Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) National Security Threats
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, these are serious times. The Nation is on Orange Alert. All Americans are urged to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting and other things to create safe havens in their home. That is because of the threat of al Qaeda and terrorist networks. The head of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden--remember him, wanted dead or alive?--the President has not mentioned his name in about 12 months, because he is still very much alive and leading and reorganizing and reenergizing his network, which is the greatest threat to the physical security of the United States.

   He did a 1-hour broadcast, or rant, against the United States, which was broadcast on al-Jazeera today. He is still alive and well, probably under the protection of the security services in a part of Pakistan where both the Taliban and al Qaeda have free rein and are organizing further attacks against Afghanistan, which is not yet stabilized, and against the United States and its allies around the world and probably against the Government of Pakistan. Should they be able to take over Pakistan, they would instantly possess nuclear weapons. It sounds like a problem.

   But we have others. We have Kim Jong Il, a psychopathic dictator running North Korea, who has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States of America, and he has nuclear weapons and he has intermediate-range missiles. He can hit Japan and other countries; he has not yet the capability of hitting the United States. But he also gets 25 percent of his income for his country by selling weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated technology to terrorists. He seems like a pretty big threat.

   So what is the response of the Bush administration? Attack Saddam Hussein, who does not possess nuclear weapons. He has a few hidden, short-range missiles that do not work very well. Yes, he is probably hiding some anthrax or some chemical weapons. He hid them before. We sent in the inspectors and we persisted over 4 1/2 years and, guess what, we found them and we destroyed them, without the destabilization of that entire region after the first war in the Gulf.

   We could do that again. We could have enhanced inspections. We could move forward and begin to deal with these other threats, these very real threats.

   The administration keeps telling us blithely, just sort of in offhand comments, Don't worry, we can multitask. We can take care of Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons through diplomacy somehow. But not the Middle East. And, yeah, we'll get around to Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, later. Yeah, it's serious, he's in Pakistan, he's making broadcasts, he's organizing and they are the greatest threat to the United States of America and its citizens, but we don't have time for them right now because we want to go after this little tin pot dictator who's terrorizing his own people and is surrounded in a box in his country in the Middle East with inspectors on the ground and about to have planes flying overhead. Plus the U.S., of course, controls a significant amount of his airspace now. But the response of the administration is, ``That's our highest priority.''

   I fear that this administration has misplaced priorities that are not going to provide the protection that our

[Page: H365]  GPO's PDF

   How about if we chose a different path and revitalized our economy and invested there and put people back to work, that is the greatest threat to the security of the people in my district, and then dealt with the real threats to our security, like Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? It is about time the President delivered on that promise. It has been almost 2 years.

   And how about Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons?

   Let us get to the real threats. Let us deal reasonably with the problems in the Middle East, but let us not exaggerate them and say that he is the greatest threat because our intelligence services and all the foreign intelligence services tell us that is just not true. We have got him contained, we have got him where we want him and we can take the time to find and disarm his weapons.

1B) Remarks to Wehrkunde Conference
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last weekend in Munich, our colleague, Senator Lieberman, gave a remarkable speech to the annual Wehrkunde Security Conference. Alliances have contributed to America's strength since the end of World War II, and Senator Lieberman, like many of us, has watched with concern as those alliances have weakened over the last 2 years. He makes a compelling case on why those alliances remain vital to our security and why it is important that the administration redouble its efforts to strengthen those alliances.

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of his speech be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   ``Halting the Continental Drift and Revitalizing the U.S.-Europe Relationship''

   REMARKS TO WEHRKUNDE CONFERENCE (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY)

   We come together in trying times with an urgent responsibility: to fortify our transatlantic alliance, which has vanquished many foes, spawned many democracies, and promoted many freedoms--but is now struggling to find a common voice in the face of many dangers.

   The growing reach of NATO and its principles belies a disheartening truth. In a world facing new and evolving threats--terrorists, rogue regimes, and Weapons of Mass Destruction--NATO is split, and risks not only becoming the shell some predicted it would be after the fall of the Berlin Wall... but a dangerous stumbling block to a safer world.

