John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate. We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years. My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. As we conduct this debate, we need to talk about the fact that this is not the preferred option for the President of the United States or any Member of this body. This is the last option. We can make the case that it is obvious that Saddam Hussein continues this buildup of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But we are not the ones who are forcing this issue. The President of the United States in this resolution is not forcing the issue. It is Saddam Hussein who is forcing this issue. We will, as we go through this debate and the conversations at the United Nations Security Council, make sure we have exhausted every possible option. This is a critical factor in getting the American people behind this resolution and behind the President of the United States and behind the men and women in the military.

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the remarks of my friend, their tone, and particularly the content that really lays out the parameters of this debate. I ask my friend from Connecticut: Did the Senator have a chance to hear the President's address to the Nation last night?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. One of the reasons why I return to this particular aspect of this issue is, as the Senator from Virginia knows well, or better than I-- and others do, too--we once embarked into a conflict that the American people were not well informed on and, over time, they did not support. I believe this debate is important. I respect and admire the views of those who disagree with this resolution, but we will not enter this conflict without it being fully understood by the American people, as to what is at stake and why we are doing it. That is why I continue to go back to this issue of whether our constituents will be satisfied; that if, as a last resort, we enter into a conflict, it will not be because they have not been informed. Madam President: The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. So concludes a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. I want to repeat that. The International Institute for Strategic Studies said: The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. The question facing all of us in this body is whether Saddam Hussein's aggressive weapons development in defiance of this gulf war cease-fire in the decade of U.N. Security Council resolutions can stand when the cost of inaction against this gathering threat could be intolerably high. I am proud to join Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Bayh in laying down our amendment providing the President the necessary authority to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions against Saddam Hussein's regime. I welcome this debate. I am confident it will result in a resounding vote of support for the President as he moves to confront the threat we face in Iraq. I also believe it will be a powerful signal to the world that the American people are united in their determination to meet and to end this menace. Our diplomacy at the United Nations will benefit from a strong and bipartisan congressional vote in favor of this resolution. Our enemies will understand that we are united in our resolve to confront the danger posed by a dictator whose possession of the worst weapons and systematic defiance of every norm the civilized world holds dear threaten all who value freedom and law. Congress has already spoken on this matter. On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 54 which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relative laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' On October 31, 1998, then-President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act which stated: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a domestic government to replace that regime. That was October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by the President of the United States. Then, as now, Democrats and Republicans recognized the menace posed by Saddam Hussein's arsenal and his ambitions. Unfortunately, after 4 days of bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998--4 days of bombing--the United States and the international community effectively walked away from the Iraq problem, freeing Iraq from a weapons inspection regime that, by that time, had become so compromised by Saddam Hussein's intransigence as to be completely ineffective. Nothing has taken place over the past 4 years, even as a porous sanctions regime and illicit oil revenues have enriched the regime. Over this time, Saddam Hussein's threat to the world has grown without hindrance. Regrettably, some of the very same permanent members of the Security Council whose vote for a new resolution on Iraq we are now courting actively conspired against rigorous weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s, for reasons that had more to do with their narrow commercial interests than with the world's interest in getting rid of the menace posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of terror. The threat is not new. Saddam Hussein has been in gross violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf war since that war's end, as a host of United Nations Security Council resolutions passed since 1991 can attest. As The Economist has written: He has treated inspections as a continuation of the Gulf War by other means. After years of stymied efforts to enforce the inspections regime, the international community effectively sanctioned Saddam's impunity after it became clear he would never allow intrusive inspections, and once it became apparent to many Americans that the only way to end his defiance was to end his regime. The withering under U.N. Security Council auspices of the international inspections regime over the course of a decade, and Iraq's decision not to even consider renewed inspections only under the threat of force today, make clear that unvarnished faith in the ability of the U.N. Security Council or a new corps of inspectors to disarm Saddam's regime is misplaced. Over the course of this debate, the Senate will consider amendments that would require Security Council authorization before the United States could act to enforce a decade of Security Council resolutions, and that would narrow the focus of American policy to Iraq's disarmament, rather than against the range of Saddam's offenses against his people and his neighbors and the continuing threat his regime itself poses to American national security. These debates will be important. I believe the President's position will prevail. Congress cannot foresee the course of this conflict and should not unnecessarily constrain the options open to the President to defeat the threat we have identified in Saddam Hussein. Once Congress acts on a resolution, only the President will have to make the choices, with American forces likely deployed in the region to carry out his orders, that will end the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons and his ambitions pose to the world. Congress should give the President the authority he believes he needs to protect American national security against an often irrational dictator who has demonstrated a history of aggression outside his borders and a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is not just another Arab despot, not one of many tyrants who repress their people from within the confines of their countries. As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who recently traveled across northern Iraq, recently wrote in Slate: There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular danger. To review: there is no dictator in power anywhere in the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored al Qaeda fugitives . . . ; attacked civilians with chemical weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human subjects; committed genocide; and . . . [weaponized] aflotoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else. I do not know how any thinking person could believe that Saddam Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one else comes close . . . to matching his extraordinary and variegated record of malevolence. In light of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression, prohibited weapons deployment, and consistent rejection of every international obligation imposed on him, I believe the burden of proof in this debate must rest on those who believe inspections could actually achieve the disarmament of Iraq, rather than