Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada. First, this has nothing to do with tuna, dolphins, drilling, snowmobiles in the Tetons. The record of this President has been very good. We passed extensive brownfields legislation with the help of the Senator occupying the chair. My amendment included over 200,000 petroleum sites. The record has been good. It is important, when you are talking about this issue, to talk about the Bush administration. This essentially came from the Clinton administration, not from the Bush administration. With the exception of a few technicalities which have been worked out to everyone's advantage, this is the Clinton administration's program. Here is the statement made at the last day of the Clinton administration by Bob Perciasepe: Over the last two years we have all worked hard to develop improvements to the New Source Review program. As I have discussed with you, I believe it is essential that this program have greater incentives for companies to employ the most effective emissions techniques voluntarily and give greater flexibility when companies take these voluntary actions. And so then we had this study. Look at this study. It is 180 pages. The study comes to the conclusion that the overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit to the environment. This is going to benefit the environment, not hurt it. When the Senator from Nevada says, what do we say to senior citizens, I say what do we say to senior citizens when their energy costs go up, when they already have to decide whether to heat their homes or have food to eat. We have studied this matter for 10 years. We don't need 6 more months. However, we are willing to have the NAS do a study, and they will use the same data the EPA used in coming up with the conclusion that this is not harmful, but it is good for the environment and health. I will be joining my friend from Nevada in asking for a recorded vote on this second-degree amendment at the appropriate time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am glad to withhold.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some supporters of the Edwards rider in its current form suggest that delay is justified because State officials seek it. Nothing could be further from reality. Two years ago, a unanimous resolution of the National Governors Association was passed. It says: New Source Review requirements should be reformed to achieve improvements that enhance the environment and increase energy production capacity, while encouraging energy efficiency, fuel diversity and the use of renewable resources. The Nation's environmental commissioners passed a subsequent amendment, stating: The Environmental Council of the States adopts the provisions of the NGA [the National Governors' Association] policy. The Environmental Council of the States encourages the United States EPA to reform the New Source Review Regulations into a workable regulation that is easily understood and effectively implemented. These positions reflect the true direction of the majority of States. I think there is a propensity in this body for us to think that wisdom in Washington is greater than that of the States. That is not true. So you have a unanimous resolution from the Governors as well as the Environmental Council of the States. The bottom line is this: My second-degree amendment allows the EPA and the States to benefit from the wisdom of the National Academy of Sciences on the important issues of clean air policy. However, my amendment does not create potential dangers inherent in delaying the onset of the important and thoughtful administrative reforms of the NSR program. So I offer a second-degree amendment to the Edwards first-degree amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to read from the EPA's own environmental analysis: The overall effect of the final rule will be a net benefit to the environment. My second-degree amendment calls for a NAS study to look at the impacts of the regulation after implementation of the final rules while allowing the regulations to go forward, thus allowing cleaner and more efficient technologies to be installed in our Nation's manufacturing centers. Delaying these regulations would delay projects to create safer workplaces. The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, a member of the AFL-CIO, has recently opined against the proposed delay in the final package on the New Source Review. I would like to read just a small part of their letter and then will have the rest of the letter printed in the Record. This letter is a current letter dated today from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It says: We have encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency to clarify the program as soon as possible, and oppose efforts in Congress to slow reform down. The efficiency and competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue for millions of American workers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the environmental community does not have to answer to the American people when energy prices go through the roof. But the President of the United States does, and we do, too. I think the President is doing the right thing, and we should support him for it. So, in summary, this is one of the rare things that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration have proposed which enjoys support by virtually all the labor unions as well as the business organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations, and the American people who want lower cost energy. Mr. President, I am offering a second-degree amendment to Senator Edwards' rider on the New Source Review. In his amendment, Senator Edwards asks the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the impacts of implementing the NSR reform package and to delay the reforms in the interim. In our judgment, there is no reason for this delay. We have delayed already for 10 years. We have been living with this thing for 10 years. We need reforms now. Therefore, I am offering a second-degree amendment to allow the NSR final package to move