Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 84, which was submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Dodd.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 85, which is at the desk.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act.'' This legislation will revise the total acreage within the National Recreation Area's, NRA, boundary to reflect the actual acreage within the NRA, and it will also do much to protect the scenic view of Lake Powell as seen by those traveling along U.S. Highway Route 89. As enacted into law, the enabling legislation for the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, inaccurately reflected the acreage within the NRA boundary. This legislation would correct the acreage ceiling by estimating the acreage within the NRA to be 1,256,000 instead of 1,236,880. Secondly, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, to exchange 320 NRA acres for 152 acres of privately owned land in Kane County, UT. Currently, Page One L.L.C. owns 152 acres between U.S. Highway 89 and the southwestern shore of Lake Powell. This private land provides a breathtaking view of Lake Powell from Highway 89, which is the main viewshed corridor between the highway and the lake. This land also encompasses three highway access rights-of-way and a developed culinary water well. In an effort to protect this viewshed and better manage its boundaries along its most visited entrance, the National Park Service, NPS, has been negotiating with Page One to exchange 370 acres of NRA lands for these 152 acres. The approximate value of the NRA lands is $480,000 whereas the private land's appraised value is $856,000. Page One has agreed to donate the balance of appraised value to the NPS. By authorizing this land exchange, this bill will allow the NPS to preserve and better manage the corridor between the park and Highway 89, which affords such a scenic view of Lake Powell. This boundary change would not add any facilities, increase operating costs, or require additional staff and as such, it will not add to the NPS maintenance backlog. Because of the common interest in preserving this scenic corridor from development, this legislation has garnered the support of the administration, the Kane County Planning and Zoning Commission, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Southern Utah Planning Advisory Council. In light of the benefits provided by and community support for this proposal, I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the administration to pass this legislation this year.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lloyd Ogilvie, our Chaplain. I have told him of the deep affection that I and my wife Joyce have for him and Mary Jane. I wish I could reach as deeply into the writings of Robert Burns as he is able to and come up with exactly the right epigram. I will point out that he and I share the common experience of living in Scotland as young men. He, there while he was studying for the ministry, and I, there while I was serving as a missionary for my church. In that experience, each of us gained deep respect for the Scottish people and Scottish traditions. That is why you find me today sporting the tartan of my family, the Wallace tartan. My father served in this body as Wallace Bennett, coming from a long line of Wallaces, including one William Wallace. Whether it was the William Wallace who morphed as Mel Gibson onto the silver screen or not, I am not sure. Lloyd Ogilvie has made his mark here in a tremendous way, and he deserves all of the wonderful things everyone has said about him. I simply quote a hymn that we sing often in our church. I don't think it is unique to our church, but we sing at this time when young men go out in the circumstance I have just described--go off to a foreign land or to a foreign part of the world to preach the gospel. We sing to them: God be with you till we meet again; When life's perils thick confound you; Put His arms unfailing round you; God be with you till we meet again. This is what I say to Mary Jane and Lloyd Ogilvie, from all of us. God be with you till we meet again.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest to my friend from Montana. While I had not prepared a response, I feel, nonetheless, moved to make a response. My colleague from Montana made the point that Saddam Hussein must be removed and then suggested that we need more time and we should be willing to grant more time. This is, indeed, the position of many people in the United Nations. They keep saying just another week, just another month if necessary. The Senator from Montana used that same timeframe. In my opinion, we do not have that option. In my opinion, we have two options, not three. The two options are either to go ahead or to come home. The option of staying in place and allowing the inspections to go on for an indeterminate period of time is not a viable option. The reason for that is that our troops are not where they are on anything like a permanent status. They are there at the indulgence of foreign governments that have allowed them to come in with the firm understanding that they will be there very briefly. In the countries where they are currently bivouacked, they are simply there, on the edge of moving forward. If we now say to those countries, the host countries that are harboring our troops, we are going to leave them there for an indefinite period of time while the inspectors continue to poke around Iraq, I expect that country after country will say: No. We did not bargain for American troops in these numbers on our territory for an indefinite period of time. If you are not moving ahead into Iraq, withdraw your forces and go home. And if we do withdraw our forces and go home, it is clear Saddam Hussein will not be removed until he dies. And he may very well die in his bed, because once the United States has sent the signal to the world that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to remove this brutal dictator and then we back down and bring our troops home, we can never put them back in those places again. No host government currently allowing American forces on its soil will say OK, now that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, you can come back and be on our soil and make us a target for those nuclear weapons. No. We have two choices. We can either move ahead or we can come home. It is not the most sympathetic character in Shakespeare. A comment made by Lady Macbeth becomes appropriate here. ``If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.'' If we are going to remove Saddam Hussein, we must do it quickly. And if we are not, we should not leave our troops in their present posture for an indefinite period of time while inspectors poke around on a scavenger hunt in Iraq.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 87, introduced earlier today by Senator Nelson of Florida.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 10 a.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Following morning business, the Senate will return to the Estrada nomination, with the time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees. At 10:30, the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on this important nomination. If cloture is not invoked on the nomination, the Senate will resume consideration of the Moscow Treaty. Additional amendments are expected to the resolution of ratification. Therefore, Senators should anticipate votes throughout the day. The Senate will complete action on the Moscow Treaty this week. order of procedure I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated for morning business be equally divided between the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.

