[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S708-S716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe that Senator Daschle will join me 
on the floor shortly because he and I would like to, in effect, have a 
joint statement with regard to Iraq because we want the message to be 
unambiguous, very clear to America and to our allies around the world, 
and to Iraq about our attitude and what our intentions are with regard 
to this very important matter.

  I just had a call from Senator John Warner, who is in Russia today 
along with Senator Carl Levin. They are escorting Secretary of Defense 
Bill Cohen. They have already been to six countries since they were in 
Germany. I believe perhaps even the Senator from Arizona, the Presiding 
Officer, was there. They have gone throughout the Arab world, and now 
they are in Russia.
  He tells me that he believes that when they return, Secretary Cohen 
and the two Senators will bring a great deal of helpful information to 
the Senate and to the American people about what they have heard in the 
Arab world and what they have heard from our allies in those areas' 
meetings. They believe that they will be able to answer some of the 
very important questions that Senators have been asking.
  So we will look forward to their return.
  I had hoped that we could get to the point where we could pass a 
resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical 
problems, if nothing else. Senator Warner and Senator Levin would like 
very much to be a part of the discussion about what the situation will 
be and how we should proceed on Iraq. They would like to be here. And 
other Senators are necessarily not going to be able to be here beyond 
this afternoon.
  So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so 
quickly but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked 
and answered and that we have available to us the latest information 
about what is expected or what is going to be happening with our allies 
in the world.
  I was noting, I say to Senator Daschle, that I just talked to Senator 
Warner in Russia, and he was telling me that Secretary Cohen and 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin are looking forward to coming back and 
giving us a full report on their trip to the Arab world. Now they are 
in Russia today.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that the entire world is watching the 
current crisis between Iraq and the international community unfold. 
This is another showdown caused by Saddam Hussein.
  The Iraqi dictator has decided that his weapons-of-mass-destruction 
program is more important than the welfare of his own people. At a time 
when we have been getting reports--in fact, we have seen children 
suffering from malnutrition--this dictator has been building $1.5 
billion in additional palaces. He has already endured 7 years of 
sanctions so that he can develop biological, chemical, and nuclear 
weapons --and the means to deliver them.
  This is a very serious matter. For some time we--and I mean America 
and our allies--have been working to develop a resolution on Iraq that 
has broad bipartisan support and also one that would bring the 
situation under control there by diplomatic efforts hoping to avoid 
military action. But that has not happened yet.
  I believe we are moving toward a consensus in the Senate on a number 
of the key issues that must be addressed as we look to the future. And 
here they are.
  First of all, Saddam Hussein does pose a real threat to the region 
and to

[[Page S709]]

the entire world. I believe the Senate recognizes that. I hope that the 
American people recognize that. This is not a hypothetical danger that 
has been dreamed up by some armchair strategists. There is a long track 
record in this area of actions by Saddam Hussein. He poses a clear and 
present danger without equal in the post-cold-war-world. He is 
dangerous. He is a threat to his neighbors. He is a destabilizing force 
in the whole region. And, yes, he is actually a threat all over the 
world including the United States. This is a man who has already 
invaded two of his neighbors. Iraq has used chemical weapons inside and 
outside its borders. It has launched missiles against Saudi Arabia and 
against Israel. Hussein tried to murder former President George Bush in 
1993.
  Now, we should not make any mistake and think that a military action, 
if it comes to that, is going to rehabilitate Saddam Hussein or even 
eliminate him. He does not have any desire to join the civilized world, 
apparently, and he has shown that he can survive even when the whole 
world has concerns with his conduct and has taken unified action to 
stop his aggression.
  Second, I think there is a consensus in the Senate that military 
force is justified if diplomatic actions fail in responding to the 
threat that Saddam Hussein poses. The threat is serious and our 
response must be serious.
  Now, any military force that is used does entail risks, to our 
military, to our allies and even to our country if there is an attempt 
at retaliation. The American people need to understand that, and we 
need to think about it carefully. And we need to talk about the risks 
that are involved. That is one reason why, when we bring up a 
resolution, if it is necessary--and I assume it will be--we must make 
sure that every Senator who wants to be heard can be heard.
  I remember when we had a similar debate back in the early nineties. I 
think some 80 Senators spoke. Now, this time we won't have 500,000 
troops amassed on the ground ready to go in, but it is still a very 
serious matter, and I want to make sure that we don't try to restrict 
Senators. In fact, we could not. Senator Daschle knows if we asked 
unanimous consent to bring this resolution up today and vote on it in 4 
hours, we would not get it; the Senate is known for its deliberate 
actions. And the longer I stay in the Senate, the more I have learned 
to appreciate it. It does help to give us time to think about the 
potential problems and the risks and the ramifications and to, frankly, 
press the administration. I feel better this week than I did last week 
because of the responses we are getting about how this is being thought 
out and what would be the military action and what will be the long-
term plans to deal with Saddam Hussein. We are beginning to get some 
answers now. I believe the administration is thinking harder about what 
those answers should be because the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, 
has raised these questions, not in a critical way, not in a threatening 
way, but in an honest way of saying, have you thought about this? What 
about this approach? Can we do more? I think that has served a very 
positive purpose.
  Some people have said to me, even back in my own State, ``This is not 
a threat to us. Let them deal with that over there.'' Who? Who is going 
to deal with it? If America does not lead, who is going to lead? Nobody 
else.
  Now, our allies can, should, and, I believe, will join us if action 
is necessary. But we are going to have to lead the way. We are going to 
have to make the tough decisions. And people need to understand that 
this threat could even apply to us. While it may be a direct threat of 
a Scud missile in the region with a chemical warhead even, it could 
very easily be a threat to Paris or some city in the U.S. involving 
anthrax that's been produced by Saddam Hussein.
  These are terrible things to even think about, but you are dealing 
with a person who has already used terrible actions against his own 
people. And so he is not so far removed. We are the ones who have to 
provide the direction. And we have to make sure people understand it is 
a threat to the whole world.
  In my view, the decisive use of force against Iraq coupled with the 
long-term strategy to eliminate the threat entails less risks in the 
long run than allowing Saddam Hussein's actions and ambitions to go 
unchecked. You cannot do it when you are dealing with a situation like 
this. In the words of former Secretary of State Jim Baker, ``The only 
thing we shouldn't do is do nothing.'' We cannot allow that to be the 
result or what we do is nothing.
  The administration has agreed with us that funding for the operations 
in and around Iraq require supplemental appropriations. We had very 
grave concerns by the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and Senator 
Domenici about how much will this cost? How is it going to be paid for? 
We cannot continue to say ``just take it out of your hide'' to the 
Pentagon; it is having an effect on morale, quality of life, on 
readiness and modernization. We already have a very high tempo for our 
military men and women in the Navy and Air Force. We are satisfied that 
they now have made a commitment that they are going to come up and ask 
for funding for both these purposes, in Bosnia and, if necessary, in 
Iraq. And these will be emergency requests so it will not come out of 
necessary improvements in barracks or spare parts for aircraft, which 
are very important.