forward, but to allow the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study. When the NAS completes its study, the EPA can then benefit from its results. I suggest that the National Academy of Sciences will be getting their information from the EPA because they are the ones who have accumulated all the data to date, and there is no more data that is available. There is nothing to be lost by offering this as a second-degree amendment. You would have the benefit of the NAS study as well as moving along the time for implementation. There is simply no reason to delay the implementation of the final NSR package. The Edwards amendment calls for a study before the final New Source Review rules go final. I guess the Senator from North Carolina has not read the administrative record on the regulations. If he had, he would see that the EPA conducted a thorough environmental analysis of the final NSR proposals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I publicly thank the administration for being responsive to the concerns of Senator Breaux and myself. I know it took real courage to pursue the NSR reforms. It took courage because the President knew that many people would misconstrue these reforms as a ``sneak attack on the environment'' in an attempt to score cheap political points and fundraise. Despite the rhetoric we will hear today and have heard today about NSR reforms and the process of developing these reforms, make no mistake: President Bush's decision will result in a cleaner environment and greater energy security. The Clinton administration developed draft proposals and accumulated over 130,000 pages of comments on NSR reform. In fact, on his last day at work on January 19, 2001, President Clinton's air chief with the EPA, Bob Perciasepe, wrote a letter, No. 1, outlining NSR reforms which are similar to the Bush administration's NSR reforms and which are almost identical and, No. 2, calling for the Bush administration to consider finalizing the reforms. At this point in the presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield, I thought I would get to the floor at 2:15.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as many of you know, in March of 2001, Senator Breaux and I wrote the first congressional letter on the New Source Review Program to Vice President Cheney in his capacity at that time as chairman of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Our letter stated that, unless reformed ``EPA's flawed and confusing NSR policies will continue to interfere with our Nation's ability to meet our energy and fuel supply needs.'' At this point in my presentation, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further, let me just make a comment. I perhaps have had maybe even a conflict of interest in this case. But that conflict has made me very sensitive to the plight they have in sub-Saharan Africa. As the Senator from Florida knows, I have been there many times. I am very familiar with that whole region. But in the case of Ethiopia, which seems to be one of the first areas the Senator is addressing, a drought is taking place there right now. In fact, I have and I will hold up a picture of a little girl we found during that drought. She was abandoned. She was 3 days old. We were able to get her back into good health. I am very proud to say that this little girl--Zegita Marie Rapert--happens to be my granddaughter. She is now officially adopted. By the way, in case you are wondering why she is wearing a crown, that was her first birthday. She has three older brothers ages 4, 5, and 6. It is a pretty typical family. Anyone from Ethiopia is considered royalty: Queen of Sheba--anyone from Ethiopia is royalty. So they gave her this crown for her first birthday. I would suggest that there is no area that is having a more difficult time right now. I know there is a lot of competition for funds. But I think the way the junior Senator from Florida has structured this amendment, that would allow the administration to make some of these determinations and some of these priorities. I strongly support the idea of giving some aid to that area because of the drought that has been unprecedented for about 12 years. Hopefully, this will happen, and it will become a reality for these people. We do a lot of talking around here about poverty; we do a lot of talking about problems; but until you see some of the poverty and some of the effects of the drought that has taken place right now in the sub-Saharan, Africa, it is really one that we don't understand. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield further, I can't quite see the Senator's map of the continent. My understanding is that most of that is in sub-Saharan Africa. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for yielding. Let me first of all say, to clarify the understanding that I have in listening to his presentation, that his request would not necessarily be binding unless the President were to include this as something which he would interpret as an emergency; that is, the funding that is requested by the Senator. Is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Yes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs who have greatly assisted the effort to bring much needed finality to the uncertainty created by litigation surrounding the ownership of the bed of the Arkansas River. A decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1970 determined that parts of the bed of the Arkansas River were included along with other land that was conveyed to Indian Nations based on 19th century treaties between the United States and the Indian Nations that were relocated from the East Coast of the United States to Oklahoma or ``Indian Territory'' as it was then known. Based on the Supreme Court's decision that Arkansas riverbed lands were included within the treaties with Indian Nations, the United States is subject to monetary damages for any breaches of its trust obligation with respect to this land. A suit has been brought on behalf of the Indian Nations asserting that such breaches of trust have occurred. The case is presently