Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. That is correct.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, may I ask the Senator to withhold until I propound a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. KYL. I object.

Mr. KYL. I object.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, John O'Sullivan is one of the wisest men I know. Advisor to Margaret Thatcher, editor of National Review and author of political commentary here and abroad, O'Sullivan has been concerned for years about the future of Western civilization in general and the United States in particular. In the December 17, 2001 issue of National Review, he weaves together ideas of John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, Samuel Huntington and James Burnham to elaborate on his theme that our civilization is under fundamental assault from modern liberalism, what he calls an ``anti- Western impulse'' assaulting ``the institutions invented by classical and constitutional liberalism in its great creative phase, not merely the free market, but also individual rights, free scientific inquiry, free speech, the rule of law, majority rule, democratic accountability, and national sovereignty.'' Skeptical? Then I challenge you to read what follows: ``Safe for Democracy, and a Nation--The idea of this country post-9/11.'' It is the best statement I've seen of the challenges we face from what Fonte calls ``trans-national progressivism.'' I ask that the commentary be printed in the Record. The commentary follows. [From the National Review, Dec. 17, 2001] Safe for Democracy, and a Nation--The Idea of This Country Post-9/11 (By John O'Sullivan) One of the difficulties bedeviling political science is the protean nature of political words. As Robert Schuettinger pointed out in his study of European conservatism, the phrase ``a conservative socialist'' could mean a hardline Stalinist, a social-democratic revisionist, or merely a socialist who dressed and acted in a modest, inconspicuous way. When words like ``conservative'' and ``liberal'' are being used, context is all. So the theme of this article is advertised in neon when I begin with the definitions of these philosophies advanced by two distinguished American political theorists: Samuel Huntington and James Burnham. Writing in The American Political Science Review in 1957, Huntington defined conservatism as that system of ideas employed to defend established institutions when they come under fundamental attack. As Huntington himself put it: ``When the foundations of society are threatened, the conservative ideology reminds men of the necessity of some institutions and the desirability of the existing ones.'' And in his 1964 book, The Suicide of the West, James Burnham described liberalism as ``the ideology of Western suicide''--not exactly that liberalism caused that suicide; more that it reconciled the West to its slow dissolution. Again, as Burnham himself put it: ``It is as if a man, struck with a mortal disease, were able to say and to believe, as the flush of the fever spread over his face, `Ah, the glow of health returning' . . . If Western civilization is wholly vanquished . . . we or our children will be able to see that ending, by the light of the principles of liberalism, not as a final defeat, but as the transition to a new and higher order in which mankind as a whole joins in a universal civilization that has risen above the parochial distinctions, divisions, and discriminations of the past.'' If we put these two quotations together, the function of contemporary conservatism becomes clear: to defend the institutions of Western civilization, in their distinct American form, against a series of fundamental assaults carried out in the name of liberalism and either advocated or excused by people calling themselves liberals. To say that liberalism advances Western suicide, of course, is to say something controversial--but something much less controversial than when Burnham wrote forty years ago. When Ivy League students from mobs chanting ``Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go,'' when their professors happily edit the classics of Western thought out of their curricula, and when the politicians preside happily over a multicultural rewriting of America's history that denies or downplays its Western roots, no one can plausibly deny that an anti- Western impulse is working itself out. This liberal revolution is an assault on the institutions invented by classical and constitutional liberalism in its great creative phase--not merely the free market, but also individual rights, free scientific inquiry, free speech, the rule of law, majority rule, democratic accountability, and national sovereignty. It promises, of course, not to abolish these liberal institutions so much as to ``transcend'' them or to give them ``real substance'' rather than mere formal expression. In reality, however, they are abolished, and replaced by different institutions derived from a different political philosophy. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has mapped out the contours of this revolution in a series of important essays, and most importantly in ``Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism.'' What follows in the next few paragraphs borrows heavily from his work, though the formulations are mine. Among the more important changes advanced by transnational proressivism (as I shall here follow Fonte in calling it) are: One: The replacement of individual identities and rights by group identities and rights. Race and gender quotas are the most obvious expression of this concept, but its implications run much furthher--suggesting, for instance, that groups as such have opinions or, in the jargon, ``perspectives.'' Individuals who express opinions that run counter to the perspectives of their group, therefore, cannot really represent the group. Two: An attack upon majority rule as the main mechanism of democratic government. Majority rule, its opponents contend, gives insufficient weight to minority or ``victim'' groups, and should be replaced by a power-sharing arrangement among different groups. This ambitious concept has not been totally enacted anywhere, but steps towards it have been taken. The Voting Rights Act, for example, requires that election districts be drawn in such a way as to ensure specific racial outcomes; and some European nations have recently introduced laws requiring political parties to ensure that a given percentage of their election candidates are women. Three: Transferring power from political institutions directly accountable to the voters, such as Congress, to judges, bureaucratic agencies, and international organizations outside the control of the voters. Originally, this transfer of power required the consent of the elected bodies; increasingly, however, judges interpret international law, including treaties that have not been ratified or that have been greatly expanded in scope since ratification, as overriding domestic law. This process, still in its nervous infancy in the U.S., is far advanced in the European Union-- where the courts have overruled national legislatures on issues as different as territorial fishing rights and the right of soldiers to become pregnant. If allowed to continue, this trend must first erode and eventually render obsolete both national