Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 79

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the chairman of the Budget Committee in the Chamber talking boldly and responsibly about getting this economy back on its feet and getting it moving. It is critically important that this Senate operate in the legal fashion that it was by law directed to do. I know what the chairman will do is produce a budget and a budget reconciliation process that will allow this Senate to be guided and directed not only in its expenditures but hopefully in providing for this country--and to the producer side of our country the type of incentives that the President has offered in a very bold move to get this economy moving again. It is pleasing for me to see a President stand forth in a rather ``Reaganesque'' way and say let us grow ourselves out of this problem. Let us not dig ourselves deeper into a hole or a cave that ultimately will create a greater problem. How you do that is you create incentives for the worker and you create incentives for the investor to get out and create new jobs and to move the economy. The President said it well when he offered his tax proposal--that he would not cave in to the rhetoric of class warfare. Yet from day 1 that is exactly what we have heard from the Pelosi-Daschle plan--a class warfare approach that really denies middle-income Americans, investor- Americans, and working Americans an opportunity to keep more of their money. What did the Pelosi-Daschle plan really set forth? It was all a Government-related, a Government-oriented kind of plan. It talked about increasing Government expenditures for States and economic strategy that we already know has failed. If we can get this economy going, State governments are going to be much better off than they were. Over the last 5 years, State governments were running with large surpluses. In so doing, they spent more. Now they are tightening their belts. Sure. Some State governments are worse off than others. My State of Idaho is going to have to make some very tough choices this year between tax consideration and cutting some programs, or reducing some levels of increases. It will not be easy. But one way to solve that problem is for the Federal Government to write an even bigger check to the State. There are areas where we can help--areas where there is a Federal mandate for a State response. We ought to try to help some in that instance. But, clearly, to simply write them a check does not make a good deal of sense. I see no way that it stimulates the economy or that it solves the kind of revenue problem the Senator from Oklahoma was talking about. It does nothing to help us solve a much larger problem of the kind with which the President has proposed we deal. What I find fascinating is this class warfare argument. And in what the President has proposed, the first Bush tax cut law in 2001, says the National Tax Foundation, effectively eliminated income tax for families of four earning less than $35,000. That is simply the reality. If enacted, the new Bush tax proposal would eliminate 96 percent of the current income tax bill for families of four earning $40,000. Those are not rich people. That is a 96-percent tax cut as a percentage of tax liability on a family of four making $40,000 a year. What does the Daschle-Pelosi plan do? To my knowledge, it doesn't address it. Take a $50,000 family of four. That is not a big income. My guess is probably both mom and dad are working; that is, almost both working at minimum wage. What does it do for them? It reduces their tax on taxable money by 42 percent. That is the Bush plan we are talking about--not the Daschle-Pelosi plan. That is a significant cut in lower middle income America. What does it do for the rich, let's say a $200,000 income a year. That is a pretty good income. You can live well at that--buy a nice home, provide for your children--not a great big home, not a multimillion-dollar home but a certain suburban-style home in which middle-income Americans enjoy living. Family of four, $200,000; tax cut, significant, $3,000, or a percentage of total liability, good, but it is only 9 percent on $200,000. It was 96 percent on $40,000--a significant difference there. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle before the Daschle-Pelosi tax plan rhetoric gets out in front of its headlights, they ought to look at the facts. These are the kinds of facts that any of us will find important to debate on the floor of this Senate. I hope the Budget Committee recognizes the process and that the Finance Committee stays as close as they can to the Bush tax plan. I think that is the kind of process that turns this economy back on, that puts people back to work, and that creates the kind of long-term economic drive that the Reagan tax plan did in the early 1980s. They said it created great deficits. Deficits were created because Congress wouldn't quit spending, and wouldn't hold its job in line and be fiscally responsible. We have that job to do here now. We are going to have to tighten our belt to slow the deficit process down. But, of course, I think at the end of the year when we tally up the proposed expenditures versus actual expenditures and when we get that 2004 budget out, the folks on the other side who are talking now about class warfare rhetoric will have proposed tens of billions dollars more in spending. Why? Because of its political popularity and not because it will have actually been spent. Those are some of the realities we are going to have to deal with here. I am glad our President is bold--bold in saying to the American people: I am going to ask you to save more of what you have. I am going to give you the opportunity to keep more of what you earn. I hope you will invest it. I hope you will go out into the market and I hope that you as consumers will help turn this economy back on. That is what is fundamentally important. Lastly, as it comes to double taxation of dividends, when you double tax, you tax them at a rate of nearly 70 percent. That is a phenomenally high rate. When you look at corporate income tax versus a tax on dividends, there are few companies paying dividends today. And why are they keeping large blocks of cash? Why do corporate executives get into trouble going out and buying companies they don't know how to run or don't fit the culture of the company they are currently operating? It is because they have big buckets of cash which they are not moving through to their stockholders. One of the real important reasons they are not moving it through is the double taxation environment. When we talk about that particular part of the Tax Code being changed, what we are also talking about is corporate reform along with tax reform. I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing wrong with those who save and invest and our seniors in America getting a large portion of their income from dividends being strengthened by that very reality. I think the tax package that has been presented by our President is bold, yes, but balanced. As I have shown you with some of the figures that exist today coming from the Tax Foundation, it really goes at lower middle income America. When you can say to a family of four earning $40,000 a year that we are going to reduce your taxable liability by 96 percent, friends on the other side, that is not the wealthy. That is working-class Americans. When you say to a family of four earning $50,000 a year that we are going to reduce your taxable liability by 42 percent, friends on the other side, those folks aren't rich unless you define ``rich'' much differently than the people of my State do. That is called responsibility in helping lower- to middle- income Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars for the purpose of providing for themselves, for their families, and for the pursuit of the American dream. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now in morning business?