before the United States Court of Federal Claims. With respect to such treaty lands, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1790 prevents the transfer of title without Congressional approval. Without action by Congress, claims to legal title on behalf of the Indian Nations can continue to be raised with respect to these lands based on the Federal Government's underlying trust obligation. The threat of such lawsuits is a serious hardship on those people who were simply unaware that they were living on land that was once part of the bed of the Arkansas River. H.R. 3534 would eliminate title problems that are the result of the Supreme Court's decision and resolve breach of trust claims brought by the Indian Nations. Several months ago, United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, UKB, filed a motion to intervene in the Court of Federal Claims lawsuit. Although this motion was denied, the Department of Justice expressed its reluctance to endorse H.R. 3534 unless it was drafted to precluded the UKB from either bringing quiet title actions or from petitioning the United States to bring such actions. In order to ensure that UKB was not left without a remedy for pursuing its claims, the Justice Department proposed that the bill be amended to allow the UKB to pursue such claims in an action in the Court of Federal Claims. In addition, the Justice Department suggested that H.R. 3534 be amended to reserve some portion of the settlement proceeds until any claims that can be raised by the UKB are fully and finally litigated. I am pleased to report that a compromise was reached on this issue. Like any compromise, everyone had to give something up in order for us to move forward. In that regard, I would like to express my appreciation to all of those who have worked so hard on this compromise. Under the proposed amendment to H.R. 3534 that is before the Senate, all tribal claims concerning Arkansas riverbed land are resolved through proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims or through the settlement incorporated in H.R. 3534. This allows the United States Congress to remove the threat of quiet title actions brought by or on behalf of an Indian tribe claiming title to land based on the Supreme Court's decision. In other words, the UKB and each of the other tribes have agreed to allow their claims to the riverbed to be addressed through the process established by H.R. 3534. In return, the UKB has asked that 10% of the settlement fund established by the bill will be aside to satisfy any of the UKB's claims if the tribe is ultimately successful in the Court of Federal Claims. In addition, if this amount is not sufficient to satisfy any judgment awarded to the tribe, the permanent judgment appropriation, section 1304 of title 31, is explicitly made available to satisfy the remainder of any judgment amount awarded to the UKB. The UKB has also requested one additional consideration. The UKB recognizes that the purpose of the legislation is to preclude the Tribe from bringing or asking the United States to bring a lawsuit making a direct claim that asserts right, title, or an interest in Arkansas riverbed arising out of the Supreme Court's opinion. However, the Tribe wishes to make it clear that nothing in H.R. 3534 is intended or is to be construed to address, resolve, or prejudice the underlying basis of a claim that they would have been able to make if H.R. 3534 was not enacted. In other words, the UKB have asked that the legislation include a provision to make it clear that H.R. 3534 does not alter the character, nature, or basis of any claim or right that the tribe could have made before the effective date of this legislation. We have done so. I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance of the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, who has provided important procedural assistance to allow the bill to be moved expeditiously now that we have an agreement between all of the Indian tribes and the Departments of Interior and Justice. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the good work of Senator Campbell, the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, who deserves a great deal of the credit for bringing the final compromise on this matter to fruition. With that in mind, I would like to briefly engage in a colloquy with him on this final compromise. Does the vice chairman agree that section 9 of the proposed amendment ensures that the law will only be construed to preclude claims for title to the Arkansas riverbed lands either by the UKB or on its behalf; or from the UKB requesting that the Federal government bring such claims?

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for his assistance in this very important matter.

Mr. INHOFE. By including section 9, Congress is making it clear that other than this change in forums for riverbed matters, it is not Congress's intent to express any opinion or have any effect on the claims the UKB might bring. Isn't that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. Based on the Senator's answer to my last question, it is clear that the UKB will no longer be able to make a claim to the riverbed lands. However, the bill still provides a means for the UKB to raise the riverbed claims it might otherwise have brought, but it now directs that they must pursue these claims exclusively in the manner provided in H.R. 3534; isn't that correct?