Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree with my colleague from Michigan, and the bill requires the EPA to review the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed cleanup strategy before the project may be carried out.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am aware that the current Remedial Action Plan and other processes consider an evaluation of the effects of cleanup alternatives and that many Remedial Action Plans already include such an evaluation. Additional evaluation is not required when the Remedial Action Plan has already evaluated the short and long term effects of remedial alternatives on human health and the environment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, today I congratulate and thank the Honorable Barbara W. Snelling from Shelburne, VT on her lifetime of service to Vermont citizens, young and old. Back in Vermont, Barbara is being honored by the Vermont Chamber of Commerce as the 2002 Citizen of the Year. In my home state, the Snelling name is synonymous with public service, commitment to community, personal integrity and leadership. Barbara ran for public office in 1991, shortly after the untimely death of her husband, Gov. Richard A. Snelling. Her list of achievements is long: two-term Lieutenant Governor; two-term State Senator; president of a consulting firm for 14 years; trustee for her alma mater, Radcliffe College; and current member of the United States Peace Institute, an appointment made by former President Clinton. She has also held seemingly endless titles in her community, from Girl Scout Troop leader to United Way Board member. Her life work is a testament to the meaning of public service that few individuals are capable of achieving. Barbara's endless devotion and commitment to the people of Vermont uniquely qualifies her as a key advisor to her daughter, Diane Snelling, who now serves as a Vermont State Senator. Barbara has become a symbol of the strength in spirit and courage to overcome adversity. In 1996, during her bid for Governor, she suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and lapsed into a coma. Her determination and drive led to a miraculous recovery. In her work at the Vermont State House, Barbara used the legislative process for the benefit of all and detriment to none. Each day, Barbara works tirelessly for Vermont, and for this we must all thank her. We owe a great deal to this courageous and determined stateswoman. Congratulations, Barbara. Your leadership and grace are legendary to the people of Vermont. We are all extremely proud of you and your accomplishments.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am here today to honor and congratulate Kathleen Clark Hoyt of Norwich, VT, who will retire from Vermont State government on November 1 after many years of dedicated public service. Most recently, Kathy Hoyt has served as Secretary of Administration in the cabinet of Governor Howard B. Dean, a position she has held since 1997. As such, she has been one of the most influential forces in our State government. Kathy Hoyt's years of service date back more than three decades. In her native State of North Carolina, she worked to help fight poverty, create jobs and housing, and provide leadership training for minorities and the poor. After arriving in Vermont in 1968, she went to work with the State Office of Economic Opportunity, devoting herself to such issues as welfare reform and child care. She went on to become Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Employment and Training, and in 1989, she was appointed Chief of Staff and Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs for Gov. Madeleine Kunin. Kathy Hoyt left State government when Gov. Kunin's term ended in January 1991, but her absence was short-lived. When Gov. Kunin's successor, Gov. Richard Snelling, died in office eight months later, Kathy Hoyt was summoned back to assist incoming Gov. Dean with the sudden transition. Once again, Kathy Hoyt found herself serving as Chief of Staff to a Vermont governor. Her unexpected re-entry in State government would keep her there for nearly a dozen more years. Of all the tributes that have been made and will be made to Kathy Hoyt, perhaps her contribution to State government was best summed up by Gov. Dean. In a newspaper profile of Kathy Hoyt, Gov. Dean referred to his close confidante simply as ``Saint Kathy.'' I would like to take this opportunity to wish Kathy Hoyt the best in her future endeavors, and to personally thank her for the devotion she has shown to our great State of Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I first want to salute the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, as well as my good friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, for their bipartisan effort and leadership in crafting S. 3018, the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002. As the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, they have worked long and hard on legislation that is critically important to the future of health care for our citizens that rely on Medicare. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 3018, and I urge all of our colleagues to support its passage as soon as possible. In the closing days of the 107th Congress, there will be many bills that on their way to consideration and passage will enjoy the unanimous consent of the Senators. There are few of these many bills more worthy of our consideration and unanimous consent than this measure. Vermont, like so many of our States, has a healthcare system that is facing reductions in levels of Medicare reimbursement that are untenable. In some cases, these reductions took effect on October 1 and others will occur at the end of this month. The cuts have already led to fewer physicians and services being available to care for our elders. The list of cuts and reductions is long. Physicians and other healthcare professionals, home health agencies, critical access hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, sole community hospitals, and others are being affected. And make no mistake, these cuts translate as cuts in access to healthcare for our elders. But it is not too late. We can pass this legislation, engage in a conference with our colleagues in the other chamber, and have a bill for the President to sign before the end of this Congress. Once again, I want to commend Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their work on this bill and for this chance to speak to its merits today. It is needed legislation, it is balanced, and it is well crafted. Our elders need it passed. Our providers need it passed. Children depending on SCHIP need it passed, and our States need it passed. We should not let this opportunity to enact this legislation go by, and so I urge our colleagues to support its passage. Also I want to commend the Senator from Maine for her statement with which I agree and commend her.