WASHINGTON, DC...U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL) announced today that he has been named Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security. The panel has broad jurisdiction over the financial performance of federal agencies, the budgeting process, international weapons proliferation, and U.S. relationships with foreign countries and international bodies.

Fitzgerald assumes the subcommittee chairmanship at a time when the development of weapons of mass destruction by rogue nations such as Iraq and North Korea threatens the security of the United States and its allies. As chairman, Fitzgerald said he intends to examine issues of weapons proliferation around the globe and explore the U.S. government’s diplomatic, intelligence, and military efforts to address this threat.

"September 11 redefined the threats to our national security posed by terrorism and rogue nations seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction," said Fitzgerald. "Congress, and this Senate subcommittee in particular, needs to be especially attentive to U.S. efforts to prevent terrorists from gaining access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I look forward to working with Homeland Security Secretary Ridge, HHS Secretary Thompson, and other officials to ensure the U.S. is taking the right steps to protect its citizens."

Fitzgerald said that, as subcommittee chairman, he will also continue his work to expose and curb financial abuses by federal agencies. Last year, a Fitzgerald bill requiring independent audits of federal agencies and subjecting agencies’ audited records to review by Congress and the administration was signed into law by President Bush. That law will help make agencies more accountable to taxpayers, the senator said. As chairman of an Agriculture subcommittee, Fitzgerald has also looked into financial irregularities at the Department of Agriculture, whose records revealed that soil conservation funds had been used to pay for wall murals and a USDA motor vehicle was valued at $98 million.

"I am hopeful that the new law expanding the requirement for independent audits of federal agencies will help prevent some of the abuses of taxpayer funds that we have witnessed in the past," said Fitzgerald. The senator said that his subcommittee would have the authority to investigate an agency that does not receive a clean audit. "As chairman, I will continue to be watchful for mismanagement of taxpayer money."

Fitzgerald added that he hopes to review the federal budget process and consider ways to make it more efficient and transparent. In recent years, Fitzgerald has backed measures to move to a two-year budget cycle, which he said would allow for more thorough consideration of budget priorities, and to curb the use of budget gimmicks, such as designating routine outlays as emergency spending.

"We learned from Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and other failed companies that corporate abuses can have devastating consequences for shareholders and the whole economy," said Fitzgerald. "Congress has worked to strengthen investor protections and improve corporate accountability, and we should also focus on making government more accountable to taxpayers."

Fitzgerald’s subcommittee also has jurisdiction over many financial aspects of the U.S. civil service, including the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, life and long-term care insurance, and retirement benefit programs.

But I am not like my table colleague of last week who said (in paraphrase): ''I don't know whether we should go to war or not, but I'm so supportive of the president that I'm sure he has the answers. So, I'll be with him whatever he says.'' That to me violates the explicit canon that Ronald Reagan announced in the Cold War: Trust but verify. After more than 40 years of dealing with politicians in America, I believe that this axiom should apply to all our elected leaders--my own favorites as well.

The reason to go to war is because our vital interests are in jeopardy. It was for that reason that President Bush declared, ''The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.'' Well said. Now prove to us that Iraq (a) has the weapons and (b) is a threat to our security. Even the most panicky assessment of Iraq's most unconventional weapons indicates there is no imminent danger. Moreover, the threat of a war destabilizing the Middle East and jeopardizing our oil supplies is great, not to mention the enormous cost of the United States occupying Iraq and restructuring it as a stable country. Conclusion: In the absence of a smoking gun, regime change is sorely needed. But how to achieve this without war?

Perhaps the dispatching of hundreds of thousands of troops to the Persian Gulf can persuade Saddam Hussein, a truly evil man, to flee. If so, the president will gain a great victory through a poker-playing bluff. But what we know now would argue caution to outright war, especially if, as it appears, we will have the support only of Britain.

Meanwhile, North Korea, a member of the Bush-declared ''axis of evil,'' has come clean and has announced that indeed it is building weapons of mass destruction. Our response suddenly is to suggest that we talk. Secretary of State Colin Powell has ruled out a preemptive strike. The weak theorem is advanced that if we go to war with Iraq, we will show North Korea that we are willing to act decisively. Does that make sense? Of course not.

Pardon me for sounding unfashionably non-interventionist, but until and unless there is direct proof--incontrovertible proof--that Iraq is a threat to our security, there should be no cause for us to go to war. But a buildup of forces to be ready should a smoking gun be found is prudent. If the president is awaiting the exact time to divulge this evidence--and the evidence is eminently persuadable--I'm with him. That may be what he is waiting for. But as of now, all the implications issued from the White House and Pentagon strike me as rhetorical and insufficient.

So let us await the findings of the UN inspectors and the discoveries of our own intelligence. If the findings are conclusive, let the president report them to the American people, who will unite with him in support of war.

For now, the war should be put on hold. Consider the likelihood that Osama bin Laden is dead, but use this time to round up his successors.

And North Korea? Let this non-interventionist suggest that because South Korea has reputedly 30 times the economy of the North and twice the manpower, the South should undertake its own defense. Fifty years of occupation of the South--and our unpopularity there--should prompt the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If China will not aid us in seeking to restrain the North from building nuclear arms, perhaps the United States should give free sanction to Asia's democracies to build the same weapons as Asia's communist nations.

In essence, the case for regime change in Iraq, not war, is eloquent. Let America prepare for war but recall that the case for war based on an immediate threat to our security has not been made yet. If Saddam goes without war, Bush will deserve all the plaudits he will get. And if an immediate threat can be shown, this column will be moot.

The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists--the enemies of our common values--are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Messrs. Aznar, Durão Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.

"The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world."

==>Ronald Reagan-Farewell Address to the Nation