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as we wrap up business for the 107th Congress, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with my Environment and Public Works Committee and budget Committee colleagues regarding an issue that will set the groundwork for reauthorization of the surface transportation program next Congress. Specifically, what the baseline figure will be for the program. Will it reflect the fiscal year 2003 enacted spending level or the pending CR level. As my colleagues know, although Section 137 of Public Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for fiscal year 2003, provides that the highway program be funded at the fiscal year 2002 level of $31.8 billion, section 137 limits total annual obligations for the program to not more than $27.7 billion. Given that the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for surface transportation may not be known until after the President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposal is submitted, I have a concern that we could be faced with an artificially low baseline figure. I hope we can reach agreement now that it would be the intention of the Budget Committee to use the highest possible figure as the baseline for fiscal year 2003 when developing their fiscal year 2004 resolution. Ideally I would like to see a baseline of $31.8 billion. At a minimum I hope that next year's Budget Resolution will ensure that all revenues into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund will be available to the EPW Committee for authorization with the existing budgetary protections. I know we can all agree that a strong surface transportation program creates and preserves jobs, and thereby boosts the economy. Beginning reauthorization discussions with a low baseline figure stunts the value of the economic activity that we can realize with a robust program. If my colleagues would care to comment, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, our world has changed dramatically since the tragic events of September 11, and by passing this bill, we are taking a momentous step forward in providing for the security of Americans at home. But I am concerned we might be missing an integral component to this secure system. We have outlined parameters for information security, privacy and authentication. But, how can we truly ensure someone is who he/she says they are before we give them these high-tech credentials? We have gone to great lengths to ensure the security of these counterfeit-proof credentials, but we need to also account for the validity of the information used to establish identity in the first place. What happens if we give someone a secure document with a biometric under a false name? The events of September 11 were orchestrated by a group of foreign individuals who used false information to receive legitimate U.S. identification documents like visas, passports, driver's licenses, and illegally entered this country. Identity fraud is no longer just a crime perpetrated by a common criminal to steal a credit card. Identity theft is now a tool employed by terrorist organizations to infiltrate America and harm our citizens. Terrorists have been able to take advantage of our ineffective and antiquated systems and assume false identities. In this bill, we establish an Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security with the charge of preventing terrorists from entering this country. We need to make sure he or she has the tools necessary to authenticate a person's identity. Authentication of non- U.S. citizens entering the United States must be a top priority. We have bipartisan support for such an effort and we must establish a system that ensures the identity of foreign individuals upon initial entrance into this country. For years, identity authentication systems have been used in the U.S. to prevent fraud in the consumer banking industry. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, these systems have been adapted for national security purposes. These systems access a wide number of identifiers in domestic public records and use scoring and modeling methods to determine whether a particular person is who they say they are. These systems must be expanded to include publicly available information on individuals from foreign countries. The President has said, ``This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.'' Let me be clear. There are people who deserve to enter this country and there are people who don't deserve to enter any country. We must have the ability to verify an individual is who they say they are the first time they apply for a visa. As we move forward, we must establish an identity authentication system that targets the 26 nations designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, our world has changed dramatically since the tragic events of September 11, and by passing this bill, we are taking a momentous step forward in providing for the security of Americans at home. But I am concerned we might be missing an integral component to this secure system. We have outlined parameters for information security, privacy and authentication. But, how can we truly ensure someone is who he/she says they are before we give them these high-tech credentials? We have gone to great lengths to ensure the security of these counterfeit-proof credentials, but we need to also account for the validity of the information used to establish identity in the first place. What happens if we give someone a secure document with a biometric under a false name? The events of September 11 were orchestrated by a group of foreign individuals who used false information to receive legitimate U.S. identification documents like visas, passports, driver's licenses, and illegally entered this country. Identity fraud is no longer just a crime perpetrated by a common criminal to steal a credit card. Identity theft is now a tool employed by terrorist organizations to infiltrate America and harm our citizens. Terrorists have been able to take advantage of our ineffective and antiquated systems and assume false identities. In this bill, we establish an Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security with the charge of preventing terrorists from entering this country. We need to make sure he or she has the tools necessary to authenticate a person's identity. Authentication of non- U.S. citizens entering the United States must be a top priority. We have bipartisan support for such an effort and we must establish a system that ensures the identity of foreign individuals upon initial entrance into this country. For years, identity authentication systems have been used in the U.S. to prevent fraud in the consumer banking industry. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, these systems have been adapted for national security purposes. These systems access a wide number of identifiers in domestic public records and use scoring and modeling methods to determine whether a particular person is who they say they are. These systems must be expanded to include publicly available information on individuals from foreign countries. The President has said, ``This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.'' Let me be clear. There are people who deserve to enter this country and there are people who don't deserve to enter any country. We must have the ability to verify an individual is who they say they are the first time they apply for a visa. As we move forward, we must establish an identity authentication system that targets the 26 nations designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement. Over the past few years, the need for a change in the delivery of Impact Aid payments to eligible school districts has become increasingly clear. Impact Aid was originally designed to compensate a local school district for financial losses caused by a Federal presence in that district, whether due to a military base or to other designated Federal land in the community. Congress met its obligation and fully funded the program for the first twenty years of its existence. When the funding was cut in 1971, appropriations for Impact Aid were allocated for school districts according to a need-based formula. In subsequent years, multiple changes in the law have revised and further complicated both the formula and the additional factors that determine funding for each district. The result of these numerous revisions has been large payment disparities for the same types of students in different districts, as well as inherent flaws in reimbursements due to how school districts are defined in different states. I have consistently defended increased appropriations for Impact Aid not only because it is a vital source of revenue for many local school districts, but also because it constitutes a clear-cut Federal responsibility. When the Federal Government's presence in a community detracts from the local tax base, which often comprises nearly 90 percent of local schools' funding, we must compensate for the lost funds. When we do not do so, the children suffer the consequences. Despite increases in the past few years, Impact Aid remains substantially under-funded. We can no longer ignore the inequity this causes in educating our students. It is for this reason that I have introduced this bill today. When this legislation becomes law, Congress will be required to meet its obligation to the children and the schools that have been negatively impacted for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our local schools by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to make the Impact Aid Program a Federal entitlement. Over the past few years, the need for a change in the delivery of Impact Aid payments to eligible school districts has become increasingly clear. Impact Aid was originally designed to compensate a local school district for financial losses caused by a Federal presence in that district, whether due to a military base or to other designated Federal land in the community. Congress met its obligation and fully funded the program for the first twenty years of its existence. When the funding was cut in 1971, appropriations for Impact Aid were allocated for school districts according to a need-based formula. In subsequent years, multiple changes in the law have revised and further complicated both the formula and the additional factors that determine funding for each district. The result of these numerous revisions has been large payment disparities for the same types of students in different districts, as well as inherent flaws in reimbursements due to how school districts are defined in different states. I have consistently defended increased appropriations for Impact Aid not only because it is a vital source of revenue for many local school districts, but also because it constitutes a clear-cut Federal responsibility. When the Federal Government's presence in a community detracts from the local tax base, which often comprises nearly 90 percent of local schools' funding, we must compensate for the lost funds. When we do not do so, the children suffer the consequences. Despite increases in the past few years, Impact Aid remains substantially under-funded. We can no longer ignore the inequity this causes in educating our students. It is for this reason that I have introduced this bill today. When this legislation becomes law, Congress will be required to meet its obligation to the children and the schools that have been negatively impacted for so long. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our local schools by permanently fully funding the Impact Aid program.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do think our distinguished Senator from New Jersey stressed the sense of urgency that is upon us right now when he said perhaps the greatest decision we will have to make during the terms we are serving is going to be tomorrow. I think that is probably right. Even though I disagree with many of the things he stated, I certainly respect him for the commitment and belief he has in his interpretation of the facts and the course we should take. I have been listening for quite a number of hours now, and I quite frankly have to say it has not been all that easy. I believe tomorrow we will give the President of the United States the full support of this body in order to send the right message to Saddam Hussein and to terrorists all over the world, and that message is this: The United States of America will not live in fear. I have ended every speech I have made since 1995 with one sentence, and I feel compelled to start this speech with that sentence. That sentence is that we today are in the most vulnerable and threatened position we have been in in our Nation's history. In January 2002, our President gave a magnificent State of the Union address. He said: Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life. The