[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1867-S1874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by our distinguished 
majority leader to request that we now proceed to Calendar No. 322, 
relative to the war crimes, under the provisions of the consent 
agreement entered into on March 9, 1998.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution 
by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 78) relating to the 
     indictment and prosecution of Saddam Hussein for war crimes 
     and other crimes against humanity.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked me to 
express his intention to have a vote on this resolution occur tomorrow 
at around 9:30 a.m. and the majority leader notes that he will inform 
all Members as to when that vote is set by unanimous consent.
  The majority leader has also asked me to announce--if I may have the 
attention of the majority leader on this part--the majority leader has 
asked me to announce that there will be no further rollcall votes this 
afternoon. I hesitate to do that on my own, but, with Senator Lott 
here--and he says, now, the vote will be fixed with precision at 9:30 
in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this resolution has been offered by 
Senator Dorgan and myself. The most expeditious way to move to the 
import of the resolution is to read the ``resolved'' clause. It is as 
follows:

       That the President should:
       (1) call for the creation of a commission under the 
     auspices of the United Nations to establish an international 
     record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein, and 
     other Iraqi officials;
       (2) call for the United Nations to form an international 
     criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, 
     and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who 
     are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and 
     other violations of international law; and
       (3) upon the creation of such an international criminal 
     tribunal, take steps necessary, including the reprogramming 
     of funds, to ensure United States support for efforts to 
     bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to justice.

  This move to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal is the most recent 
in a series of moves to establish the international rule of law with an 
international criminal court. The antecedent for this activity lay in 
the international military tribunal at Nuremberg, which was convened to 
try individuals for crimes against international law committed during 
World War II. The Nuremberg tribunal provisions stated that:

       Crimes against international law are committed by men, not 
     abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who 
     commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be 
     enforced.

  That statement is as valid today as it was in 1946. For more than a 
decade, many of us in the Congress of the United States have sought to 
create an international criminal court to deal with crimes against 
humanity and other international crimes. Senator Dodd and I have 
authored a series of resolutions in the U.S. Senate. In the House of 
Representatives, under the leadership of Congressman Jim Leach, a 
number of resolutions have been offered. The international criminal 
court is moving forward, with a realistic likelihood of the 
establishment of such an international criminal court in the not too 
far distant future. And, in the interim, the War Crimes Tribunal has

[[Page S1868]]

been established by the United Nations to try crimes against humanity 
from the former Yugoslavia, the offenses committed in Bosnia and 
related territories, and for crimes against humanity committed in 
Rwanda.
  The War Crimes Tribunal is in existence. I have had the opportunity 
to visit it on three occasions to see the operation of the Tribunal. It 
would be merely an extension of the War Crimes Tribunal to include the 
import of the current resolution so that Saddam Hussein could be tried 
as a war criminal.
  The specifics are that in 1988 the Iraqi Government, under the 
direction of Saddam Hussein, carried out a systematic campaign to 
destroy the Kurdish population in Iraq. Kurdish leaders estimated the 
death toll of this campaign at between 50,000 and 182,000.
  On March 16, 1988, Iraqi aircraft bombed the city of Halabja, then in 
the hands of Iranian-supported Kurdish rebels. That bombing was with 
chemical weapons, and more than 5,000 women and children died in that 
attack.
  Iraqi chemical weapons were used in 1982 to 1984 in the Iran-Iraq 
war. The Iraqis developed their proficiency in chemical weapons 
gradually during the war with Iran. The Iraqis initially used chemical 
weapons against the Iranians in 1982, and the next recorded deployment 
was in July 1983, when the Iraqis used mustard gas against an Iranian 
force. Large quantities of mustard gas were used in November 1983 and 
February 1984. They may also have used a nerve agent in the February 
1984 attack.
  With respect to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, from January 18, 1991, to 
February 25, 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud conventional warhead missiles at 
Israel in 18 separate attacks, killing 2 persons directly, killing 12 
people indirectly, and injuring more than 200 persons.
