[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5540-5547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            WAR ON TERRORISM

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia organizing this 
opportunity to discuss what is obviously one of the most serious issues 
which we as a nation are facing and which the world is facing; that is, 
the question of how we address terrorism, and specifically how we 
address terrorist states such as Iraq.
  The leadership of the Senator from Virginia on this point has been 
long and strong and continuous. I admire the fact that he has given us 
that leadership, and I appreciate the fact that his service in the 
Senate and his expertise are brought to bear on this type of a very 
difficult question.
  When we begin to address this issue of terrorism, I think we should 
start with the source. Let us turn to the words of the man who has 
basically orchestrated the attacks on the United States, Osama bin 
Laden, and his intentions and the intentions of the people he directs, 
and unfortunately encourages. Osama bin Laden, on the issue of weapons 
of mass destruction, in an interview in 1999 from Time magazine, said 
the following:

       Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious 
     duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons--

  Weapons of mass destruction--

       --then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek 
     to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would 
     be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that 
     would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

  In a religious order he states:

       We, with Allah's help, call on every Muslim who believes in 
     Allah and who wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's 
     order to kill Americans and plunder their money wherever and 
     whenever they find it. The ruling to kill the Americans and 
     their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty 
     for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is 
     possible to do it.

  These are the words of a fanatic who has a purpose. We have seen the 
execution of his purpose in the attacks on Americans, with thousands 
dying in New York and others here in Washington, military men and women 
in Yemen, and in our Foreign Service personnel in Africa.
  The question becomes: From whom would he obtain these weapons of 
destruction? It is clear that one of the core sources of weapons of 
mass destruction is terrorist states which are producing those weapons 
of mass destruction--states which act outside the responsibility of the 
civilized world.
  The state which has most flagrantly pursued that course of action is, 
of course, Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction. That has been 
confirmed beyond question--biological and chemical--and they clearly 
are trying to develop nuclear. More importantly, Saddam Hussein has 
used those weapons not only against what he perceives as an enemy--the 
Iranians--but against his own people. He has killed thousands of his 
own people and tens of thousands of Iranians using weapons of mass 
destruction--chemical weapons.
  We know there are literally tons of Vx gas and pounds of anthrax 
which are unaccounted for and which cannot be found--and which are in 
the possession of Saddam Hussein. Should they fall into the hands of 
Osama bin Laden, it is very clear from his own words that they would be 
used against us here in the United States, and the implications are 
staggering. If they were to be dispersed in any number of ways, tens of 
thousands of Americans might be harmed and possibly even die.
  The United Nations has equally recognized that Saddam Hussein is a 
threat to the civilized world, and a

[[Page 5541]]

number of resolutions have been passed by the United Nations calling 
for action to be taken by Saddam Hussein and his regime to comply with 
international law.
  In April 1991, almost 12 years ago, the U.N. Security Council decided 
in Security Council Resolution 687 that Iraq shall unconditionally 
accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal, or 
rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic 
missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. It further required Iraq to 
make a declaration within 15 days of the location, amounts, and types 
of such items.
  Twelve years ago that resolution was passed. It is uncomplied with. 
It has been ignored. It has been intentionally obfuscated by Saddam 
Hussein.
  In August 1991, Security Council Resolution 707 demanded that Iraq 
provide, without further delay, full, final, and complete disclosure of 
its proscribed weapons and programs as required by the previous 
resolution.
  That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, undercut, and actively 
avoided by Saddam Hussein's regime.
  In June 1996, Security Council Resolution 1060 deplored the refusal 
of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the 
Special Commission, which constituted a clear violation of three 
previous resolutions.
  That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, and undercut by Saddam 
Hussein, and intentionally undermined.
  In June 1997, Security Council Resolution 1115 condemned Iraq's 
actions and demanded Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional, 
and unrestricted access to any sites for inspections, and officials for 
interviews by UNSCOM. Again, the resolution has been ignored, 
undermined, and actively obfuscated and circumvented by Saddam Hussein.
  In October 1997, Security Council Resolution 1134 demanded that Iraq 
cooperate fully with the Special Commission and demanded also that 
Iraq, without delay, allow the inspection teams immediate, 
unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas, 
facilities, equipment, records, as well as to persons whom the 
inspectors wish to interview.
  The resolution has been ignored, undermined, and actively obfuscated 
by Saddam Hussein.
  In November 1997, Security Council Resolution 1137 condemned the 
continued violations by Iraq, its tampering with monitoring cameras of 
the Special Commission, and demanded that Iraq cooperate fully, and 
immediately.
  That was in 1997. And there has been no immediate cooperation. In 
fact, there have been active--active--attempts to interfere with and 
undermine that resolution.
  In March 1998, Security Council Resolution 1154 stressed that Iraq 
must accord immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the 
Special Commission, and that any violation would result in the severest 
consequences for Iraq.
  Again, Iraq has ignored the resolution and actively worked to 
undermine it.
  In November 1998, Security Council Resolution 1205 condemned the 
decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a 
flagrant violation of Resolution 687 and other resolutions.
  In November 2002, Security Council Resolution 1441, which was 
unanimously approved, decided that Iraq has been and remains in 
material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and 
decided to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to 
comply with its disarmament obligations under the relevant resolutions.
  Resolution 1441 has been ignored, obfuscated, and actively--
actively--undermined by Saddam Hussein and his regime.
  There can be no question--absolutely no question--but that Saddam 
Hussein and his regime in Iraq continued to possess weapons of mass 
destruction, continued to hide those weapons from the inspectors, 
continued to violate resolution after resolution of the world 
community, as presented by the United Nations, and represents a clear 
and present and immediate threat not only to its neighbors, but more 
specifically to us, the United States.
  There are some in the world community, obviously--mostly in Europe--
some of our allies, who, for whatever their personal reasons or 
whatever their national interests, have decided Saddam Hussein does not 
represent the threat we know he is. I might even recall the words of 
Washington when I think of that. Washington advised us, of course: Why, 
by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle 
our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, 
interest, humor, or caprice? There are interests there that are not 
ours. But in the end our purpose must be our national security and the 
security of our people.
  It was not, of course, Berlin or France or Paris that was attacked. 
It was New York City that was attacked. As a result, it is America that 
is at risk.
  Former President Clinton made it very clear he understood the threat 
of Saddam Hussein. He has described Iraq as a ``rogue state with 
weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to 
terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the 
world among us unnoticed.'' He went on to imagine: What if Saddam fails 
to comply with the U.N. resolutions and we fail to act, or we take some 
ambiguous third course, which gives him yet another opportunity to 
develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Clinton 
answered his own question by saying:

       Well, [Saddam] will conclude that the international 
     community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he 
     can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of 
     devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee 
     you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's 
     worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

  That was President Clinton.
  Last night, President Bush made it very clear that he understands his 
purpose as President, his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but 
more importantly, his responsibility as a leader of the free world, and 
the protector of the interests of the American people and the lives of 
Americans, must involve the disarmament of Iraq.
  There can be no question about that. Iraq must be disarmed. We are 
engaged in a war. Some on the other side have said or implied there is 
no war and, therefore, we should not go to war. But when our buildings 
were attacked and our people died in New York, and when our people died 
in Washington, and when our sailors were killed in Yemen, and our 
Foreign Service people were killed in Africa, clearly, those were acts 
of war directed at us and at our people.
  Were this the 19th century or well into the 20th century, when 
despots such as Saddam Hussein also existed--all through time there 
have been despots--then maybe we could take a more casual or leisurely 
approach to this, and maybe we could live by the code of some of our 
European allies: That we simply will do business with them and hope 
they go away. But those times no longer exist.
  Today, when a rogue nation, led by a criminal individual, attains 
weapons of mass destruction, the death and destruction which they can 
level on people who they perceive as their enemies is overwhelming. The 
smoking gun is no longer a single bullet. The smoking gun may be a 
nuclear bomb or a biological weapon or a chemical attack which kills 
tens of thousands of Americans.
  We cannot wait for the smoking gun. We know the weapons exist. We 
know the person who controls those weapons is fundamentally evil. And 
we know the people who want to attain those weapons have already killed 
thousands of Americans. We must take action.
  So I congratulate and support our President as he moves forward to 
make it unquestionably clear we will not tolerate an Iraq that has 
weapons of mass destruction, and we will do what is necessary to 
protect our Nation and our people and the freedom which we enjoy.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia granting me 
this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

[[Page 5542]]


  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the contribution of 
our distinguished colleague.
  We have two speakers on our side ready to go forward, and we will 
rotate, as the case may be. But we now have the distinguished chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, who is also the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense within the larger committee, a man who has 
dedicated much of his lifetime to defense issues, beginning in World 
War II with his distinguished service in the Army Air Corps.
  I would hope the chairman might make reference to the work that has 
been done in his committee with reference to the issues relating to 
international terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea, because there is some 
challenge to the Senate as an institution as to whether or not we are 
giving attention to these issues. Within the last day or so, I put into 
the Record a very long recitation of what the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate has been doing. I know the Committee on 
Appropriations, particularly the subcommittee, has been very active. We 
also are likely to hear from the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. His committee has also been doing a great deal of work.
  We all recognize the value of debates in this historic Chamber, but 
there is much work going on within the committee structure by 
individual Senators in their town meetings. So, collectively, this 
institution has a good record of addressing the serious issues of our 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia is right. As a 
veteran of World War II and a child of the Depression, I harken back to 
the days before World War II when we had so much information coming our 
way concerning the scourge that was threatening and did threaten and 
almost destroyed Europe. We have tried to be vigilant in this country. 
We have had a series of debates not only on this occasion but at the 
time of the decision of the United States to fulfill the request of the 
United Nations to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. We had similar 
divisions on the floor of the Senate then. I was sad to hear comments 
made before that action was initiated, but I was very proud of the 
Senate that after the decision was made to go to war against Iraq in 
order to eject them from Kuwait the Senate came together and supported 
President Bush in 1991 to achieve that objective.
  Now we face a different circumstance. I like to harken back to the 
words that my good friend, the former Secretary of State, Henry 
Kissinger, said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last 
September. He said then:

       We must consider not only the result of action but the 
     consequences of our inaction.