handwringers have already marshaled their special interest groups to delay this body from giving our President the homeland security bill he asked for way back in June. And just like the homeland security bill, they are trying to weaken the President's ability to protect this Nation with a hollow resolution against Iraq. We are going to have to give the President the flexibility he needs to protect this Nation. Making the potential use of U.S. military force contingent upon the current deliberations of the U.N. Security Council is absurd. Our national security must not be tied to the actions of the ``mother of all handwringers,'' the United Nations. I keep hearing a grinding noise. It is our forefathers turning over in their graves. Can they really believe this Nation would get into the position where we would have to ask some multinational organization before our President had the right to defend America? I think not. And why are we letting the same groups of individuals that have prevented us from getting a homeland security bill, during a time of war, by the way, from supporting the President of the United States? What is next? Do they want us to go to the United Nations to get a homeland security bill? The American people have to wonder about this one simple question: Why do those who oppose the President's resolution trust the United Nations more than they trust the President of the United States? The United Nations did not stop in 1992 the threat of 100 servicemen in Yemen. The United Nations did not stop the 18 rangers from dying in Somalia or their naked bodies from being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The United Nations did not stop the World Trade Center, the first bombing in 1993. They did not stop Khobar Towers in 1996. They did not stop the Embassy bombings of Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. They did not stop or prevent the loss of 17 sailors' lives in Yemen in 2000. The United Nations did not stop the airplanes from flying into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. The United Nations will not stop Saddam Hussein from giving a nuclear device to a terrorist, putting it on an airplane and flying it into an American city. Of course, this time, instead of 3,000 deaths, there could be hundreds of thousands of deaths. I often remember the television scenes, the horrible scenes from New York City of the airplanes hitting into the World Trade Center. Then I thought, if that had been the weapon of choice of a terrorist--in other words, a nuclear warhead on a missile--there would be nothing left but a piece of charcoal. We would not be talking about 3,000 lives, we would be talking about 2 or 3 million lives. Why should the President of the United States delegate his responsibility of protecting this Nation to the United Nations? We made a similar mistake back in 1998. Look where it has gotten us. In 1998, in an attempt to get the Iraqi regime to comply with the U.N. resolutions--doesn't that sound familiar--the administration blessed Secretary Annan's trip to Baghdad, and in doing so let the United Nations negotiate on behalf of the United States, which proved to be a very serious mistake. Part of that particular agreement was the recognition of the eight palaces as special sites. And that compromise continues to haunt us today. The administration should not have let the United Nations negotiate and compromise for the United States in 1998. And the current administration should not do it now and will not do it now. My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, likes to say: Saddam is looking down the barrel of a gun. He should be looking at the international community at the other end, not the United States. While I respect my friend and colleague and admire his passion behind his convictions, I could not disagree more. Saddam Hussein has been looking down the gun barrel of the international community for 11 years. The problem is that he knows the gun is full of blanks. The Iraqi regime knows the United States does not shoot blanks, which is why they continue to manipulate and deceive the United Nations. I know our Secretary of State is working very closely with the members of the Security Council in order to get a U.N. resolution against Iraq that is not full of blanks. I hope he has already expressed to the Security Council this Nation is united, and with the overwhelming support of the American people and this Congress in the form of support of the President's resolution, we choose to exercise our right to defend ourselves. How unreasonable of us. We have the right under international law to defend ourselves. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states: Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of an individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. The current Iraqi regime has been harboring and supporting terrorist networks since the early 1990s. We know that, maybe before that. We have been under attack ever since. I challenge any of my colleagues to tell any of our brave soldiers who fly combat planes over Iraq every day that the surface-to-air missiles Iraq has been firing is not a hostile act. Iraq forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots 1,600 times since 2000. Since September 18--remember what happened on September 18 of this year--hours after Saddam Hussein promised to allow the return of U.N. inspectors without conditions, he fired on American and British pilots 67 times. That is 67 times since September 18 when he made the promise. Is anyone home? What message are we sending our brave men and women in uniform if we only consider it a hostile act when one of those missiles hits an aircraft? The message we must send our military, our allies, the United Nations, and those who support the current Iraqi regime is that the United States of America chooses not to live in fear and we will defend ourselves. That message will be sent with the overwhelming passage of the President's resolution. The Armed Services Committee recently had a series of hearings with former civilian and military leaders