on those of us who are deeply skeptical that inspections alone could accomplish our common goal. History shows that we will most likely not disarm Iraq without changing the regime in Baghdad--a regime whose continued existence is predicated on possession of weapons of mass destruction. As arms control experts Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz have noted: Unless the Iraqi dictator should suddenly and totally reverse course on arms inspection and everything that goes with it, or be forced into early retirement--in other words, unless Saddam Hussein's Iraq ceases to be Saddam Hussein's Iraq--inspections will never work. Similarly, given the Security Council's failure to enforce its own article 7 resolutions against Iraq, which are backed by the threat of force and have the sanctity of international law, I believe the burden of proof in this debate must rest on those who can defend the Council's record with regard to Iraq and can convince the rest of us that the Council's judgment, rather than that of our Commander in Chief, should be the final authority on a matter that so directly affects American security. Important participants in this debate support the President's determination to use military force to bring about Iraq's disarmament but would constrain the President's authority to act against Iraq to uphold Security Council resolutions related to repression within Iraq, Iraq's support for terrorism, and other issues. This approach would limit the President's authority to achieving only Iraq's disarmament and would explicitly oppose a comprehensive challenge to his tyrannical regime. I believe those who hold this view have an obligation to explain why they would constrain the President's authority to use military force in ways he believes would tie his hands and raise unacceptably high the threshold for ordering military action to defend the national security of the United States. Others will argue that Saddam Hussein can be deterred--that he is a rational actor who understands that acting on his ambitions will threaten his regime. But deterrence has failed utterly in the past. I fail to see how waiting for some unspecified period of time, allowing Saddam's nuclear ambitions to grow unchecked, will ever result in a stable deterrence regime. Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam's neighbors to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish. Again, the burden in this debate rests on those who believe American policy has actually been successful in containing the threat Saddam's regime poses to the world. There is no greater responsibility we face as Members of this body than voting to place the country on a course that could send young Americans to war in her defense. All of us must weigh our consciences carefully. Although we may hold different views of how to respond to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the very fact that we are holding this free debate, and that the fate of nations and peoples other than our own will be determined by the outcome of our actions, serves as a reminder that we are a great Nation, united in freedom's defense, and called once again to make the world safe for freedom's blessings to flourish. The quality of our greatness will determine the character of our response. I want to again thank my colleagues for the introduction of this resolution. I think it will take place at some time within the next few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana may respond to the question.

Mr. McCAIN. I have one additional question for the Senator from Indiana. He mentioned, as the Senator from Connecticut has and as the Senator from Virginia has, there is great concern about this issue amongst our constituents. Yet I have found in communications with the people of my State, both directly and from being on talk shows and in speeches and things such as that, that the reassurance given to them that we are taking every possible action by going to the Congress of the United States and having this debate on the resolution of approval, which represents the people of this country in both bodies, by going to the Security Council and getting a very important resolution through the Security Council--which has not been achieved yet, but I think is part of the very important part of the process we are going through--I find that people are far more comforted and feel much more supportive in a realization that this is the last option and not the first option. Perhaps some months ago the impression was created that this was the first option the President wanted to pursue when, clearly, I think he has displayed, by what he is doing and by how he spoke last night, that that is not the case. Has the Senator had that feeling?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one further question?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today to join my three colleagues, Senator Warner, the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Bayh, and Senator Lieberman. I am always honored to have my name associated with these three outstanding public servants. This resolution, we should make very clear, is the text of the resolution agreed to this morning by the President of the United States and congressional leaders. This is the exact text of a resolution that was agreed to in hopes the debate will take place on two exact resolutions in both Houses of the Congress. I believe with open, spirited debate and discussion, we will come to a consensus which is broad based, and following a debate which I think will be illuminating and educational to the American people, as well as our colleagues. America is at war with terrorists who murdered our people one year ago. We now contemplate carrying the battle to a new front--Iraq--where a tyrant who has the capabilities and the intentions to do us harm is plotting, biding his time until his capabilities give him the means to carry out his ambitions, perhaps through cooperation with terrorists-- when confronting him will be much harder and impose a terrible cost. Saddam Hussein is in patent violation of the terms of the Gulf war ceasefire and 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions. He possesses weaponized chemical and biological weapons and is aggressively developing nuclear weapons. He holds the perverse distinction of having used weapons of mass destruction against both his own people and his enemies--the only dictator on Earth who has done so. As our President has said, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is a grave and gathering danger, a clear threat to American security and the security of our friends in the region. As I just mentioned, Congress must debate the question of war with Iraq. It is appropriate and right for the people of the United States to have their voices heard in this debate through their representatives in Congress. But as the President has said, the nation must speak with one voice once we determine to take a course that will most likely send our nation's young men and women to war. The President has patiently worked with Congressional leaders to craft a resolution authorizing him to take necessary action in Iraq to defend American national security and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The resolution is a product of compromise that protects both congressional prerogatives and the authority of the Commander in Chief to use whatever means he determines necessary to protect American security. The President's authority is not absolute on these matters. But he is the Commander in Chief, and he has made clear that congressional action to tie his hands, to limit the way he can respond to threats to the security of the American people, will damage our country's ability to respond to the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There is a reason why the Constitution vests shared power in the President and the Congress on matters of war. But there is also a reason why the Constitution recognizes the President of the United States as Commander in Chief. Limiting the President's ability to defend the United States, when Congress and the President agree on the nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq, is unwise. No resolution tying the President's hands or limiting the President's ability to respond to a clearly defined threat can anticipate the decisions the President will have to make in coming weeks and months, with American forces deployed overseas on his orders, to defend American security. We cannot foresee the course or end of this conflict, even though to most of us the threat is abundantly clear, and the course of action we must pursue is