  Secretary Kissinger presents the watchwords for this body to consider 
and think about, especially since this administration and I personally 
believe that Saddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger to 
the United States and to those who believe in freedom throughout the 
world.
  As a consequence of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and 
the war on terrorism that ensued, Secretary Kissinger pointed out that 
a new geopolitical reality was born. The world must recognize that the 
potential connection between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction 
moved terrorism to a new level of threat. In fact, that nexus should be 
the overriding security issue of our Nation.
  President Bush and his team of national advisers has determined that 
Saddam Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction--
chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear--which could be used by 
terrorists to threaten the world. There is a great deal of information 
collected by the United States in the past year concerning that fact.
  In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had 
visited 20 secret facilities for chemical, biological, and nuclear 
weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with Iraqi 
Government contracts complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed 
said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the 
United Nations and then secretly used that equipment for their weapons 
programs.
  Iraq admitted to producing biological agents and, after the 1995 
defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to weaponization of 
thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin for use 
with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft. Our Defense Department 
reported in 2001 that Iraq had continued to work its weapons programs, 
including converting an L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential 
vehicles for delivery of chemical or biological weapons. Just think of 
that, weaponization of an airplane and using an airplane in a way 
entirely foreign to its original purpose. It reminds me of September 
11.
  This jet trainer is capable of delivering both of these systems, 
chemical and biological weapons. In fact, Iraq has not accounted for 
hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of 
unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads. It has not 
accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were 
its preferred vehicles for delivering nerve agents, nor has it 
accounted for almost 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agents.
  Iraq is still purchasing chemical weapons agent precursors and 
applicable production equipment. It is making an effort to hide the 
activities at the Fallujah plant, which is one of Iraq's chemical 
weapons production facilities, which was one of those production 
facilities before the gulf war. At Fallujah and three other plants, 
Iraq has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need 
for water treatment. Evidence indicates that some of its chlorine 
imports are being diverted for military purposes.
  A report issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies 
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months 
if he were able to obtain fissile material. In the last 14 months, Iraq 
has sought to buy thousands of specifically designed aluminum tubes 
which intelligence officials believe were intended as components for 
centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iraq has withheld documentation relative 
to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment 
techniques, foreign procurement, weapons designs, experimental data, 
and technical documents.
  Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over 
the past 2 years, signaling his continued interest in developing a 
nuclear program.
  Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a greater 
range than 150 kilometers, as prohibited by U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 687. Iraq continues to work on the al-Samoud liquid 
propellant short-range missile which can fly beyond the 150 kilometers 
barred by the agreements into which it has entered. The al-Samoud and 
the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in 
Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both were nearing 
operational deployment. The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal 
site for testing liquid propellant missile engines, and it has been 
building a new larger test stand there that is clearly intended for 
testing prohibited long-range missile engines.
  Each of these actions point to the creation of an environment that 
will permit Saddam Hussein to go after his enemies, whether they are in 
Iraq or any other region in the world. And we have seen time and time 
again Saddam Hussein has no regard for the ideals of freedom, equality, 
and justice for others. He lives in an empty echo chamber of evil.
  What we must face is that the United Nations resolutions were 
systematically and brutally ignored and violated for the past 12 years. 
It was the U.N. inspectors who found it impossible to do their job and 
had to leave their work unfinished. They returned, and they have been 
at it again, trying to find the evidence to prove what we all believe 
is true.
  Clearly, the Senator from New Hampshire has just stated Iraq has 
ignored

[[Page 5543]]

now 17 resolutions and blatantly violated the agreement it made after 
defeat in 1991.
  What we face is existence of a rogue state with weapons of mass 
destruction. I wonder if anyone here denies that. They have the 
willingness to use these weapons and have demonstrated in the past, 
both against the Kurds and Iran, that they have a hatred for the 
civilized world. It is a terrorist state now, in my opinion. If we were 
to go to war with Iraq again, we will not be ignoring our war on 
terrorism but trying to stamp out the source of it. Americans must face 
this responsibility and the realization that we are the one country in 
the world that can both eradicate this man, bring him to justice, and 
bring the seeds of democracy to a new nation.
  I hope we will finally hear soon that all of the nations we believed 
were our partners in seeking freedom will support the objectives of the 
U.N. resolutions that have already passed. I think if we would enforce 
those, we would achieve a safe and lasting peace for Iraq and remove 
Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, I remind the Senate and the 
President of section 6 of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which urged 
then-President Clinton to call upon the U.N. to establish an 
international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, 
prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials, 
including his sons Qusay and Uday, who are responsible for crimes 
against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of 
international law.
  Mr. President, I also awakened this morning to find the Washington 
Times. This story bothers me considerably. It is a story headlined 
``Iraq Strengthens Air Force with French Parts.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this disturbs me greatly. For the last 20 
years, 21 years, I have been privileged to attend the Paris Air Show, 
along with a substantial number of Americans and our American 
companies. I visited those companies in their chalets there. We tried 
to develop what was called a ``two-way street.'' We would buy some 
materials from them and they would buy some from us.
  There is no need for France to sell equipment to Saddam Hussein. It 
is international treason, Mr. President. It is in violation of a U.N. 
resolution, and there should be no question about French officials--
they should come forward quickly to deal with this story. As a pilot 
and former war pilot, it disturbs me greatly that the French would 
allow, in any way, parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis 
could continue to use those planes. They are good planes, Mr. 
President. The French make very good aircraft parts. But they should 
not be finding their way to Saddam Hussein at this time.
  I share the concern of the writer of that article about the position 
of the French government, in view of this information now disclosed by 
our intelligence officials. As Senator Warner stated, as chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to get to the bottom 
of that. We intend to make inquiries today and find out what more we 
know about what is disclosed in the article regarding the shipment of 
military parts from either France or Germany into Iraq. I believe the 
American people need to know more about this. We need to know why these 
two countries, among the best of our allies, are standing on the 
sidelines as we prepare to try to destroy this regime that threatens 
the world. In my judgment, it is something the Senate must take very 
seriously if either of those governments has allowed the export of war 
materials to go to Iraq at this time.
  I thank my friend for allowing me this time.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 7, 2003]