   The big question before us today is not who will join NATO or whether NATO will field a rapid response force, but instead, can our alliance survive a world in which our enemies are less defined, the dangers are more dispersed, and the road to victory is much less clear?

   We who are privileged to be leaders of NATO countries must make sure that the answer to that question is yes. The world of the 21st Century and each of our nations will be much safer if our alliance becomes not just larger but stronger, united around shared principles and the need for a common defense to the uncommon new threats that now face us all.

   This process might best begin with some family therapy, since we have been acting too often in recent years like a dysfunctional family.

   Let me begin with our side of the family. Since NATO'S inception, the strength of our alliance has always depended on American power. But America's power to lead has always depended on America's ability to listen. During the last two years, the American administration has turned a deaf ear to Europe. Some in America have sent the message that they see NATO and its member countries as a rubber stamp for the crisis that matters most to the United States at the moment, instead of a multilateral alliance of nations who listen to each other's concerns.

   But I assure you that most Americans understand that America is not an island; it is part of an interconnected world. No matter how mighty a country's army or how large its treasury, vigorous and resilient alliances built on mutual respect are essential to securing the peace and making the world a safer place.

   At the same time, we Americans are upset that so many Europeans seem so much less anxious about the new threats of terrorism, rogue nations, and weapons of mass destruction than we are. We accept the fact that for more than 50 years, U.S. leadership of NATO and our unique role in the world has meant that our security responsibilities have been more global than Europe's. While we worry about missiles in North Korea or conflict in the Taiwan Straits, Europe has mostly been able to focus on securing its own borders. But if September 11th has taught us anything, it's that none of us can retreat behind borders--because terror recognizes no borders. In today's world, enemies of freedom anywhere are a threat to safety everywhere.

   I understand why the heavy hand from Washington has lately been seen less as a source of protection and more as a cause of resentment. But I'm here today to argue for your enlightened self-interest. Robert Kagan rightly asks: why should free people--citizens of our closest European allies--seem more worried about America than about terrorism--more anxious about Bush than about bin Laden?

   We must urgently and honestly confront and resolve the differences that now divide us. If we fail to, the current continental drift will become a permanent rift, and we will all risk losing much more than family harmony. We will endanger our common security and future prosperity. And the world will lose its most reliable force for freedom and stability.

   THE ANATOMY OF OUR DISHARMONY

   We NATO allies still share three basic bonds, as we have since the beginning: common values and aspirations, common enemies who threaten those values, and common fates should we fail to work together. That those bonds are being weakened is an urgent threat that we must confront and resolve without delay.

   THE WORLD WE SEE

   The first wedge between us is in the way we see the world and its newest problems. Prime Minister Blair put it well when he said recently: ``The problem people have

[Page: S2177]  GPO's PDF

   Consider global warming. America is the single biggest global contributor to the problem. Americans know it, and in strong majorities consider global warming to be a serious problem. Yet the Bush Administration turns a deaf ear to American opinion and European pleas to do something about it.

   It is also clear that the Bush Administration's precipitous withdrawal from the long-term efforts to build an International Criminal Court and strengthen the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Again, in large numbers the American people support joining the court and improving the Test Ban Treaty. Even with imperfect world agreements such as these, removing our nation and our priorities from the global conversation creates an unnecessary breach with our allies.

   If some in America have viewed the world with blinders on--blocking out all concerns except our own--some in Europe seem to us unable to see threats that stare you and us right in the face.

   For example, when we speak of the terrorists as evil--and of Saddam Hussein as a dangerous tyrant and torturer who has viciously murdered his own people, we are puzzled why many Europeans recoil at those descriptions--which, to us, are thoroughly justified by the facts.

   Terrorism is not just America's problem. We know full fell that Europe has known more than its share of terror, so we don't presume to preach. But Al Qaida and its ilk consider all of our people as their enemies and targets--because all our nations represent the values and the way of life they hate. They also seek to inflict pain upon moderate Muslim regimes. The fact that citizens from more than 70 countries--including many Muslims--died in the attacks on the World Trade Center is more than a symbolic reality. If we cannot cement our alliance in our own minds, let the hatred of our terrorist foes for all of us do it for us.