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak for a period of time in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the minority whip and our majority leader on the floor a few moments ago, as I was viewing the floor from my office, hoping that an organizational resolution had been completed, that negotiations that had been underway now for nearly 2 weeks as to the organization of the Senate might bring us to a state where the Senate could begin to work. Obviously, the American people have spoken very loudly in the last several months about the need to get our work done as it relates to both the economy, the risk of war, and certainly the ongoing business of Government. And they spoke out loudly on November 5 as to who ought to be running the Senate. I think they would expect that transition, in a peaceful democratic system, would go smoothly and that we could be in the business of running the Senate. That simply has not happened to date. I served, at the privilege of the majority leader, as chairman of the Committee on Committees. My task was to call all the Senators and get them fitted into the new committee structure and to recommend that kind of shaping for the ongoing business of the 108th. That work was completed well over a week ago. The majority leader urged me to get it done as soon as possible after the first of the year. Why? Because of the history of the Senate, that most organizational resolutions that get our Senate working occur usually in the first week of January, so we can be immediately at the people's business, so we can be immediately examining budgets and spending resolutions, and begin the work of shaping a budget for our Government to operate. That simply has not happened. Why has it not happened? I think the best evaluation of it appeared in the Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday, called ``Daschle's Election Lesson.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. What the editorial in the Wall Street Journal said was apparently the former majority leader had not learned a lesson, that in the obstructionist character by which he operated the Senate for the last 18 to 20 months--that lost him the majority in the Senate, that denied us a budget and 11 appropriations bills, that denied us Medicare and prescription drugs, that denied the American people a great many things that not only was the President promising but the Senate and the House were working under--he should have learned a lesson; that he should be here helping facilitate the process of helping this Senate to move forward. That has not happened. Why? I guess they don't realize they lost the majority; that somehow they are now in the minority, and it is the responsibility of them, in this Democratic process, to work with us to make our Government function appropriately. It has always happened that way in the past, but it isn't happening that way today. Over the last week, the negotiations, which I have not been a part of but certainly which have been reported to me, largely say: We want everything we had last year. But they were in the majority last year. Are they entitled to everything they had last year? No. There is a clear historic precedent that said the majority always got two-thirds of the funding to operate the committees and to cause this system of the Senate to function, and the minority got one-third. It changed during the 107th because of the 50-50 relationship. And certainly, when I was asked, I would say that in a relationship like we have today, 51-49, with 1 independent, we could be more flexible than just 66 or one-third, two-thirds. But to suggest that they have everything they had last year, in helping set the agenda of the Senate, if that is what their position is, then the tactics they used in the last Senate, that gave them the minority in the new Senate, are being employed once again. I know why they are doing it and why they think they can get away with it in this business, because it is inside ball, it is inside politics. The American public does not register with them. When we start talking about committee funding and staffing, that is of little interest to an American who is out of work, to a senior who is paying $400 or $500 a month for his or her prescription drugs. They want those problems solved and they want them solved now. And while, in many instances, we cannot move that quickly, it certainly is our responsibility to move. The Presiding Officer at this moment is the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He and his staff have been working for weeks to move the 11 appropriations bills that fund Government through this system, and it has not happened. Why? Because he has not been given the authority, even though he is in the majority, to do it. Why? Because the former majority leader, now the minority leader, has simply blocked it. The editorial I put in the Record from the Wall Street Journal, I thought, said it well in the closing paragraph: No doubt the Senate will organize-- and we will. And we may see that debate over a final resolution begin today-- but the shenanigans-- some that I have just referred to-- portend a nasty two years. Democrats are understandably sore about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades. They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in control. Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument they made last year. And then they go on to talk about certain Senators who lost their election. Maybe that message was not as obstructed from the American people as some of us might have believed it was. The Senate is not working today. And the reason the Senate isn't working is because the minority leader, the Democrat leader, is doing everything he can to block it from working. It is simple. It is straightforward. And I believe my comments are very honest.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is straight on. What we are talking about is that peaceful transition of power, when you are no longer in the majority and it is the responsibility of the new majority to form a Congress, and that is what you do every 2 years with a new Congress. This is the 108th Congress that we are now forming. I think the point of the Senator is made, which is that the Democratic Party is now in the minority and are still holding chairmanships and therefore refusing to allow committees to function on the whole, and to allow the majority--now Republicans--to shape the committees, bring staff on board, and establish the agendas. And what is most critical at this moment is to finish the work that was left undone in the last Congress. The Senator from New Hampshire and I know, and certainly the Senator from Alaska who is in the chair at this moment knows, one of the single most important tasks we do every year is pass 13 appropriations bills to fund the Government. That is the budget of the U.S. Government. It is not just dollars and cents. It is policy--where you spend it, how you spend it, how much you spend, what it gets, programs that are discontinued, programs that are expanded. A budget is absolutely critical, and the funding of that budget is, in essence, the operations of the Government. Yet last year the Congress was not able to perform, not able to pass those 13 appropriations bills. Why? Because of this Senate denying the Congress the time and the opportunity to move forward to get that done. We had hoped we could come back in and, during the month of January, move expeditiously to complete those 11 appropriations bills left undone, get those policy messages and spending messages out to the agencies that are clearly affected so that Government would run as we are expected to ask it to run. Of course, that is really what is being denied at this moment by our inability to organize, the inability of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--now presiding--to move forward. Yes, we have been working. Right now, we should not be debating an organizational resolution on the floor or hoping we can debate it; we ought to have the omnibus appropriations bill on the floor with those 11 bills in it. That is what the debate of the day and the work of this week ought to be. I hope the minority leader and the Democrats who serve in the Senate recognize that the game they play may be inside politics, but more and more of us are going to be talking outside the inside trying to reflect to the American people that, as the Wall Street Journal said, the shenanigans being played are to man the barricades and use obstructionist tactics to stop the Senate from moving and--I think the Senator from New Hampshire said it so clearly--in essence deny us the democratic process.