              Iraq Strengthens Air Force With French Parts

                            (By Bill Gertz)

       A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for 
     its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past 
     several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
       The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading 
     company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the 
     parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
       The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made 
     Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.
       An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts 
     pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that 
     sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the 
     parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
       Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded 
     in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the 
     official said.
       The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi 
     military to build up materiel for its air forces before any 
     U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the 
     month.
       The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the 
     Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 
     A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment.
       The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq 
     from a neighboring country the officials declined to 
     identify.
       Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number 
     of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based 
     International Institute for Strategic Studies.
       An administration official said the French parts transfers 
     to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed 
     U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. ``No wonder the 
     French are opposing us,'' this official said.
       The official, however, said intelligence reports of the 
     parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned 
     by the French government or that Paris knows about the 
     transfers.
       The intelligence reports did not identify the French 
     company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the 
     parts were new or used.
       The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. 
     Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later 
     became a part of a consortium of European defense companies.
       The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under 
     U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 
     Persian Gulf war.
       Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, 
     said her government has no information about the spare-parts 
     smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government 
     about the matter.
       ``We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no 
     sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq,'' 
     she said.
       A CIA spokesman had no comment.
       A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's 
     purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. ``It is 
     well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to 
     obtain a number of prohibited items,'' the official said.
       The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment 
     in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for 
     using force to disarm Iraq.
       A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. 
     efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of 
     U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required 
     Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear 
     weapons programs.
       France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said 
     yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. 
     resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
       French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told 
     reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France ``will not allow 
     a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force.''
       ``Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security 
     Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this 
     point,'' he stated.
       France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms 
     sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier 
     Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called 
     Saddam Hussein a ``personal friend.''
       During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against 
     Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard 
     aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
       French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 
     that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
       France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it 
     by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure 
     construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. 
     officials believe France is opposing military force to oust 
     Saddam.
       Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation 
     Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military 
     equipment to Iraq would have ``an immediate and relevant 
     military consequence, if this was done.''
       ``The United States with its allies are going to suppress 
     the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any 
     conflict, and it's

[[Page 5544]]

     regrettable that the French have let a company complicate 
     that mission,'' Mr. Sokolski said.
       Secretary of State Collin L. Powell last month released 
     intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 
     Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores.
       A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that 
     Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. ``A 
     thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed 
     Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger 
     arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, 
     and armored vehicles,'' the CIA stated.
       Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the 
     U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program.
       A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction stated: ``Iraq imports goods using planes, 
     trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international 
     inspections--in violation of UN Security Council 
     resolutions.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is always a great pleasure to listen to 
my distinguished colleague.
  I wonder if I might just make reference to a point of history. Give 