apparent. That's why there is one Commander in Chief, not 535 of them. Restricting the President's flexibility to conduct military action against a threat that has been defined and identified makes the United States less capable of responding to that threat. Supporting the President in his role as Commander in Chief does not necessarily mean supporting the President's policy on matters of national security. In 1995, President Clinton determined to deploy American forces to Bosnia to uphold a fragile peace in a land where many said peace was not possible. Until that time, I had serious concerns about the administration's policy in the Balkans. But once the President made his decision, I worked with Senator Bob Dole, Senator Warner and many of my colleagues to make sure the President--a President from the other party whom we had criticized harshly for his conduct of national security policy--had the support he needed to enforce the peace in Bosnia. I think my friend Senator Dole would agree with me that it was one of the high points of our service in the Senate. Thanks to the President's leadership over the past few months, the Congress has been moving steadily to support the President's determination to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to the world. I urge all my colleagues to renew their efforts to come together on one resolution--to show the world we are united with the President to enforce the terms of the gulf war ceasefire and prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening our and the world's security ever again. Again, I want to thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and Senator Warner, and I especially would like to mention Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh have shown some courage on the floor of the Senate, as Senator Warner and I have had to do in the past, when perhaps the majority of our party may not have been in complete agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing inspiration to the most oppressed in our society. It is important that we cherish his struggle and do what we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and other states that are significant to his life. My fellow Arizonan, Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma. He was the son of migrant farm workers, and an exemplary American hero. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his family's heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend distinctions of experience, and share equality in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better Nation. While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.'' This legislation, almost identical to the House bill, H.R. 2966, introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001, would specifically authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for these sites to become Historic Landmarks. Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero that embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing inspiration to the most oppressed in our society. It is important that we cherish his struggle and do what we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and other states that are significant to his life. My fellow Arizonan, Cesar Chavez was born in Yuma. He was the son of migrant farm workers, and an exemplary American hero. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his family's heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend distinctions of experience, and share equality in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better Nation. While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender of worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.'' This legislation, almost identical to the House bill, H.R. 2966, introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001, would specifically authorize the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for these sites to become Historic Landmarks. Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero that embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill to address a critical issue affecting our State, and other border States. Today we are introducing the Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act of 2002 in order to provide appropriate Federal reimbursement to States and localities whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the emergency health costs associated with illegal immigration. Arizona and other border States now face a medical and financial crisis. A report released today by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition found that our Nation's border hospitals spent close to $190 million in 2000 to provide health care to illegal immigrants--$31 million of which was spent by hospitals in Arizona alone. Clearly, the staggering cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants further burdens an already challenged medical system. The Federal Government maintains the sole authority to control immigration in this country. Despite that fact, the Federal Government often fails to take financial responsibility for the costs associated with immigration. Much of the financial burden has shifted to State and local governments. Compounding the problem, Federal law requires hospital emergency rooms to accept and treat all patients in need of medical care, regardless of immigration status. Unfortunately, this mandate does not ensure that these hospitals receive adequate compensation for the care they provide. Recently, this growing problem in the Southwest has been exacerbated by the increasingly desperate measures taken by undocumented aliens to cross our border with Mexico. The Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act of 2002 would modify and extend federal funding to the States, local governments, and health care providers for medical costs that arise from the uncompensated treatment of illegal immigrants. Such funding previously flowed to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. In fiscal year 2000 alone, approximately 360 local jurisdictions across the United States applied for these Federal monies. However these funds expired in 2001, and States and local governments are now suffering as a result. I have long worked to bolster enforcement against illegal immigration along our Southwest border, and I will continue to do so. However, I believe that States and local communities should not be left to foot the bill for what is a Federal responsibility. Although our bill gives special consideration to States with unusually high concentrations of illegal aliens and States with high concentrations of apprehended undocumented aliens, it would benefit communities across the Nation. As my colleagues know, illegal immigrants who successfully transit our Southwest border rapidly disperse throughout the United States. Although this situation is most critical in our border regions, if left unaddressed, it will surely become a national emergency. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to alleviate those pressures by compensating State and local governments and health care providers for the costs they incur as unwitting hosts to undocumented aliens.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in introducing a bill to address a critical issue affecting our State, and other border States. Today we are introducing the Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act of 2002 in order to provide appropriate Federal reimbursement to States and localities whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the emergency health costs associated with illegal immigration. Arizona and other border States now face a medical and financial crisis. A report released today by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition found that our Nation's border hospitals spent close to $190 million in 2000 to provide health care to illegal immigrants--$31 million of which was spent by hospitals in Arizona alone. Clearly, the staggering cost of providing medical care to illegal immigrants further burdens an already challenged medical system. The Federal Government maintains the sole authority to control immigration in this country. Despite that fact, the Federal Government often fails to take financial responsibility for the costs associated with immigration. Much of the financial burden has shifted to State and local governments. Compounding the problem, Federal law requires hospital emergency rooms to accept and treat all patients in need of medical care, regardless of immigration status. Unfortunately, this mandate does not ensure that these hospitals receive adequate compensation for the care they