[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10141-S10145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE IRAQ RESOLUTION

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to discuss the very 
serious matter that is before us today and this week. This is, I trust, 
going to be a very somber discussion as we had approximately 11 years 
ago when this body approved the actions which led to Desert Storm. 
Unfortunately, at that time we did not solve the problems confronting 
us as a result of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime in Iraq.
  As we move toward a resolution authorizing the use of force against 
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, let us be clear about the intent. 
This resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and 
to the Iraqi regime that the demands of the United Nations Security 
Council must be followed. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed.
  For over a decade now we have tried every means of diplomacy, 
sanctions, and inspections to encourage Saddam to keep the promises 
that he made after the gulf war. Nothing has worked. Saddam has made a 
mockery of the United Nations resolutions and the threat he now poses 
to the world is significant and growing.
  President Bush stated last night that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein 
is a ``murderous tyrant'' who could attack the United States ``on any 
given day'' using unmanned aerial vehicles loaded with chemical or 
biological weapons. Iraq is unique. By its past and present actions, by 
its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, 
Iraq is unique. Iraq is a true present danger to the United States. As 
a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said:

       The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the 
     regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is 
     addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

  The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is 
rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair, could launch a biological or chemical attack 
in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has 
long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and we now know 
that there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. In fact, senior members 
of the Iraqi government and members of the al Qaeda network have been 
in contact for many years. This regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and 
the delivery capability to go with it.

[[Page S10142]]

  There have been reports in the past from Desert Storm that rather 
than having the acquisition of a nuclear weapon years in advance, it 
could have been within a year that they could have developed a nuclear 
weapon. Had he waited until he had that nuclear device before he 
invaded Kuwait, we would have been in a far different position as we 
attempted at that time to expel him from Kuwait.
  The Iraqi dictator has answered a decade of resolutions with a decade 
of defiance. In the Southern and Northern No-fly zones over Iraq, 
coalition aircraft continue to be fired on and coalition pilots 
continue to put their lives on the line to enforce these resolutions.
  There is an ongoing war that Saddam Hussein has carried out against 
the coalition which is seeking to enforce United Nations resolutions. 
Just this year alone, coalition aircraft have been fired on over 400 
times. Since Saddam Hussein made what I believe, from past experience, 
will be shown to be a hollow promise to cooperate with the United 
Nations, they have fired on coalition aircraft more than 47 times. 
Saddam Hussein is a master at saying one thing and doing another.
  As President Bush has stated in the past:

       The Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We 
     know he is actively seeking the destructive technologies to 
     match his hatred. And we know that he must be stopped. The 
     dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and year 
     to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them--and 
     when they have fully materialized, it may be too late to 
     protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator 
     will have had the means to terrorize and dominate the region, 
     and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi 
     regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear 
     weapon to a terrorist group.

  The mantle of leadership requires this body to act. We have seen the 
results of a decade of speaking loudly and carrying a soft stick.
  We have pointed out, in past years, the danger of this regime. We 
have called for changes. We have asked the United Nations to strengthen 
its resolutions. We have asked Saddam Hussein to readmit inspectors to 
assure us there are no deadly weapons of mass destruction being 
stockpiled. We have been rejected at all points.
  Let us act now and pass this resolution in support of our President. 
This resolution is needed to send an important signal to our allies and 
to the United Nations. With our leadership, I am convinced the 
President will build a robust coalition to say no to Saddam Hussein. It 
will tell the world we are serious about disarmament, and it will 
reaffirm our message to Saddam Hussein.
  Approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent 
or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all 
nations America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the 
demands of the civilized world mean something.
  If we do not act, then we face the terrible dangers of an attack with 
weapons of mass destruction. If the United Nations does not act, it 
faces the prospect of joining the League of Nations on the dustbin of 
history: an international organization, organized with the highest 
purposes, and by its inaction shown to be ineffective.
  I believe and I trust we will give a strong vote, a bipartisan vote, 
in support of this resolution. I believe building on that resolution we 
will build a coalition, and our world will be a safer place, even 
though we have to take the risks that are necessary and that come with 
this resolution in order to secure that safety and that peace for 
ourselves, our children, and our future.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I 
look forward to working with them on this matter.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the resolution 
before this body concerning the use of force against Iraq.
  For the third time in 12 years, the Senate is considering a 
resolution to address a threat posed by Saddam Hussein to America as 
well as to the global community.
  As I said on the floor of the House of Representatives when I was a 
Member of that body in 1991, on behalf of the authorization of what 
would become Operation Desert Storm:

       [T]he magnitude of the vote I now face is greater than any 
     other I have or likely will cast.

  That is true any time we consider whether to potentially place 
American men and women in harm's way. That is why I approached this 
particular vote with the deliberation and the solemnity it demands.
  During that 1991 debate, I concluded Saddam Hussein's invasion of 
Kuwait ``threatened in infancy a new decade of hope.'' As I said at the 
time, I voted as I did:

     . . . not because the military option is inevitable, but in 
     order not to undermine the President's efforts to achieve a 
     peaceful outcome to this crisis--efforts which require that a 
     credible military threat be maintained against a brutal 
     aggressor who only understands the language of force. A 
     credible threat is necessary against a man who has raised one 
     of the world's largest armies, used chemical weapons against 
     his own people, invaded two neighbors and is developing 
     nuclear and biological capabilities. We are hardly dealing 
     with a man of peace in Saddam Hussein.

  History, regrettably, has a way of repeating itself. Because 7 years 
later, in 1998, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution which found 
Iraq in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international 
obligations'' under previous U.N. resolutions--including Security 
Council Resolution 687 that set the terms and conditions for the 1991 
cease-fire--and urged the President ``to take appropriate action . . . 
to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' But 
compliance, as we know, never followed.
  Which brings us to today, to the resolution we have before us, and to 
the two fundamental questions that are being asked here in Washington, 
in Maine, and throughout America: Why Saddam Hussein? And why now?
  As to the first question, I have come to the conclusion--based on the 
facts--that Saddam Hussein's continued, aggressive production of 
weapons of mass destruction presents a real and immediate global mess, 
particularly in light of the absence of any U.N.-mandated inspectors 
over the last 4 years. Indeed, it was just 4 months after Congress 
passed the 1998 resolution that Hussein drove out the U.N. weapons 
inspectors.
  And what were those inspectors leaving behind? A 1999 report by 
Richard Butler, the chief inspector, UNSCOM, found when they left Iraq, 
they were unable to account for 360 tons of bulk chemical agent, 
including 1\1/2\ tons of VX nerve agent, 3,000 tons of precursor 
chemicals, enough growth media to manufacture 25,000 liters of anthrax 
spores, and 30,000 special munitions for delivering of chemical and 
biological agents.
  Today, there is no reason to believe Hussein has ever looked back. As 
reported in the U.S. intelligence community document made public on 
October 4, 2002, he has been seeking to revamp and accelerate his 
nuclear weapons program. The report concluded that if left unchecked, 
Iraq would ``probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade,'' and 
that if Hussein could acquire weapons-grade fissile material from 
abroad ``it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.''
  This information is echoed in the September 24, 2002, intelligence 
dossier released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair--a critical voice 
and ally in our war on terrorism. That dossier outlines Iraq's weapons 
of mass destruction programs past and present.
  It finds Hussein, following the departure of U.N. inspectors in 1998, 
is aggressively pursuing development of a nuclear capability, and is 
undeniably seeking items needed to enrich uranium, such as fissile 
material and gas centrifuge components like vacuum pumps and 
specialized aluminum tubes. Tellingly, the report also documents Iraq's 
attempts to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa, even though 
Iraq has no civil nuclear power program. All of this is in breach of 
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687.
  Furthermore, the October 4 report states that Iraq is capable of 
``quickly producing and weaponizing'' a variety of both chemical and 
biological agents, including anthrax, ``for delivery by bombs, 
missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially 
against the U.S. homeland.'' Both reports highlight that Hussein's 
weapons are hidden in ``highly survivable'' facilities, some of them 
mobile, and, of course, in further violation of