regarding the Iraqi issue. My fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been using some of the testimony of witnesses to make their case that the United States must wait for the United Nations to make a decision. A lot of people do not realize, but there are over 4,000 retired generals floating around the country today. They have only found three who would agree with them. So they went out and found the three who said we have to continue to wait for the United Nations to solve the Iraqi issue. The fourth member of that panel, not quoted by any of my fellow colleagues, disagreed with the other three generals. Lieutenant General McInerney had the following comments about the suggestion of weakening the President's authority. Members have not heard this from anyone, just the other three generals. He said: If you water this down--talking about the President's Iraqi resolution--you are going to send a signal to al-Qaida. You may not want to, but you are going to send it to Saddam and say, well, we don't quite trust them. The signal you want to send is this nation is united. You want to send that to the U.N. because I happen to believe--which is different than General Clark--I happen to believe this strong signal will ensure that we have a better chance of getting it through the United Nations. That is what General McInerney said at the same time the other three generals said we need to decide what fate the United Nations will give this great country. Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He butchered his own people. Everyone agrees. He butchered members of his own family, two of his own sons-in- law. He must be stopped. He will be stopped. Each day that goes by he gets stronger. There are those who believe the President has not made a strong enough case. They say: Where is the evidence? Why now? Additional inspections will work, and we do not want another Vietnam. To them I ask, Are they more concerned about a war that took place over 30 years ago, or the tragic events that took place on September 11? As I stand here today, is there more likely to be another Vietnam or another September 11? The President asked a critical question the other night. He said, if we know Saddam has dangerous weapons today, and we do, does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? I know what the people of Oklahoma are more concerned about. The people of Oklahoma are well aware of what can happen when evil people unleash weapons of terror. Go back and listen to the speeches the President gave to the U.N. on September 12 and in Cincinnati on October 7. He has made his case. He has made it to the United Nations, the Congress, and most importantly to the people of the United States. The threat is real. And with every day of delay and deceit the menace grows stronger. The current Iraqi regime will continue to use the United Nations as his tool until he gets what he may be close to having--a nuclear weapon. It may have been the right decision not to go after Saddam Hussein in 1991, just like it may have been the right decision for the previous administration not to go after Osama bin Laden in the 1990s when they had the opportunity to do so. But is it right to go after them both today? I believe it is. The big question is does he have a nuclear weapon? The scary thing is, no one is able to say that he does not. Does he have a delivery system? Nobody is in a position to say that he doesn't. This Congress is going to do the right thing. This Nation is united. We will defend ourselves. This Congress must once again unite as we did following the tragic events of 9/11. There is another statement a President made following another tragic event in our history. Some of you may remember. The President was motored from the White House to the Capitol under heavy security. The American people were full of emotions, from apprehension to anger. After being greeted by rounds of loud applause, the President of the United States addressed the Joint Session of Congress. Here is a quote from that speech. You have to listen to this, Mr. President. This is a long quote. This is what the President said: The facts . . . speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinion and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation. As Commander in Chief, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in danger. With confidence in our armed forces--with the unbounded determination of our people--we will gain the inevitable triumph--so help us God. The date of that speech was December 8, 1941. President Franklin Roosevelt gave the speech. Pearl Harbor and the war that followed led to the restructuring of our national security structure. Today, more than 1 year since 9/11, an ongoing war against terror, and a possible conflict with Iraq, we, the Congress, have not given the American people a homeland security bill and some Members of Congress want to put the security of this country in the hands of the United Nations. I repeat, did our forefathers ever believe we would have to go to a multinational organization in order to defend America? The President of the United States during a time of war has asked Congress to give him support to show the world that this Nation is united. He has requested the Congress give him the necessary flexibility to protect the homeland, to protect the Nation. Telling the President that he must first bow to the will of the United Nations is the wrong message. Here we are today, just like with the homeland security issue, letting the hand wringers drive the debate in a direction that has nothing to do with the task at hand. We are going to have to and will give the President an Iraqi resolution that does not tie his hands. The Secretary of Defense has said--and I think this is so important for us to understand today, for all of us, for all Americans to understand. He said: If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today will be able to honestly say it was a surprise. Because it will not be a surprise. Mr. President, I remember so well--I am old enough to remember World War II. I was a very small child. I remember