[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 50 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4483-S4488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING GRATITUDE OF UNITED STATES TO NATIONS PARTICIPATING IN 
                        COALITION TO DISARM IRAQ

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the measure is laid 
aside, and the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 
30, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 30) expressing the 
     sense of Congress to commend and express the gratitude of the 
     United States to the nations participating with the United 
     States in the Coalition to Disarm Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require 
on this initial statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner and Allen be added as 
cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I rise in support of this resolution thanking those 
nations participating with the United States in the ``Coalition to 
Disarm Iraq.'' I am pleased that this resolution enjoys the strong 
support of the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
the Senator from Delaware, and the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle.

[[Page S4484]]

  Our resolution cites the important diplomatic initiatives originally 
undertaken by our allies in Europe in support of U.S. resolve to 
enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003, the 
Prime Ministers of Denmark, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the 
United Kingdom, and the Presidents of the Czech Republic and the 
Spanish Government issued a declaration stating the ``the Iraqi regime 
and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world 
security.'' The declaration went on to say that ``. . . our governments 
have a common responsibility to face this threat. . . .''
  These European leaders were immediately joined by the Foreign 
Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. In a declaration of 
February 5, 2003, the Foreign Minister stated in part: ``the clear and 
present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united 
response from the community of democracies. We call upon the United 
Nations Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action 
in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and 
security.''
  This is not the first time the Senate has commended the important 
contributions made by the leaders and Foreign Ministers of these 
countries, but at a time when some question international support in 
Iraq, we thought it important to revisit their statements of support 
and reiterate our gratitude.
  In addition to these statements of support, our resolution identifies 
additional nations that have expressed their support for coalition 
action in Iraq. Nations around the world are providing important 
diplomatic and strategic support in a number of ways, including 
expressions of political support, overflights and basing authorization, 
intelligence-sharing, and other important strategies contributions. 
This list includes long-standing U.S. allies and relatively new 
partners in the war on terrorism: large nations with strong militaries 
and small nations who share our view of the inherent threat posed by 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In addition to the nations 
mentioned, international support grows each day. In an effort to 
acknowledge the contributions of each, I will list those nations who 
have made their contributions public to date: Afghanistan, Angola, 
Australia, Azerbajian, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El 
Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, 
Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, The Netherlands, 
Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, The Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon 
Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
  More specifically, our resolution expresses our Nation's sincere 
gratitude to Australia, Denmark, Poland, and the United Kingdom, whose 
forces have joined with the United States in sending troops into harm's 
way. Each of these nation is making important contributions to 
coalition efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of its weapons of 
mass destruction. In addition, we thank the numerous other nations that 
are providing military and logistical support to operations in the 
region.
  We also pay special tribute to the leaders of the United Kingdom, 
Australia, and Spain. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prime Minister John 
Howard, and President of the Spanish Government, Jose Maria Aznar, have 
provided courageous leadership to efforts to disarm Iraq, and the 
Senate of the United States commends them for their efforts and 
expresses its thanks.
  I welcome the opportunity to introduce this resolution of gratitude 
to our allies around the world who are supporting our efforts in Iraq 
in so many important ways. I am hopeful this resolution will receive 
the unanimous support of the Senate, to ensure a strong expression of 
appreciation and commendation of the important contributions by members 
of the international community who are making the ``Coalition to Disarm 
Iraq'' a success.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the chairman 
of the committee, in support of S. Con. Res. 30, which commends and 
expresses the gratitude of the United States to the other nations 
participating with us in the Coalition to Disarm Iraq. The American 
people and this Congress stand with our Commander in Chief and behind 
our men and women in uniform. It is their responsibility, and the 
Commander in Chief's, to prosecute this war in Iraq, but it is our 
responsibility to give them the support they need and deserve.
  There may be difficult days ahead, but I am confident of the 
extraordinary skill and ultimate success of our endeavor. As we gather 
here today, the sons and daughters of four countries--the United 
Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark--are fighting alongside our 
troops. Our purpose today is to thank them from the bottom of our 
hearts for the courage they are demonstrating. It is to tell their 
families and loved ones of our gratitude for their sacrifice and to 
express to their leaders our profound admiration for their 
determination to join other nations, including ours, in a common and 
just cause.