provide. Recently, this growing problem in the Southwest has been exacerbated by the increasingly desperate measures taken by undocumented aliens to cross our border with Mexico. The Local Emergency Health Services Reimbursement Act of 2002 would modify and extend federal funding to the States, local governments, and health care providers for medical costs that arise from the uncompensated treatment of illegal immigrants. Such funding previously flowed to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. In fiscal year 2000 alone, approximately 360 local jurisdictions across the United States applied for these Federal monies. However these funds expired in 2001, and States and local governments are now suffering as a result. I have long worked to bolster enforcement against illegal immigration along our Southwest border, and I will continue to do so. However, I believe that States and local communities should not be left to foot the bill for what is a Federal responsibility. Although our bill gives special consideration to States with unusually high concentrations of illegal aliens and States with high concentrations of apprehended undocumented aliens, it would benefit communities across the Nation. As my colleagues know, illegal immigrants who successfully transit our Southwest border rapidly disperse throughout the United States. Although this situation is most critical in our border regions, if left unaddressed, it will surely become a national emergency. I hope the Senate will act expeditiously on this important legislation to alleviate those pressures by compensating State and local governments and health care providers for the costs they incur as unwitting hosts to undocumented aliens.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. Mr. President, are we still going to vote at 2:15?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair and thank my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. And I hope he will always yield to me when I arrive on the floor. I appreciate it. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to create a commission, composed of the most credible people in America, that will tell the American people the truth about how our Government was not prepared for the threat of catastrophic terrorism last September. To question American policies and practices in the months and years before September 11 is not to engage in a political witch hunt intended to score partisan points against one administration or another. To probe deeply but fairly into American policies predating the terrorist attacks is to examine the scale of American leaders' failure to imagine and plan for a contingency that was not, in fact, unimaginable. By American leaders, I mean the Congress, as well as other branches of Government. A thorough, nonpartisan investigation would provide an informed basis for the current administration and the Congress to take all necessary measures to ensure that our country is prepared to meet the challenges of this age of terrorism. On Friday, the White House announced its support for an independent commission to address ``the panapoly of other important and related issues as they may relate to September 11 and ``strengthen our ability to prevent and defend against terrorism and protect the security of the American public.'' We will continue to work with the administration to refine our legislation and appreciate their support. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the White House as the homeland security bill moves through conference. We are also pleased to have the support of Senators Shelby and Graham, the Senate leaders of the joint congressional investigation into last year's attacks. The attacks on September 11 represented more than a failure of intelligence. They highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network implacably hostile to American interests. In 1989, the United States walked away from Afghanistan after fighting a proxy war against occupying Soviet forces. The subsequent civil war created the conditions for the rise of the Taliban, as the Afghan people submitted to a totalitarian government that imposed order over the chaos of warlord rule. The United States stood by passively as the Taliban formed an alliance with Osama bin Laden that turned Afghanistan into a sovereign training camp for al- Qaida to prepare its attacks on America as it built a global network of terror. American leaders, including those of us in Congress, watched and knew all of this. The United States declined to respond meaningfully to terrorist attacks against our interests throughout the previous decade--again, a failure of national policy over the course of successive administrations and many Congresses that encouraged our enemies to perceive us as weak and unwilling to defend our interests. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1995 and 1996 bombings of American targets in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 attacks on our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole--all of these attacks were preludes of growing intensity to the attacks against New York and Washington, DC. In retrospect, a pattern becomes clear, a period in which the preeminent threat to American national security arose from the ashes of war and chaos in Afghanistan while the United States preoccupied itself elsewhere. We need to absorb the lessons of our failure so that, as after other national tragedies such as Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, we can tell those we are privileged to lead that evil men will never perpetrate such horror again. This commission will help us do that. I thank my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for his leadership, and I look forward to us completing this job. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. By 2 minutes. I will take about 3 minutes, if that is OK with my other friend from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2002, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims. These settlements reflect five years of intensive negotiations by State, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gale Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process. This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the state of Arizona for construction of the CAP. I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 106th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages. While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session. We introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kyl, as a co-sponsor of this important legislation, the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2002, which would ratify negotiated settlements for Central Arizona Project, CAP, water allocations to municipalities, agricultural districts and Indian tribes, state CAP repayment obligations, and final adjudication of long-standing Indian water rights claims. These settlements reflect five years of intensive negotiations by State, Federal, tribal, municipal, and private parties. I commend all those involved in these negotiations for their extraordinary commitment and diligence to reach this final stage in the settlement process. I also praise my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, and Interior Secretary Gale Norton, for their leadership in facilitating these settlements. From my experience in legislating past agreements, I recognize the enormous challenge of these negotiations, and I appreciate their personal dedication to this settlement process. This legislation is vitally important to Arizona's future because these settlements will bring greater certainty and stability to Arizona's water supply by completing the allocation of CAP water supplies. Pending water rights claims by various Indian tribes and non- Indian users will be permanently settled as well as the repayment obligations of the state of Arizona for construction of the CAP. I join with Senator Kyl today to express support for the agreements embodied in this bill and to encourage conclusion of this settlement process in the near future. Significant progress has been made in resolving key issues since we last sponsored a bill to facilitate this agreement in the 106th Congress. Some of these key issues pertain to the final apportionment of CAP water supplies, cost-sharing of CAP construction and water delivery systems, amendment of the 1982 settlement agreement with the Tohono O'odham Nation, mitigation measures necessitated by sustained drought conditions, and equitable apportionment of drought shortages. While this bill reflects agreements reached on a host of issues after an intensive and extended effort by the numerous parties involved, it is important to emphasize that this bill does not represent the final settlement. All parties recognize that a very limited number of the provisions of this bill may be modified as the negotiations continue. We fully expect that the legislative process will culminate with a final agreement early in the next congressional session. We introduce this bill today as an expression of our strong support of the various parties to successfully achieve conclusion to this process. The Arizona Water Settlements Act will be a historic accomplishment that will benefit all citizens of Arizona, the tribal communities, and the United States.