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude because I see another colleague on the floor who wishes to speak. I am going to serve on the Judiciary Committee this year, along with several colleagues, for a lot of reasons, but primarily to move judges into our Federal court system that now lacks 150 seats. That third branch of Government isn't functioning largely because of the denial to move the President's nominees through in this past 18 to 20 months. We have seen that going on. Yet we are now being told that 41 Senators will filibuster, and that that simply won't happen if they don't get what they want. The role of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee in this instance fits well into that advise and consent role that we play with the executive. My colleague from New Hampshire was talking about constitutional authority and constitutional responsibility and the transition, if you will, in a democratic process. Our job is to advise and consent. Our job is to review the President's nominees, and I hope we can bring every one of them to the floor for an open-ended debate-- not to filibuster; that would be precedent-setting, but to have a debate and have an up-or-down vote. That is what the American people expect of us and they should demand it, and I hope the hue and cry from the hinterland becomes very loud in the next few months if the processes are denied simply by an obstructionist tactic of refusing to give up power when the electorate has spoken. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue of enormous economic magnitude, but one that many are only vaguely familiar with. This issue is extremely important to those of us in the West and around the country because it affects countless farmers, ranchers, public land managers and private landowners, and it literally knows no boundaries. Noxious weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important threat to bio-diversity. In some areas in the West, spotted knapweed and thistle grows so dense that big game wildlife are forced to move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous plants. I believe stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort. First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming established in the United States, and second, we must stop or slow the spread of the noxious weeds currently present in our country. I have stood before Congress for a number of years pushing legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some in the Senate tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but growing up on a farm and ranch in western Idaho, I have experienced the destruction caused when noxious weeds are not treated and are left to overtake native species. Two-thirds of our land in Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. Our Montana, Washington, and Oregon neighbors all have comparable Federal ownership. State and private land borders much of these Federal lands. I have seen the devastation noxious weeds can have when unchecked and not effectively treated or managed largely due to lack of resources. Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. That bill primarily dealt with the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's, APHIS, authority to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping the weeds at our borders. Last Congress, along with 16 of my colleagues, I introduced S. 198, the ``Noxious Weed Control Act.'' We held two Committee hearings on the bill, and it passed the Senate in November. Unfortunately there was not time to reconcile the bill with the other body, so we are introducing the legislation again. To develop the Noxious Weed Control Act, I worked tirelessly with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and The Nature Conservancy. This legislation will provide a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. Working together is what this entire initiative is all about. Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior would appoint an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation of funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, would allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds would be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing the problems. The bill directs that the States may use 8 percent of their allocation to fund applied research to solve locally significant weed management problems and solutions. States may also allocate 25 percent of available funding to encourage the formation of weed management areas and to carry out projects relating to the control and eradication of noxious weeds, and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible weed management entities. To be eligible for funding, a weed management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed management or public education purposes, provide the State a description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other requirements set by the State. Projects would be evaluated, giving equal consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood that the project will address the problem, and the comprehensiveness of the project's approach to the noxious weed problem within the State. A 50 percent of non-Federal match is required to receive the funds. The Department of Agriculture in Idaho, ISDA, has developed a ``Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds'' through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, State and Federal land managers, State and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas, CWMAs, are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost- share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on this issue, my legislation will build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for success in other States. As I have said before, noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the Nation. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods, including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of this devastating invader. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must integrate all stakeholders at the Federal, State, local, and individual levels. The Noxious Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue of enormous economic magnitude, but one that many are only vaguely familiar with. This issue is extremely important to those of us in the West and around the country because it affects countless farmers, ranchers, public land managers and private landowners, and it literally knows no boundaries. Noxious weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important threat to bio-diversity. In some areas in the West, spotted knapweed and thistle grows so dense that big game wildlife are forced to move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous plants. I believe stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort. First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming established in the United States, and second, we must stop or slow the spread of the noxious weeds currently present in our country. I have stood before Congress for a number of years pushing legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some in the Senate tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but growing up on a farm and ranch in western Idaho, I have experienced the destruction caused when noxious weeds are not treated and are left to overtake native species. Two-thirds of our land in Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. Our Montana, Washington, and Oregon neighbors all have comparable Federal ownership. State and private land borders much of these Federal lands. I have seen the devastation noxious weeds can have when unchecked and not effectively treated or managed largely due to lack of resources. Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. That bill primarily dealt with the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's, APHIS, authority to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping the weeds at our borders. Last Congress, along with 16 of my colleagues, I introduced S. 198, the ``Noxious Weed Control Act.'' We held two Committee hearings on the bill, and it passed the Senate in November. Unfortunately there was not time to reconcile the bill with the other body, so we are introducing the legislation again. To develop the Noxious Weed Control Act, I worked tirelessly with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and The Nature Conservancy. This legislation will provide a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. Working together is what this entire initiative is all about. Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior would appoint an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation of funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, would allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds would be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing the problems. The bill directs that the States may use 8 percent of their allocation to fund applied research to solve locally significant weed management problems and solutions. States may also allocate 25 percent of available funding to encourage the formation of weed management areas and to carry out projects relating to the control and eradication of noxious weeds, and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible weed management entities. To be eligible for funding, a weed management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed management or public education purposes, provide the State a description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other requirements set by the State. Projects would be evaluated, giving equal consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood that the project will address the problem, and the comprehensiveness of the project's approach to the noxious weed problem within the State. A 50 percent of non-Federal match is required to receive the funds. The Department of Agriculture in Idaho, ISDA, has developed a ``Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds'' through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, State and Federal land managers, State and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas, CWMAs, are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost- share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on this issue, my legislation will build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for success in other States. As I have said before, noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the Nation. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods, including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of this devastating invader. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must integrate all stakeholders at the Federal, State, local, and individual levels. The Noxious Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to day to congratulate Bob Potter, president of Jobs Plus in Coeur d'Alene, ID, on his retirement and a job well done. Idaho found Bob Potter after he retired the last time enjoying life at his home on Hayden Lake. Thankfully, we had a few good salesmen in North Idaho who drew him out of retirement to head Jobs Plus, the then- new economic development corporation for Kootenai County. Over the past 16 years, Bob has done a stellar job. Jobs Plus, under his leadership, has recruited over 70 companies that employ over 3,500 workers with a payroll just shy of $100 million. What a tremendous benefit to North Idaho. Bob always jokes that the Governor of California ought to be on his board because no one does more for his recruitment. However, the truth of the matter is that Bob's tireless efforts to recruit small and medium size businesses is what gets results. The key to sales is to show someone they have a need and that your product will meet it. Yes, California's business climate has created a need for businesses to lower costs, and Idaho is the perfect place to come to do that. However, folks wouldn't know about that unless Bob Potter was knocking on their doors. Over the years, I have answered many a call from Bob to help recruit, and I have visited many of the businesses that have chosen Idaho. Every time, Bob is delight to deal with and his effectiveness shines through. He had truly been a blessing to Idaho. While I am saying, ``thank you, Bob,'' I know I am not saying farewell. I know that he will still be active in the community because Bob Potter cares deeply about Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When we were in deficit and when we were in surplus, I have always said, if we could adopt one fundamental reform to the way the Federal Government does business, this is it. The fiscal events of the last couple years have again demonstrated the need for this long-term, fundamental, permanent reform. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is our acknowledgment that, in exceptional cases, a problem rises to such a level that it can be adequately addressed only in the Constitution, by way of a Constitutional amendment. For four years in a row, a modern record, the first time since the 1920s, Congress balanced the Federal budget. The first Republican Congresses in 40 years made balancing the budget their top priority, and did what was necessary, working on a bipartisan basis, to run the kind of surpluses we need to pay down the national debt and safeguard the future of Social Security. Then events intervened. A return to budget deficits was caused by an economic recession and a war begun by a terrorist attack. Even before taking office, President Bush correctly foresaw the coming recession and prescribed the right medicine, the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 2001, that has bolstered the economy and prevented a far worse recession. Sadly, at least on the budget front, the Senate did not rise to the challenge. Last year, many of us were deeply disappointed by the Senate's failure to pass a budget resolution for the first time in the history of the Budget Act. That failure only made the need for fiscal discipline all the more evident, as we saw a return to deepening deficit spending. The return to deficit spending can and should be a temporary phenomenon. We will rebound from the recent economic slowdown. And we must do whatever it takes to win the war, that's a matter of survival and of protecting the safety and security of the American people. Beyond that, we must keep all other Federal spending under control, so that we return, as soon as possible, to balancing the budget. In other words, the return to deficit spending will be a temporary problem only if we make a permanent commitment to the moral imperative of fiscal responsibility. We always did, and always will, need a Balanced Budget Amendment to our Constitution. Even in the heady days of budget surpluses, I always maintained the only way to guarantee that the Federal Government would stay fiscally responsible was to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Before we balanced the budget in 1998, the government was deficit spending for 28 years in a row and for 59 out of 67 years. The basic law of politics, to just say ``yes'', was not repealed in 1998, but only restrained some, when we came together and briefly faced up to the grave threat to the future posed by decades of debt. Now, the government is back to borrowing. And for some, a return to deficit spending seems to have been liberating, as the demands for new spending only seem to be multiplying again. That is why, today, I am again introducing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and calling upon my colleagues to send it to the states for ratification. The amendment I introduce today is the same one I cosponsored last year, which would not count the Social Security surplus in its calculation of a balanced budget. Those annual surpluses would be set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of Social Security beneficiaries. It's a new day, a new year, and a new Senate. We have the opportunity of a fresh start and, hopefully, the wisdom of experience. On this first day of the 108th Congress, with the first piece of legislation I am introducing this year, I call on the Senate to safeguard the future, by considering and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, a Bill of Economic Rights for our future and our children.