  Several dozen nations are supporting this coalition in other ways--
politically, diplomatically, and strategically. They, too, have our 
deep appreciation. The Senator from Indiana has read the names of those 
nations.
  Let me say a word to the leaders and the people from friendly 
countries and allies who do not support our effort to disarm Saddam 
Hussein's regime. This Senator and many others disagree profoundly with 
the choices they have made. But this Senator, at least, respects--
equally profoundly--that that choice is the right of a sovereign nation 
to make, to differ with us.
  I think it is time that we move beyond the finger-pointing and 
recriminations that have been flying across the Atlantic and around the 
world. We need one another. We will need one another in other 
endeavors. It is time to, again, heal the differences. We could not 
come together in war, but we are going to have to come together in 
peace.
  This resolution expresses that hope. By its words, it ``welcomes and 
encourages the active involvement of [the countries in this coalition], 
other nations, and key international organizations in the 
reconstruction and civil administration of Iraq after the conflict.''
  When this war ends--hopefully, that will be soon--we will face a 
tremendous responsibility and an equally important opportunity in terms 
of Iraq's future. Even as our thoughts and prayers are with our 
President, our troops, and our allies, we need to think about and act 
on that future now.
  Why is this so important? I believe it is important because it is 
profoundly against the interests of the United States to be left the 
sole responsibility for Iraq. As my friend, and the friends of many 
here, Tom Friedman, has put it: We may have to rent this country for a 
time; but it is not our desire to own it.
  There are three reasons for that:
  First, it will cost tens of billions of dollars and take years to 
rebuild an Iraq that is secure, whole, free, and governed by its own 
people. We should not bear that burden or responsibility alone.
  Second, an indefinite American military occupation of Iraq would fuel 
resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-Qaida's recruitment, 
and make Americans a target for malcontents everywhere. We need to make 
the peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own.
  Third, failure to engage the U.N. and as many countries as possible 
in post-Saddam Iraq would miss an opportunity to repair the damage that 
has been done to the U.N., to our alliances, and international 
cooperation--all of which we will need to win the war against 
terrorism, to contend with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, to 
slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to deal with outbreaks 
of disease, and to contend with so many other threats that have no 
respect for borders.
  I hope the administration will spare no effort in securing the 
sanction of the United Nations for everything that will have to be done 
to keep the peace in Iraq after the war, to provide humanitarian aid, 
to rebuild the country, and to help put Iraq back into the hands of its 
own people.

[[Page S4485]]

  By gaining the U.N.'s approval, we would help political leaders 
around the world whose people oppose the war justify their 
participation--including financial participation--in building the 
peace. It has not been lost on any of our colleagues in the last 
several days of debate, nor upon our fellow Americans; it is dawning on 
them that in the last gulf war, we paid between 17 and 20 percent of 
the cost of the war. For this gulf war, we are lucky to pay the 
totality of the bill--if not 100 percent, very close to it. The meter 
is just beginning to run. The chairman of the committee and I have held 
hearings over the last 10 months on this issue. We don't have any firm 
number, but we have estimates that it is going to cost--after we win--
anywhere from $19 billion a year to numbers well in excess of that. It 
is in our interest--our direct interest--that other nations participate 
in making Iraq secure.