  There is a consensus on seriously examining now I believe long-term 
policy options to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein. The 
administration and Congress and our allies all look forward to dealing 
with a post-Saddam regime. But the question is how to get there.
  That is intended not to be a threat or say we should violate the law; 
it is intended to start the discussion, start the thinking about how 
can we increase these pressures. And we have to have a strategy to deal 
with whatever comes after the military option. Many things have been 
suggested. Toughen sanctions--not loosen sanctions, toughen sanctions. 
What about an embargo, what about expanding no-fly, no-drive zones? 
What about the support of opposition forces?
  There is a long list of suggestions, some that I will not even put in 
the record here, but they are worth thinking about. Our model should be 
the Reagan doctrine of rollback, not the Truman doctrine of containment 
in this instance. And I don't mean that as critically as it sounds. It 
is just that there are two different doctrines, and the doctrine here 
should be rollback, not containment.
  Despite our areas of agreement that we have clearly reached--Senator 
Daschle and I have been working together making sure every word is 
sanitized in the potential resolution--it is obvious we cannot get it 
done this week for physical reasons as much as anything else. And I 
remind my colleagues and the American people it was 5 months after 
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, 5 months before Congress passed a 
resolution authorizing the use of force to expel him. In this case, we 
have a bipartisan effort, trying to make sure that the right thing is 
going to be done and that the right language is developed. Unlike what 
we had in the early 1990's when the Speaker and majority leader were 
working to defeat the administration's policy, you now have a Speaker 
and a majority leader and the Democratic leader and the minority leader 
in the House all working together with the administration to make sure 
that the language is right and that the actions are right.
  Yes, more time may be needed for diplomacy and more time to think 
about the long-term plans, but a point will come when time will run out 
and action must go forward. When that comes, when U.S. Armed Forces are 
sent into harm's way, by the President of the United States, they will 
have the backing of the Senate and the American people. If the 
President makes the decision to deploy military force against the 
threat posed by Iraq, America will be united, united and praying for 
the safety of our men and women in uniform, united in hoping casualties 
are kept to a minimum, and united in hoping for and supporting a 
successful effort.
  I just want to make that point clear today. Nobody should interpret 
the fact that we don't vote on a resolution today as meaning that we 
are not united in the fundamental principles. We are. But we want to 
make sure that when we do take military action, we have thought about 
all the ramifications and the resolution that we come up with will have 
the involvement of

[[Page S710]]