  On December 18, 1990, Amnesty International issued a report that 
stated Iraq tortured or executed hundreds of Kuwaitis suspected of 
conducting guerrilla warfare against Iraqi forces. Thousands of 
Kuwaitis were arrested for resisting Iraqi orders. Amnesty 
International also reported that some 312 premature babies died after 
the Iraqi troops stole their incubators.
  Iraq committed deliberate and calculated crimes of environmental 
terrorism in the region by its willful ignition of more than 700 
Kuwaiti oil wells in February 1991.
  In the spring of 1993, the Government of Kuwait informed the U.S. 
administration that it had discovered evidence that Iraq sponsored an 
attempt to assassinate former President Bush and destabilize Kuwait 
during his April 14, 15, and 16 visit to Kuwait. The Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and other U.S. intelligence agencies were sent to Kuwait 
to conduct their own investigation and reported back to the President 
on June 24, 1993, that their findings confirmed the view that Iraq was 
behind the plot.
  Iraq denied that it attempted to assassinate the President. But the 
proof, being overwhelming, led the United States, on June 26, 1993, to 
launch 23 Tomahawk missiles at Iraqi intelligence headquarters.
  On June 28, 1993, President Clinton sent the Congress a letter 
describing the missile attack on Iraq being ``consistent with the War 
Powers Resolution.''
  This is a very brief summary of the war crimes committed by Saddam 
Hussein and others. We have found on the international scene the 
conduct of Saddam Hussein to be reprehensible in many other respects. 
Saddam Hussein has flagrantly violated the U.N. resolutions, carrying 
the world to the brink of conflict and then backing down at the last 
minute. It would be a very salutary matter to have Saddam Hussein 
indicted and tried as a war criminal. It is obvious that taking Saddam 
Hussein into custody is a very complex matter and perhaps impossible 
without an enormous military force. By 20/20 hindsight, Saddam Hussein 
should have been taken into custody in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but 
that is 20/20 hindsight.
  There have been a number of calls to have Saddam Hussein toppled. It 
is not beyond the realm of possibility that insurgent forces within 
Iraq could lead a revolution. The United States could lend the Voice of 
America to those efforts. The United States could, consistent with 
international practices, support those who would move against Saddam 
Hussein, and in the context where action is contemplated against Saddam 
Hussein, a resolution for the trial of Saddam Hussein as a war 
criminal, the indictment itself, the trial, even if in absentia, could 
give the United States a high moral ground and warrant our action in 
toppling Saddam Hussein.
  I am joined at this time by my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Dorgan, who is a cosponsor of the resolution. I yield the floor to 
Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, I compliment Senator Specter from 
Pennsylvania, since he is the original author of this resolution on an 
international criminal tribunal for Iraq. I very much appreciate his 
leadership, and I know the Senate appreciates that leadership as well.
  This is the right subject. It is something the Senate needs to be 
discussing. I hope very much that tomorrow, when we vote on this 
resolution, the Senate will overwhelmingly approve it.
  Recently, in the country of Iraq, a state-controlled newspaper 
proposed that Saddam Hussein be given the Nobel Peace Prize. I doubt 
whether many Americans would believe that Saddam Hussein would qualify 
for the Nobel Peace Prize. The only ceremony I believe Saddam Hussein 
ought to attend in the near future is a war crimes trial. And I expect, 
in the future, if there were a war crimes trial to be held--and I hope 
this legislation will be the catalyst to make that happen--I expect in 
the future no one will again suggest a Nobel Peace Prize for a 
convicted war criminal.
  Why do we say there should be an international tribunal to try Saddam 
Hussein and other leaders of Iraq for war crimes?
  First of all, there is precedent for it, as Senator Specter 
indicated. In Nuremberg, at the end of World War II, over 200 Nazi 
leaders were tried between 1945 and 1949. Thirty-seven of them were 
sentenced to death, 23 to life in prison, and 101 to shorter prison 
terms.
  There is an international tribunal for Rwanda at work right now. 
Three trials are underway. Thirty-one suspects have been indicted, and 
nearly all of them are in custody.
  The international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has indicted 79 
suspects, of whom 24 are now in custody.
  I believe that an international tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and 
other Iraqi leaders for war crimes should follow on these models. A 
tribunal for Iraq should be constituted by the United Nations, and war 
crimes trials should begin.
  Iraq's crimes against peace include two wars of aggression: the Iran-
Iraq war in which Iraq invaded Iran, and the Persian Gulf war, in which 
Iraq invaded its southern neighbor, Kuwait.
  War crimes committed by Iraqi forces against civilians in Kuwait 
include extrajudicial and political killings, acts of torture, rapes of 
civilian women, pillage and looting--all crimes under the Fourth Geneva 
Convention, which requires wartime protections for civilians.