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Leahy and Collins in introducing the Senate counterpart of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2002. This legislation closes a gap in the survivor benefits the Federal Government provides to the families of public safety officers who die in the line of duty. These public safety officers are the people that keep our streets safe, help to fight fires, and respond to emergency calls. The Federal Government has rightfully created a one-time financial benefit for the families of public safety officers who die in the line of duty to recognize the sacrifice and importance of public safety officers in our society. Unfortunately, due to a technicality in the law some families of public safety officers that die of a heart attack or stroke are being denied this important financial benefit. This is unacceptable and we need to make sure that we enact this legislation to ensure that the families of these public safety officers are covered. Many years ago I was a volunteer firefighter in my small town of Shrewsbury, VT. It was a very demanding, stressful, and exhausting job. Every year almost half the firefighter fatalities in the United States are from heart attack or cardiac related reasons. Not all of these deaths occur while fighting the fire, but are related to their unselfish dedication to the task at hand. This legislation would provide that a public safety officer who dies as the result of a heart attack or stroke suffered while on duty or within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation shall be presumed to have died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty for purposes of survivor benefits. These public safety officers are out there everyday ensuring our safety; Congress needs to ensure that the surviving families receive this important financial benefit. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the heroism and sacrifice of public safety officers by co-sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Leahy and Collins in introducing the Senate counterpart of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2002. This legislation closes a gap in the survivor benefits the Federal Government provides to the families of public safety officers who die in the line of duty. These public safety officers are the people that keep our streets safe, help to fight fires, and respond to emergency calls. The Federal Government has rightfully created a one-time financial benefit for the families of public safety officers who die in the line of duty to recognize the sacrifice and importance of public safety officers in our society. Unfortunately, due to a technicality in the law some families of public safety officers that die of a heart attack or stroke are being denied this important financial benefit. This is unacceptable and we need to make sure that we enact this legislation to ensure that the families of these public safety officers are covered. Many years ago I was a volunteer firefighter in my small town of Shrewsbury, VT. It was a very demanding, stressful, and exhausting job. Every year almost half the firefighter fatalities in the United States are from heart attack or cardiac related reasons. Not all of these deaths occur while fighting the fire, but are related to their unselfish dedication to the task at hand. This legislation would provide that a public safety officer who dies as the result of a heart attack or stroke suffered while on duty or within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation shall be presumed to have died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty for purposes of survivor benefits. These public safety officers are out there everyday ensuring our safety; Congress needs to ensure that the surviving families receive this important financial benefit. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing the heroism and sacrifice of public safety officers by co-sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the state of our economy. I was heartened to read in this morning's Washington Post that the administration is finally acknowledging our economy is in trouble. Of course, it came as the Republican National Committee was writing a memo to send to its campaign, reporting that internal polling shows the economy is the most important issue to voters. Surprise. It seems the Bush administration is more interested in responding to recent poll numbers than responding to the economic indicators that have been staring them in the face for more than a year. The economic statistics are most troubling. Business investment is down. The annual growth of business investment is 7.6 percent, the weakest business investment trend under any administration in the past 50 years. Consumer confidence is down. Between January of 2001 and August of 2002, consumer confidence dropped by nearly one-fifth. The stock market is down, as everyone knows. Between January 2001 and September 2002, stocks listed on the New York stock market exchange and the Nasdaq markets lost $5.2 trillion in market value, a loss of more than 35 percent, or more than $9 billion per day. The 23 percent average annual decline in the S&P average index under the current administration is the sharpest decline since the Hoover administration. Last month was the worst September performance for the Dow Jones industrial average since 1937. The Congressional Budget Office said last Friday the Federal Government 2002 deficit will hit $157 billion. This onslaught of red ink is truly remarkable. It is being driven by the largest percentage drop in individual tax revenues since 1947. That is over 50 years ago. Let me give the folks a little Yankee economic wisdom. People pay less in taxes when their earnings go down. We are now spending Social Security revenues to balance our budgets for the first time since 1997. Ninety-four percent of the surpluses projected when President Bush took office have already disappeared. That is a $5.3 trillion drop in just 2 years. If the past is any guide, we can expect higher interest rates in the future as the Government competes with the private sector for capital. With all of this, I was stunned to receive a letter from the Congressional Budget Office late Friday which indicates even more layoffs of American workers may be around the corner. These layoffs can be attributed to the lack of commitment from the administration to fully fund our Federal highway program. The CBO letter made clear that the continuing resolution, which the other body is working on now, will have the effect of cutting future spending on highway construction jobs by over $4.1 billion and cutting current spending by $1.1 billion. I quote the letter of October 11, 2002, from the Director of CBO regarding the amendment being proposed by the other body: With the amendment, CBO would reduce its estimate of 2003 obligations and outlays under a full-year continuing resolution by $4.1 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. I am convinced that we need more leadership from the White House on the issue of jobs for American families. Our attention is constantly being diverted by the White House talk of war. Unemployment in September stood at 8.1 million Americans. This does not count those who have given up hunting for work. That is 1 million more unemployed as compared to a year ago. Families whose unemployment benefits have long since run out are focused on how they will pay their rent or make their mortgage payments or, even worse, where they will get their very next meal. Construction jobs are good jobs. Each $1 billion spent on highway projects creates 47,500 full-time jobs. These jobs help the entire economy, not just the transportation sector. The cut in funding highlighted by the CBO letter means nearly 200,000 Americans will not find gainful employment, which they could find if it was better handled. According to the Department of Transportation, our network of highways contributes, on an average, one-quarter of the yearly productive growth rate in the United States. To quote the Department of Transportation: This highlights the highway network's importance to maintaining economic growth. The White House needs to listen to its own transportation department. The U.S. Department of Transportation says for each $1 billion invested in highways, almost 8,000 direct on-site highway construction jobs are created. For each $1 billion invested, around 20,000 supply industry jobs are created. For each $1 billion invested, around 15,000 jobs are supported within the general economy as highway construction employees spend their wages. I say to the White House, devote at least some attention away from Iraq and to getting Americans back to work. I urge the White House to support funding in the continuing resolution which allows us spending at the rate of $31.8 billion, equal to last year's level. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will work with the congressional leadership to assure maximum funding possible for the reauthorization of the transportation bill. I feel sad today when I look at the economy and think what it could be or should be; yet we are spending all our time on an important issue, no question, about the status of Iraq. But I hope this body will turn its attention now to economics and the problems we are having and those that will lie ahead if we do not take action now. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq. The Levin substitute language makes it clear that the United States will stand behind the U.N. Security Council, even authorizing the use of U.S. military force to support the Security Council directives if necessary. At the conclusion of World War II, the United States had a vision of a world body that would be a forum for resolving future disputes with means other than war. There were many important initiatives that needed multilateral coordination by an international body. For more than half a century, the United States has poured diplomatic energy and considerable resources into the United Nations system. During the cold war years, the U.N. languished, weakened by the divisive United States- Soviet confrontation. But following the demise of the Soviet Union, the United Nations has regained considerable authority, and as the world's lone superpower, the United States is now finding that it has considerable use for the United Nations. Our decade-long struggle with Saddam Hussein is one example of how working with the United Nations serves our interests. We partnered with the United Nations very effectively during the Persian Gulf War. Sanctions have prevented any significant rebuilding of Iraq's conventional military capabilities. We maintain U.N. no-fly zones over Iraq that have restricted military reprisals against the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites. United Nations inspectors on the ground in Iraq learned a great deal about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program immediately following the gulf war. But things fell apart in subsequent years. Once again, we need a strong United Nations to step up to Saddam Hussein. The United Nations must take the lead in enforcing its demands that Iraq give up its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and production capabilities. The United Nations also demanded that Iraq dismantle its nuclear weapons program. I am pleased that last month, President Bush decided to take his case against Saddam Hussein to the United Nations. The U.N. Security Council has responded with vigorous debate, and is considering a strong U.S. proposal for enforcement of a strict U.N. inspections regime. I urge the Security Council to act now, and act decisively. The Levin amendment puts us squarely behind this United Nations effort. It is the only language that does so. It is critical that we give the U.N. our full support at this time, and give the Security Council the opportunity to take bold action as proposed by the United States. If we undercut the United Nations here today, we are depriving ourselves of the best chance to peacefully achieve the most important goal of disarming Saddam Hussein. As the world's lone super power, we need a partner in the United Nations. Many of the critical tasks before us are actually international tasks. For instance, degradation of the environment is a global problem and requires a global solution. The crisis of climate change can hardly be addressed by the United States alone. Improving the quality of our water and air requires internationally coordinated efforts. Economic, employment and health problems are increasingly becoming global issues, as people move across national boundaries in search of jobs and opportunity. We need a strong partner in these efforts, and the United Nations system is our best hope. We are becoming increasingly aware of the disparities in the economic wealth and use of resources around the globe. Addressing these problems will require a great deal of creative thinking and financial resources. While we are the world's strongest nation, we cannot solve these problems alone. Nor do we want to. We need a strong partner in this effort. A reinvigorated United Nations is the most likely venue for progress. The spread of weapons of mass destruction has clearly become a threat to our national security. There is much more that the United States can do to stop this proliferation. But in order to have much success at these efforts, we must work in concert with the international community. We need a strong United Nations as a partner in this effort. The effect of the Levin substitute is to give the United Nations a chance to prove it is up to the task. If we are to have a strong and effective partner in confronting the many problems facing the United States, then we must stand squarely behind the United Nations today. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to rise today to express my support for the Local Control of Cellular Towers Bill, as well as the Local Control of Broadcast Towers Bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of these two pieces of legislation and commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his continued work on this issue. The 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts State and local zoning laws, transferring jurisdiction away from State and local authorities to the Federal government. The legislation that we are introducing today would return that jurisdiction to the State and local authorities that are best equipped to make decisions regarding the placement and construction of cellular and broadcast towers. In Vermont, new development and construction is governed by Act 250, an environmental land use law specifically written to control and manage development, while maintaining a balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Act 250 maintains this equilibrium by placing the permitting rights in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board. Act 250 is therefore administered by men and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local concerns. The state of Vermont established Act 250 in response to a period of unchecked development that began in the 1960's. As the Attorney General for the state at the time, I was one of the primary drafters of the environmental land use law. Since 1969, Act 250 has protected our environment, managed development, and provided a forum for neighbors, municipalities and other interest groups to voice their concerns about new development. I see no reason why the construction of cellular and broadcast towers should not be governed by Act 250 as well, and I remain hopeful that these two bills will reverse what the 1996 Act set forth. Although I recognize the importance of building a sound and functional wireless network, I urge Congress to allow states and local communities to build that network so the negative impacts of tower construction are kept to a minimum. Among Vermont's greatest assets are its mountain ranges and beautiful views. Giving local communities authority over tower construction and placement is a step towards preserving and protecting those assets.