or take a year or so, both of us lived through the World War II period. 
You were a distinguished aviator with the Air Corps. I was a mere 
sailor in the closing months. You got overseas and, fortunately, my 
generation didn't have to go because of the courage of Harry Truman.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am always pleased to be with young men, Mr. President.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator very much.
  We have to use history as a rearview mirror to explain the complexity 
of the times. You will recall that period in 1937 when the war clouds 
were gathering in Europe, and Neville Chamberlain went over to see 
whether or not he could reconcile the situation involving Hitler and 
the extraordinary buildup of his forces. The world was apprehensive. 
Chamberlain emerged from the meeting and flew back to London with a 
piece of paper that said ``peace in our times.'' And then we know the 
tragic events that unfolded after that, with the invasion of Poland in 
1939, and then down through and into France in 1940, and the entrapment 
of the British forces at Dunkerque. The whole world came in on top of 
us because we failed to heed what was absolutely manifest--that Hitler 
was a despotic dictator, with the then-current generation of weapons of 
destruction, and he unleashed them on the whole world as we stood by.
  Mr. President, I fear the same consequences now. That is why I 
commend our President for his steadfastness, tenaciousness, courage, 
and wisdom in addressing these issues and not flinching or blinking, 
but staying the course and trying, as he said last night, to make 
diplomacy work, but recognizing that if diplomacy fails, we have to 
step into the breach and lead.
  The Senator mentioned the only nation is the United States, but I 
know he wishes to include Great Britain.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is why I amended my comment. I certainly do 
admire greatly the position of Great Britain and its leaders right now.
  Regarding the comment of the Senator about my memories of 1937, I was 
14 then. I recall listening to people who tried to explain to me what 
was going on in Europe. It wasn't until much later, really, that I 
learned, as I entered college and started studying about world 
policies, just really the sadness of that trip Chamberlain made.
  I join the Senator from Virginia, Mr. President, because I have just 
total admiration for our President and his fortitude.
  Would there had been leaders in Europe at the time we are discussing 
who had the courage to stand up to Hitler and try to put together 
coalitions to stop him from expanding. Once on the floor I compared 
Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and I was criticized for that. In my mind, a 
tyrant is a tyrant and evil is evil. From the days of my youth, Hitler 
was the epitome of evil. In the time we are now living, I believe 
Saddam Hussein is the epitome of evil, and the President is correct to 
talk about evil in relationship to this man and his intentions.
  Above all, I admire the President for his courage to stand up despite 
all the criticism, all the apparent division that is developing in this 
country, and saying: We, as a nation, have declared ourselves to be the 
agents for freedom in the world, and we are going to pursue our goal of 
changing that regime so it cannot threaten the world.
  I am involved, as the Senator knows, with the problems of the 
development of oil in my State. I shudder every day to think that as 
the delivery of oil from Alaska to what we call the south 48 States has 
declined, our purchase of Iraqi oil has increased. I wonder how many 
Americans realize we are sending daily to Iraq moneys that Saddam 
Hussein uses to buy this equipment, uses to buy these Mirage parts.
  The problem of today is we compartmentalize information to the extent 
of saying: Yes, we know that, but on the other hand, some people say, 
we should not be disturbed by those facts.
  I am disturbed, and I wonder, as we do go to war with Iraq, about the 
future of this country and what happens to that oil and what happens to 
our Nation as we now import about 55 percent of the oil we consume 
daily. We used to be self-sufficient in oil and gas. We are not today. 
It is because we have been lured into thinking perhaps if we traded 
with tyrants such as Iraq, they would recognize the bond of business 
rather than the bond of commitment to principle.
  I hope we will find the day when the Nation as a whole will join 
President Bush and his advisers--what a wonderful array of advisers he 
has with Secretary Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary Rumsfeld. I 
cannot think of a generation of individuals who are better trained to 
guide this country through a period of crisis than the ones with whom 
the President has surrounded himself, with the approval of the Senate.
  I have every confidence in what the President is trying to do. I 
think it will be a swift and decisive war. It will involve casualties--
casualties that could be avoided if other nations of the world would 
join with us and the people of Iraq understood the world was joined 
together to condemn this man and his cohorts.
  Right know, I believe it is time for us to realize, those who support 
the President, that we may have to do what he says: We may have to go 
it alone almost. We will have a coalition. The coalition will actually 
be bigger than 1991 but not the same partners.
  I agree with the President, we do not need partners on this one. We 
do not need them. I believe we have right on our side and we have might 
on our side and we should use that might for the best interest of the 
world and the future.
  I thank the Senator for the privilege of being with him this morning.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I wish to associate 
myself with his comment about the great team of advisers the President 
has. They have time and again gone into the forums of the world to 
indicate the necessity for strong action and strong leadership at this 
time. We certainly have it in this President and his administration. I 
thank my colleague.
  I see, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, with the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee still in the Chamber and likewise my 
colleague, Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I 
wish to say what a privilege it is to work with these two great 
Senators.
  Senator Warner, mentioned, as did Senator Stevens, the great team the 
President has assembled with Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and 
Condoleezza Rice. We are very pleased in the Senate with the leadership 
of Bill Frist as our majority leader, and committee chairmen are 
working together vigorously.
  I congratulate the Senator from Virginia for his construction this 
morning of a very important opportunity for us