  Iraqi troops committed crimes against third country nationals. They 
prevented Western and Arab refugees from leaving Iraq and Kuwait. They 
carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions. Iraq even resorted to 
hostage taking and use of hostages as human shields.
  The Iraqi government committed crimes against prisoners of war. It 
used physical and mental torture to coerce POWs to reveal information. 
It used prisoners of war as human shields, and it displayed injured 
prisoners of war on Iraqi TV.
  Iraq committed crimes against diplomats and embassies: it abducted 
people with diplomatic immunity, and it seized and blockaded embassies 
in Kuwait.
  So Mr. President, the list of war crimes during the Persian Gulf War 
is a lengthy one. However, Iraq's criminal record goes back further 
than that.
  Human Rights Watch has written extensively about the Anfal campaign 
against the Kurds living in northern Iraq. This campaign was a policy 
of systematic and deliberate murder. Human Rights Watch concluded that 
the Iraqi government killed at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 
100,000 Kurds.

[[Page S1869]]

  The Anfal campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish 
villages and the murder, disappearance, and extermination by chemical 
weapons or the forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. 
This was ethnic cleansing before the term was invented.
  Even worse, the Anfal campaign included chemical weapons. A U.S. 
Government white paper says there were ``numerous Iraqi chemical 
attacks against civilian villages in 1987 and 1988.'' The white paper 
lists 10 instances of Iraqi chemical attacks and says that Iraq 
``delivered. . .Mustard 5 agent and the nerve gases Sarin and Tabun in 
aerial bombs, spray dispensers, 120-mm rockets and several types of 
artillery.''
  Iraq possesses a chemical weapons program and a biological weapons 
program. Its chemical stockpile contained 40,000 chemical weapons 
munitions; 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents; and 8 delivery 
systems.
  Iraq's biological weapons arsenal included 8,500 liters of anthrax; 
19,000 liters of botulinum toxin; and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. This 
program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which 
Iraq is a party.
  And the list of Iraqi crimes and treaty violations goes on at some 
length. I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let us look at the behavior and the 
actions of Saddam Hussein and the regime in Iraq through the horror of 
what happened to a young boy, now dead, named Dejwar, 5 years of age. 
In reading Dejwar's story, I am relying on the wonderful reporting work 
done by Middle East Watch and the Physicians for Human Rights. Human 
Rights Watch has published this work in a book called, ``The Anfal 
Campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan.''
  This book tells a terrible story about happened to Dejwar.
  On August 25, 1988, at dawn, this 5-year-old boy, with his father, a 
farmer, was awake inside their house in Birjinni. Hassan, the boy's 
father, lived there with his father and mother, his four brothers, his 
wife and four children, of whom Dejwar was one.
  Hassan, Dejwar's father, was preparing to go to the orchards that 
morning. Then the bombs began to drop. The father said that the 
explosions that morning were not as strong as other bombs that had been 
dropped on their village by the Government of Iraq.
  The surviving villagers described the smoke that morning rising from 
the bombs as ``white, black and then yellow'' smoke. Those columns of 
smoke from the bombs rose 50 to 60 meters in the air.
  The smell of gas was ``pleasant, at first'' that morning. ``It 
smelled of apples,'' they said, smelled of ``something sweet.'' Several 
men said it smelled like ``pesticides in the fields.'' Shortly after 
that, they said ``it became bitter. It affected our eyes, and our 
mouths, and our skin. All of a sudden,'' they said, ``it was hard to 
breathe. Your breath wouldn't come. You couldn't breathe'' at all.
  The people of that village--and this is one study of one village, one 
attack on one morning by the Iraqi Government--did not know what to do 
when those bombs fell. They began to understand these were not usual 
bombs, these were chemical bombs.
  As the smoke from the chemical bombs settled into the lower land, 
they said ``it drifted down the valley toward the fields and the 
orchards.'' The father said, ``I took my family, three of my children 
and my wife, and we ran to higher ground. We went the other direction 
from the smoke.'' There was complete panic; people ran in all 
directions. Families were separated, children lost from their parents. 
Everyone ``was trying to save themselves, each one himself, even the 
mothers of children, because they couldn't breathe.''
  But Hassan's father and other family members at first stayed in the 
house because ``they didn't know what the smoke could do.'' When they 
realized they were under gas attack, many of them ran down from the 
village to an orchard in a ravine. The smoke followed them into the 
ravine.
  Hassan and his wife realized that one of their four children was also 
separated from them, and that was the 5-year-old boy I mentioned, 
Dejwar. He was missing. He had gone with his grandfather to the orchard 
in the ravine and stayed there.
  When some of the smoke lifted, after about a half an hour, Hassan and 
other survivors thought it was safe to come to the village. He found 
his mother and sister ``lying on the ground, overcome by the gas.'' 
Symptoms: Hands, legs paralyzed, trembling, shaking. They tried to 
swallow water and couldn't. Their throats were burning. They were 
vomiting. Hassan later said, ``My mother whispered, 'I think there's a 
hole in my head.''' Within several hours after exposure to the smoke, 
both mother and sister went blind, according to family members.
  Hassan went down from the village and found his father and his son 
Dejwar lying dead outside the orchard. There were no marks on them. 
``It was like they were sleeping,'' he said, ``except their faces were 
blue.'' Then he found his two brothers dead in a small cave where they 
had taken refuge.
  Mr. President, these are just a few paragraphs in a book describing 
the experience of one village under attack with chemical weapons by the 
country of Iraq.
  Name another leader on the face of this Earth who has decided, not 
once but on numerous occasions, to use weapons of mass destruction 
against his own people and his neighbors. Name one other country. Only 
Iraq, only Saddam Hussein.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania and I and others say it is time, long 
past the time, when there should be constituted an international 
tribunal to try these people, who have committed such atrocities, for 
war crimes. That tribunal will give a much longer presentation of 
evidence than the Senator from Pennsylvania or I will give today. Maybe 
then, maybe all of the world will see the systematic presentation of 
evidence, and hear of the unspeakable horrors that have been visited 
upon innocent men, women and children. Not just tens of thousands, but 
hundreds of thousands of people, who have disappeared and been killed 
and murdered. Some of them were killed by poison gas.
  Maybe then the rest of the people in the world will understand this 
is not just a foreign leader, this is not just the leader of Iraq, this 
is a convicted war criminal.
  A war crimes trial should have happened after the Gulf War. Whether 
Saddam Hussein is tried in absentia or not is irrelevant to me. The 
fact that he is tried is very important. We must, as a world, come 
together and judge actions of this type.
  The unspeakable horrors that have been visited upon so many innocent 
people by this government must not go unnoticed and must not remain 
unprosecuted. We can, we should, and we will convene an international 
tribunal. We have done that in the past, and there are two such 
tribunals ongoing right now.
  With the leadership of the Senator from Pennsylvania, we can and will 
and should convene that international tribunal for Iraq and do the 
right thing.
  This resolution may be controversial for some, who say that the foggy 
world of diplomacy does not accommodate this kind of decisive and 
important action. I think the foggy world of diplomacy demands this 
kind of action.
  When diplomatic initiatives occur in the Persian Gulf in the future, 
it ought not occur between respectable diplomats on one side and Saddam 
Hussein as a national leader on the other side. It ought to be Saddam 
Hussein, a convicted war criminal, on the other side, a war criminal 
convicted by evidence all the world will have seen. That is the purpose 
of this resolution.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


               CRIMES OF SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQI LEADERS

       The first category of crimes is crimes against peace. It 
     has been said that to wage a war of aggression is the worst 
     of all war crimes, because from it other war crimes flow. In 
     fact, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes tribunals both said 
     that to unleash a war of aggression ``is the supreme 
     international crime.'' In international legal terms, a war of 
     aggression is a crime against peace, and the leaders of a 
     government that wages an aggressive war are culpable for 
     their country's aggression.
       The regime of Saddam Hussein is guilty of perpetrating this 
     crime not once but twice.

[[Page S1870]]