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the civilized world was shocked and outraged when Palestinian militants planted a bomb on July 31, 2002 in a cafeteria at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bomb ultimately killed nine young people, including five young Americans, and injured an additional 80 people. I agree with President George W. Bush, who condemned ``in as strong as possible terms the attack that took place in Israel'' and characterized those behind the bombings as ``killers who hate the thought of peace.'' What made the attack particularly heinous and unforgivable was the Hebrew University is an institution that constitutes an island of sanity and hope in a region that often seems to exemplify the opposite of those virtues. Professor Menachem Magidor, President of Hebrew University, articulated these points in a letter published by The New York Times on August 9, 2002. He stated that this ``was more than a murderous act. Specifically targeted against the heart of an academic campus, it was also an attack on what the university symbolizes and aspires to: understanding, tolerance and the quest for peace.'' He went on to state that ``The ethnic composition of the victims attests to the diversity and pluralism of our university family. The victims includes Jews and Palestinians, as well as citizens of the United States, France, Italy, South Korea, Turkey and Japan. Our university, where more than 10 percent of the 23,000 students are of Arab descent, is one of the very few places in which a meaningful dialogue between Jews and Arabs still takes place.'' Hebrew University is, indeed, a unique and special institution. It is the oldest comprehensive institution of higher learning in Israel, and considered to be among the world's great universities. The laying of the cornerstone for the university on Mt. Scopus in July 1918 was attended by Muslims, Jews and Christians. This set the tone for a university dedicated from its very beginnings to the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit not only of the then fledgling Jewish community of the land of Israel and for world Jewry, but also for all of the peoples of the region--including Muslims and Christians--and for humanity generally. Seven years later, on April 1, 1925, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was opened at a gala ceremony attended by leaders of world Jewry including the University's founding father, Chaim Weizmann, who would become in 1948 the first President of the new nation of Israel. Albert Einstein, one of the intellectual giants of the modern work, was also among the founding fathers of the institution. As Palestine was then part of the British mandate, the British were represented by Lord Balfour, Viscount Allenby and Sir Herbert Samuel, all pivotal figures in the history of the region. The University's first three research institutes were in microbiology, chemistry and Jewish studies, and the school began with a total of 33 faculty members and 141 students. The University awarded its first Master's degrees to 13 graduates in 1931. By the time the British announced that they would leave Palestine in 1947, the University had grown into a well established research and teaching institution. As a result of the fighting in Jerusalem during the War of Independence in 1948, the University was cut off from the main Israei-held sectors in the city. The University was forced to seek other quarters and its facilities were scattered throughout Jerusalem. Construction began in 1953 on a new campus in the Givat Ram section of Jerusalem. Together with Hadassah Medical Organization, a few years later, Hebrew University began construction of a medical science campus in Ein Kerem in southwest Jerusalem. By 1967, enrollment exceeded 12,500 at the two campuses in Jerusalem and Rehovot. The reunification of Jerusalem, as a result of the Six Day War in June 1967, enabled the university's leaders to restore and expand the original campus on Mt. Scopus. The Rothberg International School was opened there in 1971 and by 1981, Mt. Scopus was again the main campus for the university. Thus, since its modest beginning, with its handful of students and staff, the university has grown remarkably to include an enrollment of some 23,000 students on four campuses, three of them in Jerusalem and another in Rehovot. But this is a story of more than buildings. The university offers basic and advanced educational opportunities in virtually all fields of higher education, from humanities to the social sciences, chemistry, physics, life sciences, law, medicine, agriculture, engineering, social work, education and numerous other fields of study too numerous to mention. It offers degrees at all levels including B.A., B.S., Master's and Ph.D. Although it attracts students of the front rank from all over Israel and abroad due to its reputation as a leading teaching institution, the university is also renowned internationally for the research carried out there in all of the sciences. These research projects, numbering in the thousands, involve in many cases cooperative efforts with leading scientists and scholars, among them a substantial number of Americans. To get an idea of the quality of the research being pursued, one need only examine the leading scientific journals, such as Science or Nature, to see how often the names of Hebrew University researchers appear on their pages. It is significant that scholars and researchers based at Hebrew University have competed for and received many grants from numerous American agencies and departments including NIH, NIST, DARPA, and USAID. Those in charge of reviewing such grant proposals have come to respect the substantive quality of the work done at Hebrew University. It is worth noting that many of these proposals are made in cooperation with American institutions, which has served to enhance the close relations between our people and especially our scientists. The results of these projects have benefitted Americans, Israelis and all mankind. But it is more than the quality of its teaching and research that I wish to emphasize today in speaking about the special nature of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Indeed, there are many outstanding universities in our own country and elsewhere that are making significant contributions to our knowledge and to the progress of our world. What I really want to stress is the singularity of this university in its vigorous efforts towards meeting the desperate need for the furtherance of those human values which we so treasure in our own country and which we consider to be the foundation stones of decent societies everywhere. Specifically, I am speaking of elements that to us seem basic and which we probably take for granted: the free and unfettered pursuit of information, freedom of expression, tolerance for people of different religious, races and ethnic origins and for those whose world views may be different from our own. In brief, I am speaking of an openness that--all too sadly--does not exist in many societies and in many parts of the world. It is precisely this pluralistic and tolerant spirit which has characterized the Hebrew University since its earliest days and which has through the years attracted students and scholars from the four corners of the world. The student body today is a diverse and pluralistic one, made up of Israelis--Jews and Arabs--as well as foreign students of all religions, races and ethnic origins. These students study and live together within the university community, contributing in no small measure--perhaps unconsciously--to the development of a world based on informed coexistence and peace, rather than one grounded in ignorance and hatred, doomed to eternal conflict and purposeless death and suffering. Long before anyone dreamed of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, the Hebrew University, through one of its institutes named for one of our great