   WHAT WE SAY

   Second, the differences between us have been exacerbated by the words we use to describe each other. Along the way, honest policy differences and critiques have given way to caricature and hyperbole.

   We in America should work for a strong and united Europe, not divide it with our words. There is no ``old Europe'' separate from a ``new Europe.'' A Europe divided was the incubator for mankind's bloodiest century. A Europe united provides the best hope for a more peaceful and secure future, for you and us.

   And when Europeans caricature America and its leaders as naive or ignorant ``cowboys,'' it offends Americans--even some of us who hail from a place far from cowboy country called New England. The point is: we should challenge each other's policies, not personalities, and question each other's decisions, not motives.

   Europe and America have often had our differences. Just think about these news headlines about U.S.-European disputes: ``Allies Complain of Washington's Heavy Hand,'' ``France to NATO: Non, Merci,'' ``U.S. Declares Economic Warfare on Allies,'' and ``Protesters Rally Against American Arms Plan.'' As former President Clinton once reminded us, the first of these headlines is from the Suez crisis in 1956. The second is from 1966, when France left NATO's military command. The third is from 1981, during the Siberian Pipeline Crisis. The Fourth is from 1986 during the debate about deploying intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe.

   Like any good dysfunctional family, we've hurled invectives and insults across the Atlantic intermittently for more than 50 years. But the difference is, leaders on both sides have always in the past worked to douse the rhetorical flames, not fan them. It's time we return to that shared compact. Now, more than ever, words have consequences.

   HOW AND WHEN WE FIGHT

   The last and most serious area of contention is when, why, and how we commit our military might to protect our people and principles.

   We Americans must recognize that no matter how strong our military or our economy, we still need help. Defeating the dangers arrayed against us requires more than the forced compliance of our European allies; it requires a genuine partnership.

   Regrettably, over the past two years, the Bush Administration has too often kept our European friends at bay. NATO's invocation of Article 5, declaring the September 11th attacks an attack on us all, was a powerful and moving act of solidarity and sacrifice. But the Bush Administration failed to grasp NATO's outstretched hand in Afghanistan, and that was a mistake. When we made the war our own, the subsequent peace became far too much our own as well.

   The Administration's declaration of its policy of military preemption has also understandably and unnecessarily raised anxieties in Europe and throughout the world. It made no sense to publicly announce this doctrine without offering our friends and foes alike clarification as to how and when the policy might be exercised. The fact is, the United States, like most countries in the world, has always reserved the right to use force to prevent an attack against its people. But some policies are best left undeclared, to be announced only when it is necessary to implement them. In the case of pre-emptive military action, that ought to be rarely.

   But it takes two hands to tear a seam. And the fact is, the hand of the Bush Administration has been assisted by the hand of many in Europe in tearing the seam that has united us for more than a half century now.

   Rather than coming together with one voice to enforce United Nations Resolutions all have supported to disarm Saddam Hussein, we hear many reflexive notes of discord from Europe. Rather than consent to the use of force when all other options have been exhausted, important parts of Europe have pulled back from our shared responsibility to put military muscle behind our policies to protect our security.

   And the transatlantic gulf between military capabilities doesn't help us overcome this rift. We all know that Europe has grown too dependent on American strength, and that that dependency undermines our partnership. I understand that Europe is focused today on the remarkable challenges of finishing the peaceful integration of Europe, new membership in the E.U., the Euro, and a constitutional convention.

   But as John Lennon once said, ``life is what happens to us while we're making other plans.'' Global terrorists are not waiting for our European allies to complete their domestic work before planning their next attacks--and it's not enough for Europe to rely upon the military might of America to ensure its own safety. It's time for Europe to take more of its own responsibility. The new NATO rapid response force, authorized at last year's Prague summit, is a start in a better direction. But it is only a first step. A deeper commitment and more money must follow.