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I congratulate and honor a man whose contributions are an example to all of us. Idaho's Judge Sergio Gutierrez was recently recognized by Hispanic Business magazine as one the 100 most influential Hispanics. Judge Gutierrez holds the distinction of being the first Hispanic judge in Idaho. A judge since 1993, he was appointed to the Idaho Court of Appeals in January of this year by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. Sergio Gutierrez does a tremendous job as a judge, but his contributions go far beyond those he has made in his official capacity. Judge Gutierrez has worked to fight drugs, register voters, curb gang violence, and promote education, and he sits on the Governor's Coordinating Council for Families and Children. I am also honored that he serves as a member of my Hispanic advisory group in Idaho. His wisdom and advice have been invaluable assets as we have worked together to meet the needs of Idaho's Hispanic population. It is hard to believe Judge Gutierrez was once a ninth grade dropout. However, with perseverance, he attained his GED, worked his way through college, and went on to graduate cum laude from Boise State University, later earning a law degree from Hastings Law School. Judge Gutierrez believes in people, and he goes out of his way to help others overcome unfortunate circumstances that otherwise would limit their success. As a judge, he takes the opportunity to counsel with those who come into his court room. He often invites defendants into his chambers to discuss their futures, including drug rehabilitation, job training, and education. This is not a common practice among judges, but it has proven to be effective in the lives of the individuals whom Judge Gutierrez has touched. I am proud to know Judge Sergio Gutierrez, and I would like to thank Hispanic Business magazine and its readers for recognizing this talented man. I would also like to thank Judge Gutierrez on behalf of the people of Idaho for the contributions he has made to our State and its people. He is truly an inspiring example for all of us.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, November is a special month to the adoption community, because it is National Adoption Month. In my state of Idaho, this particular November is a very special month because it is when one of our newest citizens--Tilly McKeown--came home. Tilly is one of hundreds of children from Cambodian orphanages who are the focus of a special humanitarian initiative by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department. Adoptions from Cambodia were halted late last year because of serious concerns about the process in that country, and the initiative has been working since then to investigate and clear these adoptions on a case by case basis. We all want the adoption system to be ethical, transparent, and efficient. To achieve those goals in international adoptions, the United States signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a landmark international treaty setting standards for adoption that will protect the interests of children and families everywhere in the world. The Senate ratified the treaty, and Congress passed legislation to implement it. We expect our federal agencies involved in international adoption to work toward these goals with all sending countries, whether they have signed the treaty or not. These are important policy goals for our government, but what is more important, they will help bring waiting children everywhere together with the families who will love them forever. They also will help prevent situations like the Cambodian dilemma from ever happening again. Before last December, our country had never placed a moratorium on adoptions out of a foreign country, and I think it is safe to say that anyone who knows anything about the Cambodian moratorium hopes our country never takes such an action again. In fact, some of us in Congress have worked on legislation to that end. This surely must be the hope of every family whose adoption was caught in the moratorium. Mr. President, the anguish these families have endured is indescribable. I do not think a day has passed when they have not pressed the Cambodian and American governments for a resolution to enable them to bring their children home to the United States. They know all too well what an enormous impact government policies can have on human lives and futures. I hope that some day, Tilly's parents will tell her the true story of how hard they worked, every day, to bring her home how sad they were every time the answer was ``not yet,'' how they traveled all the way to Cambodia just to see and hold her, and how overjoyed they were when they finally got the call to bring their daughter home. And when they tell her that story, I hope they also share with her the fact that there were people across the nation and around the world who also cared, and worried about her, and were trying to help her and her family. In the United States Senate, the House of Representatives, the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and our embassies, people knew about Tilly and were working to remove the obstacles that kept this family apart, while still carrying out the requirements of the law. The White House played a critical role, providing extraordinary leadership and resources to resolve this complicated situation. The commitment this Administration has made to all of these families and their children is truly remarkable and should be commended. The humanitarian initiative has made tremendous progress, and none of this could have happened without the dedicated efforts of all these individuals, working together. I realize the resolution of the Cambodian adoption crisis cannot come fast enough for the families involved, and some will never accept or forgive the decision that was made last December, or the amount of time that has passed. To them, I pledge to see this initiative through and work for reforms so that no other families are put in this predicament again. To the many government officials who are working in the field or in Washington, D.C. on this initiative, I encourage you to persevere in this very important effort; you are making a lasting difference in the lives of these families and their children. And to Tilly, a very happy welcome to Idaho--at last.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, November is a special month to the adoption community, because it is National Adoption Month. In my state of Idaho, this particular November is a very special month because it is when one of our newest citizens--Tilly McKeown--came home. Tilly is one of hundreds of children from Cambodian orphanages who are the focus of a special humanitarian initiative by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department. Adoptions from Cambodia were halted late last year because of serious concerns about the process in that country, and the initiative has been working since then to investigate and clear these adoptions on a case by case basis. We all want the adoption system to be ethical, transparent, and efficient. To achieve those goals in international adoptions, the United States signed the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, a landmark international treaty setting standards for adoption that will protect the interests of children and families everywhere in the world. The Senate ratified the treaty, and Congress passed legislation to implement it. We expect our federal agencies involved in international adoption to work toward these goals with all sending countries, whether they have signed the treaty or not. These are important policy goals for our government, but what is more important, they will help bring waiting children everywhere together with the families who will love them forever. They also will help prevent situations like the Cambodian dilemma from ever happening again. Before last December, our country had never placed a moratorium on adoptions out of a foreign country, and I think it is safe to say that anyone who knows anything about the Cambodian moratorium hopes our country never takes such an action again. In fact, some of us in Congress have worked on legislation to that end. This surely must be the hope of every family whose adoption was caught in the moratorium. Mr. President, the anguish these families have endured is indescribable. I do not think a day has passed when they have not pressed the Cambodian and American governments for a resolution to enable them to bring their children home to the United States. They know all too well what an enormous impact government policies can have on human lives and futures. I hope that some day, Tilly's parents will tell her the true story of how hard they worked, every day, to bring her home how sad they were every time the answer was ``not yet,'' how they traveled all the way to Cambodia just to see and hold her, and how overjoyed they were when they finally got the call to bring their daughter home. And when they tell her that story, I hope they also share with her the fact that there were people across the nation and around the world who also cared, and worried about her, and were trying to help her and her family. In the United States Senate, the House of Representatives, the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and our embassies, people knew about Tilly and were working to remove the obstacles that kept this family apart, while still carrying out the requirements of the law. The White House played a critical role, providing extraordinary leadership and resources to resolve this complicated situation. The commitment this Administration has made to all of these families and their children is truly remarkable and should be commended. The humanitarian initiative has made tremendous progress, and none of this could have happened without the dedicated efforts of all these individuals, working together. I realize the resolution of the Cambodian adoption crisis cannot come fast enough for the families involved, and some will never accept or forgive the decision that was made last December, or the amount of time that has passed. To them, I pledge to see this initiative through and work for reforms so that no other families are put in this predicament again. To the many government officials who are working in the field or in Washington, D.C. on this initiative, I encourage you to persevere in this very important effort; you are making a lasting difference in the lives of these families and their children. And to Tilly, a very happy welcome to Idaho--at last.