Presidents of the last century--the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace--initiated and developed substantial cooperative academic and research projects involving scholars from Israel and from its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. Nowhere were there so many Arab and Israeli researchers involved in cooperative ventures aimed at achieving a better and mutually beneficial future than at the Hebrew University. These projects involved numerous academic disciplines: the social and exact sciences, agriculture, medicine, dental medicine and others. Scores of practically oriented plans and reports were drawn up by these teams as to how to proceed regarding the resolution of such difficult issues as the sharing of water resources, the delineation of borders, and the protection of the environment. In addition, the university has conducted numerous in-service training courses for Arab professionals. It is precisely the yearning and searching for the solving of age-old conflicts, for peaceful resolution that the savage advocates of hate and murder sought to strike down in their despicable bombing attack at the Hebrew University. But the human spirit is not so easily discouraged or defeated. In condemning the bombing attack on the Hebrew University, the president of the American Council on Education, David Ward, took note of this significant aspect of the university. He wrote that: ``The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has played a critical role in promoting co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians--as well as among people of all nationalities, religions and cultures. The terrible act at the Mount Scopus campus was intended to prevent the type of human interaction and discourse that can facilitate peaceful change in a more complex and challenging world.'' It is this kind of hopeful spirit that was so brutally and viciously assaulted in the murderous bombing attack that took place at the Hebrew University's Frank Sinatra Student Center cafeteria on July 31, 2002. This was more than another senseless terror attack, aimed at killing and maiming innocent people. It was an attack--knowingly or unknowingly--against everything that not just the Hebrew University but all of the free world holds dear. Just as the American people are firm in their resolve not to allow the perpetrators of September 11th to destroy our society or our commitment to decency and peace, so too the people of Israel, including the Hebrew University community, are determined not to lose heart because of those who would seek to destroy that spirit of humanity which has been so devotedly cultivated there over the years. Hebrew University's President Magidor stated that this was ``an attack on understanding, tolerance and the quest for peace. [It] is a crime not only against Israel or the Jewish people, it is a crime against the free and enlightened world.'' In the wake of this tragedy, President Magidor then asked himself ``whether it still makes sense to strive for a peaceful society based on reason and understanding.'' Given the circumstances, his conclusion is both remarkable and also a perfect summation for the ethos of this institution. He concluded his letter to The New York Times by stating that ``the answer came to me clearly, and it is summarized by the Hebrew word `davka'--`despite everything'. We must not let them kill our drive of peace.'' A bridge of co-existence in the strife-torn Middle East, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has been damaged. But it has not been destroyed, neither physically nor spiritually. That bridge will be repaired. It will be stronger even than it was in the past. And it will continue to serve as a source of pride and inspiration to the people of Israel, the United States, and all people everywhere who treasure life and liberty as the supreme human values.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, all three of these editorials I have asked to be printed in the Record talk about the danger we are now experiencing concerning Mr. Putin's actions, or possible actions, in Georgia. The Economist magazine editorial says: Russia would do better to bolster Georgia's stability, not undermine it. It says: If there is one grain of truth in Russia's arguments, it lies in the fact that Georgia, while not a failed state, is one that has had difficulty asserting its authority in its border areas. . . . But there is also a huge flaw in Russia's argument. If the Georgian state functions less than perfectly--in Pankisi and elsewhere--that is in large part because Russia itself has consistently undermined it. The restive mini-states within Georgia's legal boundaries . . . defy the government with the help of powerful friends in Moscow. . . . If Russians are concerned about the security of their southern frontier, they would do better to reinforce Georgia's statehood rather than chip away at it. Georgia is neither a rogue state, nor (as yet) a failed one. Nor do Georgians need outsiders to orchestrate regime change for them. Imitation is a form of flattery, but others should not be duped into seeing parallels where none exist. In the Washington Post it goes on to say, referring to Mr. Putin: His goals are to distract attention from a recent series of military disasters in Chechnya--incidents that have revived discussion in Russia about the futility of Mr. Putin's campaign to suppress the rebellion by force--and to use the leverage of Russia's U.N. Security Council vote on Iraq to achieve suzerainty over Georgia, which Moscow has been seeking since long before the war on terrorism. This is not the behavior of a soul mate, or even a ``strategic partner''; and a U.S.-Russian relationship afflicted by such tactics has not been transformed. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer for her patience. I do believe this is an important issue. I hope our Russian friends, with whom we have a very strong relationship, will not embark on an adventure which could have serious repercussions not only in the region but in the world. I thank you, Madam President, and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite America's preponderant role in the world, it is not often that foreign leaders tell us that their country would not exist as an independent state were it not for U.S. support. Yet leaders across the spectrum in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, including President Eduard Shevardnadze and his political opponents, frankly and gratefully attribute their national survival to unstinting American support since their independence from Soviet rule eleven years ago. In a troubling display of how history does not always move in a positive direction, Georgia's independence is once again under threat, with repercussions that should concern all who cherish freedom. In an opportunistic twist of President Bush's policy of pre-emption against clear and present dangers to America and the world, President Putin of Russia has appropriated American rhetoric in the war on terrorism to justify Russian subversion of the Georgian state. A free Russian hand in Georgia is apparently the price President Putin believes the United States is willing to pay for Russia's support for military action against Iraq. President Bush and the Congress of the United States should disabuse our friends in Moscow of this illusion, immediately. President Putin rode to power on promises to defeat Chechen separatists in Russia's south. Reports indicate that members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups operate in Chechnya. Russia has a right and an obligation to bring these legitimate terrorists to justice. But rather than targeting them and their Chechen comrades in arms, Russian forces have conducted a military campaign of astonishing brutality against Chechnya's civilian population as leaders in the West have looked the other way. At the same time, Presidents Bush and Putin have brought about a historic change in U.S.-Russia relations that is moving our two nations from rivalry to strategic partnership. We in the United States welcome this development. But there can be no true partnership absent Russian commitment to the fundamental values that guide American policy in these areas. I believe President Putin has indeed made a historic decision to align his country with the West as Russia moves away from its imperial past and towards a democratic, prosperous future. Yet Russia's threat to Georgia, like Russia's brutality in Chechnya, calls to mind a discredited, imperial past whose resurgence threatens the transformation in U.S.