Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, there is no linkage between the January action of cutting off veterans from enrolling in VA health care services and the costs which the VA is legally obligated to assume for service personnel who will be returning from the second gulf war. We gave the VA the duty to care for service members after numerous troops returned from the first gulf war. This duty stretches not only to injuries in combat but also those who suffered mysterious illnesses, the cause of which, in many instances, still remains undetermined. The cost of this war will not end with the war itself and will not be confined to the borders of Iraq. Veterans will continue to pay those costs for years to come. We must be prepared for thus far neglected costs of war by assuring the VA will be prepared when the newly created veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom seek their health care. It is our responsibility to assure the VA has adequate resources to fulfill this promise. It is a promise which we, the Congress, made to our servicemen. The Senate, in 1998, unanimously passed the statutory right of veterans to have VA health care for 2 years after they separated from service for those veterans who were actually in combat in this and possibly future engagements. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to see our veterans are provided the care they are currently earning by their service. I seek unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several letters in support of my amendment from the American Legion, from Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America, organizations which, together, represent more than 2 million Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments by my good friend and colleague, Senator Nelson. What the VA seems to want to do is to use the money saved by denying services to hundreds of thousands of veterans. They want to use it twice. In January, the rationale was they could not meet their core responsibilities, for instance, for veterans who had a service- connected disability. In March, they want to use the same $375 million to pay for the veterans who will be coming out of the gulf war and will, by statute enacted by this Congress in 1998, be eligible, be guaranteed, access for 2 years to VA health care services. They cannot have it both ways. The responsible thing to do is to recognize this as a cost of war. But for the fact we have men and women, including reservists and National Guard personnel at risk in combat, we would not be talking about an additional $375 million. However, the fact is, they are in combat and they at some point, like the 82 percent from the first gulf war, will be separated from the service and therefore become eligible. We also have this issue of the large number of veterans who are otherwise eligible because of their previous service for VA benefits who have been cut off. We need to deal with both of these problems. At least by adopting this amendment we will deal with the most current issue which are the combat veterans from the war which is currently underway.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I do not believe there are any Senators requesting to speak under my time, so I reserve my time for final remarks until Senator Stevens has completed his comments.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, it seems the issue now is not whether we are going to meet this responsibility which we have taken on ourselves by a vote of this Senate and the House of Representatives to provide to returning combat veterans, men and women who actually were under fire, a 2-year period of access to the Veterans' Administration health care services. The issue seems to be when we should make this commitment. My answer to that question would be: Now. The fact is, unless this war goes on much longer than the administration or any American prays that it will, there will be returning veterans, particularly reservists who, as soon as they complete their period of active duty, are going to be eligible for these health care costs. I hope we are not taking the position that this war is going to drag on so long that no reservist, no National Guard member will be eligible for these benefits prior to September 30 of this year. There also will be regular duty combat soldiers who will be separating from service and therefore become eligible. I believe, if we are concerned about the morale of our service men and women and wish to show American support for their gallant service, there is no better way to do it than to indicate that we are fully committed to meet our responsibilities to those men and women when they return home. The issue is, is there enough money in the VA budget to accept this new responsibility? The VA, just 2 months ago, terminated the eligibility of several hundred thousand veterans because of the financial pressures that they were under at that time. The increase in the veterans budget, which is applauded, essentially represents the cost of medical inflation from one year to the next. There are no significant real dollar additional resources for the VA to carry this new responsibility. I urge the Senate not table this amendment but, rather, to enthusiastically endorse it as a tangible statement of our commitment to the men and women of America who are, today, putting their lives at risk in order to achieve Iraqi freedom. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent.) Who yields time? The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. The Senator from Alaska is correct. I have used my time and am prepared to yield it back. Let me make a parliamentary inquiry. The Senator from Alaska is now requesting a motion to table my amendment, which will be voted on later today. I want to be clear I am not foregoing my right to ask that there be a recorded rollcall vote on that motion to table.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska has very accurately described the negotiation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily withdraw my amendment with the understanding it will be approved in the managers' package, as modified.