  By gaining U.N. approval, as I said, we would help the political 
leaders around the world who know that is in their interest as well--
whose people oppose the war--to justify their participation, including 
financial participation. And we would demonstrate a U.S. commitment to 
rebuild ties to the U.N., which will be important in our long-term 
security.
  I personally think Kosovo provides a powerful precedent for such a 
course of action. In Kosovo, we chose not to pursue a use of force 
resolution at the U.N. that we knew Russia would veto. I was in this 
Chamber urging that we bypass the U.N. and go directly to a coalition 
of the willing--in this case, the EU and NATO--to gain support for what 
many of us here strongly believed was in the interest of the United 
States, the interest of Europe, and in the humanitarian interests of 
hundreds of thousands of people. We moved.
  But even before the first bombs fell, we worked closely with the 
Security Council on an agreement to put the U.N. and other countries 
front and center in Kosovo for humanitarian aid and civil authority 
once the peace was made. As a result, we did not have to build the 
peace alone. Our motives were not questioned alone, and we did not bear 
the costs alone. Evidence the fact that we were carrying roughly 15 
percent of the freight, 15 percent of the personnel, after Milosevic 
was defeated.
  I know there is tension between those who see the efficiency of an 
American military occupation and those who seek the legitimacy of a 
U.N.-led effort.
  I have made close to a dozen trips, during and after the war in 
Bosnia and Kosovo, to the Balkans. I can tell you, there is no U.N. 
organization, there is no multilateral organization, there is no 
organization in the world that can deliver with the speed and 
efficiency whatever is needed that equals that of the U.S. military; it 
doesn't exist--whether it is building a road, digging a well, or 
securing a neighborhood. But the fact is, we have to find a place 
between that efficiency and the need for legitimacy.
  In the immediate weeks after the war, our military will have to be in 
charge of the country, and long term, we will have to be in charge of 
the security side of the equation in the country. Longer term, our 
goal--working with our allies and the international community--must be 
to put Iraq back in the hands of the Iraqi people, and this, again, in 
order for it to have legitimacy and, in my view, the prospect of 
succeeding, will have to be viewed by the region and the rest of the 
world as having been and gotten the imprimatur of the international 
community. The last thing we need to do is look as though we are 
putting in a puppet government--which is not our intention--in Baghdad 
in order to serve our purposes. There will be no legitimacy, and it 
will commit us much longer and in a more costly way.
  During this critical interim period, we must achieve a very difficult 
balance. On the one hand, we have to avoid prolonging American military 
occupation, and, of course, for as long as our troops are there, 
security must be their responsibility--U.S. responsibility, not the 
responsibility of the U.N. or any other organization. We also had a 
bite out of that apple in the Balkans, in Bosnia. It did not work. It 
was a mistake. We corrected that mistake in Kosovo. But it should not 
be their role long term to administer Iraq or to choose its future 
leaders.
  We don't want the American military having to make political 
decisions day in and day out and being blamed for every grievance. That 
would fuel resentment and turn us from liberators into occupiers. We do 
not want the American military putting in place a new Iraqi government, 
in my view. It would be seen as a puppet and, I believe, with no 
legitimacy.
  On the other hand, we must not leave too quickly or hand over power 
to the Iraqis who lack the ability, the authority, and the institutions 
to govern their country--and risk Iraq coming apart at the seams.
  Again, this is a different circumstance in Iraq than it was in Bosnia 
and in Kosovo, but we had a piece of that in both those countries.
  This is a difficult balance. I am not suggesting any absolute 
formula, but I am suggesting that, to the degree the American military 
commander is seen to be handpicking and/or putting in place a new Iraqi 
regime, a new Iraqi government, it will diminish its legitimacy. To the 
degree to which an American sergeant, lieutenant, or captain has to 
stand someplace in Kirkuk and tell a returning Kurd, who was expelled 
through ethnic cleansing 15 years ago, whether he can go into his home 
and expel the Arab Sunni living there, that is a problem for us. I do 
not want some American GI having to make that decision, although they 
are qualified to make it. They should not have to be the ones to make 
each of those decisions.
  Again, the handoff in the transition will be difficult, but as long 
as we move toward involving the international community without 
yielding any of our security interests, that is the way to go.
  How would they deal, for example, as I said, with the Kurds, the 
Turkmen, and Arabs literally fighting over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 
trying to claim that city? How will they contend with uncooperative 
ethnic leaders bent on revenge instead of reconciliation?
  We are the ones who will have to provide the military muscle for the 
coalition to interface between those groups, but we should have the 
rest of the world in on the deal and the responsibility. Instead, 
someone must be given the authority to resolve the incredibly 
complicated problems that will arise, and we should look to those 
experiences, as I said, in the Balkans, some of it good, some of it not 
so good, and draw from that experience.
  We should empower an international civil servant to be the country's 
high commissioner or representative at some point as this transition 
goes forward. He or she should be backed up by an international 
civilian administration that empowers Iraqis, by a credible 
international security force with American forces at its core, American 
forces in the lead.
  God willing, this war will continue to go well. Casualties on all 
sides, God willing, will be few, and, God willing, a victory will be 
sooner than later. And working with the international community, God 
willing, we will put Iraq on the path to a democratic society.
  Even if we succeed in these difficult endeavors, we should not expect 
Iraq's promise that will come from this new government to automatically 
trigger progress throughout the region. Indeed, we will not truly win 
the peace unless we adopt and pursue a broader strategy for the Middle 
East. I believe the President has recognized that by underscoring and 
endorsing the road map between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now 
we must follow through and show a consistent commitment to its 
implementation.
  Finding a solution to this problem would exponentially increase our 
ability to promote and support democracy and democratic reform 
throughout the region. We must do that for the sake of its people and 
for the safety of our own. For when there are no democratic outlets, 
dissent moves underground, it turns into resentment, and it is 
ventilated by extremism and even terrorism. So we must make it clear to 
our friends in that region that their future and their future with us 
requires--requires--a move toward democratization.
  If we listen to the voices of Arabs themselves, if we heed the wisdom 
of the U.N.'s Arab development report that ties progress to empowering 
women, reforming economies, and expanding political participation, we 
can