-Russian relations and, in particular, our joint commitment to eradicating the networks of global terror that threaten both our peoples. Seized by the domestic political costs of a grinding war in Chechnya that Russia cannot win militarily, and calculating that President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption somehow applies to both a megalomaniacal tyrant like Saddam Hussein and a democratically oriented, pro-Western leader like Eduard Shevardnadze, President Putin has sent Russian jets to bomb targets in Georgia. Putin openly outlines his plans for a Russian invasion of Georgia to wipe out terrorism there. Motivated by a deep dislike of President Shevardnadze, whom they blame for the Soviet Union's disintegration and who has been targeted for assassination by figures linked to Moscow, and tempted by visions of Russian control over Russia's oil-rich Near Abroad, some Russian leaders seem to believe the impunity Russia has enjoyed in Chechnya would carry over to Russian military operations against its sovereign neighbor. They are wrong. Russia's civilian and military leadership must know that our growing, and welcome, strategic partnership in the war on terror does not sanction unilateral Russian military adventurism for purposes whose relation to the war on terror is incidental. Moscow, and Washington, and Tbilisi are right to be alarmed by continuing reports that Chechen militants and members of al-Qaida have taken refuge in Georgia's lawless Pankisi Gorge. America's proper response was to deploy American Special Forces teams to Georgia to train and equip Georgian security forces to take control of the gorge and enforce Georgian control over its territory. President Shevardnadze has announced a major Georgian military operation, with U.S. military advisors, to root out terrorists in Pankisi. International monitors are already stationed along Georgia's border with Chechnya, and President Shevardnadze has proposed expanding this monitoring force to prevent militants from finding refuge in Georgia in the future. Shevardnadze yesterday pledged to extradite 13 men that Russia says are Chechen guerrillas captured by Georgian security officials. The United States and Russia, in the spirit of strategic partnership both countries profess, have a willing partner in President Shevardnadze to eliminate any terrorist presence in Georgia that Moscow correctly perceives to threaten its interests. But Russia has rejected Georgia's candid, and unprecedented, proposals to cooperate in eradicating terrorism. Instead, Russia seems to want to use the terrorist problem as a means of reasserting Russian control in Georgia, which already suffers the presence of three Russian military bases and separatist conflicts supported by Moscow. Some in Moscow do not understand that unilateral and preemptive Russian military operations in Georgia make the situation worse, not better. These operations threaten to turn Russia's desire to root out a small group of terrorists into an international crisis that threatens what President Putin cherishes--a robust partnership with the West that he has defined as Russia's future. It is unacceptable and immoral for any American leader to countenance Russia's increasingly open campaign for control of its neighbor to the south--which is why no American leader will do so. But pressure from Moscow works in insidious ways. One ``senior Administration official'' recently told the New York Times, ``Looking now at the new strategic circumstances, I think there may be some rethinking about how we handle the Georgian situation. I think there's a recognition the Russian government has a legitimate security concern.'' The United States properly shares Russia's concern about foreign terrorists seeking refuge in Georgia, and can surely find a way to advance our mutual interest in helping Georgia end incursions by these people. But giving Russia carte blanche to impose its own solution--as it has, brutally, in Chechnya--would be a repudiation of the values we are fighting the war on terror to defend and the celebration of freedom that took place in Georgia and across the former Soviet Union when imperial rule crumbled. Strengthening the Georgian Government's capacity to control parts of its own country and working with American and Georgian officials to eliminate terrorists from Georgian territory, on terms acceptable to the Georgian Government, is an interest Moscow shares with Washington and Tbilisi. It is one we can advance together, in the spirit of partnership that characterizes our cooperation in the war on terrorism--not in the spirit of rivalry and spheres of influence that recall an unpleasant past. Leaders in Moscow must know that no nation has a greater stake in wiping out al-Qaida's global terror network than the United States. We would never countenance any Georgian actions to wink at terrorism within its borders; indeed, our deployment of American Special Forces to Georgia is a measure of the seriousness with which we take the threat terrorists pose to Georgia and the region. In the same way, President Putin and those around him must know that we cannot countenance unilateral Russian military action that puts Georgia's independence at risk. I hope President Putin will make the choice that befits his role as an enlightened leader of the Russian people, and does not cast his lot with the officers and civilians around him who believe Russian can assert imperial control over a sovereign neighbor without consequence. There will be consequences--and no friend of Russia or Georgia should suggest otherwise. (Mrs. CLINTON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a Wall Street Journal editorial of September 16, 2002, entitled ``Putin's Iraq Price'' a September 19, 2002, editorial in the Washington Post, entitled ``A Parody Of Partnership'' and an editorial from the Economist magazine of September 21, 2002, entitled ``Putin's folly'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the forbearance of the distinguished President pro tempore and ask unanimous consent that we extend morning business by about 5 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for her kind words about our efforts towards addressing some of the important issues of the day. I thank her.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank you, Madam President. I say to my friend from Tennessee, first of all, our amendment explicitly states--and we would be glad to report language, with the assistance of the Senator from Tennessee, to point out that clearly intelligence is a central and perhaps most important aspect of any investigation of this nature. The Senator mentioned that there are a number of other factors we would want to take into consideration. While the Senator was off the floor, I pointed out that we turned our back on Afghanistan after 1989. What were the reasons for that? And what were the diplomatic or national security factors that led to that decision being made? However, having said that, it is clear intelligence plays a featured role in any investigation. But I am also a little bit concerned--and I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee is concerned--about a report in the Washington Post where, ``[Senator] Shelby acknowledged that the congressional probe would be incomplete. `I'm afraid if we try to publish at the end of this session a definitive paper on what we found, that there will be some things that we don't know because we hadn't had time to probe them and we have not had enough cooperation,' he said.'' As I respond, I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee has that concern, as expressed by Senator Shelby.