Maryland Professor Shibley Telhami warned that an invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation by United States-led forces would feed an image of United States imperialism and undermine the very goals the administration has set.

Keep in mind, if we do, in fact, go to war in Iraq and occupy Iraq and set up this military type of government for however long we want to, it will be the first time ever that the United States has occupied an Arab country, the first time ever that we will be seen by the Arabs as occupiers, as establishing some kind of colonial power in the Arab world. And I think that is going to have severe ramifications.

Army Chief of staff Shinseki told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to secure postwar Iraq. Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful, he said.

Well, I wonder how much help we will get.

Mr. Wolfowitz is quoted as saying:

If, when Iraq is liberated, it can come up with a

representative government that treats its people decently,

I think it can have significant effects throughout the

Middle East.

David Mack, vice president of the Middle East Institute, said they make it look like a no-brainer. Put me down as a skeptic. Americans are in such a hurry. The people in the region are not. They are worried that they are jumping over a precipice.

By one estimate, 65 million adults in the Middle East cannot read or write, 14 million are unemployed, and 10 million school-aged children are not enrolled in class.

When I listen to Mr. Wolfowitz and I read the report from President Bush of January 20--I have not seen the movie yet, but I have read the book a couple of times, and I looked at it again this weekend, ``The Quiet American'' by Graham Greene. You read that and you think about how we got into Vietnam--the same kind of thing. We were going to build a democracy in Vietnam. We were going to end all this internal fighting and take care of the north, and we were going to set up democratic forms of government. That was the first, and then there were several others that followed. How many thousands of Americans lost their lives there? What did it do to our country, for a generation?

Now one goes to Vietnam and we have diplomatic relations. When we look at what is happening in Vietnam, we have to say, what was it all about? It was really about the misguided adventurism of, yes, well- meaning people in this country--I have no doubt that they meant well-- to put a pax Americana, sort of a stamp of America, on a country in Southeast Asia, to set up a country that would look like us, mirror us. We were going to do it through military force.

I am sorry, it did not happen then, and it is not going to happen in Iraq. It may happen in Iraq at some point. We can encourage that. But it is not going to come about through a war that is going to kill countless civilians through the establishment of a military occupation and through us trying to impose upon the Iraqis our sense of what good government is. If only that were true. But history shows it is not.

We keep hearing from Mr. Wolfowitz and others what a grave threat Saddam Hussein is to us. They believe the war in Iraq will be quick, maybe 2 or 3 weeks and it will be over with. And that is probably true. I have no doubt that could possibly be true. Then one has to ask, if that is the case, are they really that big a threat?

Iraq has no navy. It has no air force to speak of. Its military is really in shambles. What kind of a threat are they, especially if we can keep inspectors there?

The other thing I wanted to check on was: Is there a limit on the number of inspectors U.N. Resolution 1441 permits? Or any previous resolution? Was there any limit by the surrender resolution in 1991 which first started the inspections? And the answer is no. There is no limit on the number of inspectors that the United Nations is allowed to have in Iraq. So why have 100? Why do we not have 500? Why do we not have 1,000 inspectors, duly trained and qualified, all over that country? Saddam Hussein cannot say, no, that is not allowed, because it is allowed. I submit, those 1,000 or 500 inspectors fully trained in Iraq, even if it takes the next 5 years, is cheaper monetarily than what the war is going to cost us, and certainly cheaper in terms of the loss of human life, both American lives and innocent lives in Iraq. Plus, I believe through that process we will have

the support and the admiration of other Arab countries.

A war in Iraq, I believe, will give the backup to the terrorists who are out there. I am not so naive to think that there are not terrorists even yet in this country, and in other parts of the world, who want to do us in. They are there, but it seems like right now they do not have a backup. There is not much of a backup. We are tearing up the network with the recent capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan. We are destroying this network, and we should keep at it, too. But a war in Iraq then will give, I think, people in the Arab world who today are not feeling us any ill, will give them the reasons to support monetarily, through encouragement, through processors, those terrorists who are out there. It is one thing to be a terrorist by yourself someplace; it is another thing to be a terrorist backed up, backed up, and backed up, like countless other people who are willing to give money and support and intelligence to help in your terrorist activities. To me, that is what could happen if we go to war in Iraq.

Lastly, the civilian causalities. I remember the pictures that came back from 1991 after the war in Kuwait against the Iraqi Army--tanks, trucks, vehicles bombed and burned out, bodies lying all over in the desert. That did not provoke any outpouring of ill-will in the Arab world. It did not provoke any outpouring of a sentiment that somehow all of those people who were killed were somehow innocent. They were not. These were soldiers. These were Iraqi troops, used to invade and plunder Kuwait.

It will be different this time. This time it is not just the Iraqi Army. It will be innocent men and women in Baghdad who will get killed. And those are the pictures that will go around the Arab world. If we are just confronting the Iraqi Army, that is one thing. But with all the cruise missiles and the bombing and everything else that will go on in Baghdad, cruise missiles are very accurate, but sometimes they go astray and sometimes people are not where they are supposed to be. Sometimes they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is what will happen, the image of innocent women and children killed by the might of the American military in Baghdad.

That is why the best course of action is to continue the inspections, and if we need to, make 500 inspections, make 1,000 inspections. And then continue the program: planned destruction of weapons of mass destruction and others that Saddam Hussein now possesses in his arsenal. It may take more than a week, it may take more than a month, it may take 6 months or a year or 2 years or 4 or 5 years.

The article asked, what is the hurry? If it means less loss of human life, and it will certainly cost a lot less, it seems to me that would be the wise course of action.

We have a gang down there at the White House, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Poindexter--do these names conjure up memories of the past? Sure does. A lot of the misguided adventures we got into in the 1980s--in Iran, in Central America, places like that--all these names kept popping up at that time because they were all involved in the misguided adventures. Now they got the adventure that will save us all, it will save America in the future--war in Iraq. And occupy Iraq with several hundred thousand troops, stay there as long as necessary to set up a government that somehow looks like ours.

I close my remarks by saying these people ought to go visit Vietnam. I have, several years ago, to find out how the people are getting along there. They seem to be getting along fine. I still may not approve of the kind of government they have. But the people seem to be getting along just fine. Saigon is bustling, Hanoi is bustling, the tourist industry is going up, manufacturing is going up. Again, it might not be the mirror image of our kind of government, but they seem to be doing all right.

So go visit Vietnam, and then go down to this wall down on The Mall and remember the misguided adventures of well-meaning politicians of the past before we commit our military to a massive invasion of Iraq.

I yield the floor.