going to a country schoolhouse named Hazel Dell. It was way out in the country. We had eight grades in one room with a pot-bellied stove there and a schoolteacher named Harvey Beam. He was a giant of a man, but I suspect he wasn't quite as big as I thought he was at the time. I remember studying American history and studying about how we won a war and won the freedom in this country against impossible odds, and how the greatest army on the face of this Earth was coming over from Great Britain and marching toward Lexington and Concord, and here we were, a handful of hunters and trappers with homemade weapons. We fired that shot heard round the world. A speech was made that I remember so well, in the House of Burgesses, when a tall redhead stood up and said: Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. At that time, we fired the shot heard around the world. We knew we were one nation depending on God to give us the strength to win a battle that now historians say could not have been won. That was the sublime courage we had in this country, and now the hand wringers are back. In 1996, we had an opportunity to end this whole thing, to get Saddam Hussein. I suggest to you, if George W. Bush had been President in 1996, we would not be here today. It is a no-brainer. It would have been done. We had the opposition, including about 100,000 troops, well trained, and the Kurds in the north ready to join us, and we implied to them that we would do that and we would together take out Saddam Hussein. What did we do? We turned our backs on them, and we walked away. Several thousand Kurds died as a result of that. Now they are back. They are willing to join us again. I wonder about this. Why is it that so many of the people I have heard on the floor of this Senate objecting to giving the President the recognition he needs to do what he has to do, what is his constitutional obligation--where were they in 1998, back when we had another President, President Clinton, and he wanted to go after Saddam Hussein? They were in line, saying: That's fine; let's go get him. Our distinguished majority leader Senator Daschle said: Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force if force is required. And I must say it has the will. Senator Biden--I have the utmost respect for him. He came down to the floor, and he is now saying we don't want to move too fast. Then he said we risk sending a dangerous signal to other proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's intransigence. That was 1998. What is different now? Nothing, except Saddam Hussein is stronger. Does he have the weaponry? Does he have the weapons of mass destruction? Does he have a nuclear warhead? We don't know for sure, but we don't know he does not. Let's go back to the Rumsfeld Commission. This is 1998. The Rumsfeld Commission was made up of, I don't know, 16 or 18 of the very top military experts in this country. They said that U.S. intelligence was shocked by a 1990 Iraqi test of a long-range booster rocket, showing Iraq was involved in an extensive, undetected, covert program to develop nuclear capability ballistic missiles with intercontinental range. That was 1990. People keep saying: Oh, no, this is not going to happen; they don't have this. I remember in 1998, it was August 24 when our intelligence said that it would be something like 5 to 15 years before North Korea would have a multiple-stage rocket. That was August 24, 1998. Seven days later, on August 31, North Korea fired one. We know when the weapons inspectors came back in 1998 after Saddam Hussein kicked them out, they came before our committee. I can tell you exactly--I have the transcript over here--what they said. By and large, this was it. For the sake of time, I say in response to our question, in 1998-- this is the weapons inspectors who were over there: How long would it be until Saddam Hussein has the weapons of mass destruction capability, including nuclear, and a missile with intercontinental range to deliver those? The answer was he could have it in 6 months. That was 1998. George Tenet at that time said: I agree with that testimony. Unclassified intelligence told us that China was transferring technology of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and missiles to Iraq. On August 24, in the Washington Times, it was revealed the intelligence community warned President Bush that weapons of mass destruction could be on their way in a very short period of time. Just 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, from a satellite image, we were able to photograph trucks, 60 trucks that were moving around--a biological lab that we knew was a weapons lab. They are up to something. Every day something has happened. The intelligence report to the administration was that Saddam Hussein is preparing to use weapons of mass destruction. On September 27, Rumsfeld said there is solid evidence that Saddam Hussein is negotiating for weapons of mass destruction with al-Qaida-- they are negotiating with each other, I mean. With all these things that we know are going on today, why is it that we are sitting around, wringing our hands? We don't know that he doesn't already have it, but we do know this. Every day that goes by, every week that goes by, he has a greater opportunity to have these. So, I look at this and I think that we have to remember what Secretary Rumsfeld said when he talked about the consequences. He said: The consequences of making a mistake during the days of conventional warfare meant that we might lose 100, maybe 200 lives. But the consequences of making a mistake now could mean hundreds of thousands of lives. I think tonight we have the Churchills and the Chamberlains. Tomorrow we are going to have a lot more Churchills than Chamberlains and we are going to stop the hand wringing. It will all stop tomorrow, and we are going to give the President of the United States the resolution that he knows he needs in order to have the full support of Congress and the American people behind him to do what he knows he must do in defending America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.