100 Senators, with 100 Senators being present and voting, and that 
every word is the appropriate word that reflects the best interests of 
the American people.
  So I am pleased to stand here this afternoon and make this statement 
and to assure my colleagues that I will continue to work with every 
Senator on both sides of the aisle to make sure we take the appropriate 
action, if it is necessary, when we return week after next.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I am looking forward to hearing 
Senator Daschle's comments on this subject.
  Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum momentarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I begin by complimenting the majority leader on his 
remarks and on the manner in which he has conducted himself and his 
leadership with regard to this issue. He has noted the strong desire on 
the part of all four leaders in Congress to demonstrate with absolute 
clarity the need for bipartisanship when it comes to sending as clear a 
message as we can. His remarks and his actions have demonstrated that, 
and I support fully his decision not to bring the resolution to the 
floor today.
  Obviously, there are times when matters of this import need to be 
fully discussed and must by their nature involve every Senator. Two of 
the most important Senators to provide contributions to this debate are 
traveling on one of the most important missions related to this whole 
exercise and cannot be with us today.
  In addition to that, we continue to consult with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in an effort to come up with the clearest and most 
accurate statement with regard to the position to be expressed by the 
Senate. So for all of those reasons and many others, Senator Lott and I 
will continue to work with our colleagues and schedule a time that will 
provide for the opportunity for all Senators to be heard and for debate 
to take place on this very important matter.
  But, so that there will be no misunderstanding, we come to the floor 
today jointly--and we will be joined by several others--to speak with 
one voice to condemn in the strongest possible terms Iraq's refusal to 
comply with international law. To condemn Iraq's refusal to fulfill its 
commitments to the international community. To send a clear message to 
Saddam Hussein that American resolve to force Iraqi compliance with 
international law and their own commitments is unwavering; to make 
clear that U.S. national interests are threatened if Saddam Hussein is 
allowed to thwart the international community's efforts to shut down 
his development of weapons of mass destruction programs.
  Although Senator Lott and I come from different political parties and 
may differ on issues from time to time, there ought to be no mistake 
about our position today. We stand united in sending the message to 
Iraq that it has no option other than to comply with the terms of the 
U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  We have chosen to speak together today to send this important message 
as the President and members of his Administration work diligently to 
demonstrate to Iraq and the world the strength of our commitment to 
international security. It is a demonstration of our resolve--which is 
shared by the American people--that Iraq shall not be permitted to 
develop and deploy an arsenal of frightening chemical and biological 
weapons under any circumstances.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requires Iraq to disclose and 
destroy its weapons of mass destruction capabilities and to commit 
unconditionally to never reviving those programs. Resolution 687 
established the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify 
Iraqi compliance with these provisions and required that international 
economic sanctions against Iraq remain in place until those conditions 
are met.
  The Iraqi government has repeatedly and deliberately impeded UNSCOM's 
attempts to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are 
destroyed. The Iraqis have consistently thwarted UNSCOM's efforts to 
conduct their inspections unhindered--despite clear concerns about 
Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities. UNSCOM 
personnel have served admirably under extremely difficult, and often 
dangerous, conditions. In the face of concerted Iraqi intimidation and 
deception, UNSCOM has discovered numerous violations of U.N. Security 
Council resolutions requiring an end to Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction programs. In fact, more Iraqi chemical and biological 
weapons have been destroyed as a result of UNSCOM's inspections than 
during all of Operation Desert Storm.
  Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international 
peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven 
aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and 
on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess 
weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader 
who has used them against his own people.
  It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade 
international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass 
destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its 
mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 
becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the 
global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this 
path.
  Secretaries Albright and Cohen, in their trips to the Persian Gulf 
and elsewhere, are sending the important message that, while the United 
States certainly prefers a diplomatic course, we are willing to use 
force to block Iraq's ability to develop and use an arsenal of chemical 
and biological weapons if diplomatic efforts do not achieve this 
result. While there are clear differences among the leaders they have 
talked with, they have found unanimity on at least 2 issues.
  First, U.N. weapons inspectors must have unfettered access to suspect 
Iraqi sites. Second, Saddam Hussein is solely responsible for creating 
this crisis by not adhering to the Security Council resolutions in the 
first place.
  The foreign ministers of the 6-member Gulf Cooperation Council--Saudi 
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar--stated 
this most clearly just yesterday:

       The current crisis is a direct result of Baghdad's 
     reluctance to cooperate with United Nations weapons 
     inspectors and its determination to defy the will of the 
     international community with respect to the elimination of 
     its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction . . . The only 
     solution to spare the people of Iraq additional hardship and 
     dangers is the Iraqi regime's implementation of the U.N. 
     resolutions which it had previously accepted.

  The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to 
reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with 
Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist--it worsens. 
Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve 
to reverse that threat by force, if force is required And, I must say, 
it has the will.
  Secretary Albright sent the message in its purest form: ``Saddam does 
not have a menu of choices, he has one: Iraq must comply with the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions and provide U.N. inspectors with the 
unfettered access they need to do their job.''
  We are here today to affirm that we and the American people stand 
with the President and the international community in an effort to end 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and preserve our vital 
national and international security interests.
  The Senate has been working on a concurrent resolution expressing 
Congress's concern about Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons 
inspectors and urging the President to respond to this threat. In doing 
so, the Senate has grappled with some of the very difficult issues 
surrounding Congress's role in the decision to use military force. 
Perhaps too much had been made of the differences among Members of 
Congress about exactly how to approach this problem. That is 
understandable. There are always ways

[[Page S711]]