Mr. BENNETT. That is my understanding.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, seeing no one else here and being prepared to yield as soon as someone comes with a desire to speak, I will take advantage of this opportunity to make a few comments with respect to the pending situation in Iraq. Since I returned from last weekend in Utah, I have become increasingly aware of how anxious people are about Iraq and the possibility of war in Iraq. This anxiousness comes from those who are supporters of the President as well as those who are detractors of the President. Some who have faith in the President's judgment and in his instincts say, we will back him but we are very concerned about the possibility of going to war. Those who do not have faith in the President's political judgment are almost beside themselves with anger and anxiety that he would go ahead in the face of what they consider to be serious worldwide opposition to the war. As I look out at the situation, as best I can I have tried to explain to them what I see to help them understand that which the Washington Post editorial said last week; that is, the risks of not going to war in the present circumstances are probably greater than the risks of going to war. Those who are looking to the United States to exercise leadership in this part of the world--indeed, to free them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein--are just as desperate that perhaps we might back down as are those who fear that war will come. War is never an easy decision, and I assure all of my constituents that this President is not given to war simply as something to do. That which we hear in the press about this possibility is clearly wrong; that is, the suggestion that perhaps the President is going to war in order to secure more oil for America. I point out that if oil were our motivation, war would be our last option. We could simply turn to Saddam Hussein, remove the sanctions, make accommodations with him, and say, go ahead and produce all the oil you want and we will take advantage of that and the impact of that on the world oil market. Nor does it have anything to do, as some have suggested in the press, with the desire on the part of this President to somehow redeem the pledge that was made by his father. All of this rewrites history. George W. Bush--or George Bush, the first, if I might use that term-- was operating under a series of resolutions from the United Nations that did not authorize him to invade Iraq or go into Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein. The decision was made, after examining the circumstances on the battlefield, that the mandate laid down by both the Congress and the U.N. had been fulfilled when the first George W. Bush had succeeded in liberating Kuwait. We can look back through the lens of history and say that was a mistake in terms of what happened in the area, but by no means was it a circumstance where we could say that the present President Bush feels a need to somehow revenge his father or atone for his father. At the time, the decision was made on the basis of the legal situation and the best information available from the battlefield. In hindsight, we might say it was the wrong decision, but under no circumstances can we say that the first President Bush should be criticized for having made it. No, the reason we are going forward in Iraq has to do with much more of the American spirit and the American tradition. America is not an imperial power, in spite of the statements by some of the people in the European press. America does not seek Roman-type domination over other nations. When America moves forward in war, it is for one purpose only, and that is to advance the cause of freedom. Usually, it is to advance the cause of freedom in America; that is, to preserve our citizens from attack. That is an aspect of the current situation. Those who say, no, Iraq has never attacked us are being blind to the interconnections throughout the world of the Middle East with respect to terror. They say, we do not have a smoking gun to prove absolutely that al-Qaida, when they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was receiving aid from Iraq. Those who are waiting for that kind of absolute certainty before they move ahead are not cognizant of the intelligence information that is available not only to those who have attended classified briefings but, frankly, to the whole world based on the presentations made by Secretary Powell at the U.N. and in other circumstances. There can be no doubt that America has been attacked, has been attacked by those who have received sanctuary in Iraq, and has been attacked by those who will, if not stopped, come back at us again and again and again. It is their clear desire to drive the Americans out of the Middle East through military--if necessary, terrorist--tactics, to see to it that we leave. When we leave, what will be the legacy of that decision? If we back out of our military threat against Iraq, what will we leave behind? Will we leave stability? Will we leave freedom? Will we leave prosperity? No. If we back out of the region now, we will leave behind us continued warfare, continued death, continued poverty, and continued torture. That is not the American tradition, to turn our back on those circumstances and walk away when there is an opportunity to advance freedom, liberty, prosperity, and peace. I do not envy the President the challenge of the decision he must make, but I recognize America has traditionally, when aroused, stood on the side of moving ahead to protect liberty wherever we can. If we do go ahead with military action in Iraq in the face of Saddam Hussein's continuing refusal to disarm, what, then, will be the legacy we will leave behind when the entire operation is finished? We can only look at other American circumstances to try to find the parallel. When we moved into imperial Japan at the end of the second world war, defeated the Japanese military, what did we find? A feudal system where women were not only not allowed to vote but in many cases were treated like property and chattel, where slavery existed throughout the