[[Page S4486]]

and will help infuse a sense of hope in a region that lacks hope.

  Mr. President, by refusing to disarm, a defiant Saddam has made the 
fateful choice between war and peace. This is not an exercise of a 
doctrine of preemption. This is an exercise of enforcing a peace 
agreement. This is an enforcement action, enforcing an agreement a 
defeated president made in the early nineties to the whole world at the 
United Nations saying: If you let me remain in power, I commit to keep 
the following conditions to this peace agreement. That is what this 
was.
  If this had been 1919, we would have been in Versailles having to 
sign an agreement. It was 1991, and it was at a time when the United 
Nations was available to us.
  He made this choice. He made the choice between war and peace. Let us 
make sure that in winning the war, we also win the peace.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain 
be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the ranking member has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Delaware has pointed 
out, the resolution addresses very specifically the future, and I cite 
language from the resolution we are considering. Clause 5 says:

       (5) welcomes and encourages the active involvement and 
     participation of these countries--

  And those are the countries we have listed in the resolution--

     other nations, and key international organizations in the 
     reconstruction and administration of Iraq after the current 
     conflict in Iraq;

  That is an important clause. This is a resolution of commendation, of 
affirmation. This is our expression, as the U.S. Senate, of thanks, and 
we are very specific about the nature of contributions many nations 
have made, and their leaders specifically.
  It is our intent to be inclusive deliberately and to indicate that we 
welcome the very broadest participation in the work to disarm Iraq of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Having said that, we also welcome their thoughts, their 
contributions, their revenues, their physical support as we think of 
the postwar situation. That is a very important set of situations, as a 
matter of fact.
  I appreciate the good counsel of my colleague from Delaware when he 
talks not only about the inclusiveness and the need for participation 
along with us to share both the opportunities and the burdens but, 
likewise, the fact this will not happen by chance; this is going to 
require active American diplomacy.
  I commend the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Defense, Dr. Rice, and others who have been visibly active in this 
role. But this is a role in which we can assist as a body in commending 
the nations today and through all of the contacts any of us may have 
with these nations to indicate ways in which they can be helpful and 
reasons they should be helpful.
  The distinguished Senator from Delaware, as chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee last year, commenced hearings which he has cited 
today on the post-war Iraq situation. We could not have predicted last 
summer or last fall precisely in the circumstances, but at some point 
it was apparent to many of us that it would be important for those 
weapons of mass destruction to be found and to be destroyed. Our prayer 
then was that the coalition of nations in the United Nations, working 
through the Security Council or other groups, might, in fact, be 
persuasive; that declarations of the weapons would be made and that 
international authorities that could work with us in verifying their 
destruction. We are still in that quest. The large coalition we have 
talked about today is determined, in fact, to find the weapons and to 
destroy them, to rid the world of the problems of proliferation that 
could endanger any of the nations we are citing today, and others who 
have not chosen to join with us as yet.