[[Page S10143]]

Resolution 687, his unrelenting effort to expand his ballistic missile 
capabilities beyond 150 kilometers.
  Finally, the October 4 report found that Iraq has rebuilt missile and 
biological weapons facilities damaged during U.S. cruise missile 
strikes in 1998. Iraq has begun renewed production of chemical warfare 
agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX--all 
lethal chemical toxins.
  All of this is in flagrant violation not only of the case-fire 
resolution, but also 12 other U.S. calls for disarmament over the 
ensuing 11 years. So it should come as no surprise that the Security 
Council would have issued 30 letters of condemnation to Iraq over this 
last decade alone.
  Iraq was condemned for failures to cooperate fully and immediately, 
failures to allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access, 
and failures to fulfill all of its obligations as set out in previous 
resolutions. The bottom line is, in every instance, he has failed to 
comply--and the U.N. has failed to enforce.
  Which brings us to the question of: Why now? What urgency has 
interjected itself that would necessitate the actions we contemplate 
today? My answer begins not by citing a single fact or occurrence, but 
rather by illustrating a new, encroaching threat over the past decade 
that was foreshadowed by the first attack on American soil since Pearl 
Harbor--the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
  I believe that was the seminal moment when our enemies of today were 
introduced to the realm of the possible--as those who would wish our 
destruction developed and implemented comprehensive strategies to 
systematically assault Americans and our interests whenever, wherever, 
and however they could.
  It also should have been an awakening for America. That is why I 
spearheaded investigations into the comings and goings of Sheikh Omar 
Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of that bombing in 1993, who entered and 
existed this country five times totally unimpeded.
  What I found led me to introduce legislation in 1994, requiring 
information sharing among critical Government agencies, to ensure those 
on the front lines of securing America would have the resources to keep 
dangerous aliens from entering the U.S. But there were those who didn't 
take the threat seriously, and those reforms were quietly altered, and 
allowed to fade out of law in 1998, and out of the national 
consciousness.
  Now, as we peel back the layers through further investigation, we 
discovered the Sheikh was closely tied to Osama bin Laden and the 
network we now know as al-Qaida. The point is, over the decade of the 
1990s and into the fledgling days of the 21st century, our 
consciousness was not attuned to the emerging pattern of attacks, and 
so the pattern continued--from Khobar Towers in 1996, to the 1998 
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, to the attack on the USS Cole 
in the fall of 2000, and culminating in the horrific events of 
September 11, 2001.
  That terrible day would finally and forever change the way we assess 
our security and vulnerability, single-handedly adding the term 
``homeland Security'' to our national lexicon. It has changed our 
conception of what constitutes weapons and warfare--and how both may be 
used against us.

  To paraphrase Governor Ridge, we are now compelled to come to grips 
with an enemy who makes no distinction between combatants and 
noncombatants. The battlefield itself has changed--today, asymmetrical 
threats accost us in a theater of engagement that includes our own 
backyard. There is no line of demarcation.
  Before September 11, we underestimated the threat, and overestimated 
our security. That is why the Senate and House have been holding joint 
intelligence hearings, to determine how we can learn from failures of 
the past. The lapses were so egregious that it prompted our recent vote 
to authorize an independent commission, to conduct a more far-reaching 
inquiry into how we could have done better and how we must do better in 
the future.
  Because there is no longer any question as to the scope of the 
threat--and the ability and intent of terrorist groups to bring 
devastation to our soil. As Secretary Rumsfeld said:

       We have entered a world in which terrorist movements and 
     terrorist states are developing the capacity to cause 
     unprecedented destruction. Today, our margin of error is 
     notably different. In the 20th century, we were dealing, for 
     the most part, with conventional weapons--weapons that could 
     kill hundreds of thousands of people, generally combatants. 
     In the 21st century, we are dealing with weapons of mass 
     destruction that can kill potentially tens of thousands of 
     people--innocent men, women and children.