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Jeffords and Kennedy be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 459.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hollings amendment to this supplemental appropriations bill, which would provide $1 billion to this Nation's seaport security programs. Seaports are one our Nation's greatest assets, serving as the lifeline for economy and trade, for the fishing and cruise ship industries, and to military operations. But they remain one of our greatest vulnerabilities. Our ports are susceptible to misuse by a terrorist organization. When a cargo container arrives on our shores, it is quickly loaded onto a truck or a train, and is transported to any of our cities, leaving all Americans vulnerable to a security lapse. Right now, the Federal Government is not completely fulfilling its responsibility to protect our seaports. I am very pleased that the Maritime Transportation Security Act was signed into law last year. But for this legislation to be effective, it must have a predictable and sustained funding source for the agencies tasked with maintaining the security of our maritime borders. We will never have enough law enforcement personnel or the perfect intelligence to detect and deter all potential threats. Technology is a promising approach to closing this gap--it may aid in container tracking, security, anti-tampering, and examination. These systems may also eventually have the ability to detect the presence of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons at our Nation's ports. I agree with Senator Hollings that an attack on our seaports would be devasting. Compounded by the reality of our economic dependence on ports and the available intelligence on threats, it is inexcusable that we have not done more. Senator Hollings' amendment would provide funding for industry and port security grants, State and local entities, the Maritime Administration, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the threat and impact of terrorism has become real to many Americans. The global war on terrorism must be waged with equal intensity and commitment, both overseas and--here in our own Nation including at our seaports. My colleagues may argue that this amendment is not war related, but I disagree. Our war effort depends on access to our 13 strategic military seaports, which support our operations in Iraq. These ports, like the rest of our 361 ports, are insufficiently vulnerable. If a terrorist threat were to affect one of our ports, our military operations could be negatively impacted. The security of our borders is a national responsibility. Investing in maritime security is as vital as investing in our intelligence capabilities or investing in our Nation's airports. I urge my colleagues to support the Hollings amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

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

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in mourning the passing of a giant of the 20th century--our former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The list of his contributions to this Nation is long and impressive: from White House aide, to Ambassador to India and the United Nations, to Senator from the State of New York for 24 years. Pat Moynihan left an indelible mark on our Nation and the world. Senator Moynihan has been described as the best thinker among politicians since Woodrow Wilson and the best politician among thinkers since Thomas Jefferson. Few Senators in the 241-year history of this institution have had the intellectual impact on public policy as did Patrick Moynihan. From tax policy to environmental protection, he was an always constructive and frequently dominant advocate. He frequently converted a Senate committee hearing or floor debate into what was his first passion, a college classroom. Those of us who were fortunate to be his students are forever in his debt. Adele and I offer our condolences to Elizabeth and their family, and we will recognize in our prayers the loss that the Nation and each of us individually have suffered. Mr. President, I add that I consider it a terrible irony that on the eve of Senator Moynihan's death, March 26, the White House announced the signing of amended Executive Order 12,958. This Executive order delays the release of millions of long-classified Government documents and grants to Government bureaucrats new authority to reclassify information. The vast majority of these documents are more than 25 years old and were to have been automatically declassified on April 17 of this year. I consider this ironic because Senator Moynihan was a champion of open government. Among his many writings, including 18 books, was ``The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policy.'' Senator Moynihan concluded that book with these words: A case can be made that secrecy is for losers, for people who don't know how important information really is. The Soviet Union realized this too late. Openness is now a singular and singularly American advantage. We put it in peril by poking along in the mode of an age now past. It is time to dismantle government secrecy, this most pervasive of cold war era regulations. It is time to begin building the supports for the era of openness, which is already upon us. Mr. President, we in the Senate and those in the White House should heed Pat Moynihan's wise words. As a former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you that this administration is being excessively cautious in keeping information from the American people. Certainly, when we are at war and facing increased threats from international terrorist networks, we need to keep secret that information that could pose a threat to our security if it were to fall into the wrong hands. But that hardly seems to be the case with most of the information that is covered by this overly broad Executive order. Again, I emphasize that the overwhelming bulk of this material is more than 25 years old. Ultimately, excessive