  Our resolution is not one of censure or condemnation. We are not 
about the job of finger-pointing and asking why or why not. We are 
affirmative. We are saying affirmatively, these nations have taken a 
stand, and we hope they will take a larger stand because there will be 
much work to do. We hope there will be more joining with us in an 
inclusive move.
  As the Senator from Delaware has spoken, and I concur with him, we 
would include in that, as our resolution does, international 
organizations, our NATO allies, the United Nations, others who are very 
important for the future of the world in many sectors quite apart from 
the one we are discussing today.
  Having said that, it is important that we all understand that we are 
going to have to stay the course with regard to operations in Iraq, 
both with regard to the military situation, the disarmament situation, 
and the reconstruction situation. That will not be easy. The expense of 
that, regardless of the estimates--and many learned people throughout 
this country and throughout various organizations have been addressing 
this issue, our own government has been addressing the issue because it 
will be soon upon us, but the necessity of staying the course is 
absolutely imperative not only with regard to our credibility as a 
nation and the welfare of the people in this country and the people of 
Iraq and others who are with us, but with regard to the surrounding 
neighborhood and everybody who may be impacted by the military action 
presently.
  The great fear of many nations, either expressed or unexpressed, is 
that without extraordinary leadership and statesmanship, there will be 
chaos in Iraq in the postwar situation. There are many historical 
reasons for that which most of us have reviewed in the course of 
discussing Iraq.
  The whole origin of current Iraq, the repression of the Kurds which 
did keep the peace, albeit in a very cruel and harmful way to the 
people who were involved in the country, and frequently with enormous 
loss of life to the neighbors, as Iraq and the Saddam regime invaded 
other countries, used weapons of mass destruction to kill hundreds of 
thousands of people outside of Iraq, quite apart from those he 
repressed within the country. This is the history of a situation that 
is not on the face of itself correcting, or that of a unified spirit, 
or with lots of basis for democratic institutions and the ways in which 
people might find their way automatically.
  I commend the Senator from Delaware for pointing out that it is not 
our purpose--and we point that out in what we are saying today--to be 
governors of Iraq. The whole idea is Iraq for the Iraqis, for people 
who come forward to take leadership swiftly and surely, but with the 
right instincts with regard to human rights, freedom of expression, and 
a respect for other nations around them, and with all of the pursuits 
that we think are important to express up front. This is one of the 
basic reasons nations have joined with us, and we commend them as they 
commend us. This is a coalition of the willing with regard to 
disarmament, but it is a coalition of countries that are striving 
toward some common ideals as to how people should live and how they 
should treat each other.

  We have a very large job, and I make that point now because some have 
charged that the future has been muted, that there is an impression 
that somehow or another the war will happen, hopefully will be over 
swiftly and surely, the disarmament will occur, and some Americans, 
quite apart from the coalition of the willing we have listed, may have 
the impression that we are going to leave. In fact, many Americans, 
unless we have an up front debate, may very well favor that position 
and say this is a dangerous part of the world.
  Granted, the Iraqis have lots of problems. We are all for them 
working it out and doing the best they can. This is

[[Page S4487]]

likely to lead to the chaos that is generally feared.
  Nations, not altogether cynically, advocated the continuation of the 
current regime because they said it would create stability. Some 
nations were prepared to accept tyranny because at least it brings 
stability. There are not going to be changes of boundaries, changes of 
government, people coming and going with strange doctrines. Or, from 
our standpoint, having watched a failed state in Afghanistan prior to 
the time that al-Qaida was utilizing camps, utilizing organization and 
finance, using that failed state as an incubator, attacked America, 
Iraq is a much larger country. A failed state there is conceivably an 
incubator for even more harm, whether it be al-Qaida or any number of 
other groups, some national, some unknown to us, who find sustenance, 
who find the possibility for proliferation of dangerous weapons and 
perhaps in due course weapons of mass destruction.
  To allow chaos to occur would be a monumental foreign policy and 
security policy failure by the United States. That is why we need to be 
forward looking, affirmative, inclusive, signing up more partners, 
commending those who come as they come.
  I have heard some say, the contributions of some of the countries 
that are listed in our resolution are very modest. In some cases, they 
have barely said: We are for you. We think you are on the right track. 
We want to identify with the United States.
  They say: Where is the beef? Where are troops? Where is money? Where 
are supplies? Those are legitimate questions. I would simply respond 
for each of the nations that we list today. They have made a 
declaration that could be fateful with regard to those who have 
authority in those countries. The leaders of those countries must 
answer to their parliaments, to their people, to others in the press 
and those who play some role in public opinion. This was not a casual 
association or declaration. Nor will it be after the war is over, and 
the responsibility for Iraq comes front and center for all of us.
  By ``all of us,'' I mean the countries we now have gathered together 
in the commendation and those, prayerfully, that will join us. That, 
hopefully, at some point will include all the nations of the United 
Nations and of NATO. It will include those that may not be with us as 
of this moment.
  I will take at least a minute of this debate to commend our 
colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, simply because he was a person, in 
my own experience as a young person, as mayor of Indianapolis going 
with him to Brussels when he was a counselor to President Nixon and 
representing this country in a group called the Challenges for a Modern 
Society, as we talked about the problems of urbanization in our NATO 
countries, the problems of the environment, the problems of jobs for 
people. With Daniel Patrick Moynihan at my side, I invited the mayors 
of all the countries of the world to come to my city of Indianapolis in 
1971, and he came.
  He gave a great speech about international relations, what NATO could 
do. He gave it at a time that he was on the threshold, as it turned 
out, of going into a diplomacy as our Ambassador to India and then to 
the United Nations.
  I remember visiting with him when he was our Ambassador. It was a 
year in which both of us were considering candidacies for the 
Senate, which, in fact, occurred in the year of 1976, successfully, for 
both of us. We came to this body together and served for 24 years.