in which to change the wording. But there is no way in which to change 
the message. The message is fundamentally and unequivocally clear, the 
most important message of all. Iraq must comply. There is no choice. We 
stand united in our determination to do whatever is necessary to 
achieve our goal. Iraq must comply. The United States has the resolve 
to ensure that compliance and we stand united today in an effort to 
articulate that very clear message as loudly, as unequivocally, and in 
as much of a bipartisan way as we can.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, no one should doubt for a moment the 
resolve of the United States to respond with force, if necessary, to 
Iraq's continued flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council 
resolutions.
  Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, 
thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a 
peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow 
this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. 
Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to 
stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with.
  Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein and curtail his 
ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind--weapons 
that he has unleashed with chilling alacrity against his own people. 
Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to 
threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, 
our nation.
  Let me take just a moment to recount how we have come to the point 
where military force may be employed in the near future.
  For nearly seven years, Iraq has engaged in a cat and mouse game with 
the international inspectors that comprise the United Nations Special 
Commission. It has obstructed UNSCOM from fulfilling its mandate to 
monitor, investigate, and destroy Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of 
mass destruction.
  In spite of Iraq's tenacious efforts at concealment and obstruction, 
UNSCOM has uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction 
than were destroyed during the entire gulf war. UNSCOM has revealed 
Iraqi lie after Iraqi lie.
  Last October, Iraq threatened to expel all American members of the 
special commission. Ambassador Richard Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, 
responded appropriately by withdrawing all inspectors rather than 
having his staff of professionals segregated on the basis of their 
nationality.
  The ensuing stand-off led to diplomatic intervention by Russia. 
Eventually, Iraq relented by allowing UNSCOM back into the country.
  But the central issue of unconditional and unfettered access by 
UNSCOM was left unresolved. Ambassador Butler visited Baghdad in 
December to try to resolve this issue, but to no avail.
  Then, last month, Iraq refused to cooperate with a team of inspectors 
investigating Iraq's efforts at concealment. It made preposterous 
charges that the American head of the team, Scott Ritter, was a spy.
  During a subsequent visit by Ambassador Butler, Iraq struck a defiant 
note. It vowed never to open so-called ``presidential and sovereign 
sites'' to inspection. In a recent speech, Saddam Hussein stated his 
decision to expel UNSCOM by May 20 if sanctions remain in place.
  The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly condemned Iraq's 
non-compliance. Since October of last year, on seven separate 
occasions, the Security Council has demanded that Iraq fulfill its 
obligations.
  But Saddam Hussein has made clear that it is more important to him to 
retain the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction than it is 
to comply with the resolutions that would allow sanctions to be lifted. 
Once again he has proven what little regard he has for the suffering of 
his people.
  The international community has exhibited enormous patience with 
Iraq. But that patience has reached its limit.
  Time has run out. If Iraq does not comply immediately and 
unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions 
demanding unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors, I believe that 
President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air 
power.
  Unfortunately, we have learned over the past several years that the 
Iraqi Government, and more specifically its leader, only seem to 
understand the blunt language of force.
  In recent weeks, several questions and criticisms have been raised 
with respect to President Clinton's policy. I would like to take a 
moment to respond to some of these comments.
  Questions have been asked about our objectives. The objectives have 
been defined precisely. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Hussein's 
capacity to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his 
ability to threaten his neighbors. We have been told by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff that a military plan has been developed that would 
fulfill these objectives.
  In a sense, the international coalition now assembling forces in the 
Persian Gulf will accomplish through the use of force what UNSCOM would 
be doing were it allowed to do its job. Secretary Cohen has told us 
that there is no substitute for having UNSCOM on the ground, but we are 
left with little choice if UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its 
duties.
  When the objectives have been explained, the next question that 
arises is what are the next steps. But this question is based upon the 
flawed premise that the use of force reflects a new policy. In fact, 
the use of force for the purposes outlined by the President is an 
integral part of the long-standing policy of containing Iraq.
  Containment is a very unsatisfying policy at an emotional level. It 
lacks finality and it requires patience and staying power. But it meets 
our strategic objective of preventing Iraq from threatening our 
national security interests.
  Containment is the best of three bad options available to us. The 
other two options would be to do nothing, or to send in several hundred 
thousand ground troops to occupy Iraq. Neither of these policies is 
viable.
  Doing nothing would encourage Iraqi defiance and lead to a complete 
collapse of the constraints that have been placed upon Iraqi behavior 
since the end of the gulf war. It would be the surest way to 
rehabilitate Saddam Hussein.
  Just as unpalatable is the prospect of sending in several hundred 
thousand ground troops to change the Iraqi regime. I believe that there 
is little support for such an operation in the Congress or the public. 
It would also raise a series of questions:
  Would we be prepared to occupy and rebuild Iraq over a period of 
several years?
  Would we be prepared for the real possibility that a march on Baghdad 
might lead Saddam Hussein to unleash his weapons of mass destruction?
  Would any other nation support us for an action that is clearly 
outside the bounds of security council resolutions? To this point those 
resolutions have provided the basis for all U.S. military action 
against Iraq since the gulf war.
  In the end, the only policy that stands up to scrutiny is that of 
containment, which the Clinton administration has followed and the Bush 
administration before it followed.
  Finally, another question that has arisen is whether the President 
should obtain specific authorization to use force. I believe that the 
President would be wise to obtain such authorization.
  The executive branch contends that it already has sufficient legal 
authority, under Public Law 102-1--the use of force resolution passed 
by Congress before the gulf war. The argument, as I understand it, may 
be summarized as follows:
  In Public Law 102-1, Congress authorized the President to use United 
States Armed Forces:
  ``Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. 
Security Council Resolution 678, passed by the Council in November, 
1990, authorized members of the United Nations to ``use all necessary 
means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) (The resolution 
which called for Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait) and all subsequent 
relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in 
the [Persian Gulf] area.''
  Following the gulf war, in April, 1991, the Security Council passed 
Resolution 687, which set the terms of the cease-

[[Page S712]]