empire, where property rights were not available to any except those who had been born to them--a feudal society firmly mired in circumstances of centuries before. What did we leave behind when we departed? A free nation that had women's suffrage, where slavery was abolished, where property rights were available to all, where the rule of law existed in a democratic society. We saw the Japanese rise to a level of prosperity thereafter that made them the second strongest economy in the world. That was the legacy we left behind when we achieved military victory. When we won the Second World War, we not only liberated those people who considered themselves under the yoke of foreign domination--the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, et cetera--we also liberated the Germans, who were our enemies, and the Japanese, who were our enemies. After the Second World War, those who had been our adversaries had a greater degree of freedom, a greater degree of prosperity, and a peace and calm in their circumstances they did not have under their previous regimes. They did not live under American domination or American legions left there as the Romans would do. They lived there in freedom and peace and were protected by American military might from those who would have attacked that peace. It is that history in America that gives me confidence that President Bush will do the right thing in Iraq. If war becomes necessary because of Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to disarm and his continued refusal to step down and turn his country to freedom, if war becomes necessary, the American tradition says the legacy we will leave behind will be one that our children can be proud of and in which Iraqi children can rejoice. Let us not shrink from our responsibility to be the protectors of freedom and liberty throughout the world. And let us not shrink from our responsibility to protect America from those who would attack us if we do not move ahead. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would also note that at the request of the majority leader, I was somewhat involved in the selection process to come up with a successor to Al Lenhardt. I can assure the Democratic whip and all other Senators that in the new Sergeant at Arms Pickle, we have a worthy replacement for Sergeant Lenhardt.

Mr. BENNETT. Now General Lenhardt. All right. I am very comfortable that the new Sergeant at Arms will carry on the same level of professionalism and provide the same level of protection for the Senators and our staffs that we have seen before. It is a tribute to General Lenhardt that he has agreed to stay on until March 17 to see that the transition is as seamless as possible and that we do indeed maintain the level of safety we now have. As good as the hands we have been in in the past, we will remain in good hands in the future.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Democratic leader took to the floor recently to pay tribute to the retiring Sergeant at Arms, GEN Al Lenhardt. I used to chair the Committee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, in which circumstance I had continual contact with the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. When I became the ranking member of that subcommittee was when Al Lenhardt was hired as the Senate Sergeant at Arms. I can report to my fellow Senators that he had no partisanship at all in the way he discharged his duties. It was within a matter of days after he was sworn in as Sergeant at Arms that September 11 hit. His baptism into the procedures of the Senate was handling the disaster of September 11 and trying to work out security for the Senators, and then to handle security as we traveled to Ground Zero in New York. Since that time, he has been faced with the challenge of making the Capitol as secure as possible. As he moves on to his next assignment, I want to make it clear that I, too, salute him for the service he has performed for the Senate. He has handled himself in a very professional way. He has done very significant things to make this building safer, things that most Senators do not see. By virtue of my position on that subcommittee, I was privileged to be in a confidential, classified briefing, as he outlined for us the actions that have been taken to make this building safe. Indeed, I now take some comfort out of the fact that if there is a biological or chemical attack on Capitol Hill, this building is the safest place to be of any place on Capitol Hill. And that is a tribute to the patriotism, professionalism, and service of Al Lenhardt. So I join with my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, and the Democratic leader, who chose him for that position, in wishing him the very best in his professional service here forward.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 6. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period for morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with the time equally divided between Senators Hagel and Dorgan. I further ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m., the Senate return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a Circuit Court Judge for the DC Circuit, and that the time until the hour of 10:30 a.m. be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees; provided further, that at 10:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Estrada nomination.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session and that it proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will return to the Estrada nomination. At 10:30 a.m., the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on this important nomination. If cloture is not invoked on the nomination, the Senate will then resume consideration of the Moscow Treaty. Additional amendments are expected to the resolution of ratification and, therefore, Senators should anticipate votes throughout the day. The Senate will complete action on the Moscow Treaty this week.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Con. Res. 12 be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. BENNETT

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