   As I said a few moments ago, we have heard the European complaints that NATO has been ignored by the United States. But now President Bush has come to NATO and asked for the alliance to help in disarming Iraq. While we are very grateful that most member nations have responded positively, two of our closest and most important allies, France and Germany, have resisted NATO requests and taskings. That hurts. The NATO alliance itself made possible the historic reconciliation between Germany and France. I would hope the shared principles that led to that reconciliation would be remembered now.

   In the interest of our security and our unity, I want to urgently appeal to all NATO nations to rise to help the U.N. and the U.S. meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Thousands of years ago, Sophocles told the Greeks, ``What you cannot enforce, do not command.'' The contemporary corollary of that axiom is: what the world through the United Nations commands, it must enforce--or the judgments of the U.N. will lose their force, and the world that we and you live in will grow much less secure.

   Our friend Joe Joffe, editor of De Zeit, has said with characteristic insight and edge: ``We are now living through the most critical watershed of the postwar period, with enormous moral and strategic issues at stake, and the only answer many Europeans offer is to constrain and contain American power. So by default they end up on the side of Saddam, in an intellectually corrupt position.''

   I respectfully suggest that the nations of Europe define their positions on Iraq independently and affirmatively--not in reaction to America or its President. As you know, I am a Democrat. In fact, I'm a Democrat seeking to replace George Bush in the Oval Office. But he and I agree on the danger posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to his neighbors in the Arab world--as do most other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the U.S.

   In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the U.N. inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official U.S. policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

   The facts here are stark and even more clear after Secretary Powell's chilling and convincing testimony at the U.N. on Wednesday. For twelve long years, Saddam has flaunted every attempt to get him to keep his promise to disarm and instead has continued building weapons of mass destruction. If we shrink from challenging his defiance, we will not only leave a ticking time bomb ticking, we will have undermined the remaining credibility of the United Nations, and further diminished the power of NATO to protect the peace of the world.

   CONCLUSION

   The battles against tyranny, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, and for freedom, opportunity, and security, are the great causes of our time, and the greatest alliance of all time must lead the way in winning those battles.

   More than forty years ago, on the Fourth of July, 1962, President Kennedy spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. His words echoed the covenant of our American Constitution, and should guide us now in our Transatlantic relations. ``Acting on our own, by ourselves, we cannot establish justice throughout the world; we cannot insure its domestic tranquility, or provide for its common defense, or promote its general welfare,

[Page: S2178]  GPO's PDF

   Americans and Europeans are proud people--and justifiably so. We both want to control our own destinies. We both want to shape our own futures. But neither one of us can let pride or politics block the unity by which we will all achieve greater security, freedom, and prosperity. Our values are shared. Our fates are interlocking. We will rise or fall together.

   And when we rise, the terrorists and tyrants will fall. America still needs Europe, and Europe still needs America, and it is time that all the leaders on both sides of the Atlantic started acting in a way that says we understand that overarching truth.

   Thank you.

2A) NMD Does Not Protect Hawaii
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in December 2002 President Bush announced his decision to deploy a limited national missile defense system by 2004. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, detailed the limitations of the proposed system and testing procedures in an article in the Detroit News on December 29 entitled, ``Untested Missile Defense Setup Poses Risks.'' I ask unanimous consent that his entire article be placed in the RECORD following my statement. I would like to elaborate on some of the concerns raised by the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and discuss my concern that this system does nothing to protect my State or other parts of the United States from attack.

   President Bush's limited national missile defense system, first proposed by the administration in March 2001 and called ``the Alaska Option,'' consists of 5 to 10 silos/interceptor launchers in Fort Greely, AK and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, AK.

   At that time, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Missile Defense Agency Director Gen Ronald Kadish called the Alaska site a ``test bed'' that could be transformed into a fully operational facility easily. During an Armed Services Committee hearing in July 2001, Mr. Wolfowitz stated, ``This developmental capability could become, with very little modification, an operational capability.'' In a later statement, he added that ``it would be essentially a software change to turn it into an operational capability.''