fire and required Iraq to accept the destruction or removal, under 
international supervision, of its weapons of mass destruction. By its 
terms, it reaffirmed Resolution 678, and all prior council resolutions 
regarding Iraq.
  Because Security Council Resolution 678 provided broad authority for 
nations to enforce ``all subsequent relevant resolutions'' and ``to 
restore peace and security in the area,'' and, because peace and 
security has not been restored to the Persian Gulf--indeed, Iraq is 
currently in violation of the cease-fire resolution--then the 
resolutions from 1990 and 1991, both by the Security Council and 
Congress, the administration contends, would still have legal force.
  Moreover, Congress has never modified or repealed Public Law 102-1, 
so absent further congressional action, and absent the restoration of 
peace and security to the gulf, the President still has the legal 
authority to use military action against Iraq. Or so the 
administration's argument goes.
  As a strong advocate of Congress exercising its powers under the 
Constitution in authorizing the use of force, I must admit to some 
skepticism about this theory. In my own research of the question, I 
have consulted several eminent constitutional scholars. My conclusion 
is that the administration's argument may be legally tenable--if barely 
so--and would probably be sustained in a court of law.
  But merely because the position may be legally sufficient--and the 
courts are notoriously deferential to the executive in matters of war 
and peace (if they agree to consider the case at all)--I do not believe 
it would be wise precedent, or wise policy, of the President to proceed 
with renewed military action against Iraq without a clear 
authorization, newly enacted by this Congress. Indeed, because the 
question is a close one--and because we have a different President than 
we did in 1991, and a significant change in the membership of Congress 
since that time--it would be prudent for President Clinton to seek a 
new expression of legal authorization from Congress.
  Mr. President, we should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution 
to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if 
it becomes necessary.
  We have little choice in this matter. Important principles and vital 
national interests are at stake.
  First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass 
destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The 
current regime in Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated its aggressive 
tendencies toward its neighbors. It has also displayed a callous 
willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims.
  Recently, we have heard chilling reports of possible biological 
weapons experiments on humans. An UNSCOM Inspector has spoken of 
information that points to a secret biological weapons production 
facility. And Ambassador Richard Butler has told us that Iraq could 
well have missile warheads filled with anthrax capable of striking Tel 
Aviv.
  An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. 
We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if 
we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a 
firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward 
protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation.
  Second, a failure to uphold United Nations resolutions would diminish 
the credibility of the Security Council. As much as we might like to 
deal with every threat we face on our own, in reality it is impractical 
and unrealistic. Instinctively, we all know that we are much better off 
when we have the support of the international community when facing 
common threats.
  But in order for the Security Council to respond effectively to 
threats to international peace and security that might arise in the 
future, it is important that those who would violate the will of the 
international community pay a steep price for their actions. Iraq 
offers an important test case for the Security Council. Capitulating to 
Iraqi defiance could spell a dismal future for the Security Council in 
handling the central matters of international peace and security for 
which it was created.
  I hope that the Russians, French, and Chinese keep in mind that it is 
not in their interest to see the authority of the Security Council 
diminished.
  It is difficult to overstate the stakes involved.
  Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue 
is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can 
keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an 
unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the 
most brutal dictators of this century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, too, want to commend our two 
leaders for working together on this very important issue. I think all 
of us believe that it is our responsibility, as the U.S. Senate, to 
work in a bipartisan way with the President of the United States on an 
issue as grave as attacking another country and sending our troops into 
harm's way. I believe the administration will work with this Congress 
and I believe we will have a comfort level that there is a plan and 
that our troops will be sent on a mission that is very clear. That is 
what this is all about.
  The message we are sending to Saddam Hussein today is clear: You may 
either join the community of nations, abide by the resolutions of the 
United Nations, or there will be serious consequences. I don't know 
anyone who disagrees with that proposition.
  We have often debated the importance of international arms control 
agreements, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty among others. What is clear is that without the resolve 
of the international community to enforce these standards, they are 
meaningless. Saddam Hussein has threatened the peace in the Middle East 
before. His people have suffered mightily for it. But even at that time 
he did not deploy weapons of mass destruction. We cannot provide him a 
second chance.
  International inspectors have concluded that he is continuing to 
develop an arsenal of these horrible weapons. He has used them in the 
past, so why wouldn't we believe that he would use them again, unless 
he is stopped? Just to put this in perspective, when you talk about 
chemical weapons or biological weapons, someone may say, ``So, what is 
that? Does that make that much difference? Is that really something 
that could harm the neighbors of Iraq, or harm the people of any other 
country?''
  Anthrax is one of these weapons. A few pounds--think of what that is. 
It's something that is about this big. A few pounds of anthrax could 
wipe out a city the size of Washington, DC. We know that Saddam Hussein 
has the capability to produce this type of weapon. We know he has Scud 
missiles, we have seen them. Put that on top of a Scud missile and what 
does that do to the security of the neighbors of Iraq?
  Chemical or biological agents could be introduced into the water 
supply of any city and kill thousands of people. That is the kind of 
weapon we are talking about. So, if you are talking about, is this 
really an issue? Is this something that we need to stop? I just ask 
you, if a few pounds of this kind of agent can kill the inhabitants of 
a city the size of Washington, DC, who in the world is safe, if someone 
is manufacturing these and has used them on innocent people before?
  The United States led in the gulf war. We will lead again. And we 
will do so with the support of the American people. We are going to 
stand against nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of 
someone so irresponsible as Saddam Hussein, who has a record that is 
known of killing innocent people. We look for support from the 
international community as we had it in Desert Storm, and as I hope we 
can count on for the future.
  We must not let there be a doubt of the resolve of the American 
people. Saddam Hussein must know that we speak with one voice. We need 
the resumption of inspections, for Saddam Hussein to show that he wants 
to be a part of the international community. Military force is 
justified as part of an overall strategy. Our leader has said that. 
What Congress will be looking

[[Page S713]]