secrecy will undermine the public's confidence in our Government and its essential institutions. Excessive secrecy denies to the American people their full capability to participate, evaluate, and act as they determine to be in the national interest. By restricting access to crucial and often conflicting information, excessive secrecy creates the environment for what is known as incestuous amplification. This is a military term and is defined by Jane's Defense Weekly. Incestuous amplification is ``a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lockstep agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.'' Excessive secrecy undermines the classification value of information which is genuinely critical to our national security. Last year, I had the honor to cochair a joint House-Senate inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001. Our purpose was to help the American people understand what our Government knew about potential threats from al- Qaida prior to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and how our intelligence and law enforcement agencies responded. But even more important, our responsibility was to develop an action plan of recommendations to mitigate a repeat of this tragedy. Our staff reviewed more than 500,000 pages of documents. We conducted 22 hearings, 13 of them closed, 9 open to the public. We filed our final report--the classified version--on December 20, 2002. The joint inquiry has requested declassification of our final report, as well as key documents related to the Government's knowledge of al- Qaida and potential terrorist threats. For 100 days, congressional staffers have been working with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other relevant agencies to get the final report of the joint inquiry declassified. We have not yet been successful. I am hopeful that we can present most of this material to the public at the earliest date. We have already released, in declassified form, our findings and our recommendations. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of those recommendations at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I want to read one of the recommendations from the joint inquiry committee. It is recommendation No. 15: The President should review and consider amendments to the Executive Orders, policies and procedures that govern the national security classification of intelligence information, in an effort to expand access to relevant information for Federal agencies outside the Intelligence Community, for State and local authorities, which are critical to the fight against terrorism, and to the American public. In addition, the President and heads of Federal agencies should ensure that the policies and procedures to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of classified intelligence information are well understood, fully implemented, and vigorously enforced. Congress should also review the statutes, policies, and procedures that govern the national security classification of intelligence information and its protection from unauthorized disclosure. Among other matters, Congress should consider the degree to which excessive classification has been used in the past and the extent to which the emerging threat environment has greatly increased the need for real-time sharing of sensitive information. The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, should review and report to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on proposals for a new and more realistic approach to the processes and structures that have governed the designation of sensitive and classified information. The report should include proposals to protect against the use of the classification process as a shield to protect agency self-interest. The public has the right to know what its Government has done and is doing to protect Americans and United States interests. Potential embarrassment is not a good enough reason to keep past or current Government materials secret. One of the most fitting tributes we could pay to Pat Moynihan would be a heightened recognition of the damage that excessive secrecy exacts on our Government's credibility, and to recommit ourselves to a Government which trusts its people to know the truth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the New York Times of March 28, 2003.

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

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with my colleagues from North Dakota and Michigan so that when we come to debate the specifics of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, we will be able to provide a real benefit, a real benefit with no gimmicks, no gaps, no hidden ``gotchas.'' Last year, 52 Senators voted for a plan that provides all Medicare beneficiaries with an affordable, comprehensive, and universal drug benefit delivered through Medicare. The proposal offered last year received 52 votes and was very direct. It provided that seniors would pay a $25 per month voluntary premium. This program is not mandatory; seniors will decide for themselves whether they want to participate. There would be no deductible. Seniors would pay no more than a $10 copayment for generic medications and $40 for medically necessary brand-name medications. After $4,000 was paid by the senior out of pocket, Medicare would pay the remaining expenses under a catastrophic position. Special consideration was provided for the lowest income non- Medicaid elderly by picking up all, or a portion of, their monthly premiums and copayments. The plan we offered last year that received 52 votes, with the inflation and with the change in the demographics of the elderly population, would cost, over the next 10 years, $619 billion. The budget resolution which is before the Senate today would limit the expenditure for a prescription drug benefit to no more than $400 billion. Removed from the $400 billion would be the cost of any other changes to the Medicare system. Our colleagues on the Budget Committee have adopted the $400 billion from the President's framework for adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It is unclear precisely what we would be buying with $400 billion, but let's talk about what we know of some of the principles of the President's prescription drug plan. He would provide, for those Medicare beneficiaries in the traditional fee-for-service program, that there would be coverage of prescription drugs for the lowest income--the question mark as to what that demarcation would be. They would receive up to $600 a year for their prescription drug benefits. I point out to the Presiding Officer and my colleagues, the average Medicare beneficiary last year paid $2,100 for their prescription drugs. Other than the lowest income, there would be no ongoing benefit and there would be a catastrophic benefit at a yet to be specified level. That is what 89 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries--those who have elected to stay in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare--would have available. Mr. President, 11 percent of the 40 million Medicare beneficiaries are in some form of managed care. Under the President's plan, they would receive a prescription drug benefit, maybe one very similar to the one that 52 Senators voted for last year. We do not have the details to have a clear understanding of what that 11 percent would receive. The only way you can fit an affordable, comprehensive, universal prescription drug benefit is by not making it universal, not covering seniors who are in the traditional Medicare Program unless they either have very low incomes or very high drug costs. For instance, if the catastrophic level were to be set at $5,000, less than 3 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries would spend that much and therefore be eligible to participate in the catastrophic provisions of the President's plan. The President's proposal buys a drug benefit for $400 billion by providing a benefit--even that is undefined--only for those seniors who will enroll in some form of managed care. This has been referred to as a plan to herd seniors into managed care because their needs for a prescription drug benefit are so desperate. No one can argue a benefit like the one proposed by President Bush meets the goals of an affordable, universal, comprehensive drug benefit which is what America's seniors need. The most fundamental reform we can make in the Medicare Program is to offer to all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 89 percent who have elected to enroll in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, all beneficiaries--those as well as the 11 percent who have currently elected to participate in a managed care program--a universal, comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit. Why is this so important? In my opinion, it is so important because it is the fundamental reform which Medicare must make. Medicare is a program of the 1960s. It is appropriately described as a sickness program. If you are ill enough to require a physician's attention or, even more, require hospitalization, Medicare will pay a substantial proportion of your costs. What Medicare will not pay is the cost to keep you out of the doctor's office and out of the hospital. Why? Because almost every preventive care program has as one of its key elements the use of prescription drugs. These are the modern miracles of medicine. They are almost always required if we are to be able to manage a condition before it becomes critical. Thus, to have a Medicare Program which makes that fundamental reform from a sickness system to a system that promotes the highest level of health, it must have a prescription drug benefit. Certainly some seniors under the President's proposal will have no choice but to move from their current preference for traditional fee-for-service, where they have the maximum number of choices, into a managed care system, where their choices can be severely restricted. As my colleague from North Dakota has already said, this debate is about priorities. Is the statement the Senate wants to make that we give greater importance to an oversized tax cut than we do to a real, affordable, comprehensive, and universal drug benefit for all seniors? I think the answer is clear. In addition to providing adequate funding for a prescription drug benefit, this amendment will also provide $177 billion over the next 10 years for deficit reduction, which would, in fact, become $251 billion for deficit reduction by including the interest cost which we will have to pay for $177 billion over the next 10 years. This is a needed remedy for the rapidly increasing deficits that we have experienced, almost as urgent as the needed benefit of prescription drugs for older Americans. We are suggesting these two elements, a $219 billion addition to the Medicare account in order to be able to fund an affordable, comprehensive, and universal prescription drug benefit, and $177 billion for deficit reductions--we are suggesting it be paid by a reduction in the provision for tax reductions of $396 billion. That number was not just chosen by accident. That is the amount the President has proposed for his dividend tax cut, making dividends no longer taxable. I believe the dividend tax cut should be reduced, first because it will do very little to stimulate our sluggish economy, and specifically because it will do very little to benefit America's seniors. I heard earlier today the argument made in support of the elimination of taxation of dividends, that it was a critical matter for America's seniors. Most American seniors will not benefit at all, and the average tax reduction for America's seniors, by eliminating the taxation on dividends, is estimated to be $118 per year. Contrast that minimal savings for seniors with the savings that seniors will secure through a comprehensive, universal, and affordable prescription drug benefit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment will not only affect our seniors and our ability to provide them with a reasonable prescription drug benefit, it will also provide Congress the direction required to assure responsible spending of the taxpayers' money. This is a goal, not just for seniors, it is a goal which all Americans deserve.