   I believe that more than modest modifications would be required. Even if the test bed was functioning and proven effective, significant changes would be needed to make it an operational system. The changes may not be technically difficult but they are very complicated when applied as a whole system. They involve many command, control, communication issues that will determine who makes the decision to fire and when and with how much information. In large and complex research and development programs, one should always be wary of anything that is described as ``just a software fix.''

   In July 2001 Phil Coyle, former Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Pentagon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and defined effective deployment as the fielding of an operational system with some military utility that is effective under realistic combat conditions, against realistic threats and countermeasures, possible without adequate prior knowledge of the target cluster composition, timing, trajectory, or direction, and when operated by military personnel at all times of the day or night and in all weapons.

   Mr. Coyle estimated that it would take a decade, rather than 4 years, to produce an effective defense system. As Senator Levin raised in his article, no part of the limited missile defense system has been tested against realistic targets, and there are no plans to test the integrated system as a whole before it is deployed. Senator Levin correctly questions whether such a system will be even marginally effective.

   One could also question whether this system should be labeled a ``national'' missile defense. Given the geometry of the Cobra Dane radar, the system may be better labeled a continental missile defense. The Cobra Dane Radar on Shemya Island was built to detect Soviet missile launches. It has a fixed orientation and a narrow field of view, northwest from Shemya, towards Russia. This radar cannot see missiles launched from North Korea towards Hawaii, and will have only marginal capability for southern California. The radar cannot see the current missile defense target range between California and Hawaii.

   The administration is well aware of the limitations of the radar and exclusion of Hawaii in the proposed deployed system. General Kadish referred to this as ``the Hawaii problem'' during a briefing for Senator Reed and members of the Armed Services Strategic Subcommittee on July 27, 2001. At that time, General Kadish said that they were considering using an Aegis cruiser to supplement the Cobra Dane radar. Such a cruiser would have to be permanently on station to provide adequate coverage.

   Even with upgrades to increase the radar's field of view, the radar still will not be capable of discriminating launch characteristics or trajectory. An X band radar, such as the one now in Kwajalein, is needed. In fact, no radar in Alaska will be able to discriminate launch characteristics. The administration has not asked for funding to upgrade the existing radar or build a new one.

   The President characterized in December 2002 his initiative to field a missile defense system as ``modest.'' The program is less than modest. It is inadequate and expensive. The path towards an effective and efficient missile defense program is the one outlined by Senator Levin.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Levin: Untested Missile Defense Setup Poses Risks; Can Missile Shield Be Built?

   President Bush's decision to deploy a limited national missile defense system starting in 2004 before it has been tested and shown to work violates common sense. The Pentagon will spend large amounts of money to deploy an unproven defense, money that could be better used to fight more likely and imminent threats of terrorism .

   Many of us have reservations about deployment of a national defense against long-range ballistic missiles because: (1) the intelligence community says such missiles are one of the least likely threats to our security (in part because use of such missiles would leave a ``return address'' that would guarantee a devastating response from the United States); and (2) because deployment of a national missile defense is likely to unleash an arms race with other countries.

   However, even ardent proponents of a national missile defense should not support deployment of an untested, unproven system. The United States may eventually succeed in developing a national missile defense system that will actually work against real world threats, but we have not done so yet. According to the Pentagon, the national missile defense system to be deployed in 2004 requires a new booster rocket that has never been tested against any target.

[Page: S2183]  GPO's PDF

   The 2004 system would rely on a radar in Alaska built in the 1970's that was never designed for missile defense, that has no capability to differentiate the target warhead from decoys, that has never been tested against a long-range ballistic missile, and that the administration never plans to test against a long-range missile.

   No part of the system has been tested against realistic targets, and there are no plans to test the integrated system as a whole before it is deployed. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that this is just an ``initial capability'' in a program that ``will evolve over time'' and will ultimately ``look quite different than it begins.''

   What the Pentagon has tried not to emphasize is that this ``initial capability'' is likely to be marginally effective, if it works at all. Declaring this untested, marginal system ready to deploy is like declaring a newly designed airplane ready to fly before the wings have been attached to the airframe and the electronics installed in the cockpit.