      Often overlooked is the fact that Saddam Hussein invaded 
     Iran in September of 1980, thinking that a weakened and 
     isolated Iran would not be able to fend off what was 
     essentially an Iraqi land grab. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 
     until a cease-fire in 1988. It is estimated that the war left 
     1 million dead and 1.7 million wounded. Iraq repeatedly 
     resorted to using chemical weapons during this war.
       Iraq's second war of aggression was the attempted 
     annexation of Kuwait, which began with an unprovoked Iraqi 
     invasion on August 2, 1990. This was an attempt by Iraq to 
     annex Kuwait, to obliterate Kuwait as an independent state, 
     which is a violation of Chapter I, Article 2, sections (1) 
     and (4) of the United Nations Charter, of which Iraq is a 
     signatory. In addition, it was a violation of Article 25 of 
     the UN Charter for Iraq to refuse to accept and carry out 12 
     specific UN resolutions ordering Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait 
     and to permit the restoration of Kuwait's lawful government.
       During their illegal occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi forces 
     occupying Kuwait committed many war crimes. The scope of 
     Iraq's guilt is suggested by a Defense Department report that 
     states that Iraq's war crimes included:
       Taking hostages, torture and murder of civilians, looting 
     civilian property, looting cultural property, indiscriminate 
     attacks on noncombatants by the launching of Scud missiles 
     against cities rather than specific military objectives, 
     illegal employment of sea mines, mistreatment of prisoners of 
     war, and unnecessary destruction of property, as evidenced by 
     the release of oil into the Persian Gulf and the destruction 
     of hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells.
       Iraq's crimes against the people of Kuwait included 
     extrajudicial and political killings of hundreds of Kuwaiti 
     civilians, rapes of civilian women, collective punishment of 
     neighborhoods where resistance was strong, and pillage and 
     looting of nearly everything of value.
       According to an article in the Denver Journal of 
     International Law and Policy, the acts of torture committed 
     by Iraqi troops in Kuwait included:
       Beatings, the use of fists, belts, hot metal rods and hot 
     skewers, kicking, burning of the skin with fire and acid, 
     sexual torture, mock execution, electric shocks, shootings, 
     knife slashes, exposure to extreme heat and cold for long 
     periods of time, pulling out fingernails and forcing victims 
     to watch relatives being tortured.
       All of these actions against the population of Kuwait were 
     war crimes under relevant international law, especially the 
     Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes obligations to 
     protect civilians in time of war. Both Iraq and Kuwait are 
     parties to this convention.
       International law also protects citizens of other countries 
     in Iraq or Kuwait. However, despite being a party to the 
     Fourth Geneva Convention and to the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights, Iraq committed many crimes 
     against third country nationals. These crimes included 
     preventing Western and Arab refugees from leaving Iraq and 
     Kuwait, subjecting third country nationals to arbitrary 
     arrest and detention, taking some of them hostage and using 
     them as human shields, and murdering Egyptians, Iranians, 
     Pakistanis and others in Kuwait.
       Iraq is also a party to the Geneva Convention Relative to 
     the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which requires good 
     treatment and protection of POWs. However, during the 
     occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi forces committed war crimes 
     against POWs, including physical and mental torture to coerce 
     POWs to reveal information, using POWs as human shields, and 
     displaying injured POWs on Iraqi television.
       One of the oldest obligations in international law requires 
     that countries immunity to diplomats and respect the 
     integrity of embassies and their archives and documents. Iraq 
     and Kuwait are parties to 2 conventions on this subject, the 
     Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. 
     Nevertheless, Iraqi troops violated these conventions by 
     denying diplomatic immunity to those diplomats whose nations 
     refused to shut down their embassies (as demanded by Iraq), 
     seizing and blockading embassies in Kuwait, and abducting 
     people with diplomatic immunity.
       During the Persian Gulf War, Iraq launched surface-to-
     surface missiles at populated cities in Israel and Saudi 
     Arabia. These were among Iraq's more blatant and dramatic 
     crimes. Who can forget the TV footage of Scud missile 
     fragments falling on Tel Aviv? In the case of Israel, these 
     were attacks upon a neutral state. In the case of Saudi 
     Arabia, the attacks served no military purpose. In both 
     cases, missile bombardments were willful and wanton attacks 
     on civilian populations, in violation of the 1907 Hague 
     Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
       During and after its occupation of Kuwait, Iraq took 
     extreme steps to destroy Kuwaiti property--steps that were 
     well beyond what military necessity required. Iraq released 
     millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf to 
     gain military advantage, at great environmental cost. 
     Retreating Iraqi forces also set fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil 
     wells. International law has a convention against such 
     environmental crimes: the Convention on the Prohibition of 
     Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental 
     Modification Techniques. Iraq signed this Convention on 
     August 15, 1977 and violated it less than 15 years later.
       Perhaps Iraq's most fundamental war crime was its refusal 
     to honor its Charter commitment, as a member of the United 
     Nations, to ``accept and carry out the decisions of the 
     Security Council.'' The Security Council adopted 12 
     resolutions after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. They called on 
     Iraq to cease its war crimes and to withdraw from Kuwait. We 
     all know that Iraq refused to comply, and had to be routed 
     from Kuwait by force.


                  GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

       The violations of international law in Kuwait were 
     systematic and widespread. But the international tribunal 
     should not confine itself simply to the Persian Gulf War--to 
     do so would be to ignore the larger pattern of Saddam 
     Hussein's crimes, of which the invasion of Kuwait was only a 
     part. Criminals, after all, have records--and the criminal 
     record of Saddam Hussein is a long one. It goes back to 
     before the Persian Gulf War, and it continued after the war.
       The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed 
     was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas 
     of northern Iraq. Relying on over 300 interviews, field work 
     in Iraqi Kurdistan, and forensic material, and using a 
     captured cache of official Iraqi documents, Human Rights 
     Watch has concluded that the Anfal campaign against Iraqi 
     Kurds involved the ``systematic, deliberate murder of at 
     least 50,000, and possibly as many as 100,000, Kurds.'' The 
     campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish 
     villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by 
     chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of 
     thousands of Kurds.
       A Human Rights Watch report describes how this campaign of 
     genocide worked, village by village. ``A village was often 
     first shelled or bombed, sometimes with chemical weapons, 
     evidently of the type used in the Iran-Iraq war. The 
     inhabitants, attempting to flee, were trapped by troops 
     enveloping the village.'' Iraqi security forces would cull 
     out the men and the boys, who disappeared. Eyewitness reports 
     suggest that they were taken south by truck, killed, and 
     buried in mass graves.
       These acts against its own Kurdish population make the 
     Iraqi government guilty of genocide, as that crime is defined 
     by the Genocide Convention, to which Iraq became a party in 
     1959. The Convention prohibits the mass murder of people 
     based on their ethnicity. It is clear from Iraq's own 
     documents that on a mass scale, the Government of Iraq 
     attempted to eliminate Kurds simply because they were 
     Kurds. This is the definition of genocide.
       In its campaign against its own Kurdish population, the 
     Iraqi government used chemical weapons left over from its 
     wartime stockpile. A U.S. government white paper on Iraqi 
     weapons of mass destruction says that there were ``numerous 
     Iraqi chemical attacks against civilian villages in the 1987 
     and 1988 time frames . . . in areas close to both the Iranian 
     and Turkish borders.'' That same white paper also lists 10 
     instances of Iraqi chemical attacks against Iranian troops or 
     Kurdish civilians. To quote the report:
       ``Iraq had an advanced chemical warfare capability that it 
     used extensively against Iran and against its own Kurdish 
     population during the 1980s. Iraqi forces delivered chemical 
     agents (including Mustard 5 agent and the nerve agents Sarin 
     and Tabun 6) in aerial bombs, aerial spray dispensers, 120-mm 
     rockets, and several types of artillery both for tactical 
     military purposes and to terrorize rebellious segments of the 
     population.''