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to salute a very special teacher in my State, Patti Perry, who was recently named as Idaho's Teacher of the Year. Patti Perry teaches first grade at Skyway Elementary School in Coeur d'Alene. She has taught in Coeur d'Alene for 30 years, and there are many people in the community who look back fondly on the lessons they learned from her. In fact, one of her former students said that she has ``been in my heart since the first day of first grade.'' I'm sure this is a sentiment shared by many. I come from a family of teachers, so I know how much a good teacher can affect the life of a student. What that teacher imparts in a classroom can stay with a student for the rest of his or her life. It's obvious that Mrs. Perry has had such an impact. She assesses every student individually and tailors her lessons to them. She is a leader in the school and a mentor to other teachers. And, most important of all, she inspires her students to strive for their highest possible performance, academically and otherwise. It's not really a surprise that Mrs. Perry won this award. What is remarkable, though, is that she's Coeur d'Alene School District's third teacher in five years to be named as Idaho's Teacher of the Year. It's clear that the Coeur d'Alene District is doing something right. Kootenai County, which has Coeur d'Alene as its county seat, is one of the fastest growing counties in Idaho, and I suspect this might have something to do with the outstanding quality of schools in the county. I'm very proud of Mrs. Perry, and I'm also very proud of the Coeur D'Alene School District. They are both setting a great example for the rest of Idaho, and the rest of the Nation, to follow.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Washington, DC, area is in the midst of a terrible crisis. As we all know too well, a murderer has gunned down nine people in cold blood during the past two weeks. Two other victims, including a child, have by the grace of God survived these sick and senseless attacks. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the bereaved, even as we try to comfort and reassure our own families and communities. I am confident that the deranged person or persons causing all this suffering will be caught. The attempt to hold this area hostage to fear and intimidation will fail, and law enforcement officers will bring the guilty to justice. As investigators are running down tips and testing forensic evidence, a sudden cry has gone up in some quarters demanding the dramatic expansion of a process known as ``ballistic imaging.'' This technology is a tool employed to assist law enforcement in the analysis of crimes committed with a firearm. I would like to take a moment to talk about this technology and make sure all our colleagues understand its benefits and limitations. It is easy for good people in the heat and emotion of these troubled times to be swept away by apparently easy solutions to enormously complex problems, and I believe that before we begin to think about expanding ballistic imaging in the United States, we should first take stock of what we do know. Ballistic imaging technology can be a useful tool in the investigation of crimes committed with firearms. As currently used, forensic experts are able to electronically scan into a database a shell casing recovered from a crime scene to determine if that case matches those from other crime scenes. The technology can serve as a starting point in assisting law enforcement in determining if the same firearm was involved in multiple crimes. The Federal Government has worked for nearly 10 years on developing an imaging network. The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, NIBIN, administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, BATF, provides Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials with critical ballistics information on crimes committed with a firearm. This system matches shell casings recovered from crime scenes to ascertain if a firearm has been used in multiple assaults. By focusing strictly on cases recovered from crime scenes, NIBIN cannot be used to build a database of firearm owners, thereby guaranteeing the security and legal rights of millions of Americans who are law-abiding gun owners. How does it work? When a firearm is discharged, both the shell casing and the bullet traveling down the barrel of the gun are imprinted with distinctive marks. The bullet takes on marks from the barrel's rifling, and the casing is marked by the gun's breech face, firing pin and shell ejector mechanism. Some guns, such as revolvers or single-shot rifles, might not leave ejection marks. These imprints are distinctive to a firearm. A ballistic imaging program can run a casing through its database and select those that offer a close match. A final identification is made visually by a highly trained ballistic examiner. This process does not lend itself to examining bullets from a firearm. Often, bullets are severely damaged on impact. Bullets recovered are usually examined visually by experts. It is critically important to understand that this is not ``ballistic DNA'' or ``ballistic fingerprinting.'' Unlike DNA or fingerprints that do not change over time, the unique marks that can identify a particular bullet or shell casing can change because of a number of environmental and use factors. Barrels and operating parts of firearms change with use and wear and tear over time. Moreover, a person can, within minutes, use a file to scratch marks in a barrel or breech face, or replace a firing pin, extractor, and barrel thereby giving a firearm a completely ``new'' ballistic identity. In other words, imaging remains a tool, but not a silver bullet, in criminal investigations. Legitimate concerns have been raised about creating a national database that would store ballistic images from all firearms sold. We know that such a database would involve huge costs to the government, firearms manufacturers, and customers. Furthermore, it raises questions about a legal ``chain of evidence,'' i.e., how to handle and store hundreds of millions of bullets or shell casings without exposing all such evidence to attack by defense lawyers. It could also break existing law by creating a database of law-abiding firearms owners and prove much less effective than NIBIN. A recent study completed by the California Department of Forensic Services on creating a ballistic imaging network merely on a statewide level stated: ``When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling of manufactured firearms, a huge inventory of potential candidates will be generated for manual review. This study indicates that the number of candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create logistic complications so great that they cannot be effectively addressed.'' The study pointed out that when expanding the database of spent shell casings, the system will generate so many ``hits'' that could be potential matches, it would not be of any use to forensic examiners. Other problems included guns making different markings on casings from different ammunition manufacturers; the shipping, handling, and storage of spent shell casings; the fact that some firearms do not leave