   In his previous tenure as Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld had to preside over the dismantling of the Safeguard missile defense system which he had inherited and which was operational for less than six months because the technical limitations of the system rendered it ineffective. The development, deployment and dismantling of the Safeguard system cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars without enhancing our national security in any way. This is an experience that we should not want to repeat.

   Since that time, Congress has instituted reforms in the Defense Department to help prevent the premature and costly fielding of unproven systems. Congress established the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to oversee major defense programs and ensure they are adequately tested and demonstrated to work before they are deployed--in other words, that any new system is proven to ``fly before we buy.''

   Congress also established the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which gives the military services oversight over weapons programs to ensure that they perform well enough to be useful on the battlefield.

   The Bush administration, however, has unwisely exempted all missile defense programs from the normal oversight of these important organizations. As a result, these programs are not subject to normal review by senior military and civilian acquisition officials, and they are not subject to the normal operational test and evaluation process.

   Instead, the secretary of defense has delegated many of the functions of these offices to the Missile Defense Agency, effectively making that agency responsible for overseeing itself. History shows that without real oversight, major weapon systems don't work well, suffer serious schedule delays and have major cost overruns.

   The Bush administration should re-establish effective oversight of missile defense programs by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and other oversight organizations with the Department of Defense. Rather than rushing to deploy an unproven national missile defense system, the administration should focus on completing the development of a missile defense that will be effective against likely threats and that is shown to work through proper testing.

3A) Selection of Libya to Chair the UN Human Rights Commission
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) condemning the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   H. Con. Res. 27

   Whereas on January 20, 2003, Libya, a gross violator of human rights and state sponsor of terrorism, was elected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (``Commission''), a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;

   Whereas according to the rotation system which governs the selection of the Executive Board of the Commission, 2003 was designated as the year for the Africa Group to chair the Commission, and the Africa Group selected Libya as its candidate;

   Whereas South Africa's Democratic Alliance spokeswoman, Dene Smuts, was quoted by the British Broadcasting Corporation as saying that the South African Government's decision to support Libya's election was an insult to human rights and that African countries ``should have supported a candidate of whom all Africans could be proud'';

   Whereas Amnesty International has repeatedly documented that Libya's human rights situation continues to seriously deteriorate with gross violations taking place systematically, extrajudicial execution used against government opponents, and political detainees routinely tortured physically and psychologically during interrogation, with some detainees dying in custody as a result;

   Whereas Human Rights Watch recently underscored that ``[o]ver the past three decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling'' and ``Libya has been a closed country for United Nations and nongovernmental human rights investigators'';

   Whereas Human Rights Watch further stated that ``Libya's election poses a real test for the Commission . . . [r]epressive governments must not be allowed to hijack the U.N. human rights system'';

   Whereas the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights stated that ``the Government of Libya should not be entrusted by the United Nations to lead its international effort to promote human rights around the world'';

   Whereas Freedom House declared that ``[a] country [such as Libya] with such a gross record of human rights abuses should not direct the proceedings of the UN's main human rights monitoring body . . . [t]his will undermine the UN's moral authority and send a strong and clear message to fellow rights violators that they are in the clear'';

   Whereas on November 13, 2001, a German court convicted a Libyan national for the bombing in 1986 of the La Belle disco in Berlin, in which two United States servicemen were killed, and the court further declared that there was clear evidence of responsibility of the Libyan Government for the bombing;

   Whereas Libya was responsible for the December 21, 1988, explosion of Pan American Airline Flight 103 en route from London to New York that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 passengers and crew, and 11 others on the ground;

   Whereas a French court convicted six Libyan Government officials in absentia for the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger in 1989;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 748 of March 31, 1992, imposed an arms and air embargo on Libya and established a United Nations Security Council sanctions committee to address measures against Libya;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 883 of November 11, 1993, tightened sanctions on Libya, including the freezing of Libyan funds and financial resources in third countries, and banned the provision to Libya of equipment for oil refining and transportation;

   Whereas United Nations Resolution 1192 of August 27, 1998, reaffirmed that the measures