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I extend to you and to my colleagues deep appreciation from me and my family for the many expressions of concern and best wishes which have flowed to us over the past 6 weeks. I report to the Senate that this is my second day back on the job since my operation. I feel increasingly strong and energetic, sufficiently so that I feel this is the time to come to the Senate floor and talk about the issue before us. Before I do that, I especially extend my appreciation to the Republican leader and our colleague and friend, Senator Bill Frist. As we know, before becoming a Senator, it was Dr. Bill Frist. He happened to be a cardiac surgeon. When it was clear to me I was going to have to have cardiac surgery, and when that fact became known by a number of my friends, I had an almost mountain of suggestions as to what I should do, where I should go, who the surgeon should be. Finally, my friend and former colleague, Connie Mack, called me and suggested I should talk to Senator Frist, who actually knows something about this, which I did. He gave me excellent advice and a substantial amount of reassurance. Then after the operation, while I was still in the hospital, he came and visited. That was a touching moment for Adele and myself that he would make that effort. I particularly thank Senator Frist for his display of humanity during this period. I am here to discuss my vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be my vote today to not invoke cloture. I want to explain the reasons for this. There are many issues raised by this nomination. I consider the most fundamental issue is the issue of the independence of the judiciary. That has been a matter of concern to thoughtful Americans from before our country was a country. In the brilliant and Pulitzer Prize-winning book by David McCullough, ``John Adams,'' John Adams is quoted from a paper he wrote called ``Thoughts on Government.'' This was written before the War for Independence, anticipating that after a successful independence, there would be the need to establish a government. And these were some principles John Adams thought government should contain. Let me read one paragraph: ``Essential to the stability of government and to enable an impartial administration of justice,'' Adams stressed, ``with separation of judicial power for both legislative and the executive, there must be an independent judiciary, men of experience on the laws, of exemplary morals, invincible patience, unruffled calmness, indefatigable application, and should be subservient to none and appointed for life.'' Those were the characteristics John Adams laid out as crucial to the essential stability of government and to have an able and impartial administration of justice. Those words, written before the war, then became the guiding star for our Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. In order to preserve the political independence of judges, the Constitution provides they shall, as John Adams suggested they should, serve a lifetime appointment. In order to protect from economic intrusion into the judiciary, this Congress is prohibited from reducing the salary of judges, so that they will be free of intimidation. But maybe the most difficult issue the Constitutional Convention faced--and it was one of the last matters to be resolved by that convention--was how should judges secure their place on the bench. Up until the very end of the Constitutional Convention, the idea was that this Senate would directly appoint Federal judges. However, late concern arose that this very principle of the independence of the judiciary might be at risk if one branch were solely responsible for the appointment of Federal judges. And so a compromise was struck. That compromise was that the President would nominate persons to be Federal judges, and that the role of the Senate would be to advise and then consent, through the confirmation process, to those nominations. So the issue we are debating today--the relative role of the executive and legislative--is not a trivial issue. It goes to the heart, as John Adams said, of the stability of government, because it goes to the independence of the judiciary. Having said that and having read some words from the 18th century, I would like to read you some words from the 21st century as printed in the New York Times Magazine of last Sunday. It is an article on one of our Federal intermediate appellate courts, a court of almost, but not quite, the same influence as the DC Circuit Court. One of its justices is J. Michael Luttig. It says this: Luttig told me that he thinks the politics surrounding judicial appointments makes judges hyperconscious of their political sponsors. ``Judges are told, `You're appointed by us to do these things.' So then judges start thinking, well, how do I interpret the law to get the result that the people who pushed for me to be here want me to get?'' Judge Luttig continued: I believe that there is a natural temptation to line up as political partisans that is reinforced by the political process. And it has to be resisted, by the judiciary and by the politicians. Mr. President, I believe we are at a time when we are being called upon to resist an effort to inappropriately utilize the executive power to the exclusion of the legislative role in the appointment of Federal judges. I consider myself to be a pragmatist. I find very few things in life that are black and white. I do not think this issue is black and white. I have been dealing with this issue in another dimension over the past weeks of recuperation. In my State of Florida, we have had for over 20 years a process of nominating Federal judges through a citizen- based judicial nominating commission. Persons who want to be a Federal judge in Florida submit their application to the judicial nominating commission, which reviews their submission and has personal interviews with those candidates that it believes