            IRAQI VIOLATIONS OF TREATIES AND UN RESOLUTIONS

       These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against 
     Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise 
     the issue of Iraq's entire program to develop weapons of mass 
     destruction--chemical, biological and nuclear weapons--and 
     the means to deliver them. These weapons programs were not 
     war crimes that an international tribunal could prosecute, 
     but they are further evidence by which to judge Saddam 
     Hussein. Most importantly, they show a continuing pattern of 
     treaty violations and disregard for Security Council 
     resolutions.
       For example, Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian 
     troops was a violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, to 
     which Iraq is a party. While most of Iraq's chemical attacks 
     were in the 1980s, it is only since the Persian Gulf War that 
     the full extent of Iraq's chemical arsenal has become 
     apparent. UN inspectors have supervised the destruction of 
     40,000 chemical weapons munitions (of which 12,000 were 
     filled), 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents, and 8 
     types of chemical weapons delivery systems, including 
     ballistic missile warheads.
       Despite Iraq's commitment to the UN to destroy its chemical 
     weapons and production facilities, Iraq is poised to resume 
     its production. According to the white paper, ``UNSCOM 
     believes Iraq continues to conceal a small stockpile of 
     chemical weapons agents, munitions and production 
     equipment.'' If this is the case, it is a direct violation of 
     the United Nations cease-fire resolutions, which, under the 
     UN Charter, Iraq has an obligation to obey. Ominously, the 
     white paper notes that ``Since the Gulf War, Iraq has rebuilt 
     two facilities it once used to produce chemical agents and 
     has the capability to shift smaller civilian facilities to 
     chemical weapons production.''
       Iraq's record is even worse with respect to biological 
     weapons. Despite Iraq's commitment to reveal all of its 
     weapons of mass destruction programs, and despite the demands

[[Page S1871]]

     of the UN that it do so, it was only after the defection in 
     August 1995 of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Husayn Kamil, the 
     former head of Iraqi military industries, that Iraq owned up 
     to its biological weapons program.
       According to the Administration white paper, Iraq's 
     biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters 
     of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 2,200 liters 
     of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons 
     munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads (5 anthrax, 16 
     botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin), 157 aerial bombs, and aerial 
     dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological 
     weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets, 
     a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators.
       The Iraqi biological weapons program was a clear violation 
     of the Biological Weapons Convention, which Iraq signed, 
     incredibly enough, in 1991. Is there any greater indication 
     of Saddam Hussein's criminality than his legal commitment in 
     that year to destroy his stockpile of biological weapons--a 
     pledge that he clearly never intended to fulfill?
       Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development 
     program, but again only after Husayn Kamil's defection in 
     1995. According to the white paper, ``Iraq has admitted 
     experimenting with 7 uranium enrichment techniques. . . . 
     Iraq planned to build a nuclear device in 1991.''
       Since the Gulf War, Iraq has violated the safeguards and 
     inspection agreement that it signed with the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency, which is attempting to monitor Iraq's 
     nuclear program. The United Nations Security Council, in 
     several resolutions, has denounced Iraq's failure to comply 
     with the cease-fire resolution (#687) and with Iraq's 
     obligations under international law, including treaties--the 
     Nonproliferation Treaty, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the 
     Biological Weapons Convention. The Security Council has 
     concluded that:
       Iraq is ``in flagrant violation of [the cease-fire] 
     resolution'';
       Iraq's weapons development activities are ``material 
     breaches of its obligations'' under the cease-fire 
     resolution; and
       Iraq's failure to comply with the safeguards agreement 
     ``constitutes a breach of its international obligations'' 
     under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains under the agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania holds 49 minutes 
7 seconds; the other side holds 47 minutes 37 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge any of my colleagues who wish to 
speak on this resolution to come forth at this time.
  In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1933

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader and on behalf 
of Senator Specter, I call up amendment numbered 1933 to the pending 
resolution
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for Mr. Specter 
     and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1933.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
     That the President should--
       (1) call for the creation of a commission under the 
     auspices of the United Nations to establish an international 
     record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and 
     other Iraqi officials;
       (2) call for the United Nations to form an international 
     criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, 
     and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and any other Iraqi officials 
     who may be found responsible for crimes against humanity, 
     genocide, and other violations of international humanitarian 
     law; and
       (3) upon the creation of a commission and international 
     criminal tribunal, take steps necessary, including the 
     reprogramming of funds, to ensure United States support for 
     efforts to bring Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials to 
     justice.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as 
read and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1933) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I rise in support of Senator Specter's resolution 
which calls for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to bring 
Saddam Hussein to justice. I agree that it is justifiable that Saddam 
Hussein be prosecuted as an international war criminal, thereby 
removing him from power. Such an action would eliminate the problem 
facing the United States and a good part of the free world today.
  Certainly with his systematic action to destroy the population of the 
civilian Kurds in Iraq through the use of chemical weapons in 1988, his 
war of aggression against Kuwait in 1990, his missile attacks on Israel 
in 1991, and his involvement in the attempt to assassinate former 
President Bush in 1993, there is no doubt in my mind that there is 
sufficient evidence to pursue him as a war criminal.
  Mr. President, I think this resolution is only one of the policies 
that this administration should pursue to shut down Iraq's terrorist 
regime. I propose one more, one that I raised earlier in this body this 
week. I think we must go back to the original purpose of the economic 
sanctions against Iraq and shut down Saddam Hussein's ability to fund 
his programs for weapons of mass destruction.
  In other words, Mr. President, cut off his cash flow, which comes 
from illegal oil sales. Mr. President, this is the only way we can 
bring Saddam to his knees. We must effectively cut off the flow of oil 
from Iraq.
  I would like to share a few facts that my colleagues may not be aware 
of but that are critical to the issue of how Saddam Hussein maintains 
his current grip on power.
  Revenue from oil exports have historically represented nearly all of 
Iraq's foreign exchange earnings. In the year preceding Operation 
Desert Storm, Iraq's export earnings totaled $10.4 billion, with 95 
percent of that attributed to petroleum exports. So make no mistake 
about where the revenue comes from. It comes from his oil. Iraq's 
imports during the same year, 1990, totaled only $6.6 billion.
  U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991 at the end of 
the Gulf war, requires that international economic sanctions, including 
an embargo on the sale of oil from Iraq, remain in place until--I 
emphasize ``until''--Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass 
destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally 
never to resume such activities.
  Well, where are we? The teeth in Resolution 687 have effectively been 
removed with the expansion of the so-called oil-for-food exception to 
the sanctions. The first loosening of the sanctions occurred in 1995 
when Security Council Resolution 986 allowed Iraq to export $1 billion 
in oil every 90 days, which is $4 billion over a year.
  Most recently, during the period when Saddam was again violating 
Security Council resolutions by refusing to allow international 
inspectors to conduct their work, the United Nations voted to more than 
double the amount of oil Iraq can export next year.
  On February 20, the U.N. Security Council, with the Clinton 
administration's support, adopted Resolution 1153, which will allow 
Iraq to export $10.52 billion in oil sales per year. That is $5.256 
billion every 6 months. In other words, Iraq is now authorized to 
export nearly as much oil, in today's dollars, as it did before it 
invaded Kuwait.
  So what are we doing, Mr. President? We are obviously increasing 
Saddam Hussein's ability to generate a greater cash flow to fund his 
purposes, that are certainly suspect, to say the least.
  The question is, Will the United States force Iraq to wait to rebuild 
its oil production capability until it meets the conditions imposed at 
the end of the Gulf war? We clearly have that answer: It is quite the 
contrary. In fact, paragraph 12 of Resolution 1153 directs the 
Secretary General to establish a group of experts to determine whether 
Iraq has the production and transportation capacity to export the full 
amount allowed. Well, the resolution goes on to say that the Security 
Council ``expresses its readiness'' to authorize ``the export of 
necessary equipment to enable Iraq to increase the export of petroleum 
or petroleum products.''