  Throughout that period of time, his counsel, I am sure if he were on 
the floor today speaking on some issue, would have been to be 
inclusive, to be hardheaded, to understand the facts, to understand the 
history, the traditions, the difficulties, sometimes the cynicism and 
the remorse, but also the triumphs that can come with successful 
diplomacy and successful international relations. Those were missions 
he undertook gladly on behalf of our country and finally in service 
with the Senate.
  I mention that spirit today because I think it is appropriate. This 
is an important resolution. I appreciate the decision of the leadership 
to take it up now before this weekend, before any more time passes, 
even this sense of appreciation and mission and what is to follow, it 
seems to me, is critically important for all Americans, both to 
understand and then to participate in the debate which we surely will 
have.
  I ask unanimous consent Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor to this 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield such time to the Senator from Virginia as he 
desires.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague and longtime friend. 
This is a very important step that the Chamber is about to undertake 
with this vote. I anticipate it will be a vote of resounding support 
for this initiative and this resolution. It sends a signal far beyond 
the shores of our Nation.
  I also wish to say a word about the distinguished chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee. We have served in this Chamber together, 
for me a quarter of a century, for 25 years. I have known committee 
chairmen on both sides of the aisle and we take great pride, the entire 
Senate, in this magnificently trained individual. He has trained almost 
all his life to take on these responsibilities.
  He is too modest to talk about it, but we often reminisce about our 
somewhat modest participation in the U.S. Navy many years ago when he 
was the foreign policy adviser to one of the more distinguished chiefs 
of naval operations in contemporary naval history. At a very young age 
he began to assume the mantle of responsibilities of foreign affairs. 
We are fortunate to have him at the helm, together with his 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, who 
likewise has spent much of his life in the field of foreign affairs. 
These two fine leaders bring to this Chamber this important piece of 
legislation which has my strong support.

  But, as it relates to this coalition, our thoughts and our hearts and 
our minds go out to the families who have lost their soldier, sailor, 
airman, marine in this conflict, and those who have suffered the brunt 
of battle and now bear the scars of conflict.
  We owe a great debt to these men and women who so proudly wear the 
uniform of our country, and who are willing to take the risks. I 
mentioned earlier today, if you look at the 290 million citizens 
privileged to live in this great Nation, the United States of America, 
less than one-half of 1 percent are currently wearing the uniform and 
assuming the risks as their forebears did, over the 200-plus years of 
this great Republic. Indeed, we owe them a tremendous, great, 
gratitude.
  This unified support is one that our President, a distinguished 
Commander in Chief throughout this conflict, has worked so hard to put 
together. This resolution recognizes in many ways the efforts of our 
President and the Secretary of State, to some extent the Secretary of 
Defense, and others to put it together.
  The coalition is currently engaged in very hard and dangerous work, 
to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a proven 
despot, and to give a measure of freedom and democracy to the long-
suffering people of Iraq. Some 47 nations have publicly declared 
support. I do not doubt there are others in the silence of their 
councils that are likewise very sympathetic and are constructively 
engaged in this effort. Each member of the coalition that we cite here 
today has demonstrated they will face the threat and take the risk as 
relates to their individual contributions. Certainly, the forces of 
Great Britain, again under the courageous leadership of Prime Minister 
Tony Blair, together with the Australians, Danish commandos, the Czech 
and Slovak units, and countless others are providing the forces 
necessary to bring about the goals I have just mentioned.
  Every contribution, no matter how large or small, has its value. Not 
only its value, but it is part of the overall matrix to enable the 
accomplishment of these goals. Even though small in