for, what the American people will be looking for from the President 
and his advisers, is an overall strategy so we know what we are looking 
at, what our troops are going to be asked to do; so that we can provide 
our troops with all the means they need to do the job and the 
protection they need when they are in the field.
  I hope that part of an overall strategy will be the beginning of the 
communication directly with the people of Iraq, with the good and 
decent people who have fled the country, to say we want to support you 
and we want you to know that the weapons that are being held could be 
totally deadly to you, to your children, and to the people that live 
throughout the country of Iraq. What we want to do is make that a safe 
area so the people will be free and so they can join the community of 
nations for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Our forces are 
prepared. They will be capable of dealing a harsh lesson once again. I 
hope it will not be necessary.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to express my personal gratitude 
to the Senate majority leader, to the Senate Democratic leader, to my 
colleague from Texas who has just spoken for their eloquent statements, 
but really more for the unmistakable message that they send, which is 
that there are ultimately times of conflict abroad that involve the 
vital interests of the United States, as the current situation in Iraq 
does, no Democrats, no Republicans, only Americans standing side by 
side in support of the Commander in Chief and all those Americans in 
uniform who serve under him.
  That, I hope, is the message that will be heard in Baghdad, most 
importantly. If the Commander in Chief of the United States decides 
that military force is necessary to be employed against Iraq, the 
overwhelming majority of Members of the U.S. Senate will stand strongly 
behind him and behind those American personnel in uniform who will 
carry out that policy.
  Mr. President, the statements of the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader are the finest examples of bipartisanship and 
statesmanship. They remind us, though there may be disagreements in 
this Chamber on partisan lines, that, again, when challenged, when it 
comes to America's vital interests abroad, we will stand together above 
party lines.
  The administration has been very accessible, very forthcoming in 
consulting with both Houses of Congress about the challenge that Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq represent to us and to the security of our allies in 
the region and our soldiers in the region and of the world in general. 
I think we have to express our appreciation to the administration for 
that dialog that continues.
  What is at stake in Iraq today? For one, something that might be 
considered quaint in some quarters, meaningless in other quarters, 
international agreements are at stake, agreements to end the gulf war, 
promises made by Saddam Hussein about allowing inspections which would 
enable us--the world--to guarantee that he was keeping his promises to 
disarm, a request justifiably made by the victorious forces in 
Operation Desert Storm and required of those who were vanquished in 
that conflict. So it is the integrity of these agreements, in the first 
instance, that is at stake.
  Secondly, there are consequences, which is the threat that Saddam 
Hussein will use those weapons of mass destruction that we know he has; 
that he will use the ballistic missile, the delivery system capacity to 
deliver those weapons of mass destruction that we know he has in 
rudiment and is developing even further.
  We know, as one of my colleagues said a moment ago--I believe it was 
Senator Daschle--unlike other leaders in the world, including 
dictatorial leaders of rogue nations who possess weapons of mass 
destruction, this particular leader, Saddam Hussein, has used those 
weapons against his neighbor, Iran, in the Iran-Iraq war in the 
eighties, and against the Kurdish population of his own country.
  So our anger, our anxiety, our unease, our judgment that we have 
vital interests at stake is not theoretical. It is based on a course of 
behavior by this particular leader of this particular nation. We went 
through the entire cold war with enormous amounts of nuclear power in 
our hands and in the hands of the Soviet leaders, but there was, in the 
end, a kind of understanding based on a strange form of civilized 
premise, which is that those weapons would not ultimately be used, and 
they were not ultimately used. I don't think we can reach that same 
conclusion about this leader based on his own course of behavior.
  There is a way in which there is a line to be drawn in this case, 
just as we drew a line in the post-cold-war-world, when Saddam invaded 
Kuwait and threatened our neighbors and vital economic interests and 
energy supplies in that region and we acted, reacted and reacted 
forcefully and rolled him back. Just as in Bosnia, we saw ethnic 
conflict could divide Europe and create broader conflict there, and we 
acted and stopped it. So, too, in this case, we are called upon to show 
that we are willing to draw a line, a preventive line, against those 
who possess weapons of mass destruction--chemical and biological; some 
have called them the poor nations' nuclear weapons--that we will draw a 
line and say we won't tolerate it. We are going to act to impose a 
regime of promises to disarm and if those promises are not kept, the 
international community will act to enforce them.
  We have vital interests at stake in the region. We have thousands of 
soldiers there within range of these weapons of Saddam Hussein. We have 
allies in the region in the moderate Arab nations and in Israel, and we 
have vital economic interests in the oil supply in that region.
  Mr. President, the fact is that all of those interests, all that we 
have at stake there--international promises made by Saddam as a 
condition to the end of the cold war, the threat of weapons of mass 
destruction and delivery systems, the vital interests in the region, 
the necessity to draw a line against the use of chemical and biological 
poisons, which all of the military experts tell us will characterize 
and intensify the security threats to our region and most of the rest 
of the world in the next century--all of those threats are not just to 
the United States, they are surely to our allies in the region and are 
to most of the rest of the world.

  That is perhaps why so many nations have come to our side as we face 
the reality that the United Nations, not the United States, tell us of 
the refusal of Saddam Hussein to allow the inspections that he promised 
and, therefore, the fact that we have gone now more than 5 months with 
those sites uninspected and day by day the threat rises.
  That is why our closest and most steadfast ally, Britain, have joined 
us, are ready to stand and fly side by side with us. But they are not 
alone. Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel and 
a growing number of others are prepared to join us.
  As much as we are heartened by this support, we don't see the same 
range of the coalition that we had leading up to the gulf war. Maybe 
that is understandable because the threat that the current crisis poses 
is not as immediate and accomplished, it is mostly imminent. In 1990, 
Saddam Hussein invaded his neighbor Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia 
and the rest of the Persian Gulf states, oil-producing states. In that 
circumstance, with a danger that was real and experienced, it was 
easier to assemble the broad-based coalition that we did.
  Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, 
but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the 
real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, 
because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, 
under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; 
it is enormous.
  Therefore, I hope, though the circumstance may not be as clear, that 
other nations that have not yet forcefully expressed their willingness 
to stand with us and Britain and the other allies I mentioned will come 
to an understanding of that. It has been my hope all along that if the 
United States continued to lead, as we have, that the full range of 
coalition allies would, once again, stand by our side.
  I always remember the Biblical evocation which is, if the sound of 
the

[[Page S714]]