  It is through this prism of the post-September 11 world that we must 
view an ever emerging convergence of threats over the last 10 years, 
represented on the one hand by transnational terrorism exemplified by 
al-Qaida--with cells in more than 30 countries--and on the other by a 
regime in Iraq that has already developed and deployed horrific weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Even as far back as 1991, the United Nations was concerned enough 
about a potential linkage between terrorists and Saddam Hussein to 
include in Resolution 687 a requirement that Iraq inform the Security 
Council:

     that it will not commit or support any act of international 
     terrorism or allow any organization directed towards 
     commission of such acts to operate within its territory . . .

  Today, we know from Secretary Rumsfeld that ``al-Qaida is operating 
in Iraq''. . . that we have ``accurate and not debatable'' evidence of 
reportedly the presence of senior members of Al-Qaida in Baghdad, and 
other associations.

       Iraq has also reportedly provided safe haven to Abdul 
     Rahman Yasin, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who 
     was a key participant in the first World Trade Center 
     bombing.

  We also know that Saddam Hussein continues to provide $25,000 rewards 
to the families of suicide bombers in the Middle East, continues to 
harbor the Abu Nidal Organization, and continues to harbor the 
Palestinian Liberation Front.
  And so the question we really need to ask ourselves is, why is 
Hussein so single-mindedly and at all costs amassing such huge stores 
of horrific weapons? We know he has them. We know he has used them 
before. The question is, will he use them again?
  The answer is that we don't know for certain. But from all I have 
been able to ascertain from high-level briefings, the logical 
conclusion--based on all the evidence, all the broken promises, all the 
obfuscation. And now the nexus between Hussein and terrorist groups and 
individuals--is that we simply can't afford the risk to humanity.
  Some say we should wait until the threat is imminent. But how will we 
know when the danger is clear, present and immediate? When people start 
checking into hospitals? When the toxin shows up in the water supply? 
When the dirty bomb goes off?
  Because, in the shadowy world of terrorism, as we have seen, that 
will already be too late. For these are not weapons that can be easily 
intercepted or anticipated. They aren't detected by sonar, and they 
don't show up on radar screens. Therefore, the standard by which we 
judge the level and immediacy of threat must be calibrated accordingly.
  In the instance of Iraq, for a terrorist organization that shares 
Hussein's disdain for America, where better to acquire weapons of mass 
destruction? And for Saddam Hussein, what better way to deliver these 
weapons than a terrorist who might smuggle a vial of smallpox in a 
suitcase or store a canister of sarin gas in a cargo container or 
launch a drone aircraft or other unmanned aerial vehicle that sprays 
aerosolized biological agents.
  In fact, Richard Butler, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, was 
asked in an interview on October 8, 2002, ``how easy it would be . . . 
for the Iraquis to arm a terrorist group, or an individual terrorist, 
with weapons of mass destruction.'' It would be ``extremely easy,'' 
Ambassador Butler told the interviewer. ``If they decided to do it, it 
would be a piece of cake.''
  It is true we cannot enter the diabolical mind of Saddam Hussein to 
know conclusively if and when he may deliver his weapons--or share 
those weapons with terrorists organizations. But we do have an 
obligation to make a judgment on which side of the equation we want to 
err--knowing he has the means and opportunity to strike, and knowing we 
will put potentially millions at risk should we misread his 
inclination, miscalculate this timing, or underestimate his capability.