[Page: H335]

   Whereas in January 2001 a three-judge Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands found Libyan Abdel Basset al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and said it accepted evidence that he was a member of Libya's Jamahariya Security Organization, and in March 2002 Scottish appeal judges in the Netherlands upheld his conviction;

   Whereas as recently as January 12, 2003, Libyan leader, Moammar Gaddafi, in an interview with Newsweek- Washington Post reporter, Lally Weymouth, failed to accept responsibility for the attack and had the audacity of calling for the United States to share the burden of compensation;

   Whereas Libya remains on the Department of State's list of state-sponsors of terrorism;

   Whereas the United States found the selection of Libya to chair the Commission to be an affront to international human rights efforts and, in particular, to victims of Libya's repression and Libyan-sponsored terrorism, and therefore broke with precedent and called for a recorded vote on Libya's chairmanship;

   Whereas Canada and one other country joined the United States in voting against Libya and 17 other countries abstained;

   Whereas the European Union's common position was to abstain from the vote objecting to Libya's selection as chair of the Commission;

   Whereas 33 countries ignored Libya's record on human rights and status as a country subject to United Nations sanctions for the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and voted for Libya to lead the Commission;

   Whereas the majority of these countries are United States foreign aid recipients;

   Whereas the selection of Libya to chair the Commission is but the most recent example of a malaise plaguing the Commission, whereby its credibility has been called into question in recent years as its membership ranks have swelled with other egregious human rights violators;

   Whereas the United States' challenge is part of a broader effort to reform the Commission, reclaim it from the oppressors, and ensure that it fulfills its mandate;

   Whereas on January 20, 2003, Ambassador Kevin Moley, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, emphasized that ``[w]e seek to actively engage and strengthen the moral authority of the Commission on Human Rights, so that it once again proves itself a forceful advocate for those in need of having their human rights protected . . . [w]e are convinced that the best way for the Commission to ensure the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the long-term is to have a membership comprised of countries with strong human rights records at home'';

   Whereas a majority of the 53 member states of the Commission are participants in the Community of Democracies and signed the Seoul Declaration of November 12, 2002, calling upon democratic nations to work together to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom, good governance, and accountability in international organizations;

   Whereas the participants in the Seoul Ministerial meeting of the Community of Democracies issued a Statement on Terrorism in which they ``strongly denounced terrorism as a grave threat to democratic societies and the values they embrace . . . [they] reaffirmed that terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security as well as to humanity in general and indeed to the very foundation on which democracies are built . . . [and] [t]he most recent terrorist attacks confirm that international cooperation against terrorism will remain a long-term effort and requires a sustained universal commitment''; and

   Whereas although United Nations sanctions against Libya have been suspended, the sanctions remain in effect, and Libya's continued status as an international outlaw nation and its continued unwillingness to accept responsibility for its terrorist actions should bar it from consideration as a candidate for membership in the United Nations Security Council or any other United Nations entity or affiliated agency: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

    (1) strongly condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (``Commission'') ;

    (2) commends the President and the Administration for the principled position of the United States in objecting to and calling for a vote on Libya's chairmanship of the Commission;

    (3) commends countries which joined the United States in objecting to Libya's selection as chair of the Commission;

    (4) expresses its dismay at the European Union common position of abstention on the critical vote over Libya's chairmanship;

    (5) is appalled at the support provided to Libya in its efforts to lead the Commission;

    (6) will hold accountable countries who voted in favor of Libya's chairmanship;

    (7) highlights its grave concern over the continuing efforts of human rights violators and terrorist countries to use international fora to legitimize their regimes and continue to act with impunity, and calls on the President to raise United States objections to such efforts during bilateral and multilateral discussions and to direct pertinent Cabinet secretaries to do the same;

    (8) calls on countries at various stages of democratization to demonstrate their commitment to human rights, democracy, peace and security, and support efforts to reform the Commission;