[[Page 5545]]

to think together about the events of the present and likewise our 
possibilities for the future.
  My hope is that the United States of America will continue to lead in 
forming a global coalition that will combat terrorism in a very 
effective way.
  Terrorists, when armed with weapons of mass destruction, are in a 
position to create what philosophers would call existential events for 
countries. By that I mean that weapons of mass destruction in the hands 
of relatively few people--a rogue state, a sub-national group, or maybe 
even a small terrorist cell--are capable of obliterating large cities, 
killing hundreds of thousands of people, and creating panic in entire 
countries. One terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction has 
the potential to create such dislocations in the economy of a country 
that recovery could take decades. This existential threat from 
terrorism is a new condition for the world that requires changes in our 
policy priorities. All nations do not understand this with the same 
precision that the United States and our leadership does. All nations 
have not been attacked in the same manner we have been.
  For some members of our body politic, the September 11 attacks were a 
wake-up call, but it was a call that has been heard. When President 
Bush and his strategists put forward a response, it was supported by 
the vast majority of the American people. We knew that the hijackers 
were from the al-Qaida group. We knew there were al-Qaida terrorists in 
Afghanistan who had been in training camps. We knew that the 
Afghanistan Government, under the Taliban regime, had been hospitable 
to terrorists.
  We asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to turn over the 
terrorists. They were unwilling to do so. As a result, our country led 
an international effort in Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. As 
President Bush has pointed out, we pursued this mission in the most 
careful and humane way with regard to innocent civilians in that 
country. We sought to find one by one the individuals who were 
perpetrating not only deeds in the United States of America, but a long 
string of terrorist atrocities over the previous decade.
  The military action that occurred there had the support of our NATO 
allies.
  It had the support of many countries that understood immediately the 
problems terrorism in the world presents. For example, President Putin 
of Russia and President Bush were on the phone both voicing mutual 
support. I mention that particular call because in the past 2 days the 
Senate has had extensive debate on the Moscow Treaty. This debate had 
significance for our global position and for an important relationship 
that has been changing for the better, and which must continue to 
improve.
  One reason for discussing the Moscow Treaty at this particular point 
in the life of the Senate was because the Senate is deeply engaged in 
world affairs, in foreign policy, in defense policy, and deeply 
concerned about our relationship with Russia. The participation of 
Russia in the war against terrorism is vital. Even at this moment, 
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell are working with the 
Russians to come to a somber understanding of what our mutual 
obligations are with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 
in North Korea and, for that matter, everywhere.
  These are important conversations. The President of the United States 
in his news conference last night, talked about this vigorous 
diplomacy. Our President has been reaching out to world leaders on the 
phone. He has been active in attempting to make certain that all 
nations understand the gravity of danger to each one of us and how much 
the community of nations depend upon the actions of the Security 
Council and those who take leadership in the United Nations. These are 
extremely important days for diplomacy. They are critical days for the 
success of the Security Council and the United Nations.
  In the Senate, we have understood this in our committees. Chairman 
Warner pointed out already the extraordinary number of hearings in the 
Armed Services Committee and the specific ways in which the problems of 
Iraq have been addressed by his committee. I congratulate the chairman 
and his committee.
  Likewise, Senator Stevens has mentioned this morning the 
extraordinary amount of work that occurs in all of the subcommittees on 
appropriations, but especially those that are dealing with our national 
security. In the Foreign Relations Committee we have had hearings 
almost daily on Iraq, on North Korea, on Afghanistan.
  Last week, the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, was before 
our committee making a personal appeal for the kind of support that he 
hopes will be forthcoming from not only the United States, but also 
from the European countries and from nations in his neighborhood. 
Democracy must succeed in Afghanistan, as we hope that it will in Iraq, 
and as we hope that it will in all countries of the Middle East. 
Aspirations for freedom can be fulfilled if democratic institutions are 
built.
  This is what the coalition against terrorism is about. Clearly, we 
are concerned with the threats from Iraq, but we also want the 
coalition to understand the role of expanding freedom. The future is a 
great one for people who have freedom, but at this particular moment 
terrorists would deny all of us the opportunity to have freedom.
  Last evening President Bush indicated that Saddam Hussein has the 
ability and opportunity to surrender the weapons of mass destruction 
that were cataloged by the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 and are 
still in Iraq. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security 
Council of the United Nations, said to Saddam Hussein: This is your 
last chance. Disarm or show evidence you have disarmed.
  Each of the succeeding reports from the inspectors have indicated 
that Iraq has minimally cooperated in allowing inspectors to go to 
various sites, but the Iraqi regime obviously has been very reluctant 
to show evidence of disarmament or, in fact, to disarm. Even the Iraqi 
missiles possessing an illegal range, which are an undisputed and 
tangible violation, are being surrendered only gradually in the most 
resistant manner possible.
  There are reports in the American press of destruction of a few of 
these, but in the Iraqi press, or at least among people in that 
country, there is no word of this. In part, it is supposed that Saddam 
would be embarrassed by the disclosure that he has been found out and 
is disarming at all.
  I mention all of this because these are fateful days in bringing 
together a coalition, hopefully of the Security Council--absent that, a 
coalition of the willing--that knows the war against terrorism can only 
be won if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of aggressive 
dictators are destroyed. Our President has said as the bottom line, 
Saddam will be disarmed. In the aftermath of that event, we will have a 
great deal of work to do in this body.
  There are expenses involved in disarming Saddam. I think every one of 
us, as committee chairmen, as Senators, have been up front with our 
people. We know this is costly and we know our Armed Forces are at 
risk. We know a lot of things are at risk. One thing that must not be 
at risk, however, is the movement to build a greater coalition in the 
war against terrorism.
  I will now speak specifically about the fact that in the Foreign 
Relations Committee, starting March 25, we will be having hearings on 
ratification of the NATO treaty of enlargement. The occupant of the 
chair will recall that a fairly short time ago, seven nations were 
invited into NATO membership. They have been busy fulfilling the 
requirements that came with that invitation. They include the Baltic 
States, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia. I will 
suggest that the hearings on NATO enlargement will, in fact, fulfill an 
even a greater purpose. We will have an opportunity to discuss the 
importance of each of the countries in NATO and the historical 
importance of America and Canada reaching across the Atlantic for over 
50 years and working with European friends to guarantee peace on a 
continent which has known no peace in any 50-year period in the last 
millennium.

[[Page 5546]]