sovereignty and self-government. Four: De-constructing and re-constructing the self- understanding of America. Every nation has a sense of itself and its history that is embedded in a national narrative marked by heroic episodes. In this traditional narrative, America is the progressive universalization of English civilization--Magna Carta expanded to accommodate slaves, and later immigrants, and enriched by the cultures they brought with them. It is therefore a branch of a branch of Western civilization; but multiculturalism seeks to undermine this self-understanding and to replace it with an entirely different narrative, in which America is seen as a ``convergence'' of European, African, and Amerindian civilizations (and therefore the natural basis for a political system based on group identities and rights). This re-constructionist impulse has become the orthodoxy in many public schools. Five: Re-constructing the people by mass immigration from other cultures. As long as new immigrants are assimilated into the existing nation, no problem arises; if assimilation fails to occur, the nation is gradually dissolved into a Babel of different cultural groups with conflicting allegiances. Under existing law, however, assimilation is not only made difficult by the sheer numbers of people arriving, it is also discouraged by official policies of multiculturalism and bilingualism. Six: Divorcing citizenship from nationality and bestowing the rights of citizens--including the right to vote--on all residents in the nation, including illegal immigrants. According to this theory, citizenship should be carried on an immigrant's back to whichever nation he manages to sneak into. If seriously implemented in law, it would transform nations into mere places of residence; the symbol of this kind of citizenship is Mohamed Atta, the hijacker who destroyed the World Trade Center. In the post-national world Fonte described, nations are no longer peoples united by a common history and culture, and ``the mystic chords of memory''; they are simply the varied inhabitants of an arbitrary piece of real estate. Political authority is no longer constitutionally limited and located in particular national institutions; it is diffuse, and scattered among bodies at different levels. Politicians no longer have to take responsibility for hard decisions; they can pass them onto higher organs of unaccountable power. Civic patriotism is no longer the prime civic virtue; it is displaced either downwards, by a narrow ethnic loyalty, or upwards, by a cosmopolitan loyalty to international institutions. But a terrible beauty has not been born. Instead, Leviathan, by dividing itself up into several spheres, has slipped free of constitutional restraints and popular control. For the ordinary voter the world has become a mysterious place, far more difficult to navigate, let alone control. For political elites, it has become a market in power in which bureaucrats, pressure groups, businesses, and international lawyers exchange favors behind a veil of post- national irresponsibility. For years, this progressivist revolution proceeded rapidly, chiefly because the public was paying little or no attention to it. But whenever it emerged into the light of controversy--as when Lani Buiner's nomination led to the revelation that law professors believed in something like John C. Calhoun's ``concurrent majorities''--the public reacted violently against it. The typical lack of public interest was due in part to the GOP's nervous reluctance to raise such issues as racial preferences, bilingual education, or even the International Criminal Court. Although conservatism dictated a principled defense of the Constitution against these attacks, the Republicans backed off. In effect, they went from ignoring such assaults under Reagan, to going along with them quietly under George H. W. Bush; to even embracing some of them with a show of enthusiasm under George W. Bush. If the revolution were to be stopped, the political equivalent of a thunderbolt would be required. To everyone's horror, that thunderbolt was delivered, in the form of the attack on September 11; as everyone agrees, that changed everything. In particular it revealed that America had deep reserves of patriotism and that there was a wide, though not universal, desire for national unity. In one terrifying moment, it created or revived constituencies for a firm assimilationist approach, for tighter immigration policies that protected U.S. security, for a reading of American history as the narrative of a great achievement, and for the celebration of U.S. power against all the recently fashionable follies of post-nationalism. In foreign policy, the Bush administration met this public appetite with a clear declaration of war on terrorism, and a clear military strategy for waging it; it has been rewarded for this with high popular support. In domestic policy, however, it has been largely inert-- preferring to constrain liberties internally rather than to strengthen protections against external threats. In the less tangible but vitally important matter of national unity and moral, it has concentrated entirely on (very proper) warnings against anti-Muslim sentiment--but without asking for expressions of loyalty from Muslim leaders or, more generally, asking immigrant communities to make a public commitment of their loyalty to the American nation. That is a profound mistake. Most immigrants would be happy to make such a commitment; it is America's cultural elites who would resist it most strongly. But then, they are the shock troops of post-national progressivism; and they would realize that the demand for loyalty would be an unmistakable sign that America had recovered complete confidence in itself, in its own institutions of constitutional democracy, and in its historical mission. Without such a demand, moreover, many decent moderate people might drift idly into the kind of multicultural extremisms that helped shelter the World Trade Center attackers. For, as Americans above all should know, you can't beat something with nothing. This, then, is a moment of great significance and opportunity in American politics. Democracy and the nation- state are the Siamese twins of political theory; democracy rarely survives apart from its twin. Every attempt to create a multicultural democracy either has failed or is deeply troubled. Bush could very reasonably weave a national appeal around the theme of defending American democracy--with equal emphasis on both words. It would resonate strongly with the American majority; command the support of many voters in minority groups; provide the GOP with a raft of popular domestic policies; and attract Democratic constituencies such as patriotic blue-collar workers. and if such an appeal is not make, the progressivist revolution is going to end up winning.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand. What I am objecting to here is an order in which there would be a specific amendment that would be preferred to any others at the time there is a substitute offered.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would object. It seems to me we could talk about the amendment. It is then a mere formality, once we know what it is we are amending, to simply lay down the amendments.

Mr. KYL. We have the House bill before us at this point.

Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, might I inquire what that amendment is seeking to amend?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to address this issue in the context of today's events. Two things in particular strike me about this debate, and I want to make it clear at the beginning that I support Senator Helms and what he is trying to do to protect the men and women in our military whom we put in harm's way to fight for peace and security from terrorism in faraway places. Before the war on terrorism is concluded, we are likely to find them fighting in farflung reaches of the globe against the scourge of terrorism. What we are concerned about is the possibility that they would fall into the hands of an enemy that would put them on trial under trumped- up charges, with very little in the way of rights before an International Criminal Court or under its jurisdiction. Is this an unreasonable fear? I note some of the countries that have signed up to the ICC, some real bastions of civil rights and civil liberties: Algeria, Cambodia, Haiti, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. Those would be great places to be tried in if you were in the American military and you had been fighting some tin-horn dictator who got ahold of you and decided to put you on trial. To me the interesting juxtaposition in the debate that has been going on in this country for the last 2 or 3 weeks--and we witnessed some of it yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in which many liberals in the United States are very concerned about the civil rights of terrorists or people who are accused of terrorism and are raising all manner of questions about the possibility that military commissions established by the United States in furtherance of our war against terrorism will somehow, possibly, maybe, deny some right to a terrorist. That is a matter of great concern to them. They have taken space in op-ed pages of newspapers, editorial pages of the newspapers, hours of conversation as talking heads on these television programs and, indeed, even some questions raised by Members in the Congress about what the United States proposes to do in establishing military commissions and how that might deprive a terrorist or a person accused of terrorism of some civil rights. Their concern for the rights of these people is touching. I have found it a little bit out of priority or out of sync with priorities. It seems the first priority of those of us who are sworn to protect our constituents, our American citizens, ought to be to ensure their protection. But it was interesting that almost all of the questions from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, both in the hearing with Attorney General Ashcroft and the head of the Criminal Division, Michael Chertoff, were not focused on ways in which we could give the Justice Department or Defense Department greater tools in the war on terrorism to protect Americans. Almost all of the questions were focused on whether maybe we were going a little too far in the creation of military commissions and maybe we ought to be more concerned about the rights of the terrorists who were going to be tried in these military commissions. It is an interesting proposition, to be sure. We can have that debate. It would be a lot better to have it when we are not at war, but at least some legitimate questions were raised. I certainly take nothing from my colleagues who wanted to get to the bottom of what is being done. But I find it ironic on that day, yesterday, we can be debating with great concern over the rights of terrorists in a military commission, in a trial following some kind of military action, and yet seem to be a lot less concerned about the plight of American military personnel who might find themselves put on trial in a foreign country under an International Criminal Court procedure. The United States is not a party to this, and given the kind of countries that have set it up, I think it will be a long time before we will be a party because they do not have the same kind of concept of justice we do, they are not willing to abide by the same kind of rules the United States will create for those we put on trial. Rest assured, people we try will very much get a fair and full trial. It will probably be a lot like the courts martial we provide for our own military personnel. What we are concerned about here is not just sovereignty, the right of the United States to protect its interests. We are also concerned about two other things. We are concerned about protecting our young men and women whom we put in harm's way, in the first instance, to try to protect peace and security for people and do not want to jeopardize this, in the second instance, should they fall into the wrong hands and be put on trial. Also, paradoxically, I am concerned about the ability of the United States to sustain future operations of the kinds that were engaged in Afghanistan today and hopefully will be engaged in other places around the globe if there is a concern not that we will suffer casualties. We become very casualty averse these days. It is a wonderful thing not to have the same kind of casualties we used to in war, and we are getting used to that. I hope we would not hesitate to send in troops to fight for security from terrorism, for peace, for freedom in places we think that is important because of the threat that should our military personnel fall into the wrong hands they are going to be tried by people we believe have no right trying them, under procedures that would not sustain muster by the United States. That is why we have not signed on to the ICC. As has been noted before, President Clinton was very concerned about the inability to protect our service people under the ICC jurisdiction. Running away from the world? My colleague from Connecticut and I have the same view of the role of the United States being willing to reach out to the oppressed of the world when that also advances the interests of the United States, and we have never hesitated from spilling our blood and spending our treasure on behalf of others when we have believed that was the right and moral and just thing to do, and we have done it. We have never shirked our duty. Every one of us in this body supported the resolution to authorize the President to once again send our young men and women into combat, if necessary, to protect the rights of people abroad, as well as, hopefully providing, for a safer world for Americans at home. We will not shirk from our duties by failing to participate in a flawed treaty signed by the likes of Sudan and Iran and Iraq and Haiti and Cambodia and countries such as that. That is not my idea of statesmanship, of rushing to join with these groups of people and sign on to something that, as President Clinton has said, is fatally flawed. No. We exercise leadership by saying: We are not going to play that game. It is fraudulent. You all create these international regimes to make yourselves look good, to make it look like you are for right, truth, and justice. We know you are not, and we are not going to play that game. When you get serious about negotiating the rights and protections that we demand of our men and women in the military when we send them abroad, then we will get serious and talk to you about this. Until then, no. The United States will act in its own interest first protecting its sovereignty and its own citizens. We are not the leader of the world for nothing. We have gotten there because we have been willing to do this: not to be a follower but to be a leader. To be a leader sometimes is to say to other nations such as the ones I have read off, we are not going to follow you. We do not think your motives are clear. We think you have it all wrong, and until you are willing to listen to us about what is necessary to protect the rights of everyone, not just Americans but certainly Americans included, we are not going to play your game. I resent the notion that failing to join up with the likes of that group of countries is somehow abdicating our responsibility. I think the President of the United States has it right. He campaigned on a theme and he has been working on a theme that we are going to do what we believe is in the best interest of the United States, consistent with the interests of other people around the world. The first thing we are going to do is we are going to protect ourselves from a weapon of mass destruction delivered by a missile from a rogue nation. Missile defense, if you do not like it, tough. We are going to protect the American citizens from that kind of a threat. Another thing we are going to do is we are going to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in our arsenal, and we do not have to sign a treaty with anybody to do it. If it is in our best interest, we are going to do it. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Bush get together and they agree this is a smart thing for both countries to do. I suspect President Putin will end up doing the same thing for the benefit of his country. You do not have to join up in all kinds of multilateral regimes around the world in order to accomplish good things, and sometimes it is not smart to do this. It is better to hold back and provide leadership by demonstrating that you are prepared to do it in a different way, and the way some of these countries have thought about doing it is not the right way. I support the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, the purpose of which is to protect our military personnel from an improper, imperfect system that we all recognize we have to try to improve if we are ever going to be a part of it. Until that date comes, to ensure that they are not put in harm's way--and the provisions of this amendment will make it much more likely, it seems to me. Yes, it will get people's attention, and I think it will make it much more likely they will sit down and negotiate responsibly with the United States so that perhaps someday we can have a multilateral regime called an international criminal court. Until we get to the point where our rights are respected, the country that has provided more rights for more people in the history of the world than any other country, until that date comes, we need to adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. KYL. Yes. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. KYL. I just say to the Senator, in the time I have served with my colleague from Arizona, he has never flagged in his effort to save taxpayer money, and he looks for the kind of pork projects that he has identified over the years in all of the different bills. The bill before us happens to relate to defense. I am sure it does not give any pleasure to my colleague from Arizona, anymore than it does any of the rest of us, to be talking about these things with regard to the Defense Department while there is a war on. But I recall comments yesterday from the Secretary of Defense who was briefing us on the war effort, and in a great fit of patriotism, one of my colleagues said to him: So, Mr. Secretary, we want you to know we are all for you. We are for the troops. What else can we do to help you? His immediate response was: Well, we could start with base closures and stop funding things that I have not asked for and start funding things I have requested. That is what you could really do to help. And the pretty universal reaction among our colleagues was: Well, other than that, what could we do to help you? So my point, Mr. President, is to compliment my colleague from Arizona. He has been fighting this battle for a long time. It does not give us any pleasure to point these things out, but it is critical, if we are really serious about supporting the troops we put in harm's way, that we try to focus on the priorities we need the most and not fill the bill up with special projects for people who have special status in the Congress. So I compliment my colleague for the work he is doing. I hope later we will have an opportunity to offer amendments to deal with some of this.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield for a quick comment?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to insert this column in the Record not only because the author is one of the best writers from my hometown newspaper, and frequently has very wise things to say, but also because his column is right on point for something that has been troubling me. The title is ``Critics of Bush Security Measures Forget We Are at War.'' The point he is trying to make is that in this question of deciding how we are going to make Americans more secure from terrorist attack, some people are getting carried away in the expression of concerns about the civil rights or due process rights of people who might be the subject of military commissions or other investigations by our law enforcement or military people in connection with this war on terrorism. I think he makes a good point. His essential point is that it is not a zero sum game, that we can both provide for the security of our citizens on the one hand and, on the other hand, ensure that American citizens will always have their due process rights, and even for those who are not American citizens, who become the equivalent of prisoners of war, and that the United States, through procedures developed for the military commissions, will treat them fairly. I think that is a very legitimate point to make. The Attorney General is going to be before the Judiciary Committee, and he will be asked to respond to a lot of questions about how he is handling his investigations and how the military commissions will work. I note that the President's order to the Defense Department to develop the procedures for military commissions has not yet resulted in the rules and regulations, and rules of evidence and procedures, and so on, at least as far as I know. So it is premature to criticize those rules. In the Judiciary Committee yesterday we heard from two eminent law professors, who I am sure would be happy to be called liberal in their political ideology: Laurence Tribe, with whom I have worked and for whom I have a lot of respect; and Cass Sunstein; as well as two Republican witnesses, both with significant experience in this area. All four agreed this was the kind of circumstance that justified the creation of military commissions and, indeed, that such commissions were constitutional. The two more liberal professors said they would make some changes around the margins. But nobody questioned the authority of the United States of America to set up these tribunals in order to take care of those people who might be captured, particularly in the Afghanistan situation, or said it would not be appropriate to try to bring them to justice under our article III court system in the United States. I point that out to ask my colleagues to look at this column. I think it is very well written. It makes the point of what we need to be considering when we characterize the issue as a zero sum game, which it is not. We don't need to deprive anybody of appropriate civil liberties at the same time we are ensuring the security of the United States and its citizens from terrorist attacks. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a column in the December 5 edition of the Arizona Republic, the primary newspaper in my hometown, Phoenix, written by Robert Robb.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 5 minutes on the subject of a column I will talk about.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein and I join together to introduce the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This bill represents the merging of counter- terrorism legislation recently introduced by Senator Feinstein and I and separately by Senators Kennedy and Brownback. This bipartisan, streamlined product, cosponsored by both the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will significantly enhance our ability to keep terrorists out of the United States and find terrorists who are here. I also want to reiterate my appreciation to Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Brownback, and especially to their staffmembers, for their hard work and cooperation in developing this bill. I am hopeful that we can work together toward the bill's passage, and signature into law, before the 107th Congress adjourns for the year. Last month the President signed into law anti-terrorism legislation that will provide many of the tools necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States, and to detain those terrorists who have entered our country. These tools, while all important, will be significantly enhanced by the bill we introduce today. Under the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, the Homeland Defense director will be responsible for the coordination of Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities, the Departments of Transportation, State, Treasury, and all other relevant agencies to develop and implement a comprehensive, interoperable electronic data system for these governmental agencies to find and keep out terrorists. That system will be up and running by October 26, 2003, 2 years after the signing into law of the USA Patriot Act. Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with new travel documents, using new technology that will include a person's fingerprint(s) or other form of ``biometric'' identification. These cards will be used by visitors upon exit and entry into the United States, and will alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired or a red flag is raised by a federal agency. Under our bill, any foreign passport or other travel document issued after October 26, 2003 will have to contain a biometric component. The deadline for providing for a way to compare biometric information presented at the border is also October 26, 2003. Another provision of the bill will further strengthen the ability of the U.S. Government to prevent terrorists from using our ``Visa Waiver Program'' to enter the country. Under our bill, the 29 participating Visa Waiver nations will, in addition to the USA Patriot Act Visa Waiver reforms, be required to report stolen passport numbers to the State Department; otherwise, a nation is prohibited from participating in the program. In addition, our bill clarifies that the Attorney General must enter stolen passport numbers into the interoperable data system within 72 hours of notification of loss or theft. Until that system is established, the Attorney General must enter that information into any existing data system. Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Passenger manifests on all flights scheduled to come to the United States must be forwarded in real-time, and then cleared, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to the flight's arrival. All cruise and cargo lines and cross-border bus lines will also have to submit such lists to the INS. Our bill also removes a current U.S. requirement that all passengers on flights to the United States be cleared by the INS within 45 minutes of arrival. Clearly, in some circumstances, the INS will need more time to clear all prospective entrants to the United States. These simple steps will give appropriate officials advance notice of foreigners coming into the country, particularly visitors or immigrants who pose security threats to the United States. The Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act will also provide much needed reforms and requirements in our U.S. foreign student visa program, which has allowed numerous foreigners to enter the country without ever attending classes and, for those who do attend class, with lax or no oversight of such students by the Federal Government. Our bill will change that, and will require that the State Department within 4 months, with the concurrence of the Department, maintain a computer database with all relevant infromation about foreign students. In the past decade, more than 16,000 people have entered the United States on student visas from states included on the Government's list of terrorist sponsors. Notwithstanding that Syria is one of the countries on the list, the State Department recently issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals so that they could attend flight schools in Fort Worth, TX. United States educational institutions will be required to immediately notify the INS when a foreign student violates the term of the visa by failing to show up for class or leaving school early. Our legislation will prevent most persons from obtaining student visas if they