[[Page S4488]]

proportion, that small participation is essential to the overall 
success.
  I hope this coalition will grow in numbers in due course, because the 
importance is vital to a better understanding, not only here at home 
but across the world, as to the noble goals this coalition has 
undertaken.
  I thank my colleagues who are managing this bill. I yield the floor.
  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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will speak using leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has that right.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last Thursday the Senate paid tribute to 
the military personnel and civilians of the United States who are 
currently engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, the Senate 
likewise pays tribute to the member states of the ``Coalition to Disarm 
Iraq'' that are supporting or serving in operations against Saddam 
Hussein's regime.
  S. Con. Res. 30 reflects our understanding that to join with us in 
this endeavor places a political, military and financial burden on our 
partners. But shared by many, the burden is lighter.
  In particular, as we in the United States comfort our own who have 
suffered injury or the death of a family member in this conflict, our 
prayers are with those in other countries who likewise have family 
members separated from their loved ones and, in some cases, who have 
borne the burden of the ultimate sacrifice.
  Since the campaign to disarm Iraq began several months ago, literally 
dozens of nations have provided diplomatic, military, logistical, and 
strategic support, to accomplish our shared objective, the disarmament 
of Iraq.
  We are especially grateful to Australia, Denmark and Poland, whose 
military forces have joined American and British forces on the 
battlefield to disarm and liberate Iraq. We have a long friendship with 
the Australian, Danish and Polish people. Your governments' willingness 
to stand with us now will long be remembered.
  Finally, I salute the political courage and vision of leaders such as 
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and President Jose Maria Aznar 
of Spain. In their conduct they give us the very definition of 
leadership.
  When the people of Iraq are free from the repressive dictatorship 
that they have lived under for decades, I have no doubt that they will 
thank the coalition states, and especially those who risked, and 
sacrificed, their lives to help them attain the freedom to which they 
are entitled.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed a resolution, 
by unanimous vote, that expressed the sense of the Senate in commending 
our troops who are now fighting the war against Iraq. At that time, I 
expressed my reservations about extraneous clauses in the resolution 
that implied that Congress acted properly in authorizing the President 
to begin this war.
  Soon the Senate will vote on a resolution to commend those nations 
that are in support of U.S.-led efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and 
end his regime. Now that war has begun, the United States needs to act 
with the greatest amount of international support. The countries that 
are supporting our efforts deserve our gratitude, even though I believe 
more could have been done to build a more robust coalition which would 
more equally share the burdens of war in Iraq.
  But this resolution, like its predecessor, not only refers to the 
thanks that we wish to send to our friends and allies. The resolution 
also contains eight whereas clauses, some of which speak to United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. After reading these clauses, 
it seems to me that the resolution, intentionally or not, implies that 
the President of the United States acted properly in initiating a war 
against Iraq based upon the authority of Resolution 1441. I disagree 
with that conclusion.
  The resolution contains two whereas clauses that describe joint 
statements issued by several nations on January 30, 2003, and February 
5, 2003. A reading of these joint statements can be interpreted to 
argue that Resolution 1441 was a sufficient basis from which to launch 
a war on Iraq. I do not agree that the United Nations authorized the 
use of force against Iraq. The U.N. Secretary General seems to share my 
view on this point.
  The Senate should give its thanks to those countries that give their 
support to our troops in the field. I hope that the United States will 
work with these countries to address the long-term reconstruction needs 
of Iraq. I hope that the administration will begin to repair our ties 
with our other allies that did not share our view of the need to use 
force in Iraq. But I do not believe that it is proper to give a one-
sided view of the diplomacy that brought us to this point in the 
context of thanking our friends.

                          ____________________