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to rise today to express my support for the Local Control of Cellular Towers Bill, as well as the Local Control of Broadcast Towers Bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of these two pieces of legislation and commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his continued work on this issue. The 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts State and local zoning laws, transferring jurisdiction away from State and local authorities to the Federal government. The legislation that we are introducing today would return that jurisdiction to the State and local authorities that are best equipped to make decisions regarding the placement and construction of cellular and broadcast towers. In Vermont, new development and construction is governed by Act 250, an environmental land use law specifically written to control and manage development, while maintaining a balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Act 250 maintains this equilibrium by placing the permitting rights in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board. Act 250 is therefore administered by men and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local concerns. The state of Vermont established Act 250 in response to a period of unchecked development that began in the 1960's. As the Attorney General for the state at the time, I was one of the primary drafters of the environmental land use law. Since 1969, Act 250 has protected our environment, managed development, and provided a forum for neighbors, municipalities and other interest groups to voice their concerns about new development. I see no reason why the construction of cellular and broadcast towers should not be governed by Act 250 as well, and I remain hopeful that these two bills will reverse what the 1996 Act set forth. Although I recognize the importance of building a sound and functional wireless network, I urge Congress to allow states and local communities to build that network so the negative impacts of tower construction are kept to a minimum. Among Vermont's greatest assets are its mountain ranges and beautiful views. Giving local communities authority over tower construction and placement is a step towards preserving and protecting those assets.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my good friend. Mr. President, I have come to discuss, not unexpectedly, the situation in Iraq and what our country ought to do in response to that threat. As has happened many times before when faced with a potential threat to our national security and to the security of our allies, we must carefully evaluate that threat, and decide how best to deal with it. It is imperative we not make a rash decision that will have lasting consequences for generations to come. I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way. I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet, and other top administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing-- nothing--that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term. Saddam Hussein's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern. Based on the information that has been provided to me by this administration, I believe this threat is best dealt with in the context of the United Nations. The U.N. must move aggressively to ensure unfettered inspections and bolster its efforts to stop the proliferation of materials that can be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. I urge the U.N. Security Council to take immediate and strong action to deal with Iraq and its infractions. Should Iraq fail to comply with the United Nations resolutions, it is incumbent on the United States to aggressively work with member nations to develop a means to bring Iraq into compliance. But at this time, I cannot in good conscience authorize any use of military force against Iraq other than in the context of a U.N. Security Council effort. If we receive information that the threat is more imminent, or if the United Nations' effort fails, then the President should come back to Congress for consideration of the next step. Providing the President with authorization at this time for unilateral U.S. military action would undercut U.N. Security Council efforts to disarm Iraq. We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our Nation, or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends. I spoke at length on the Senate floor last week about pressing problems that will determine the future strength of our Nation: Grossly inadequate funding for education, declining access to affordable health care, degradation of our environment, and erosion of pension security for many hard-working Americans. Saddam Hussein is as bad a dictator as they come. His past actions speak volumes about his true intentions. But is the only solution to this dilemma a military solution? Experience tells us otherwise. Ten years of containment through enforcement of two no-fly zones and U.N. economic sanctions have prevented Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military to any significant extent especially with respect to our security. His military strength remains significantly weaker than when he moved against Kuwait more than a decade ago. There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction program, but no evidence that he has developed a nuclear capability, and less that he could deliver it. While there is talk of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida, and I don't doubt that there has been some cooperation, I have not seen any hard evidence of close cooperation. There is, however, a great deal of evidence of Saddam's paranoia and his distrust of all but his closest inner circle. He has wiped out any viable political opposition and tightly holds all the reins of control. Even if he were to develop a nuclear capability, which he does not have, I have a hard time believing that Saddam Hussein would turn these weapons over to any organization, particularly a terrorist organization, after he has paid so dearly to acquire them. Our greatest problem, it seems to me, is that we have very little good intelligence on what is going on inside Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein's intentions are bad, but we don't have a clear picture of what his capabilities actually are, or if a threat exists. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail. We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives. In view of this threat from Saddam Hussein, which I believe is missing, I urge the Congress not to adjourn sine die upon completion of its work this fall, but to be ready to return to session at any time prior to the New Year if further action against Saddam Hussein should become necessary. We must also work with the United Nations to stop the flow of those materials needed for producing weapons of mass destruction. There is a great deal more that we could do to tighten international nonproliferation regimes. Rather than supporting and empowering international efforts to stop the flow of nuclear materials and force greater transparency in chemical and biological commercial production facilities, the Bush administration has undercut these efforts and refused to participate in attempts to strengthen existing nonproliferation regimes. For example, last fall, at the Biological Weapons Convention review conference, the Bush administration scuttled efforts by our closest allies, most notably Great Britain, to strengthen the international biological weapons inspection regime. The administration has actively undermined efforts to monitor and verify the existing international moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. Additionally, we should be putting more resources into the Nunn-Lugar program, which has had some success at preventing the export from the former Soviet Union of nuclear weapons materials and scientific know- how. Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Just think of what progress we could make on nonproliferation if we were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical, or biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international nonproliferation regimes would truly enhance our Nation's future security. In our preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, we must not lose sight of potential crises in several other areas of the world. The India- Pakistan nuclear confrontation and the standoff over Kashmir have demanded a great deal of American effort during the past year. We cannot rule out a re-emergence of this nuclear threat. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians continues to claim lives and threaten the stability of the region. Without U.S. prodding and even direct involvement, there is little chance that a peace process could resume there. War with Iraq could have an inflammatory effect upon that situation, and potentially risk the security of Israel as well. A war with Iraq would diminish our focus on bringing stability to Afghanistan, risking a return of anarchy to an area we have just given American lives to stabilize. While Pakistan has stood with us this year, a lessening of U.S. attention to Afghanistan could significantly undercut our influence in Islamabad. And the larger war on terrorism, our top concern just a few months ago, would take a back seat to a protracted war with Iraq and a major reconstruction effort. Yes, we must worry about Saddam. But we must not do so in a manner that reduces our ability to deal with these other threats. I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our Nation internationally and stir up greater hatred of America. This cycle will generate more enemies, while undercutting our support from a broad coalition of allies--coalitions that have proven to be the hallmark of all successful peacemaking efforts in recent years. We owe it to the American people not to rush into a war, but to work with the institutions that we fought so hard to develop for just this eventuality. If multilateral efforts fail, then the President should come back to Congress for consideration of the next course of action. I cannot support a resolution that puts this Nation on a path to war without first exhausting diplomatic efforts. Now is the time to put the international system to work for us, and consider unilateral military action only as a last resort. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Safety Act. This legislation provides for the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment tools already in use. Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure. Almost a year ago, I spoke on the many initiatives taking place in the Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental Protection Agency. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress. EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the nation. Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking water facilities as part of the Bioterrorism bill. Despite our advocacy during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the House. While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the hundreds of thousands of miles of pipes buried under ground and the thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and safe. But, like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating impact on public safety and health. The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater facilities. Using existing tools such as the Sandi Laboratory's vulnerability assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment works remedy areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability assessment, treatment works will develop or revise emergency response plans to minimize damage if an attack were to occur. This bill authorizes $185 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million authorization over 2003 and 2004. In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000 people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security challenges. Many times, water managers operate the town's water facilities as a part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure that they are afforded the same consideration under this act as the medium and large facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for grants to help small communities conduct vulnerability assessments, develop emergency response plans, and address potential threats to the treatment works. It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to provide guidance to these communities on how to effectively use these security tools. To ensure the continued development of wastewater security technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act authorizes $15 million for research for 2003 and 2007. It also provides $500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in existence. I am proud to say that the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies has endorsed the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act. AMSA represents our nation's wastewater treatment works serving large cities. They have been an invaluable partner in the drafting of this bill, and I thank them sincerely for their support. I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be entered into the Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I rise today with Senator Smith of New Hampshire to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets. Untrained owners are simply not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutritional, and physical needs. People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, this past February, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet. Just last month in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari.'' Parents living nearby sat in their own front yards with high-powered rifles scared that the wild lions might hurt their children playing the front yard. The bill I introduce today would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species. It would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those entities already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets. This bill also preserves the importance of local regulations already in existence. I sincerely hope that grass roots level organizing continues to direct State and local governments to increase the number of States and counties that ban private ownership of exotic cats. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Those exotic cats who are in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.'' The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.'' The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House who have expressed interest in passing this bill into law by the end of this session.