[[Page S1872]]

  Clearly, we are giving him the green light to increase his production 
capabilities.
  Nowhere does the resolution mention the potential arms control 
problems presented by allowing Iraq to resume the import of petroleum 
equipment, some of which is dual-use and some of which can easily be 
disguised.
  We witnessed his efforts in the early 1980s to disguise shipments 
into Iraq that, at that time, were explained to the United States as 
``parts for his refineries,'' when in fact they turned out to be parts 
for his huge cannon or pipe gun.
  Even as President Clinton vowed to ``keep the sanctions on'' Iraq 
until the regime lives up to most of its commitments, we are obviously 
creating a giant loophole for Iraq's most important commodity--and that 
is oil--to find its way out into the markets of the world.
  Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues an excellent analysis of 
the problems with the expansion of the oil program by Patrick Clawson, 
which came out of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 
entitled ``Oil for Food Or the End of Sanctions.'' I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of this article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, it should be noted that using this program to 
feed his people and to provide medicine frees up other resources that 
can be used to finance his factories of death.
  Moreover, the increase in illegal sales of petroleum products 
coincided with implementation of the oil-for-food program in 1995. Part 
of this oil is moving via truck across the Turkey-Iraq border. A more 
significant amount is moving by sea vessel through the Persian Gulf. 
Exports of contraband Iraqi oil through the Gulf have jumped seven-fold 
in the past year, from $10 million in diesel fuel sales in 1996 to $75 
million in 1997. Furthermore, Iraq has been steadily increasing exports 
of oil to Jordan, from 60,000 barrels per day at the end of Operation 
Desert Storm to an expected 96,000 barrels per day this year. An ABC 
News report in December of 1997 cited the Center for Global Energy 
Studies' estimate that Saddam Hussein was generating $300 million to 
$400 million a year from contraband oil sales.
  Mr. President, I have absolutely no doubt that allowing Saddam to 
increase his oil production under the new resolution means that 
contraband oil exports will increase proportionately. It is this 
illegal flow of oil that is the lifeline that keeps his Republican 
Guards well fed and his weapons of mass destruction program on track.
  Finally, Mr. President, Resolution 1153 does more than address 
humanitarian imports; it finances almost the full range of imports that 
Iraq would make were it not under the sanctions. The resolution 
provides for infrastructure improvements, such as sewers and 
electricity--all activities that would normally be undertaken by the 
Iraqi Government.
  I have a few theories about the motivation of the interested parties. 
From the standpoint of the Clinton administration, this may have been 
viewed as a counterbalance to the call for military action. I think it 
was certainly counterproductive. But in any event, that was their 
decision.
  But for the other members of the Security Council, particularly those 
who oppose the use of military force--Russia, France, and China--the 
motivation is clear. The motivation is economic. As a recent Wall 
Street Journal article observed:

       For Kremlin envoys, more than $10 billion in contracts and 
     debt is at stake in bringing an end to the United Nations 
     economic sanctions against one of Russia's biggest trading 
     partners.
       Indeed, even under the U.N. embargo, Russian oil companies 
     have been the prime beneficiaries of the oil-for-food 
     program. It is reported that Russia signed and delivered 36 
     contracts to supply pharmaceuticals worth $100 million to 
     Iraqi hospitals under the U.N. deal.

  Russia's heavy industry would also benefit by supplying oil 
equipment, such as platforms and rigs, to Iraq, as would Russian arms 
makers. Of course, some Russian companies have not waited for the end 
of the sanctions. Iraq obtained several Russian gyroscopes used for 
aiming Scuds back in 1995. We know that. And just last week, U.N. 
inspectors accused Russia of selling Iraq huge steel drums that can be 
used to produce biological warfare agents.
  I should note that both China and France have similar conflicts of 
interest in that their close economic ties to Iraq and their desire for 
Iraqi oil have made them hard set against any military action.
  With the United Nations having now negotiated a deal with Saddam 
Hussein that appears, in the short term at least, to have sidetracked 
military options, and with members of the Security Council actively 
working to let Saddam off the hook, what can the United States do 
unilaterally to advance our national security interests?
  I am pleased to announce that Senator Helms and the Foreign Relations 
Committee and, in my capacity as chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, will be holding hearings on this matter in the 
very near future. Our Committees will look specifically at enforcement 
and monitoring of the oil-for-food program, the flow of contraband oil 
out of Iraq, the effect of the lifting of the sanctions on Iraq by the 
United Nations, and the beneficiaries of that change of policy.
  I believe Congress should instruct the administration to pursue means 
to tighten the oil-for-food monitoring program so that we are assured 
that we have the accountability--and the United Nations has never been 
particularly adept at accountability--and to develop measures that will 
prevent the illegal leakage of oil into the world marketplace.
  I introduced a resolution 2 weeks ago--Senate Concurrent Resolution 
No. 76--which would send that message to this administration. I plan to 
amend the resolution to reflect what is learned in the congressional 
hearings, and will ask the Senate to take action on it in the near 
future.
  My resolution will call on the administration to consider a few 
options. The first would be expanding the Multinational Interdiction 
Force, MIF, in the Gulf of Arabia and ensuring that the rules of 
engagement allow MIF forces to effectively interdict vessels containing 
contraband oil.
  Second, using all diplomatic means available to ensure that other 
countries in the region are not aiding illegal oil exports in violation 
of the U.N. resolution.
  Third, inspecting all vessels leaving the Iraqi Port of Basra to 
ensure that the economic sanctions are not being circumvented. This 
type of blockade is justified under existing U.N. resolutions 
implementing economic sanctions. We maintain in the skies, in effect, 
what amounts to a blockade, and we certainly have the right to enforce 
the movement of illegal oil that is coming out of Iraq.
  And, fourth, entering into negotiations with oil-producing nations to 
encourage them to make subsidized sales of oil to Jordan so that Iraqi-
Jordanian oil-flows can simply be shut off.
  Mr. President, oil is the key to controlling the future of the 
military capacity of Iraq. We have to control it if we are ever going 
to control Saddam Hussein.
  This concludes my remarks. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank 
the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding me time to talk on this 
Iraqi issue.