[[Page S10144]]

  And we have been wrong before. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, 
before Operation Desert Storm, ``these best intelligence estimates were 
that Iraq was at least 5 to 7 years away from having nuclear weapons. 
The experts were wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found the 
Iraquis were probably 6 months to a year away . . .'' Just imagine if 
we were confronted with an Iraq that already had nuclear capability.
  Today he is procuring his weapons with the $6.6 billion in illict 
revenue GAO estimates he has gained over the last 4 years through oil 
smuggling and ``surcharges.'' When you consider that al-Qaida spent 
merely $500,000 to inflict such horror as we saw in New York, 
Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, that equation becomes even more 
ominous--all the more so as September 11 raised our sense of urgency 
and illuminated a whole new range of dangerous scenarios that place 
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in a very different light.
  As Henry Kissinger warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 
September 26, ``We are only at the beginning of global proliferation,'' 
and thus we need to ``consider not only the risk of action but the 
consequences of inaction.'' In context of all we know--we can no longer 
assure Americans that he can be contained and confined to Iraq. 
Therefore, I believe the world must disarm Saddam Hussein now, when the 
development of his capability is imminent--not waiting until it is 
imminent he is about to strike.
  In the absence of true strength of enforcement, Hussein will continue 
to exploit our every weakness through his methodical ``cheat and 
retreat,'' as he has done systematically and persistently in the past--
resulting in more of the old dynamic of U.N. resolutions and economic 
sanctions, followed by the repeated inability of the U.N. to enforce 
its own mandates.
  To change this paradigm, the President has now rightfully come to 
Congress to seek authorization and support for a resolution ensuring 
that when he speaks, he does so with the strength of a unified, 
unequivocal American voice that leaves no ambivalence as to the 
resoluteness of our position . . . no doubt where America stands.
  Given the gravity of the global implications of Hussein's serial 
intransigence, there is no substitute for the U.N. enforcing 
compliance, or for the U.S. working through the U.N. Appropriately, 
this resolution calls upon the President to use the full weight of this 
office, first and foremost through his diplomatic means and persuasive 
power--as well as that of his foreign policy team--to convince the U.N. 
to impose and enforce unfettered, unrestricted inspections. And as 
Secretary of State Powell has noted, ``our diplomatic efforts at the 
United Nations would be helped by a strong Congressional resolution. . 
. .''
  Furthermore, as many of my colleagues, as well as my constituents, 
have expressed, the use of force should be the last resort, and under 
this resolution it is the last resort. The President emphasized in his 
speech to the Nation that, ``congressional authorization does not mean 
that military action is imminent or unavoidable.''
  I realize there are those who oppose unilateral action should the 
U.N. fail to act, and accordingly would oppose this resolution granting 
such Presidential authority. But for those who would ultimately 
preserve the right to authorize military action--even if we cannot 
secure a U.N. mandate for enforcement--this resolution is preferable to 
a two-tiered approach.
  Why? In my view, by granting military authority to the President in 
advance, it leaves no question or uncertainty as to the level of our 
commitment, thereby strengthening the President's ability to secure 
U.N. implementation of a new and enforceable resolution and potentially 
places us on a course toward a peaceful disarmament. As always, 
diplomacy must constitute our first line of defense. But in the event 
that action becomes necessary to safeguard our national security 
interests outside the auspices of the United Nations, let there be no 
mistake--the President must exert the last full measure of effort in 
building an international coalition to join us in disarming Saddam 
Hussein, because this shouldn't have to be a solo endeavor for our 
nation.
  Iraq is not just a threat to America. It is a threat to all of 
humanity. It is not just our interests we are protecting, it is the 
interests of a new century that must be free from the scourge of global 
terrorism. And our goals with regard to Saddam Hussein are inseparable 
from our mission to eradicate terror at its roots.
  I have come to the regrettable conclusion that if we allow the Iraqi 
regime to continue developing its horrific capabilities with impunity, 
we are endangering mankind by sending a corrosive message that the 
stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction buys immunity from 
international response.
  If the United States and its allies offer nothing but disapproving 
rhetoric or ineffective sanctions as the only price for Iraq's 
hostility and defiance, then we concede a victory to the tactics of 
aggression. Rather, if the free nations of the world are to remain the 
authors of our own destiny, history teaches us that we must never 
countenance the tyranny of such threats.
  As Winston Churchill wrote in 1936 of the tyrants building stocks of 
state-of-the-art weapons of the day:

       Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not 
     dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.