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Safety Act. This legislation provides for the safety and security of our Nation's wastewater treatment works by providing needed funds to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security improvements. In addition, this bill will ensure long-term safety and security by providing funds for researching innovative technologies and enhancing proven vulnerability assessment tools already in use. Since the terrible events of September 11, we have taken several comprehensive steps to protect our water supplies and infrastructure. Almost a year ago, I spoke on the many initiatives taking place in the Committee on Environment and Public Works and at the Environmental Protection Agency. I am pleased to say that we have made some progress. EPA worked with State and local governments to expeditiously provide guidance on the protection of drinking water facilities from terrorist attacks. Based on the recommendations of Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by President Clinton in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency and its industry partner, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, established a communications system, a water infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, designed to provide real-time threat assessment data to water utilities throughout the nation. Earlier this year, Senator Smith and I worked to include the authorization of $160 million for vulnerability assessments at drinking water facilities as part of the Bioterrorism bill. Despite our advocacy during the conference, we were unable to include a provision in that bill for wastewater facilities due to jurisdictional issues in the House. While these initial efforts are essential, our task is by no means finished. We cannot forget the vital importance of protecting our Nation's wastewater facilities. Everyday we take for granted the hundreds of thousands of miles of pipes buried under ground and the thousands of wastewater treatment works that keep our water clean and safe. But, like all our Nation's critical infrastructure, the disruption or destruction of these structures could have a devastating impact on public safety and health. The legislation I am introducing today will take us one step further by authorizing support of ongoing efforts to develop and implement vulnerability assessments and emergency response plans at wastewater facilities. Using existing tools such as the Sandi Laboratory's vulnerability assessment tool or the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Association's Vulnerability Self-Assessment Tool, treatment works will be able to securely identify critical areas of need. With the funds provided by this bill, EPA will also ensure that treatment works remedy areas of concerns. Using the results of the vulnerability assessment, treatment works will develop or revise emergency response plans to minimize damage if an attack were to occur. This bill authorizes $185 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for grants to conduct the vulnerability assessments and implement basic security enhancements. The bill also recognizes the need to address immediate and urgent security needs with a special $20 million authorization over 2003 and 2004. In my home State of Vermont, we have only three towns of over 25,000 people. The small water facilities serving these communities have been particularly challenged to meet today's new homeland security challenges. Many times, water managers operate the town's water facilities as a part-time job or even as a free service. We must ensure that they are afforded the same consideration under this act as the medium and large facilities. This bill authorizes $15 million for grants to help small communities conduct vulnerability assessments, develop emergency response plans, and address potential threats to the treatment works. It also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to provide guidance to these communities on how to effectively use these security tools. To ensure the continued development of wastewater security technologies, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security and Safety Act authorizes $15 million for research for 2003 and 2007. It also provides $500,000 to refine vulnerability self-assessment tools already in existence. I am proud to say that the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies has endorsed the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act. AMSA represents our nation's wastewater treatment works serving large cities. They have been an invaluable partner in the drafting of this bill, and I thank them sincerely for their support. I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be entered into the Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation and other efforts to enhance the security of our Nation's water infrastructure in the weeks, months, and years to come. We truly have something to protect--clean, safe, fresh water is worth our investment.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President I rise today with Senator Smith of New Hampshire to introduce the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, a firm commitment to protect public safety and the welfare of wild cats that are increasingly being kept as pets. Current figures estimate that there are more than 5,000 tigers in captivity in the United States. In fact, there are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in native habitats throughout the range in Asia. While some tigers are kept in zoos, most of these animals are kept as pets, living in cages behind someone's house, in a State that does not restrict private ownership of dangerous animals. Tigers are not the only animals sought as exotic pets. Today there are more than 1,000 web sites that specialize in the trade of lions, cougars, and leopards to promote them as domestic pets. Untrained owners are simply not capable of meeting the needs of these animals. Local veterinarians, animal shelters, and local governments are ill equipped to meet the challenge of providing for their proper care. If they are to be kept in captivity, these animals must be cared for by trained professionals who can meet their behavioral, nutritional, and physical needs. People who live near these animals are also in real danger. These cats are large and powerful animals, capable of injuring or killing innocent people. There are countless stories of many unfortunate and unnecessary incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety. last year in Lexington, TX, a three-year-old boy was killed by his stepfather's pet tiger. In Loxahatchee, FL, this past February, a 58 year-old woman was bitten on the head by a 750 pound Siberian-Bengal Tiger being kept as a pet. Just last month in Quitman, AR, four 600 to 800 pound tigers escaped from a ``private safari.'' Parents living nearby sat in their own front yards with high-powered rifles scared that the wild lions might hurt their children playing the front yard. The bill I introduce today would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and bar the interstate and foreign commerce of carnivorous wild cats, including lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars. The legislation would not ban all private ownership of these prohibited species. It would outlaw the commerce of these animals for use as pets. This is a balanced approach that preserves the rights of those entities already regulated by the Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act such as circuses, zoos, and research facilities. This Act specifically targets unregulated and untrained individuals who are maintaining these wild cats as exotic pets. This bill also preserves the importance of local regulations already in existence. I sincerely hope that grass roots level organizing continues to direct State and local governments to increase the number of States and counties that ban private ownership of exotic cats. Full bans are already in place in 12 States and partial bans have been enacted in 7 States. No one should be endangered by those who cannot properly keep these animals. Those exotic cats who are in captivity should be able to live humanely and healthfully. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act represents an emerging consensus on the need for comprehensive federal legislation to regulate what animals can be kept as pets. The United States Department of agriculture states, ``Large wild and exotic cats such as lions, tigers, cougars, and leopards are dangerous animals . . . Because of these animals' potential to kill or severely injure both people and other animals, an untrained person should not keep them as pets. Doing so poses serious risks to family, friends, neighbors, and the general public. Even an animal that can be friendly and lovable can be very dangerous.'' The American Veterinary Medical Association also ``strongly opposes the keeping of wild carnivore species of animals as pets and believes that all commercial traffic of these animals for such purpose should be prohibited.'' The Captive Wildlife Safety Act is supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I ask my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with our partners in the House who have expressed interest in passing this bill into law by the end of this session.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the state of our Nation. Our President has asked us to give him the authority to begin a war with Iraq, and I look forward to a full and frank debate on that question. But today I want to discuss other issues, important issues that are not getting the attention they deserve, an agenda the President would rather not discuss, an agenda I fear is being obscured by gathering clouds of war. Whether or not to go to war in Iraq is surely a grave and momentous decision, but I fear our President is neglecting other crucial matters here at home: the quiet crisis American families are facing everyday. In Vermont and across this great land families are hurting. When they send their children to an overcrowded, underfunded school in the morning, they ask, is this the best we can do? When they go to work and see an empty desk beside them they wonder, am I next? And they ask, is this the best we can do? When they see their dwindling retirement accounts and read of endless corporate corruption, they ask, is this the best we can do? When they have to cancel their child's doctor's appointment because they have lost their health insurance coverage, they ask, is this the best we can do? When they send their kids out to play only to realize that the air pollution levels are dangerously high, they ask, is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can do? Of course not. We can do better. We must do better, because American families deserve better--and they deserve better from their President. In talking about one thing only, the President is forgetting many others. And so today I call on the President to engage this Nation on this forgotten agenda. Less than a year after this Congress and the President worked to increase the Federal role in elementary and secondary education by passing the No Child Left Behind Act, we are in danger of leaving many more children behind because sufficient dollars will not be forthcoming to see that every child in this Nation receives a quality education. The lack of funding for our Nation's schools is a disgrace. Across our Nation, headline after headline tells the story of school districts having to cut back staff, end the school day early, and cut short the school year all because of a lack of funding. More than 25 years ago, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of special education costs for children with disabilities. Today, we only pay 18 percent of the costs. That is not just a broken promise for one of the richest nations in the world, it is an outrage. Remember, the very reason that the Federal Government has a role in education is because the Congress realized that our national defense depended on our students leading the world in math and science. One of this country's first education bills, passed in the late 1950s, after the Soviets launched Sputnik, it was entitled the National Defense Education Act. An even more dramatic action occurred after World War II when we passed the GI bill, vastly increasing the Federal contribution to education and narrowing the tremendous educational gap. A similar gap exists now. Similar action is needed now. Of the major industrial nations, the United States ranks among the lowest in terms of funding education at the Federal level, providing only 7 percent of the costs. Nations such as Turkey, Korea, Italy, the Czech Republic and Mexico put us to shame in their expenditure on education. Recent national test scores tell us that 60 percent--60 percent--of 12th graders are below the proficiency level in reading. This is basic reading. By neglecting education today, we are not only shortchanging our children's opportunities, we are sapping our Nation's future strength. Right now we have over half a million foreign workers here on H1-B visas. Those are the visas we give to people from other countries to fill jobs within our borders. We shouldn't have to import workers to fill the high skill, high wage jobs that we have. We should educate our own workers to fill them. Our economy is faltering. The President has committed to bringing this economy out of recession. After convening an economic summit in Texas last August, which was more show than substance, he hasn't been engaged. We learned in the last week that incomes declined and the poverty rate increased for the first time in almost a decade. The annual Census Bureau income and poverty report stated that 1.3 million more Americans slipped below the poverty line. This increase means that 11.7 percent of the United States population is defined as living in poverty. In regard to overall income, the Census Bureau said that the median household income dropped for the first decrease since 1991. In less than 2 years more than two million private sector jobs have been lost. Our economic growth is the weakest it has been in 50 years. And for the workers who don't need to worry about their jobs, they are worrying about their savings. More than 50 percent of Americans have investments in the stock market--and they have seen the value of those investments decline by over $4.5 trillion since last January. Now is the time to restore confidence in the economy. Now is the time to show leadership--but this administration's economic leadership has been lackluster. On environmental issues, I fear we are moving backward instead of forward under the Bush administration. The statistics are startling. Right now in America there are about 30,000 premature deaths related to power plant pollution, about 160 million people breathing unhealthy air, and significantly higher risks of cancer and developmental problems in urban areas from toxic tailpipe pollution. Think about this: 2,500 Americans face premature death from power plant pollution each month. That's like suffering casualties from Pear Harbor every 30 days. Parents are thinking twice before telling their kids to go outside and get some fresh air. First, they have to check on the air pollution alerts. If global warning proceeds as scientists expect, weather will become increasingly more hostile and difficult to predict. I was proud to work with the first President Bush on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. He called our work, ``a new chapter in our environmental history, and a new era for clean air.'' Now, this President Bush insists on moving us backward--undoing his father's legacy and our Nation's environmental