are eligible for Federal judicial consideration. Then that commission used to recommend three people to the Senators. Senator Mack and myself worked for over 12 years in a very collaborative, nonpartisan manner to determine what recommendations should be made to the President. Under the system now, the number of persons to be recommended will be increased from three to six, and the role Senator Nelson and I will play--recognizing the fact that we are Democrats and the administration is Republican--is we will review those six nominations and make a judgment as to whether, in our opinion, any of those nominations would have difficulty being confirmed by the Senate. If that is not the case, then all six will go to the President for his consideration. I highly commend to my colleagues the article I quoted from in The New York Times Magazine of March 9, 2003, written by Deborah Sontag. I ask unanimous consent that some materials about this recent agreement that has been reached between the White House, the chairman of the Florida Judicial Commission, and Senator Nelson and myself, which I believe will well serve the Federal judiciary and the people of Florida, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Having said that, I believe the standard for the kind of information the Senate has a right and a need for in order to be able to carry out its advise and consent function is not an ideological or even a precedential standard but, rather, a pragmatic standard. If a person has been, for instance, an academic and has written, as they typically do, extensive articles or books, there is some means by which you can get below and beneath the resume and get some feel of the person who is being considered. Similarly, if a person has been a judge at the State level, or at other levels within the Federal judiciary, it is likely that they have written opinions or other statements of their jurisprudential feelings which, again, would give you means by which to evaluate and cast an informed vote to consent to a Presidential nomination. I have been away from the Senate most of the time this matter has been under consideration. I do not serve on the Judiciary Committee, but colleagues whose judgment I respect have indicated they do not feel that as of today we have the information to, in an informed manner, provide that consent. I believe this is an issue upon which honorable men and women can reach agreement, just as after a series of negotiations, Senator Nelson and I have reached an agreement on the means by which the Florida judicial nominating process will be ordered and respected. I urge those of my colleagues who have been particularly involved in this to not see today's vote as the last chapter but, rather, as a call to find an honorable way to provide us with the information, given the status of this nominee and the dearth of information which might otherwise be available. Let me say, Mr. President, I find some irony in the issues with which this Senate is currently dealing. We may be at war as early as next week. This Senate has already voted to authorize that war. There have been a number of rationales submitted for the war. One of the rationales that has been recently advanced with a great deal of intellectual fervor has been the concept that by taking down Saddam Hussein, we could create a new climate throughout the region of the Middle East and that in that new climate could sprout the seeds of democratic institutions which would, in turn, lead to democracy. That would be a very admirable consequence. The irony is that at the same time we are hoping that our actions of war will lead to democracy in a region of the world thousands of miles away which has little history of democracy, we are today debating a process that, in my judgment, if not carefully balanced between the executive and legislative branches, has the prospect, as John Adams suggested, of destabilizing one of the key institutions of our more than two centuries of democracy. I return to my hope that people of good will can find a way to provide to this institution the information that it legitimately requires, and which the Constitution imposes upon us, to make an informed consent to the President's nomination. I offer as an example of that spirit of cooperation the good deeds that were extended to me by Senator Frist. Maybe some people who observe this debate observe the Senate in other highly partisan conflicts, such as the one we voted on earlier today, to believe that we are warring armies. Yes, we are people who have strong views and opinions, and we will express those views and support them with our votes. But we also are people who have a respect for our colleagues and a humanity towards them. I think this is the time to draw upon that respect and appreciation for humanity, as well as our responsibilities under the Constitution, to see if we can find a means to close this impasse and move on to the other important business of the Senate. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity. I again thank you and my colleagues for all the expressions of good will during my absence.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. 100 years ago tomorrow, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered that a small island in Florida's Indian River be forever protected as a ``preserve and breeding ground for native birds.'' With this simple promise of wildlife protection, the National Wildlife Refuge System was born. A century later, the refuge system has grown to include more that 530 refuges on more than 94 million acres with locations in every state. Florida's National Wildlife Refuges have been fulfilling the promise of protecting wildlife for a full century. Pelican Island, the first refuge, is being restored to its original size so that birds may be able to find refuge there for the next hundred years. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in Titusville protects endangered sea turtles so they have an undisturbed place to lay their eggs. And, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in Naples is protecting our state animal, the Florida Panther, which is on the brink of extinction. The National Wildlife Refuges in Florida have been protecting more than just animals. As part of the greater Everglades ecosystem, Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge are protecting both the wildlife and habitats that make up part of America's Everglades. Florida is a destination for sportsmen and nature lovers throughout the world. Be they avid hunters or fishermen or tourists traveling to visit our unsurpassed beaches or the pristine beauty of Florida's interior, the National Wildlife Refuge System is part of the allure, with facilities and locations to cater to any person who wants to visit nature. Nationwide, more than 35 million people visit national wildlife refuges to see some of the world's most amazing wildlife spectacles, or to fish, hunt, photograph nature, and learn about our natural and cultural history. The centennial anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System is a time to celebrate these natural treasures and recognize their value to our society. Today there is a celebration of Pelican Island to commemorate this historic day. Throughout the year, there will be other celebrations in honor of 100 years of successful preservation. Because National Wildlife Refuges have been such an important part of the ecological preservation of our nation, I joined with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, in sponsoring a resolution that would reaffirm the strong support that the National Wildlife Refuge System enjoys in this body. National Wildlife Refuges are a key component of our nation's conservation network. Because of the establishment of the Refuge System, wildlife of all types have a safe place to live and human beings have a place to interact with the wildlife and nature in an ecologically responsible way. The National Wildlife Refuge System has had a successful 100 years and I hope we can continue to support the system so it prospers for the next 100 years.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Governor Tom Ridge as the first Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security. Sixteen months after the terrorists turned airliners into missiles and leveled the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and the speedy confirmation of Governor Ridge will contribute to the safety of our Nation. Today's confirmation comes after a long struggle over the granting of statutory authority for a Department of Homeland Security. I was an early proponent of statutory authority, recognizing that the additional powers of cabinet level authority were required for the individual tasked with our Nation's security. After Governor Ridge was appointed last year, Paul C. Light, Director of Governmental Studies at the Brookings Institution, and I wrote two op-ed pieces for the Washington Post that evaluated the performance of Governor Ridge as the director of the White House Office of Homeland Security. I will submit these for the Record. What we found was that Governor Ridge was not able to do his job without statutory authority. While he had access to the information and people needed to do his job, he lacked impact. Despite influence in the budget and personnel process, the Governor's authority over the operations and management of the homeland security establishment was weak. Even with a talented staff, his input in selecting other key administration personnel was unclear. Mr. President, that is why today I am voting in favor of Mr. Ridge's confirmation. While it is not a panacea to our Nation's security concerns, it is a step in the right direction. Giving Governor Ridge the authority to be in charge of the Department of Homeland Security will provide him with the ability to order the changes required in our newest security apparatus. Ultimately, the reorganization of 22 agencies and 170,000 Federal employees is going to take months, if not years, to accomplish. The reality is that Americans are still vulnerable to additional terrorist attacks and the Federal Government is not adequately preparing for that threat. Right now, we are relying heavily on the intelligence community and the FBI as the front line in our battle against terrorism. And I remain concerned about the FBI's lack of preparation and failure to answer some of the most fundamental questions about suspected terrorists who sleep among us like how many operatives of terrorist groups are within our borders. The sooner we act to have an agency that can coordinate and provide a clear line of authority for our nation's security, the better equipped we will be to protect our nation. I ask unanimous consent the op-ed pieces to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would Senator Crapo yield a minute of his time?

Mr. GRAHAM. Recognizing the need for better decision support, the leaders of Miami-Dade County established late last year a team comprised of representatives from the departments of police, fire, emergency management, general services, computer and communications services, seaport, aviation, and administration. They were tasked to work in concert with a consultant and a national laboratory to develop a process for defining, identifying, and evaluating physical and cyberterrorism threats and vulnerabilities; developing a consistent basis for making meaningful comparisons among risks to county assets so that the most important risks can be addressed first; using the structure of the process to develop strategies and associated tactics for mitigating threats and vulnerabilities; and prioritizing mitigation activities so that the biggest gains for the resources spent are implemented first, resulting in the fastest possible reduction in risk for the limited resources available, including not only dollar resources, but the key resources of people and time. The initial work of the team, a pilot project, has been successfully completed, and it has generated considerable interest both in Florida and in Washington.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would Senator Crapo yield a minute of his time?