trumpet is not clear, then who will follow in battle? If the sound of 
the trumpet is clear, then I hope that the widest range of other 
nations in the world will follow into battle, if that is necessary, not 
simply to follow our leadership, but because their vital interests are 
at stake, in the resolution of this problem.
  Mr. President, I think the administration has made clear, and that is 
why I believe there is broad support for the possible attacks that may 
occur on Iraq, that its goals here are limited. If air attacks occur, 
these are not acts of revenge, these are not punitive acts which have 
no meaning. These would be acts and attacks that are aimed at 
accomplishing what the inspections were supposed to accomplish, that 
are aimed at accomplishing what the gulf war cease-fire agreement was 
supposed to accomplish, which is the diminution and ultimately the 
elimination of Iraq's capacity to wage chemical, biological or nuclear 
war against its neighbors or ultimately anyone in the world. That 
limited goal may not satisfy some people, but it is a reasonable goal 
at this time, and it is a goal that I think ultimately and effectively 
will enjoy the broadest support in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, there are those who say, ``Well, what next? What if 
this doesn't work?'' I am confident it will work. When I say it will 
work, I mean I have the confidence the United States military has the 
capacity to strike at Iraq in a way that will, in fact, incapacitate, 
debilitate, postpone the ability of that country under Saddam Hussein 
to inflict damage on its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. So 
that goal will be accomplished.
  I think the question of what is next is an appropriate topic of 
discussion. Some people say we should pull back and wait and see what, 
in that initial time of that military strike, if it occurs, it will 
gain us, to see whether diplomacy can work again, to see if we can 
build the fullness of the coalition and again confront Saddam with the 
opportunity to comply with the promises he previously made.
  Others, and I number myself among this group, are very skeptical of 
that policy. Diplomacy is always preferable to the use of force, and 
yet, I myself remain profoundly skeptical that an acceptable diplomatic 
resolution to this conflict is possible.
  It is a painful and sad conclusion, but it is based not on animus 
toward that country, certainly not animus toward the people of Iraq, 
but it is based on the record. The record I need not cite in detail, 
but we know about the violent way in which Saddam Hussein seized power 
in Iraq, eliminating those of his fellow Iraqis who were in his way, 
about the violent and dictatorial way in which he has ruled. Life 
doesn't matter when you stand in the way of him; of the means that he 
used to conduct the war against Iran, including weapons of mass 
destruction; of his invasion of Kuwait; of his flaunting of the very 
agreements he made to end the gulf war; of the taunting of the 
international community that he represents today.
  Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political 
situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we 
have something in our law called ``three strikes and you are out,'' 
three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on 
you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the 
international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have 
grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here.
  What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-
term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic 
solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the 
changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we 
and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships. That is 
not going to be simple. It is not going to come overnight. It involves 
an effort to work with Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein, to use some 
of the same methods that were used in the cold war, something as simple 
and yet as effective as Radio Free Europe which spoke so powerfully to 
the hopes and dreams of people who lived so long under the tyranny of 
the Soviets, the Communists, and do the same for the people who live 
under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, to work with our allies to build 
the kind of alternative that will raise our hopes for peace in that 
region of the world.

  Those discussions about what may follow an air attack on Iraq are 
important. They are not easy. They deserve to be debated.
  For now I think what is most important is that people of both parties 
have come together on the floor of the Senate to speak to this 
challenge to international law, to America's vital interests, and to 
say, directly or indirectly, ``Mr. President, if you, as Commander in 
Chief, act in this circumstance, in this crisis, you and the troops who 
serve under you will have broad bipartisan support in the U.S. 
Senate.''
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)


           iraq's threat to international peace and security

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to express my support for 
President Clinton, in consultation with Congress and consistent with 
the United States Constitution and laws, taking necessary and 
appropriate actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by 
Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
  I am presently in Moscow accompanying Secretary of Defense William 
Cohen on a trip that has taken us to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the 
United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.
  I believe that it would be useful to briefly review some of the 
historical record relating to Iraq's compliance with United Nations 
Security Council resolutions leading up to the present crisis.
  United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990, 
condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded that it withdraw 
its forces from Kuwait. The Security Council's Resolution 678 of 
November 29, 1990, affirmed by Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991, 
authorized the use of all necessary means to restore international 
peace and security. During this period and up to the actual use of 
force by the United States-led coalition, there were a series of 
diplomatic efforts to convince the government of Saddam Hussein to 
withdraw from Kuwait. But Saddam Hussein didn't get it.
  Following the Gulf War, the Security Council continued the economic 
and weapons sanctions on Iraq that were imposed after it invaded 
Kuwait. The Security Council conditioned the lifting of the sanctions 
on Iraq's accepting the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, 
under international supervision, of its nuclear, chemical, and 
biological weapons programs and all ballistic missiles with a range 
greater than 150 kilometers. Despite the crippling international 
economic sanctions that have been imposed on his country by the 
international community, Saddam Hussein still didn't get it.
  In recognition of the need to reduce the harm to the Iraqi people 
that were caused by Saddam Hussein's misadventures, the Security 
Council on August 15, 1991, in Resolution 706, authorized the sale of 
Iraqi oil for the dual purpose of the payment of claims against Iraq 
and for the purchase of foodstuffs, medicines, materials and supplies 
for essential civilian humanitarian needs. That authorization was made 
subject to the Security Council's approval of a plan for such sales and 
for international monitoring and supervision to assure their equitable 
distribution in all regions of Iraq and to all categories of the Iraqi 
civilian population. But Saddam Hussein rejected the plan. It wasn't 
until a Memorandum of Understanding on the plan was signed by Iraq and 
the United Nations on May 20, 1996, and after several additional months 
of contentious negotiations on implementation details, that Iraq 
finally began pumping oil on December 10, 1996. That was more than 5 
years after the Security Council authorized such action. Saddam Hussein 
still didn't get it.
  There were several major confrontations between Iraq and the 
international community over access for United Nations Special 
Commission on Iraq or UNSCOM inspectors between May 1991 and June 1993. 
That pattern of confrontation was repeated on numerous occasions from 
March 1996 to October 1997. Since that time, the situation worsened 
until Iraq agreed that

[[Page S715]]

UNSCOM could return to Iraq unconditionally. Although UNSCOM 
inspections resumed on November 21, 1997, access was denied to 
presidential palaces and many other sites, and in mid-January 1998, an 
inspection team headed by an American was blocked. By the way, there 
are many dozens of these palaces. Some have grounds as large as 
Washington D.C. They are suspect weapons of mass destruction sites as 
long as access is denied.
  And so we have reached the present moment in time in which Iraq is 
blocking the UNSCOM inspectors from performing their mission on behalf 
of the international community. Saddam Hussein still doesn't get it.
  Mr. President, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan stated it 
well at a press conference on February 2 when he said:

       I think no one in the Council is pushing for the use of 
     force in the first instance. All those who are talking about 
     it are looking at it as a last resort. We hope that President 
     Saddam Hussein, for the sake of the Iraqi people, who have 
     suffered so much, will listen to the messages that are being 
     taken to him by these senior envoys from Russia, from France, 
     from people in the region, leaders in the region and 
     elsewhere, and really avoid taking his people through another 
     confrontation. They don't need it; the region doesn't need 
     it; and the world certainly can do without it. And so, 
     hopefully, the leadership will have the courage, the wisdom 
     and the concern for its own people to take us back from the 
     brink.

  Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam 
Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause 
him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that 
Saddam Hussein will finally get it.
  Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs 
and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and 
security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the 
Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and 
credibility of the United Nations Security Council.
  Mr. President, as I noted earlier, I have visited a number of 
countries in the Middle East with Secretary Cohen. In each country, we 
have met with the head of state. We've had a series of very positive 
meetings in every country. We're very confident that the support that 
is needed and has been requested from these countries would be 
forthcoming if diplomatic efforts fail to get Saddam Hussein to comply 
and if there is a military strike. They all say, in various ways, 
basically the same thing--he must comply with U.N. Security Council 
resolutions and, if he fails to comply and if there is military action, 
the responsibility is his and his alone since he has the key to a 
peaceful solution, which is compliance with the U.N. resolutions. And 
we are assured privately that we will have their support if diplomatic 
efforts fail and if military action is necessary.
  Mr. President, yesterday the Gulf Cooperation Council at the 
Ministerial level issued a statement concerning the Iraqi crisis. I ask 
that the text of the statement by printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks. That statement included the following and I 
quote:

       The Ministerial Council has stressed that the current 
     crisis is created by the Iraqi regime alone as a result of 
     its non-cooperation with the international inspectors and its 
     challenge to the will of the international community. This 
     non-cooperation threatens Iraq with severe dangers. The 
     Council expresses its conviction that responsibility for the 
     result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.

  Further, General Zinni, the Commander in Chief of the Central Command 
(CINCENT), has personally advised us that, in his professional opinion, 
the United States has the support from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf 
nations needed to meet the requirements of the CINCCENT plan to execute 
a successful military operation, should it be necessary.
  Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. 
The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he 
has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his 
weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result 
in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's 
ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten 
international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection 
and destruction, it is still a worthy goal.
  The statement follows:

                        Gulf Cooperation Council

       The dangerous circumstances and the critical situation the 
     region is witnessing, which has resulted from the crisis 
     which the Iraqi regime has created with the international 
     inspectors belonging to the special committee assigned the 
     task of destroying Iraqi WMD, and by refusing to cooperate 
     with the international inspectors while not allowing them to 
     carry out their duties by imposing conditions and creating 
     obstacles represents a clear violation of the Security 
     Council resolutions related to Iraq's aggression on the state 
     of Kuwait.
       The Ministerial Council has discussed these developments 
     and what they involve in terms of actual dangers which 
     threaten the security and stability of the region.
       The Ministerial Council notes the international community's 
     consensus and its insistence on Iraq implementing the 
     Security Council resolutions in full; it places the 
     responsibility for the delays in implementing those 
     resolutions on Iraq. These delays will lead to continuation 
     of the sanctions imposed on Iraq under which the Iraqi people 
     suffer. The GCC people are concerned by this suffering and 
     place the responsibility for it on the Iraqi regime alone.
       The Ministerial Council has stressed that the current 
     crisis is created by the Iraqi regime alone as a result of 
     its non-cooperation with the international inspectors and its 
     challenge to the will of the international community. This 
     non-cooperation threatens Iraq with sever dangers. The 
     council expresses its conviction that responsibility for the 
     result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself. The 
     council also stresses that it is not reasonable or acceptable 
     anymore that the Iraqi regime takes unilateral measures to 
     complicate conditions which threaten it with more severe and 
     dangerous consequences while at the same time placing the 
     responsibility for such measures on the Arab nation and the 
     international community.
       Bearing in mind that the council has not abandoned and 
     continues to support any peaceful approach, the severe 
     results from what might happen are to be borne by the Iraqi 
     regime alone. In spite of the numerous efforts which a number 
     of Arab and international parties have exerted to convince 
     Iraq to retreat from its position by allowing the 
     international inspectors to carry out their duties without 
     any hindrance or condition, the Iraqi regime has continued 
     with its intransigence. Not caring about the dangerous 
     consequences which could result from this stance.
       And in this tense environment, which presages dangers, the 
     council expresses its belief that the only way to save the 
     Iraqi people from the dangers and suffering to which they 
     have been subjected is by the Iraqi regime implementing the 
     resolutions which the international community has reached by 
     consensus and which Iraq has accepted, in accordance with the 
     program of this special commission the implementation of 
     which no one has disputed.
       In order to avoid the Iraqi brotherly people being 
     subjected to the dangerous consequences of this crisis, the 
     council asks the Iraqi regime to yield to the efforts made to 
     implement all the commitments asked of it by removing the 
     barriers/obstacles which it has imposed on the tasks of the 
     international inspectors in preparation for reducing the 
     sanctions and lifting the suffering of the Iraqi brotherly 
     people.
       The council stresses again its firm stance on the need to 
     preserve the independence and sovereignty of Iraq, its 
     territorial integrity and its regional security. The council 
     has decided to continue communications between the member 
     countries to follow the developments and this session will 
     remain open.

  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, under the 
previous order, has 30 minutes. The Senator from Maine was here before 
he was. Will he let her----
  Mr. BYRD. I am seeking recognition first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Now, if the distinguished Senator from Maine would prefer 
to go ahead, I would be happy to await her.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Does the Senator from West Virginia yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I just wanted to establish my right under the rules--which 
I sought recognition. The fact that another Senator has been here does 
not mean anything under the rules, but I am happy to yield and have the 
Senator proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for not 
to exceed 10 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from 
West Virginia for his courtesy.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1648 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S716]]

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed in morning business until the Senator from West 
Virginia comes to the floor to give his statement. I ask unanimous 
consent for only 5 minutes or until such time as the Senator arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________