policy. This is a dangerous time. We face many threats. They require all of our best judgment and careful deliberation. Threats of war dominate our headlines. If we were to ignore those threats we would do so at our peril. So, too, if we ignore the quiet, steady erosion of economic opportunity and well-being here at home. If we take action in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will rue the day he defied the international community and the world's greatest power. But our greatness rests on more than our military strength. It rests on our ability to meet great challenges whenever and wherever they arise. Great challenges have arisen here at home. Our men and women in uniform wherever they are--whether they are helping to bring order in Kabul or awaiting orders in Kuwait--deserve more than our pride and our support. They deserve to come home to a nation that is not only free but strong and prosperous. We have got to address all the problems facing this Nation. Right now we are not. The drumbeat of war cannot and must not drown out the needs of our families, our children and our environment. I call on President Bush to lead this Nation. One person can make a difference--and change only comes one person at a time. It would be nice if the world were as simple as foreign and domestic, good and bad--or even Democrat and Republican. But the world is not a simple place and problems do not come along one at a time. Now is the time for leadership, collective will and individual action. In a rush to solve problems overseas, we must not ignore the problems here at home. They are real, and they deserve our attention. There has never been a problem that America could not solve if we come together. That is exactly what we need to do, what we should do, what we must do now. I yield the floor, not with happiness or good feelings but with concern and deep hope that we can work together to save this Nation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, let me begin by commending Senator Lieberman for leading this debate. I appreciate the hard work the Senator from Connecticut, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the staff put into this important legislation. I rise today to support the amendment of the homeland security legislation that has been proposed by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I am concerned about the path we are proceeding down to create this new Department, and I doubt that the result of this flawed process will adequately address the intelligence failures that were revealed so tragically on September 11, 2001. Congress must not cede its constitutional role and responsibilities to the executive branch in this dramatic Government reorganization. Congress must remain engaged in this effort to ensure it results in a functioning, effective agency. This mandate is made clearer when we compare the current process with similar reorganizations in the past. For instance, comparisons have been drawn between this legislation and the creation of the Department of Defense. But the creation of the Department of Defense involved a collaborative process between the executive branch and the Congress. And the executive branch agencies affected by the proposed Department were participants in the process. Thus, the Department of Defense was founded upon discussion, debate, and compromise. This cooperative approach to developing a workable new Department contrasts starkly with the way the administration developed its homeland security draft legislation. A small group of advisers working in secret within the White House developed President Bush's proposal. Members of Congress and Secretaries of the affected cabinet agencies were reportedly not even informed about the proposal until the days before it was unveiled. And even now, rather than working with Congress to develop consensus on this legislation, the administration insists it will veto any proposal that does not closely resemble its own. Of specific concern, the administration's proposal does not place enough emphasis on correcting what went wrong prior to September 11. I firmly hope that we, as a Nation will develop a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and communication efforts. Because of the similarity of the September 11 attacks and the attack on Pearl Harbor over 60 years ago, we should remember the finding of the Joint Congressional Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor. That Committee found that ``. . . the security of the Nation can be insured only through . . . centralization of responsibility in those charged with handling intelligence.'' I hope we will learn our lesson after the tragic events of September 11. Correcting intelligence failures must be the hallmark of any new Department of Homeland Security. This reorganization will affect the lives of everyday Americans for years to come. Because the President's proposal does not adequately address intelligence failures, and because the administration refuses to enter into a constructive dialogue with the Congress regarding legitimate disagreements, we have a constitutional responsibility to act. Therefore, I support Senator Byrd's amendment to the homeland security legislation. The Byrd amendment will go along way toward ensuring Congress continues to play a constructive role in shaping the new Department as this process moves forward. I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his help and assistance in helping us all to better understand this problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have listened carefully to your dissertation of the past and the responsibilities that all of us have to make sure we uphold the Constitution. And I also recognize that what the administration was doing in this regard, and agree with the Senator that what happened at that time, was most unfortunate. Is the Senator aware the administration has compared the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to the reorganization of the Government set forth by the passage of the National Security Act of 1947?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have done some research on the creation of the Department of Defense that I would like to share with my friend. I found the research helpful in putting the current debate in context. First, I agree this proposal is similar in scope to the 1947 debate, but there are also some notable differences between the 1947 debate and today's dialog.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Bush administration proposal and the Lieberman substitute we are debating represent a dramatic reorganization of the Federal Government. The most obvious difference between the process in the 1940s and this summer is time. The creation of the Department of Defense was a collaborative process between the executive branch and Congress, measured not in days and weeks but years. Proposals for combining the military services were first considered in Congress in 1944. President Harry Truman became keenly involved in the effort and sent a message to Congress at the end of 1945 proposing the creation of the Department of National Defense. Congressional hearings were held on the matter throughout the following year. In 1947, the President sent legislation to Congress that, after additional hearings and congressional input, was finally passed and signed into law in July of 1947.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Additionally, Congress made significant changes in the Department of Defense in 1949. Thus, the thoughtful and deliberate process to create an effective Department of Defense did not happen in a summer, a year, or even one session of Congress.