  This is the reason that European countries have sought NATO 
membership. They have wanted to be in a Europe whole and free. They 
have talked freely about obligations out of area. They are eager to 
participate in the war against terrorism. They want to be strong 
friends of the United States of America and manifest that every day. 
That is something to celebrate. We will do so as we discuss NATO.
  But as we discuss NATO, we will also discuss its future, which must 
be a very strong future. My prayer is that all of our NATO allies will 
be with us in the event Saddam Hussein does not disarm. I hope that in 
the event NATO allies are not with us on that particular day, they will 
get their soon. All of our friends are going to be needed as we think 
about the future of Iraq and work with the people of that country for 
the building of democratic institutions.
  I hope we are all prepared for vigorous activity in Afghanistan to 
ensure the success of that state. I hope that we will sustain a 
partnership with Afghanistan that will inspire confidence throughout 
the world in our commitment to freedom.
  I conclude simply by saying that the President is offering strong 
leadership and I support him. I am prepared to work with the President 
in pursuit of all the objectives he has in the days and months ahead. I 
know from the words of the President that he foresees a future that is 
filled with complexity, but one that also is filled with promise for 
our country and for others that share our vision.
  Therefore, we should face this day with optimism because we have a 
plan for a future that looks brighter than the future did on September 
11, 2001. On that date we discovered that the oceans did not guarantee 
our safety, that we were vulnerable, that Americans were dying, that 
our most cherished landmarks--including this Capitol--were at risk. And 
I suspect each of us prudently understands that this is still the case. 
But rather than going into a situation of panic, as resolute Americans, 
we found leadership with President Bush and new reservoirs of strength 
within ourselves. This is a place of resolute activity in each of our 
committees and on the floor of the Senate in discussing the most basic 
foreign policy and defense issues of our time, doing so with 
intelligence, with optimism, and likewise, with an ability to listen to 
each other.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the services of our 
distinguished colleague from Indiana and his long experience in the 
Senate and now having risen to new heights in his distinguished career 
as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  I have also enjoyed a very warm and strong relationship with my 
colleague through the years. He is too modest to talk about it, but he 
served in the U.S. Navy in a position as adviser on foreign policy to 
the then-Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Burke. He watched many of 
the key issues on the world scene unfold.
  I made reference to the Chamberlain speech that we will have peace in 
our time. I addressed this colloquy to Senator Stevens who, like me, 
lived through that era. I wonder if the Senator might have some 
comments on it. It is so appropriate that the world be reminded that 
there have been parallels in history where we have been faced with the 
rise of a dictator, and the dictator possessed vast arsenals of weapons 
and had a proven track record of having used the weapons against other 
people and other nations, and how this is the time for the strongest 
leadership, which I believe is being offered by our friend. It is being 
offered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
  How severely we regret the leadership of France and Germany, 
certainly nations venerable in history, having lived through so many 
periods of turbulence on that continent, cannot recognize today the 
parallels of years past. I wonder if the Senator might have a viewpoint 
on that, particularly with reference to France.
  Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who, 
likewise, distinguished himself as Secretary of the Navy at another 
time in his career. The Senator clearly has seen parallels at various 
times.
  Historically the path for the United States, France, and Germany was 
not always easy during the Cold War period. The potential for 
hostilities with the old Soviet Union tested us many times. I can 
recall, as can the Senator, when Helmut Schmidt went to London in 1979, 
and came forward with a very bold statement. He said that if the Soviet 
Union did not withdraw medium-range missiles that were aimed at Europe, 
then NATO must put missiles on European soil to counteract them. The 
Russians perhaps predictably, moved their missiles forward and 
indicated in an intimidating way that they might be prepared to take 
action sooner, rather than later, against Europe.
  There were rallies throughout Europe, with people saying, ``better 
red than dead.'' All the major capitals had frequent marches with 
people claiming peace is what they wanted, but also with some admitting 
that they would be prepared to live under communism as opposed to 
having the proper military preparation to combat and deter communism.
  In those days the stepping forward of Prime Minister Kohl was 
critical. Germany came forward and said you can put Pershing missiles 
on our soil, and so did the Italians.
  I cite that event because it was an important and courageous step in 
a time of great uncertainty and fear. It led, ultimately, to President 
Bush, the father of our current President, committing America to German 
unification well before Great Britain, well before France. And Germans 
understand that. That was the basis upon which the unification of the 
country came.
  Now, from time to time, the French have been extraordinarily helpful, 
and I think we need to remember that they have participated in many 
critical NATO policies and operations. They have asked us to step 
forward specifically in Bosnia where they believed they had a history, 
as did Germany, that they simply could not overcome.
  I mention all these things off the top of the head because they are 
important, as ways in which we have worked together when there were 
urgent mutual problems. NATO has not been a hollow alliance. It has 
been central to the security of Europe and our nation.
  On this floor we debated the INF Treaty which provided that all 
intermediate-range missiles come down, every one of them, on both 
sides. This happened only because of the strength of the alliance and 
our mutual action. That is what we ask of our friends now, that they 
remember that fairly recent history of our solidarity against tyranny. 
And they understand that terrorism could hit them. The war against 
terrorism is not just the United States versus al-Qaida. Terrorists 
could just as well level the Brandenburg Gate or the Eiffel Tower or 
symbols that are important quite apart from the human losses of those 
who got in harm's way.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If I might bring 
another issue to the forefront on which he has a great deal of 
experience? As this debate is taking place in the Senate Chamber this 
morning, Hans Blix presumably is addressing the Security Council. I, 
frankly, think that the inspection process under his leadership--they 
have tried and tried hard. What the world fails to realize is that 
Saddam Hussein, having observed the first inspection process, has 
carefully made his infrastructure, which has gone on creating the 
weapons of mass destruction, be they biological, chemical, or indeed 
his vigorous efforts to acquire a nuclear capability. They have gone 
right on throughout this entire period of time. And they have been 
constructed in such a way that they are moveable. He did that 
recognizing that at some point in time another inspection regime could 
be imposed upon him by the United Nations, as was done with Resolution 
1441.
  I think the inspectors have tried. They have unearthed very little. 
They have not received the cooperation from Saddam Hussein that was the 
predicate on which Resolution 1441 was adopted. It simply said you are 
to cooperate, the