come from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria, unless the Secretary of State and Attorney General determine that such applicants do not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States has faced a massive attack from foreigners on our own soil. Every one of the terrorists who committed the September 11 atrocities were foreign nationals who had entered the United States legally through our visa system. None of them should have been allowed entry due to their ties to terrorist organizations, and yet even those whose visas had expired were not expelled. Mohamed Atta, for example, the suspected ringleader of the attacks, was allowed into the United States on a tourist visa, even though he made clear his intentions to go to flight school while in the United States. Clearly, at the very least, he should have been queried about why he was using his tourist visa to attend flight school. Another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, was here on a student visa that had expired as of September 11. Hani Hanjour never attended class. In addition, at least two other visitor visa-holders overstayed their visa. In testimony before the Terrorism subcommittee of which I am the ranking member, U.S. officials have told us that they possess little information about foreigners who come into this country, how many there are, and even whether they leave when required by their visas. America is a nation that welcomes international visitors, and should remain so. But terrorists have taken advantage of our system and its openness. Now that we face new threats to our homeland, it is time we restore some balance to our consular and immigration policies. As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives in freedom. It is extremely important that we pass the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act before we adjourn for the year. To all of the Senators who worked on this bill, including Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Brownback, and Hatch, Snowe, Cantwell, Bond, Sessions, Thurmond and others I again want to express my appreciation. This bill will make a difference.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein and I join together to introduce the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. This bill represents the merging of counter- terrorism legislation recently introduced by Senator Feinstein and I and separately by Senators Kennedy and Brownback. This bipartisan, streamlined product, cosponsored by both the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will significantly enhance our ability to keep terrorists out of the United States and find terrorists who are here. I also want to reiterate my appreciation to Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Brownback, and especially to their staffmembers, for their hard work and cooperation in developing this bill. I am hopeful that we can work together toward the bill's passage, and signature into law, before the 107th Congress adjourns for the year. Last month the President signed into law anti-terrorism legislation that will provide many of the tools necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States, and to detain those terrorists who have entered our country. These tools, while all important, will be significantly enhanced by the bill we introduce today. Under the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, the Homeland Defense director will be responsible for the coordination of Federal law enforcement and intelligence communities, the Departments of Transportation, State, Treasury, and all other relevant agencies to develop and implement a comprehensive, interoperable electronic data system for these governmental agencies to find and keep out terrorists. That system will be up and running by October 26, 2003, 2 years after the signing into law of the USA Patriot Act. Under our bill, terrorists will be deprived of the ability to present fake or altered international documents in order to gain entrance, or stay here. Foreign nationals will be provided with new travel documents, using new technology that will include a person's fingerprint(s) or other form of ``biometric'' identification. These cards will be used by visitors upon exit and entry into the United States, and will alert authorities immediately if a visa has expired or a red flag is raised by a federal agency. Under our bill, any foreign passport or other travel document issued after October 26, 2003 will have to contain a biometric component. The deadline for providing for a way to compare biometric information presented at the border is also October 26, 2003. Another provision of the bill will further strengthen the ability of the U.S. Government to prevent terrorists from using our ``Visa Waiver Program'' to enter the country. Under our bill, the 29 participating Visa Waiver nations will, in addition to the USA Patriot Act Visa Waiver reforms, be required to report stolen passport numbers to the State Department; otherwise, a nation is prohibited from participating in the program. In addition, our bill clarifies that the Attorney General must enter stolen passport numbers into the interoperable data system within 72 hours of notification of loss or theft. Until that system is established, the Attorney General must enter that information into any existing data system. Another section of our bill will make a significant difference in our efforts to stop terrorists from ever entering our country. Passenger manifests on all flights scheduled to come to the United States must be forwarded in real-time, and then cleared, by the Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to the flight's arrival. All cruise and cargo lines and cross-border bus lines will also have to submit such lists to the INS. Our bill also removes a current U.S. requirement that all passengers on flights to the United States be cleared by the INS within 45 minutes of arrival. Clearly, in some circumstances, the INS will need more time to clear all prospective entrants to the United States. These simple steps will give appropriate officials advance notice of foreigners coming into the country, particularly visitors or immigrants who pose security threats to the United States. The Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act will also provide much needed reforms and requirements in our U.S. foreign student visa program, which has allowed numerous foreigners to enter the country without ever attending classes and, for those who do attend class, with lax or no oversight of such students by the Federal Government. Our bill will change that, and will require that the State Department within 4 months, with the concurrence of the Department, maintain a computer database with all relevant infromation about foreign students. In the past decade, more than 16,000 people have entered the United States on student visas from states included on the Government's list of terrorist sponsors. Notwithstanding that Syria is one of the countries on the list, the State Department recently issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals so that they could attend flight schools in Fort Worth, TX. United States educational institutions will be required to immediately notify the INS when a foreign student violates the term of the visa by failing to show up for class or leaving school early. Our legislation will prevent most persons from obtaining student visas if they come from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and Syria, unless the Secretary of State and Attorney General determine that such applicants do not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. For the first time since the War of 1812, the United States has faced a massive attack from foreigners on our own soil. Every one of the terrorists who committed the September 11 atrocities were foreign nationals who had entered the United States legally through our visa system. None of them should have been allowed entry due to their ties to terrorist organizations, and yet even those whose visas had expired were not expelled. Mohamed Atta, for example, the suspected ringleader of the attacks, was allowed into the United States on a tourist visa, even though he made clear his intentions to go to flight school while in the United States. Clearly, at the very least, he should have been queried about why he was using his tourist visa to attend flight school. Another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, was here on a student visa that had expired as of September 11. Hani Hanjour never attended class. In addition, at least two other visitor visa-holders overstayed their visa. In testimony before the Terrorism subcommittee of which I am the ranking member, U.S. officials have told us that they possess little information about foreigners who come into this country, how many there are, and even whether they leave when required by their visas. America is a nation that welcomes international visitors, and should remain so. But terrorists have taken advantage of our system and its openness. Now that we face new threats to our homeland, it is time we restore some balance to our consular and immigration policies. As former chairman and now ranking Republican of the Judiciary Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee, I have long suggested, and strongly supported, many of the anti-terrorism and immigration initiatives now being advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike. In my sadness about the overwhelming and tragic events that took thousands of precious lives, I am resolved to push forward on all fronts to fight against terrorism. That means delivering justice to those who are responsible for the lives lost on September 11, and reorganizing the institutions of government so that the law-abiding can continue to live their lives in freedom. It is extremely important that we pass the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act before we adjourn for the year. To all of the Senators who worked on this bill, including Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Brownback, and Hatch, Snowe, Cantwell, Bond, Sessions, Thurmond and others I again want to express my appreciation. This bill will make a difference.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for clarification?