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman, for the privilege of working with him on an issue that I think is of some importance. I appreciate again the fact that he moved this legislation through the committee of which he is chairman. At that time, the debate and the discussion lent weight to the passage of this legislation. We are simply seeking a commission to investigate all of the factors that led to the tragic events of September 11. We believe there is more than an intelligence aspect of this scenario that needs to be addressed. We believe there were a variety of factors that need to be made known to the American people. Whether they be economic, diplomatic, intelligence, there are a number of factors which led up to the tragic events of September 11. Obviously, the lawmakers and those who are involved so far in the investigation are not satisfied with the information we have received. There is an article in the Washington Post, dated Thursday, September 19, today, which says in part: Lawmakers from both parties yesterday protested the Bush administration's lack of cooperation in the congressional inquiry into September 11 intelligence failures and threaten to renew efforts to establish an independent commission. The article continues: ``Are we getting the cooperation we need? Absolutely not,'' Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee said in a joint appearance with Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla). . . . Graham added: ``What we're trying to do is get people who had hands on these issues. . . .And what we're being told is: no, they don't want to make those kind of witnesses available.'' Both Graham and Shelby yesterday endorsed the idea of independent panels. In his remarks at the start of the hearings, Shelby warned that ``there may come a day very soon when it will become apparent that ours must be only a prelude to further inquiries.'' Shelby acknowledged that the congressional probe would be incomplete. ``I'm afraid if we try to publish at the end of this session a definitive paper on what we found, that there will be things that we don't know because we hadn't had time to probe them and we have cooperation.'' I quote Senators Shelby and Graham because they are two of the most respected Members of this body, the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, both highly regarded in all areas but particularly in carrying out their responsibilities as members of the Intelligence Committee. I go back for a second to the issue of what brought about September 11. I will give an example of a factor that needs to be examined which has nothing to do with any secret information or intelligence information. In 1989, with the active help of the United States of America and our allies, the then-Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan. At that point in time, we, as a policy, the United States of America, turned our back on Afghanistan. We provided very little assistance, we paid very little attention, except to celebrate a great victory for the then-Afghan freedom fighters. We all know what transpired in the ensuing 10 to 11 years. The Government of Afghanistan basically became a series of fighting warlords, and chaos prevailed throughout the Nation, and up came, as happens in history, a group called the Taliban that promised order to the people of Afghanistan. Over time they welcomed the Taliban and, of course, the Taliban assumed power. As part of their regime, they not only allowed but encouraged and provided help and assistance--all this is a matter of public record--to Osama bin Laden. It was well known that Osama bin Laden maintained and built his terrorist training camps there, his financial network, and was the breeding ground for the terrorists, including those who hijacked the airplanes on September 11. What is it that led the United States of America to make a policy decision that what happened in Afghanistan was not of sufficient concern to the United States of America and our policymakers to intervene at any time as this scenario unfolded? That is just one example of the areas that need to be explored. Where was the economic aid? Did the United States of America, because of a variety of reasons, not encourage or even countenance the behavior of the Saudi Government? The Saudi Government, as we all know, is funding the Madrasas. They are giving money to the Islamic extremists who recruit young Middle Eastern men off the streets and teach them to hate the United States of America, our culture, our values, the West. Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Saudi citizens. They were not uneducated. Many of them, as we all know, had received pilot training in the United States of America. Why did the United States fail to realize that the Saudis, in the guise, perhaps, of being the guardians of the most sacred places of the Muslim Islamic religion, were funding very generously these radical Islamic elements whose influence spread all over the Middle East? There was a tragic bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. What was the reaction of the United States to that, beside an eventual very rapid withdrawal from Beirut? The U.S.S. Cole, in port in Yemen, was attacked by Islamic extremists. U.S. Embassies all over the world were attacked. What was the response of the United States to those tragedies? My point is there is a broad variety of issues that need to be addressed. Those issues, as credible as the U.S. Congress is, need to be examined by the most respected people in the United States of America--men and women who have spent their entire lives in public service and are highly regarded by the American people whose assessment and evaluation and, most importantly, recommendations will be given enormous credibility by the Congress of the United States, the President of the United States and, most importantly, the people of the United States, who still are confused as to how these events came about to their great surprise, astonishment, and sorrow. The makeup of the commission should be of the most respected people in America. Exactly who appoints who--the President, the majority leader--we have a formula in our bill, but we are willing to negotiate that. In a bipartisan spirit, we can select the most respected people in America to serve on this commission. But let's have no doubt that a commission is called for, just as a commission was called for following December 7, 1941, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt felt that the United States of America was not too busy to appoint a commission to examine the events that led up to what he called the day that will live in infamy. I thank Senator Lieberman. I will quote from several articles that appeared in the newspapers in previous days that are bound to ratchet up concern and, in some cases, the frustration of the American people about this issue. L.A. Times headline: U.S. Overlooked Terrorism Signs Well Before September 11: A House-Senate panel report says al-Qaida was focusing on a domestic attack and the use of planes as far back as the mid- 1990s. New York Times editorial, September 19, 2002, ``While America Slept'': The initial findings of a Congressional committee that has been reviewing the performance of America's intelligence agencies before Sept. 11 are profoundly disturbing. While the investigation has not found that the agencies collected information pointing to the date and targets of the attacks, it has discovered reports that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to hit sites in the United States and that they might employ commercial airliners as weapons. The response of spy organizations--and the government at large-- was anemic. One of the great unanswered questions has been whether the government had enough intelligence in the months before Sept. 11 to fear an imminent blow within the United States and to take aggressive steps to heighten security, especially at airports. The answer now appears to be affirmative. Investigators working for the Senate and House intelligence committees found numerous reports in the archives of the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy organizations suggesting that the bin Laden network was eager to mount attacks within the United States. One of the articles here from USA Today is entitled ``Intelligence Fails.'' It is very curious: Almost 3 years before the September 11 attacks, CIA Director George Tenet sent a memo to his deputies. ``We are at war against Osama bin Laden. I want no resources or people spared in this effort.'' I want to repeat what CIA Director George Tenet sent in a memo 3 years prior to September 11: We are at war. . . . I want no resources or people spared in this effort. But the article goes on to say that, by the morning of September 11, the war effort had yet to be mounted. According to a report released Wednesday by the House and Senate in their first public hearing. . . . Lawmakers revealed CIA's Counterterrorism Center had just five analysts assigned full time to tracking bin Laden's network. The FBI put one lone al-Qaida analyst assigned to the agency's international terrorist unit. A lack of attention devoted to al-Qaida before 9/11 helps explain why the $30 billion a year spent on intelligence did not turn up the terrorist plot. But the report raises new questions about the failure of the FBI and CIA to redirect resources from cold war enemies to new age terrorists. The New York Times: Despite DCI's declaration of war in 1998, there was no massive shift in budget or reassignment of personnel to counterterrorism until after September 11. I ask unanimous consent that these articles I just quoted from be printed in the Record.