                               Exhibit 1

                   [From Policywatch, Feb. 26, 1998]

                `Oil for Food' or the End of Sanctions?

                          (By Patrick Clawson)

       While Kofi Annan's diplomacy has received headlines, 
     another Security Council action last week--approval of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1153 on February 
     20--was subject to remarkably little scrutiny. This 
     resolution, designed to expand the existing oil-for-food 
     program with Iraq, was intended to blunt criticism from Arab 
     and others as the way was prepared for a military option. 
     However, in vastly expanding the amount of oil Iraq can 
     export and loosening the restrictions on what it can import, 
     this U.S.-backed measure went a long way towards undermining 
     the existing sanctions regime and removing much of the 
     incentive for Iraq to fulfill its arms inspection 
     obligations.
       No Effective Limits on Iraqi Oil Exports: UNSCR 1153 
     authorizes oil exports of $10.66 billion per year ($5.256 
     billion per 180 days). By contrast, Iraqi oil exports in 
     1981-89 averaged $9.54 billion per annum; adjusting for 
     inflation, that would be the equivalent of about $11.5 
     billion now. In other words, Iraq is now authorized to export 
     nearly as much

[[Page S1873]]

     oil as it did before it invaded Kuwait. Indeed, the Iraqi 
     government actually complained to the UN that the oil export 
     level authorized by UNSCR 1153 is too high. In his letter, 
     Tariq Aziz said Iraq's operational capacity was limited to $8 
     billion a year in exports and that any higher target was 
     ``unrealistic and unfeasible'' (Security Council Press 
     Release 6478). The UN-authorized limit translates into 2.25 
     million barrels per day (MBD), if the price averages $13 per 
     barrel. In addition, Iraq produces .4 mbd for domestic use 
     and .2 mbd for export to Jordan and smuggling out the Gulf or 
     to Turkey. That means Iraq would have to produce 2.85 mbd to 
     make use of the full UN quota. In fact, it is unlikely that 
     Iraq could produce more than 2.5 mbd today and it may take 
     Iraq until the end of 1999 before it could reach a production 
     level that takes full advantage of the UN-authorized exports. 
     In short, Iraq faces no effective limit on its oil exports, 
     because it is now permitted to export all the oil it is now 
     capable of pumping.
       To assist Iraq in expanding its oil production, the 
     Security Council (in UNSCR 1153 para. 12) ``expresses its 
     readiness [to] authoriz[e] the export of the necessary 
     equipment to enable to increase the export of petroleum'' if 
     the Secretary-General reports this is necessary after 
     consulting experts. Were Iraq to resume large-scale imports 
     of oil-field equipment, that would pose serious arms control 
     problems. Not only is some equipment dual-use (e.g., heavy 
     trucks), but it is important to remember that Iraq disguised 
     its ``super gun'' barrel as an oil pipeline, convincingly 
     enough to mislead some of the ``pipe'' producers.
       Imports at Half of Pre-War Level: UNSCR 1153 does more than 
     provide humanitarian imports: it finances almost the full 
     range of imports that Iraq would make were it not under 
     sanctions. (One remaining exception are consumer durables, 
     like automobiles.) In fact, UNSCR 1153 provides imports at 
     about half the pre-war level, putting the lie to the idea 
     that Saddam is stuck in an ever-constricting ``box.''
       Here, the numbers are instructive. Of the $10.66 billion a 
     year in UN-authorized exports, $3.20 billion (30 percent) 
     will be withheld as compensation payment for war losses, to 
     be distributed by the Geneva-based UN committee handling such 
     claims. After deducting for UN operations in Iraq, about $7.1 
     billion will remain for imports ($3.5 billion each 180 days). 
     Iraq will also have about $.5 billion a year from its non-
     1153 oil sales, mostly to Jordan. In total, then, Iraq will 
     have about $7.6 billion a year for imports. By contrast, 
     Iraqi non-arms imports in 1981-89 averaged $12.1 billion per 
     year; adjusting for inflation, that would be about $14.5 
     billion per year now. In other words, Iraq will be authorized 
     to import goods at about half the pre-war level.
       Another wrinkle in UNSCR 1153 is that it allocates large 
     sums to items other than food, the main focus of the original 
     oil-for-food resolution (UNSCR 986). Of the initial 180-day 
     imports of $3.5 billion, the plan includes $1.1 billion for 
     investment (non-recurrent costs). That includes $449 million 
     for the rehabilitation of hospitals and clinics, $305 million 
     in water sanitation, $143 million in agriculture, $77 million 
     in electricity, $30 million in resettlement, and $92 
     million in education. This is far more than humanitarian 
     relief; it is a significant investment program. 
     Furthermore, the large authorized imports of agricultural 
     and sanitation chemicals, including dual-use precursors 
     for chemical weapons, will provide Iraq many opportunities 
     to divert part of this incoming stream. (And it will not 
     be practical to post UN monitors at every Iraqi farm, barn 
     or field to ensure that all the agricultural chemicals are 
     being used as claimed.) Another component of UNSCR is its 
     authorization for the import of medicine and other 
     recurrent health costs. In fact, this resolution permits 
     Iraq to import $117 million of such goods, an amount that 
     exceeds the health-related imports its neighbors Iran or 
     Turkey, each with populations three times Iraq's.
       More than Sufficient Food: If the principal international 
     concern is to alleviate malnutrition, the food imports under 
     the original oil-for-food program were already sufficient. 
     UNSCR 1153 will take the average Iraqi's intake to levels far 
     beyond which the U.S. government recommends for the average 
     America.
       While the food distribution program under the original oil-
     for-food resolution began, the situation improved markedly 
     after the arrival in Baghdad last September of Dennis 
     Halliday, an Irish public administration expert. Three 
     million tons of food has arrived in country, more than 90 
     percent of which has been distributed. This has amounted to 