Mr. KYL. I respect that, Mr. President.

Mr. KYL. Yes, Mr. President. I object because what the Senator is asking for is the right to take up the railroad retirement bill.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am glad I had the opportunity to join in a brief colloquy with the Senator from Alaska because the point he has made is a very important one, and it ties directly into what I came to this Chamber to speak of today; and that is, an effort on the part of the majority leader to insert into the debate a subject extraneous to the effort the President is attempting to make to get an economic stimulus package, which includes an energy component to it, to ensure that our economy will remain strong so that we can continue to execute the war on terrorism and know that in the end we will have all of the resources we need to do that, as well as for the benefit of all Americans who deserve to have a growing and vibrant economy. There is something very wrong with the process we are engaged in right now, which takes us away from the consideration of the stimulus legislation the President would like to have us act upon, to begin to take up extraneous matters. We are almost at the end of our legislative session. We should have ended in October or November. It is now obviously going to be in December. The way it looks right now, it will be close to Christmas Eve when we adjourn for the year. I am happy to stay all year here in Washington doing business, if it is productive and we have our priorities straight. But the fact is, the No. 1 priority is fighting the war. Closely related to that is keeping our economy strong, and, frankly, stimulating the economy to be stronger because right now we are either in or very close to being in a recession. That is why the President has called upon us, as our first priority, to support his efforts to stimulate the economy. About a week ago, the majority leader brought forth to the Senate floor a bill--a very bad bill, in my view, the bill that came out of the Finance Committee on a partisan, party-line vote--but at least a bill that enabled us to begin to debate the stimulus package. The hope was we would all make our speeches and get our partisanship out of the way and then get down to trying to compromise and come up with a good package of tax breaks and support for those who are unemployed right now in order to be sure our economy could continue to grow rapidly. But after some initial posturing, rather than sitting down to work out a bill or debating further on the floor the merits of different proposals, and perhaps attempting to amend one or the other, we find ourselves in the situation where the leadership has decided to call a timeout on the stimulus package and go to other legislation. If this were June or July, that would be a perfectly appropriate legislative tactic. But we are almost at the end of the session. We have two things we have to do before we adjourn and very little time to do them. First, we have to finish the appropriations conference reports. They are about half done. They take time. We have to get them down. They fund the Departments of the Government for next year, not the least of which, of course, is the Defense Department appropriations bill. There is a separate bill there that will ensure we have the money we need to conduct our military operations in this war on terrorism. The second thing the President has asked us to do before we leave is to get this stimulus package passed so its effect can begin to be felt early in the next year, in time to do some good for our economic recovery. What we do not need to be doing is taking a timeout and beginning an excursion off into partisan politics, politics that have to do with a bill that railroad labor unions want. There are some people in this country to whom this is a very vital issue. Some of them are in my home State of Arizona. There is plenty of time to deal with the railroad retirement issue. Whatever we do with that, it is not going to go away. We can do it next year. We can do it whenever. But we do not need to take time away from our first priority in this war we are fighting to call a timeout to deal with this political issue of the railroad retirement fund. And we are told when we are done with that, the next thing is a farm bill. We do not need to take up a farm bill until next year either, but we are told that the leader would like to bring up a farm bill. My point for coming to this Chamber today is to say, wait a minute, where are our priorities? Let's get back on the President's agenda. If we are going to be bipartisan in this body, then let's support what the President is attempting to do. Certainly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have to agree with everything the President wants to do. I would never expect them to do that. But, on the other hand, we ought to at least act in enough of a bipartisan way to begin compromising, to reach a conclusion on a bill we can pass before we recess this year. That means we have to continue to focus on the stimulus package and not go off riding to the hounds on some railroad retirement legislation. So we are going to vote tomorrow. The question is going to be: Should we leave the discussion of the stimulus package and begin consideration of a railroad retirement bill? I say no. Let's stick with the stimulus package. Let's get it done. And then let's go home for Christmas. Let's support the President. I hear a lot of talk of bipartisanship. What does bipartisanship really mean? I have to commend several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the public statements they have made in support of the President's conduct of this war. Frankly, the majority leader has been one of the people who has been the strongest in his enunciation of ideals, with whom every American can agree who supports the President, even though the President is not from the majority leader's party. I commend him for that. The problem is there seems to be a division between the war effort on the one hand and domestic politics on the other. So some of my colleagues are saying, but it is OK if we are not bipartisan on matters that deal with the domestic side of things. The problem with that is, the primary issue on the domestic side is the state of the economy, and the state of the economy has a direct bearing on our ability to fight the war on terrorism. It is also the most important problem facing the American people. So bipartisanship, it seems to me, would be an effort to work together, not necessarily to agree out of the box, but to try to develop a procedure under which we would eventually come to some kind of an agreement on a stimulus package that we could support, that the President could sign, that would benefit the American people. We can get there by continuing to focus on the stimulus package. We will never get there if we take time out to take up the railroad retirement bill. If we take the farm bill up, that is a black hole of significant magnitude, I must say. If you get into a farm bill, you get into the dairy compacts and you get into many other subjects. The year will, in fact, end before we ever get through that bill. Meanwhile, the appropriations bills languish, most especially the Defense appropriations bill, of all things. We have to get the Defense appropriations bill passed. So I am asking my colleagues to say no. Vote no. Do not invoke cloture to take up the railroad retirement legislation and leave the stimulus package. Mr. President, let me make