  The world can no longer ignore the tiger in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a transcript of the 
``Today Show'' of October 8, 2002, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Matt Lauer (co-host): As we reported, President Bush laid 
     out his case against Saddam Hussein again in a speech on 
     Monday night in Cincinnati. He talked about Iraq's capability 
     to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Richard Butler 
     was chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq and the last person 
     to oversee an inspection team in Baghdad. Mr. Butler, good 
     morning to you.
       Mr. Richard Butler (Former U.N. Weapons Inspector): Good 
     morning, Matt. Good to see you.
       Lauer: Good to see you. In his speech last night, the 
     president actually quoted you, saying that Saddam Hussein is, 
     quote, ``addicted to weapons of mass destruction.'' You were 
     last in Iraq in 1998, and before your inspection team was 
     kicked out . . .
       Mr. Butler: Mm-hmm.
       Lauer: . . . you said, and I'm quoting a Time magazine 
     article, quote, ``you saw some really disturbing stuff,'' end 
     quote. Be more specific. What did you see that we should be 
     afraid of now?
       Mr. Butler: Well, in particular, Matt, one of the 
     substances that the president mentioned last night, in may I 
     say what I thought was an outstanding speech, I think the 
     best he's given, that substance is called VX. It is the most 
     toxic of the chemical warfare agents. And we saw some deeply 
     disturbing evidence that Iraq had made a very significant 
     quantity of VX. I was pleased to see the president refer to 
     that last night. We also saw evidence that they had loaded it 
     into missile warheads. That's the--the difficulty Iraq has 
     always had, is how to weaponize this hideous stuff that they 
     make and they continue to make. And in the case of VX, we saw 
     evidence that they had loaded it into missile warheads for 
     delivery.
       Lauer: Iraq has agreed to let UN weapons inspection teams 
     back into the country with limitations. They will not be 
     allowed to inspect Saddam Hussein's personal palaces. Is that 
     worth anything, in your opinion?
       Mr. Butler: No, it's not, Matt. I'm really slightly stunned 
     to think that we are now exactly where we were four years 
     ago. And by the way, it's not palaces, it's presidential 
     sites. The--the parts of Iraq that the Iraqis declared in the 
     past to be of presidential significance measured some 75 
     square kilometers, you know, 50 square miles, much larger 
     than the eight palaces that Saddam has. The number of 
     buildings is what was really important in those presidential 
     sites. It . . .
       Lauer: What's going on at . . .
       Mr. Butler: . . . was 1,100 . . .
       Lauer: . . . those sites . . .
       Mr. Butler: . . . buildings.
       Lauer: . . . in our opinion?
       Mr. Butler: Well, no, we--we can't know without inspection. 
     But we had excellent intelligence information in the past 
     that weapons were stored there, that materials, with which to 
     make weapons were stored there. Matt, it's always been the 
     same, and it is the same today. The Iraqis say they have no 
     weapons, OK. If they don't, let the inspectors in. And what 
     they have tried to do today, as they did four years ago, is 
     say you can come in up to a point . . .
       Lauer: Right.
       Mr. Butler: . . . but not in the places that we say are 
     presidential. That's not good enough.
       Lauer: And real, real quickly, how easy would it be, in 
     your opinion, Mr. Butler, for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist 
     group or an individual terrorist with weapons of mass 
     destruction?
       Mr. Butler: Really quickly, Matt? Extremely easy. If they 
     decide to do it, piece of cake.

[[Page S10145]]

       Lauer: Richard Butler. Mr. Butler, thanks very much for 
     your time.
       Mr. Butler: Thank you.
       Lauer: It's 17 after the hour. Once again, here's Katie.
       Katie Couric (co-host): Thanks, Matt.

  Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________