marks that can be traced back to that particular firearm; and the requirement of highly-trained personnel for proper operation. What about the success rate of statewide systems already in operation? Maryland introduced its own ballistic imaging system in 2000. Every new handgun that is sold in the State must be accompanied by spent shell casings for input into the imaging network. According to Maryland budget figures, approximately $5 million has been spent on the system. According to Maryland law enforcement officials, it contains over 11,000 imaged cartridges, has been queried a total of 155 times and has not been responsible for solving any crimes. Meanwhile, in New York, there have been thousands of cartridges entered into their database and, according to reports, no traces have resulted in criminal prosecutions. Let me raise one more concern. It is clear that any ballistic imaging network would only be as good as the records it contains. While all the proposals put forward deal with compiling information from new firearms, today in the United States, it is estimated that there are more than 200 million firearms in private hands. It would be impossible to retrieve these firearms for ballistics documentation without violating the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding firearms owners. All of these considerations should be food for thought to anyone seriously contemplating a national ballistic imaging network. At the very least, they support the conclusion that we should look, and look carefully, before we leap into this system. President Bush is calling for a study of the ballistic imaging technology, and so are some members of Congress. For example, the Ballistic Imaging Evaluation and Study Act, introduced in both the House and Senate by the bipartisan, bicameral team of Representative Melissa Hart and Senator Zell Miller, would order the Department of Justice to contract for a study by the National Academy of Sciences, which would examine the many questions surrounding imaging technology and provide a list of recommendations to policymakers and Congress. Enacting legislation to begin a study of this technology should be a priority. The proper allocation of dollars to fight crime is critical to ensuring safe communities, and we should obtain firm scientific conclusions on which to base decisions on how best to deploy this technology.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, and in honor of this year's Hispanic Heritage Month, I rise today to give special recognition to 104-year-old Jose Rodriguez, who recently has been determined to be the Oldest Hispanic American now living in my State of Idaho. In honoring one man, Jose Rodriguez, this Nation honors all Americans of Hispanic descent. Hispanic Heritage Month began on September 15 a day which marks the anniversary of independence for five Latin American countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Mexico achieved its independence on September 16, and Chile on September 18. This being a Nation of immigrants, it is only fitting that Jose Rodriguez is himself an immigrant from Mexico. Some of us have been blessed by being born in Idaho. Others, like Jose, have been wise and bold enough to journey, sometimes great distances, to claim these blessings. He chose Idaho because Idaho was in his heart a place where family, faith, and freedom flourish. Jose was born in Doctor Arrollo, in the State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, on March 19, 1898. In 1913, at the tender age of 15, he joined in the Mexican revolution led by Pancho Villa. He arrived in the United States in 1922 and settled in Eagle Pass, TX. He married his wife Guadalupe, who he knew from childhood, in 1929. They had seven children together: Five sons and two daughters. While his wife passed away a few years ago and he misses her, Mr. Rodriguez enjoys his more than 80 grandchildren and numerous great-grandchildren, who carry on his legacy. In the 1950s, Mr. Rodriguez moved his family to Idaho where he worked as a farm worker and crew leader for most of his life. According to one of his sons, the hallmark of Jose's life has been his generosity. He is a man known to help others, especially those in need. Still living independently today, Mr. Rodriguez spends summers in Idaho with his son Meliton and winters in Arizona with his daughter Marina. Jose still cares for himself, takes daily walks, and credits his long life to, in his words, ``God's good will and living a healthy life.'' That is what aging should be. That type of wonderfully positive outlook have no doubt contributed to his longevity. When Jose Rodriguez was born, Idaho had only been a State for 7 years and 8 months. That year, the first photographs taken with a flashbulb were produced and 1,000 automobiles were manufactured, up from a total of 100 the year before. Around that time, a child born in the United States was expected to live less than fifty years. Jose, a child born in Mexico, has more than doubled that expectation. Jose is part of a large and growing population of Hispanic Americans throughout the nation and especially in Idaho. Within the past decade, the Hispanic population in Idaho has doubled from approximately 50,000 in 1990 to more than 100,000 today. Nationwide, there are now some 26 million people of Hispanic origin in the United States approximately ten percent of the American population. We honor their contributions during Hispanic Heritage Month, which have maintained America's tradition as a rich, cultural melting pot and strengthened our shared national values. Jose is a trendsetter in another way. Following his example, the number of centenarians those 100 years old or older has grown to 50,000 Americans today. In the next 50 years, according to Census Bureau estimates, there will be between 800,000 and one million people 100 years or older living in the United States. Jose Rodriguez is a man of honor. It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize him, and I thank him for allowing me this privilege.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am proud to follow my colleague from Arizona, who has been an outspoken Senator on the issue of our relationship to Iraq and to the current regime, constantly questioning, appropriately so, the role of Saddam Hussein and the risk he presents to our country.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the Senator from Virginia for those comments, and certainly thank him for his leadership on this resolution. I also appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona. I am one of those who early on in August, and into early September, spoke with some degree of hesitation because I thought it was important what is happening today happen; that our country become fully engaged in this debate; and that the President make his case before the world and before the American people. That has happened. As we know, for more than a decade Saddam Hussein has defied the international community, flagrantly ignoring and violating dozens of U.N. resolutions. Today, intelligence has produced beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein continues to acquire and produce chemical and biological weapons. It is also very apparent this dictator continues his quest to develop nuclear weapons. Last night, our President made that most important speech to the Nation. Much of what was spoken last night was the reality of the risk. We should make no mistake, the acquiring of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein is a very clear, imminent, and present danger to the United States, our allies, and to the stability of the Middle East. To do nothing in response to this buildup of weapons and this threat would be irresponsible on the part of our Nation and this body. We cannot sit back and wait on an aggressive act of terrorism to occur and consequently be forced into a position where we must face our fellow Americans and explain a horrific act that could have been prevented. It would be imprudent and irresponsible as a Senator of the United States, who is sworn to protect the freedoms of this great Nation and to defend our fellow countrymen. In this new century and in a post-9/11 era, it is clear we face a new threat. Unfortunately, this new threat requires a course of action previously not undertaken in order to deter this menace to our freedoms and to our peace. However, we must take this new course to defend our Nation and our allies responsibly and with