one more point. There is another issue I have talked about while addressing subjects in this Chamber over the last several months, and that is nominations of the President. It may not be known, but this Senate, now about to enter the month of December, has still not completed its work on the consideration of the President's nominees for his Cabinet. He has been President for almost a year now, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy nominee, John Walters, has not been acted upon by the Senate. I am very hopeful that this week the Senate can debate, if we need to, and then vote on the nomination of John Walters. Otto Reich, Gene Scalia, and other nominations to important positions in this administration are not scheduled for consideration on the Senate floor. I would suggest this: If we have time to take a timeout from consideration of the stimulus package to do other things, then our first priority should be--again, if we are going to be bipartisan now-- to act on the President's nominees. He has asked us repeatedly to do that. Of course, this is not to mention his judicial nominations. We now have over 100 nominations pending for vacancies on our courts, 40 of which are denominated emergencies, yet we take up no judges. Again, if we have time to call time-out from our consideration of the stimulus package, we sure as heck have time to take up some of these judicial nominations. Back in May, the President nominated a group of people to either Federal district judgeships or to circuit judgeships. Two of those people have never had a hearing in the committee. There is no indication that the leadership ever has in mind taking them up. These are superbly qualified nominees for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: Miguel Estrada and John Roberts. And yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an editorial which speculated that the reason was because these are two noted conservative jurists, both of whom will be well qualified to be nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court if a vacancy were to occur there, and that knowing this, the people on the other side of the aisle responsible for these things are loath to bring them up because, if confirmed, they would then be in a good position to be nominated by the President for a Supreme Court position. One of them is Miguel Estrada. It is no secret that Miguel Estrada is Hispanic, and if confirmed and elevated to the High Court would become the first Hispanic Justice. I suspect that President Bush would very much like to appoint someone like Miguel Estrada--or John Roberts--to the U.S. Supreme Court. What does the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to even bring these two people up for a vote suggest? It seems to me that there is a lot of politics being played here and that we ought to get back to bipartisanship in this body which characterized the mood at the very beginning of this year and was certainly the mood right after September 11. Insofar as the President is concerned, it should still be the order of the day; that at a minimum, before we leave here, we should consider his nominees for the Cabinet and for these judicial posts. We should try to finish work on the appropriations bills. We should conclude the work on the stimulus package. And if we do those things, I suggest that we will, in fact, be about ready to be singing ``Jingle Bells.'' We don't have time to be taking up the Railroad Retirement Act. I said I would talk a little about the substance of this. My colleagues from Texas and Oklahoma have outlined some of the problems with the legislation. Contrary to some of the statements made on the floor, it is really not a question of the rail employers and employees running their own pension plan. The reason that this is being discussed on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the Federal Government, is because the United States of America has become a major stakeholder in this process on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States of America who, in fact, subsidize this pension plan By the way, I believe that is the case only with this private industry's pension plan. We are not talking about the home builders and their union employees or the airline companies and their employees, just the railroads. A decision was made some time ago that the U.S. Government should get involved in the funding and the guarantee of the pension for these particular people. That is why the pension plan for railroad retirees is on the floor of the Senate. The first question one could ask is: Is that good policy? Should we be doing that? And then: Should we be debating a bill which would expand the obligation of the taxpayers of the United States to fund this pension as well as to expand the benefits under the pension? My view, you can guess, is, no, we should not be doing that. This boils down to a question of two special interests--and there is nothing wrong with that per se; we all represent the many special interests that comprise our body politic, but these are special interests--the railroad employees and their employers, who have designed a plan that gives them benefits provided by the American taxpayers. I don't think we need to be interrupting the business of the entire Nation for the benefit of these particular special interests at this time. If these railroad stakeholders insist on maintaining a retirement system that is a Federal responsibility, then I submit their claims should be scrutinized by those of us who are supposedly looking out for the interests of all of the people. And for starters, we should ask if the claimed benefits justify an immediate $15 billion reduction in the budget surplus. Actually, of course, the budget surplus is probably a misnomer by now because we have spent the budget surplus. There is no more budget surplus. So this will have to be borrowed money, and taxpayers will have to pay the associated interest costs. It will not do to pretend, as the House-passed bill does, that the fiscal impact can be wished away. I marvel at the audacity of the bill's sponsors in resorting to a device of legal legerdemain to say that something that is so isn't really so and because we are the Congress, we can say that and that becomes the law. Here is what they said. I am directly quoting from the House-passed bill. They are instructing the CBO and OMB, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget that notwithstanding budget law or OMB scoring conventions, ``the purchase or sale of non- Federal assets''--which is what is involved in this pension fund-- ``shall be treated as a means of financing'' rather than an outlay. With that clever language, what they have said is: We are going to spend $15.6 billion, but we hereby direct the CBO and OMB to say that it doesn't count. We are really not spending it as an outlay. It is a means of finance. That is pretty good. I have to take my hat off to them. It reminds me of an old story that Abe Lincoln used to tell. He would ask this riddle of people. He would say: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? And his students would ponder that. He would say, of course, the answer is four; calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Well, calling $15.6 billion in spending a means of financing rather than an outlay--it clearly is a means of financing but that doesn't mean that it is not an outlay, which, of course, it clearly is--doesn't mean that that is what it is. It is an expenditure of $15.6 billion. It is