[[Page 5547]]

inspectors to verify and destroy. But in reality the inspectors have 
been converted to a group trying to search out, given the failure of 
cooperation, where these weapons might be located.
  I will discuss later this morning a letter I received yesterday from 
the Central Intelligence Agency, under the signature of George Tenet, 
responding to the cooperation that our country has given the inspection 
efforts of Hans Blix, by virtue of sharing the intelligence information 
we had with regard to the location of probable caches of these weapons.
  In fact, it has not borne out to be very fruitful because of Saddam 
Hussein's skill of moving these caches, of moving the infrastructure of 
manufacturing in such a manner that they cannot be detected and 
discovered without his cooperation, which he has steadfastly refused to 
give. Our President addressed that issue last night.
  I wonder if my colleague would comment a little bit on the inspection 
process. As we are speaking, Blix is giving his most recent report. As 
you know, there are statements to the effect, from other nations, that 
perhaps the period of time should be extended. The President last 
night, when confronted with those questions, simply said, as I think he 
should and very properly said: Time will tell.
  I invite the Senator's observations.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for his inquiry. The Senator is 
correct, times have changed with regard to inspection. Let me offer as 
an anecdote the Russian facility at Pokrov. This situation is not well 
known, but it is an agricultural chemical station. Pokrov is an example 
of the problems which confront Hans Blix and the inspectors.
  As I and others went there at the invitation of Russians, we looked 
around at a rather desolate-looking place with run-down buildings. We 
were led to a room in which people were making shampoo. They were using 
stainless steel equipment. I would say, without two Russians at my 
side, I would have had no idea about the history of that room, quite 
apart from the facility. But they pointed out that just months before, 
anthrax was produced in the same machinery. This is dual use in a 
dramatic way. Equipment used for biological weapons had been easily 
converted to producing a commercial product. Likewise on this premise, 
but clearly not within view, were stores of anthrax. In fact, on the 
third floor of another building they had been making anthrax. In 
another building, they had been making dual-use materials for 
agricultural livestock. One was to produce antidotes so they could 
protect, they thought, the Russian livestock. The other use was to 
produce toxins, deadly toxins, out of 14 serums that were in vials in a 
room, in an icebox, that could kill all the livestock in the United 
States.
  My point is that we would have been clueless without those who could 
give us a 25-year history of the activities at Pokrov. All of it could 
have been completely hidden. There was not a ghost of a chance an 
inspector would find anything there in years, quite apart from months.
  These are old facilities. Saddam Hussein, and others, have gone to 
school on dual use. Therefore I simply say, as the chairman already 
knows, the production of chemical weapons is clearly enveloped in dual 
use. There is not a ghost of a chance you will find a scintilla of it 
unless Iraq wants you to find it.
  Regarding the biological situation, as Secretary Powell already 
pointed out in his public address at the U.N., the Iraqis are able to 
break down all the equipment, put it in vans and cart it down the road 
200 miles. Unless the inspector is clued in that this particular van 
out of all the vans in Iraq has a biological laboratory in it, there is 
not a chance, zero, of finding anything there.
  This is the reason why the inspection business is at best a holding 
action. Those who argue in favor say: After all, with all those 
inspectors there, with all of the press following them out every day, 
surely Saddam Hussein cannot now be producing a whole lot.
  But that doesn't solve the problem of what is there, detailed by the 
U.N., after all these years. Nor does it solve the problem of the 
intellectual inquiry of scientists who even as we speak are working on 
new formulations. They don't need huge factories and installations 
visible from the air. They need only the necessary scientific knowledge 
and, ultimately, fissile material from somewhere else to get the bomb. 
And each intelligence report that we have all seen--those now made 
public--say Iraq may be a year, 2 years, 3 years from making a nuclear 
weapon. But there is always the footnote: If they get the fissile 
material from somewhere else--it will take far less time.
  That is the basis on which our President has to say the security of 
the American people is at stake. This is not a speculative business for 
we all know fissile material exists in the world, a lot of it in 
Russia. A lot of it is still not pinned down by the cooperative threat 
reduction program or anything else. That is a tremendous danger, and we 
all ought to recognize that. It is not going to go away with 
inspectors.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I guess what both you 
and I find so perplexing is how responsible world leadership, most 
particularly France and Germany, which have seen the same facts, have 
access to basically the same intelligence, and cannot reach those 
logical conclusions which our President and the Prime Minister of Great 
Britain have reached.
  Mr. LUGAR. We must continue to assist them in reaching those 
conclusions.
  Mr. WARNER. I must say, if I could just ask the indulgence of my 
colleague, my father served in World War I as a doctor in the U.S. Army 
in the trenches in France. My most prized possession, I say to my good 
friend, is on the wall in my Senate office. For these 25 years that I 
have been here, on that wall hangs this Croix de Guerre awarded him by 
the French Government for his heroism in the trenches for administering 
healing to Americans, British, Frenchmen, and Germans. I sometimes 
thought myself, and when the French ambassador visited my office a few 
days ago, in a courteous way I pointed it out and I said, you know, I 
am thinking of taking it down, but perhaps better judgment will prevail 
in your leadership. And therefore for a while I am going to leave it 
up, in the hopes that reality can be brought to bear.
  I thank my colleague for his time.
  I recognize the order entered into at the direction of both the 
majority and minority leaders of the Senate was that the Senate would 
proceed this morning on the debate with regard to the worldwide 
situation on terrorism with an emphasis on Iraq, North Korea, and other 
areas, and the time under the control of the Senator from Virginia, the 
time having been equally divided, is rapidly approaching the 2-hour 
mark which is the halfway.
  I see a colleague desiring recognition, but I remind that colleague, 
who courteously advised me that perhaps the subject matter was not that 
in the order, but I would have to say the time that he uses would have 
to be charged to the other side.
  I have some maybe 15 minutes remaining under the control of the 
Senator from Virginia, which I will hold in reserve for such rebuttal 
as may be required on the issues specifically recited in the order 
before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The order before the Senate is for 
morning business. Those in control of time may choose to speak on any 
matter they so choose.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________