assurance. Remember, this is a regime that ordered the use of chemical weapons against its own people; invaded two neighbors; committed genocide against more than 50,000 northern Iraqis; drove 2 million refugees into neighboring countries; launched ballistic missiles into different countries; destroyed over 4,000 villages in Iraq, and on a daily basis fires at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the United Nations no-fly zones. As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, Iraq has fired upon U.S. and British aircraft over 1,600 times. This year alone, Iraq has fired on the United States and Great Britain 406 times. These acts are the tip of the iceberg of a long list of violations as Saddam Hussein attempts to provoke the United States and her allies. As a result, it is clear and evident we have a moral obligation to the international community to halt further threats and attacks by this dictator. Since September 11, 2001, many in Congress have asked the question: Why did the events of this day, September 11, 2001, occur? And more importantly, how could these tragedies have been prevented? Let me say that again. Many Senators, and I am one of them, have asked how September 11 could have been prevented. As the goal of congressional investigations into our intelligence communities is aimed at preventing these incidents in the future, so, too, is the opportunity before us to prevent attacks by a rogue regime. In the future, I am certain no Senator wants to be placed in the position where we will have to call an investigation and ask why a tragedy has occurred at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and why it was not prevented when we knew it could happen and we had the opportunity to do something about it. In order to avoid an ugly predicament, the option of prevention is in place today. Today we must ask ourselves, In the future, do we want, once again, to pose the same question that has now haunted us for over a year? When the civilian population of our country becomes the target instead of our men and women in uniform, then an offensive role of foreign policy is demanded over what I believe is currently a defensive or a reactionary form of foreign policy. Since World War II, the United States has been the leader of the international world. We have made decisions, taken calculated risks, and engaged ourselves where no other nation would. However, at the end of the day, we have always led and/or brought along our allies. Once again, it is now evident the time is here for the United States to lead. It is prudent for our allies to follow. I believe most of them know that. Had we known the events of last year were going to occur, we would have made every effort to stop them, to save the loss of thousands of American lives. I am certain the people of this Nation and this body would have called for and demanded all types of preemptive actions to stop the atrocities instead of, as we did, helplessly watching them occur. We were locked in what I believe was a post-cold war mindset that, in part, denied the obvious and rested on the false premise it just simply could not happen in this country. Like previous warning signs seen throughout history, we are again witnessing the ominous warnings that Saddam Hussein intends to threaten the Middle East region of the world and the United States. In light of this, I cannot sit back, in good conscience, and wait for Saddam Hussein to improve his weapons of mass destruction before he occupies and threatens foreign countries, or worse, harms Americans and American interests and American friends. As a free and democratic Nation, we have a responsibility that requires a thoughtful, open approach. As we embark on a new path to defend this Nation currently, we are, as the President did last night and, of course, a few weeks ago, addressing the United Nations, consulting with Congress and now working with and having had the resolution just presented to the Congress, forced or helped produce the debate in the Senate. It is evident by this process and by the steps taken, any decision we make will not be in haste. I am confident the manner in which our citizens will be informed will set a new precedent for future Congresses and for future administrations. This body, this Nation, and this President are methodically weighing the options on the table and assessing the threats we face. We have to include we want and need international support. Fortunately, we currently have the support of some of our closest allies. I do not want to stray from working with the United Nations, of course. We will work with them, and we are. Right now, Colin Powell is pursuing a new resolution out of the Security Council. At the same time, I recognize in the end, in the defense of this Nation, it is the responsibility of this President and of this Congress to make sure that happens. It is critically important that in the end, if you abide by the concept written in the book, ``The Law of Nations,'' then we have no recourse but to act ourselves, if we believe a failure to act would cost lives, put our freedoms at risk, and put our citizens at risk. While Article 51 of the United Nations charter is not so clearly defined, we have seen in recent history preemptive action taken by nations that were upheld by the U.N. For example, in 1962, President Kennedy took preemptive measures during the Cuban missile crisis by swiftly imposing a naval quarantine on Cuba to halt the delivery of offensive weapons by the Soviet Union. In 1967, Israel launched preemptive attacks on several Arab States after Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria began moving troops to the Israeli border. In 1991, the United States committed to liberate Kuwait. In 1991, the United States was then, as we are now, leading an effort. By the time the conflict in Iraq began, we had the support of the international community to carry out our objective. I am confident, should we decide to use force, by the time the United States and her closest allies engage Iraq, we will again have the support of the international community. It is called the responsibility of leadership. It is recognized as the role we play in the world today. I say this because the international community realizes the evidence is clear when it comes to Saddam Hussein. In addition, Saddam Hussein will once again violate U.N. resolutions, further invalidating that body, and denying weapons inspectors access in a way that should be open and complete and without any form of restriction. I do not take this vote lightly when it comes, as men and women across the State of Idaho and across the country are put in harm's way. For those who have decided to wear the uniform of our armed services, I want to assure the people of Idaho and the United States, any decision made regarding the use of force will be made with confidence, in consultation with Congress, and with the interests of the security of this great Nation; foremost in all of our minds. I believe the justification for engagement has been made and the option to use force will be granted. I believe we must still have as an end game, an exit strategy, a recognition of the role we play in a post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq, if that is to occur, and I believe this President, along with quality people he has placed around him, will continue to consult with this Congress as those strategies are developed. I am confident we will pursue all means, as is evident today by the efforts of this administration. But in the end, there is the most important responsibility for the Senate of the United States to play. That is to do what we are doing here, to speak out on it, to allow the American people to know all the differences that occur as it comes to facing a most important issue like this. I thank my colleague from Virginia for the leadership he has demonstrated. He recognizes the significance and the importance of this debate and the decision that will ultimately be made in the course of this week as we stand in support of the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States, in full consultation with the Congress, as we shape a foreign policy that is a policy of decades to come, in recognition that for the first time in this Nation's history, it is the citizen, not the soldier, who becomes the target of the new wars. With that, a new form of foreign policy, a new relationship, and a new dialog for this country has just begun. I yield the floor.