money that the U.S. Government is going to have to borrow. Therefore, it ought to be counted as an outlay. There are three interesting aspects to that besides the audacity of it. The first is, of course, that the proponents here are obviously embarrassed by the fact that they are asking the American taxpayers to expend over $15 billion immediately to aid this private industry's pension fund. I would be embarrassed, too. I would want to call it something else. Secondly, however, for those of my colleagues who signed onto this legislation in its original form--there are reasons for having done that and reasons for not doing it, but for those who found good reason to do it, I make the point that what they are going to be asked to vote on tomorrow is not what they signed onto. They signed onto a bill that did not have this magical language in it. When we are voting tomorrow, they are clearly going to be able to say to supporters of this bill, look, I still support your bill and we can take it up next year, but I am not going to support a fraud on the American people claiming that the $15.6 billion is not an outlay. We are going to have to account for that one way or the other. Let's be honest about it. I hope that my colleagues who are still committed to the legislation would acknowledge that what they are being asked to vote for tomorrow is not what they signed onto. Second--this is an important point--anybody who believes that we should reform Social Security has to look at this very carefully for the precedential effect. If the precedent stands, this will prevent us from reforming Social Security as the President has suggested and many of us desire to do by allowing a portion of the Social Security funding through the payroll tax to be put into an investment account managed by each individual Social Security stakeholder. Instead, it will cause us to move toward what President Clinton proposed and was rejected, fortunately, which was a scheme in which the U.S. Government would actually invest money, would invest people's Social Security money in the equities market. So you would have the Government buying stock in companies. That is a bad idea. But because of this language that we would now be permitted to say that the purchase or sale of nonfederal assets shall be treated as a means of financing rather than an outlay, the kind of scheme President Clinton proposed would not have any costs associated with it; whereas, the proposal to establish worker-owned personal accounts would presumably be scored in the traditional fashion, as a cost, making it much more difficult to accomplish. I doubt that was the intent of the people who wrote this language. But it is, unfortunately, the effect of it. As a result, it is not language that this body should adopt. Mr. President, there is another problem. At a time when we have seen the great surplus in the Federal Government now disappear, and we are now aware that we are going to have to be borrowing money to fund every new program that we pass, we have to look very carefully at any spending proposals. I think most of us would say we should look carefully anyway, but clearly when you are borrowing money in order to fund programs, there is an extra obligation to be sure we are spending wisely. We are not taking on new obligations that just as well could be performed by someone else, if they are good ideas. It seems to me that when we are talking about taxpayer responsibility for a railroad retirement system, with its massive unfunded liabilities, that, A, we are buying a pig in a poke and, B, likely putting taxpayers into a situation of having to fund something with deficit financing because this bill puts the Government deeper and deeper into this pension and deeper into debt. If the projections offered by the system's own actuaries are borne out, the scheme will reduce the trust fund's reserve by more than 50 percent. That is because of the lowered retirement age incorporated into the bill, as well as the other increased benefits, combined with the reduction in payroll taxes. Who can doubt that when this happens, these industries who lobbied for this bill will lobby for another taxpayer bailout? No private sector pension plan could get away with engaging in such practices and calling it reform. Shame on us if we allow, through a very truncated debate here, the saddling of taxpayers with the bill for such a scheme at the behest of these vested interests. As I said, this is the time for us rather to address our real priorities, and to the extent that people are interested in trying to find the best way to reform the taxpayer-subsidized railroad retirement system, that should be given the deliberation it really requires in this new time. Obviously, that could not occur over the next 24, 48 hours. We should not be taking up that legislation at this time--not only because it is bad legislation, but, as I said, because it diverts our attention from more pressing problems; namely, a stimulus package and getting that done, getting the appropriations bills done, and getting nominations done. I am sure if we can accomplish all of those things with great speed, that would put us right up to Christmas Eve time. I hope tomorrow my colleagues will join me in voting to stay on the subject here, the stimulus package. Let's work through it and get it done.

Mr. KYL. A final comment: Of all the reasons the Senator from Alaska has articulated today, I would put first among them the fact that we could well be at war to a much greater degree than we have been with Iraq in the very near future. We are going to have to have an alternate supply. If this bill could be passed, the exploration of that oil could occur in ANWR which would more than replace that Iraqi oil and begin to relieve our dependence on Middle East oil. It seems to me, not just as a matter of national energy policy but as a matter of national security, we ought to get on with the debate on the energy bill. I firmly support the effort of the Senator from Alaska to do so. I look forward to being able to debate it in the very near future.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my second question is: If we needed to find an alternative source, and if we could find a source that is right here in the good, old U.S.A., if the exploration in the ANWR area turned out as people think it would, what is the relationship between that part of the oil that might be produced and the amount of oil that we currently import from the country of Iraq?

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alaska yields the floor, I would like to ask a question. Because of news reports today and yesterday, I believe, that Saddam Hussein made an absolutely firm statement that under no circumstances would he comply with the U.N. resolution which required that he submit his country to U.N. inspectors looking for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and because of the strong reaction here in the United States and, I think, in the West generally about the possibility of beginning much more aggressive action against Saddam Hussein, I have two questions for the Senator from Alaska. First, is it likely if we were to take such action that our ability to continue to buy oil from Saddam Hussein would evaporate? Secondly, my recollection is that if we were to develop the oil resources available in the ANWR area that it could be a complete substitute for the Iraqi oil. I have forgotten over what period of time that would be. Can the Senator from Alaska respond?