     regular distribution of a ration of 2,030 calories per Iraqi 
     day from flours, rice, legumes, sugar, cooking oil, and baby 
     milk. In addition, tea, salt, soap, and detergent are also 
     distributed. UNSCR 1153's new distribution plan envisages 
     increasing Iraqi rations to 2,463 calories a day. In 
     addition, Iraq produces fruits, vegetables, and lamb--none of 
     which are in the rations--sufficient to provide on average an 
     extra 500 calories per day. That means the Iraqi diet will 
     rise to an average 2,950 calories per day, a level that 
     equals almost 95 percent of the Iraqis' pre-1990 intake of 
     3,100 calories per day. To put this in context, the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture recommends that a healthy diet for 
     an adult American is 2,200-2,400 calories per day.
       Furthermore, the money authorized for food imports is well 
     above that needed to produce this diet. The UNSCR 1153 plan 
     allocates $1.4 billion for food imports for 180 days. That 
     works out to $129 per person per year, which is way out of 
     line with the cost of other international relief efforts. 
     Perhaps the UN plan is to provide Iraqis with a more tasty 
     and varied diet. But the possibility remains that Iraqis will 
     find ways to divert funds, for instance, by over-invoicing 
     (claiming goods cost more than they actually do).
       Humanitarian Crisis? The Iraqi government makes lurid 
     claims about hundreds of thousands of infants dying because 
     of the sanctions. These claims are parroted by international 
     organizations, like UNICEF, which release reports based 
     entirely on Iraqi-provided data. However, there is no reason 
     to expect Iraqi data about malnutrition to be any more 
     accurate than Iraqi data about weapons of mass destruction. 
     Yet even if one were to take Iraqi data at face value, 
     without the international inspection of Saddam's humanitarian 
     situation that Baghdad prevents, then some Iraqi statistics 
     suggest there may not be as acute a humanitarian problem as 
     Iraq contends. Iraq's 1997 census showed a population 
     increase of 3.5 million since 1990's 18.5 million. As even 
     the official newspaper Al-Jumhurriyah admitted (October 18, 
     1997), ``This is an unusual increase for a people who have 
     been exposed to embargo, starvation, and disease and who have 
     consistently lost 20,000 persons per month.''
       To have the increase shown in the census (500,000 a year) 
     and allowing for deaths, there must have been each year 
     700,000 infants who survived. Iraqi pre-war data on births 
     show that 700,000 births a year is about what could have been 
     expected in Iraq in the mid-1990s, given the past pattern. 
     That does not leave room for the claimed 100,000-plus deaths 
     a year of infants due to sanctions. In other words, unless 
     there was some unusual increase in the birth rate, the Iraqi 
     census data are consistent with a normal level of births and 
     a normal level of infant mortality and inconsistent with 
     Iraq's claim of a high infant mortality rate.
       Implications: UNSCR 1153 is a big victory for Saddam. He 
     has come a long way towards his goal of the lifting of 
     sanctions. He is now authorized to export oil effectively 
     without limit and to import nearly all types of civilian 
     goods at about half the pre-war level, which is about all his 
     war-ravaged country could absorb in any case. This 
     effectively eviscerates one of the main incentives for Iraqi 
     cooperation with UNSCOM--i.e., the prospect that sanctions 
     would be lifted once UNSCOM certifies Iraqi compliance on 
     weapons of mass destruction, as outlined in UNSCR 678 
     paragraph 22. By going much of the way towards lifting 
     sanctions, UNSCR 1153 gives Saddam less reason to cooperate 
     with UNSCOM than ever before.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I confess a measure of regret that it has 
taken the Congress this long to state the obvious in a clear and formal 
way that Saddam Hussein is a murderer, and should be brought to 
justice. I recall the occasion almost 10 years ago, when I stood on 
this Senate floor and condemned Saddam Hussein's crimes against his own 
people. Senator Pell, then the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and I joined in offering amendment after amendment 
on various bills then being considered by the Senate. Senator Pell and 
I were dismayed that there seemed so little interest in calling the 
world's attention to the sadistic tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. President, anyone who believes that Saddam is a man who ``can be 
trusted'', a man with whom we can ``do business'' and have a ``human 
relationship'' (I am quoting the Secretary General of the United 
Nations on these points), needs to be reminded not only of the 148 
lives lost in combat in Desert Storm or of the 37 lives lost on the 
U.S.S. Stark, but also of those pitiful women and children of Iraqi 
Kurdistan who were deliberately burned beyond recognition by Saddam's 
chemical weapons. I remind them of the Anfal campaign and the city of 
Halabja, and the hideous deaths of tens of thousands of innocent 
people.
  Let's face it, Mr. President, Saddam Hussein is the world's worst and 
most treacherous nightmare. He is a brutal and totally unremorseful 
killer with weapons of mass destruction and he is willing to use them 
at the slightest provocation.
  Mr. President, we must not be deceived. Should Saddam Hussein escape 
the yoke of sanctions, he once again will begin to amass weapons. He 
will be a threat to the United States and the American people, and to 
our allies in the Middle East, and the people of Iraq. The Clinton 
Administration pretense that all that is needed are sanctions in order 
to face up to Saddam's threat is dangerous nonsense. Sanctions deal 
with weapons--but the question is, who is going to deal with Saddam--
and how?
  It is past time to set in motion a process of gathering evidence, 
forming

[[Page S1874]]

a tribunal, indicting and prosecuting Saddam Hussein. He is a war 
criminal. He is a murderer. Let there be an end to the pretense that 
installing cameras and finding biological weapons toxins will end our 
problems with Iraq.
  We need to get the weapons, yes. We also need, one way or another, to 
get Saddam.

                          ____________________