    (9) calls on the President to instruct the Secretary of State to consult with the appropriate congressional committees, within 30 calendar days of adoption of this resolution, regarding the United States priorities and strategy for the 59th session of the Commission on Human Rights and strategy and proposals for reform of the Commission;

    (10) calls on the President to issue an objection to the continued suspension of sanctions against Libya and to call for their full reinstatement until Libya publicly accepts responsibility for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, provides appropriate compensation to the victims, and is in full compliance with all of the other requirements of the United Nations sanctions imposed as a result of Libya's orchestration of the Pan Am 103 terrorist attack; and

    (11) calls on the Secretary of State to engage member countries to support United States efforts to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights, sponsors of terrorist activities, or subject to United Nations sanctions will not be elected to leadership positions in the United Nations General Assembly nor will they be elected to membership or leadership positions on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Security Council, or any other United Nations entity or affiliated agency.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 27, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan measure, condemning the selection of Libya as the Chair of United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Despite the best efforts of the United States and a handful of other countries, Libya was elected to this position on January 20 of this year. For a country whose own human rights record will not stand up to scrutiny, Libya is certainly in no position to stand in judgment of any other country. Virtually every human rights organization has condemned Libya's flagrant disregard for human rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately, some 17 countries abstained in the vote for the Commission's Chair, including all of the members of the European Union, who choose to look the other way and let Libya attain this coveted post.

   How is it that a country such as Libya will soon be in a position to control the proceedings of the U.N.'s main human rights monitoring body?

   Historically, the chairmanship of the commission rotates among the major regional groupings in the U.N. system. This year the opportunity to nominate a candidate fell to the Africa group which selected Libya as Africa's candidate. Their selection was primarily in recognition of financial support Libya provided toward the establishing a new Africa union to succeed the ineffective Organization for African Unity. It is also due in part to Libya's backing of the new African Partnership for Development, an initiative led by African states such as South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal, that calls for increased trade benefits and debt relief from the West in exchange for commitments to promote human rights and good governance across the continent.

   Needless to say, Libya's central role in these initiatives will undermine their credibility. According to Human Rights Watch, ``Over the past 3 decades, Libya's human rights record has been appalling and Libya has been a closed country for United Nations and nongovernmental human rights investigators.''

   Freedom House declared that Libya's chairmanship would ``undermine the U.N.'s moral authority and send a strong and clear message to fellow

[Page: H336]

   Qadhafi uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition, and torture is used as a punishment and during interrogations. With prisoners held incommunicado, many political detainees are held for years without charge. Libya's government restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Violence against women is a widespread problem, as is the use of forced labor and repression against key tribal groups. In short, Libya's record should disqualify it from membership in the 53-member commission, not to speak of any claim it might have to chair its proceedings.

   We are well aware that Libya has yet to clear its name in connection with the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Although one of two former Libyan intelligence agents was convicted in the case 2 years ago and the conviction was upheld on appeal, Qadhafi continues to deny all responsibility for the bombing and has yet to pay compensation to the surviving family members to the victims of that terrorist attack.

   While temporarily suspended, U.N. sanctions as a result of the Pan Am 103 bombing remain applicable against Libya, whose continuing status as an outlaw nation should bar it from consideration as a candidate for membership in the U.N. Security Council or any other U.N. body. The very credibility of the United Nations has been called into question with this Libyan selection.

   The United States will obviously have no easy task in reforming the Commission, ensuring that it fulfills the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The place to begin, in my view, is to ensure that the Commission has a membership comprised of countries with strong human rights records.

[Time: 14:30]

   It should, for example, include participants in the community of democracies who have signed the Seoul declaration of November 2002, calling upon democratic nations to work together to uphold the principles of democracy, freedom, good government, and accountability in international organizations.

   I look forward to consulting with the Secretary of State on our priorities of strategy for the upcoming 59th session of the commission and for its long-term reform and renewal.

   I would also call upon the President to resist any effort now to lift U.N. sanctions against Libya until that country publicly accepts responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing, provides appropriate compensation to the victims, and is otherwise in full compliance with all the requirements of the United Nations sanctions.

   I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 27.

   Mr. Speaker, this important resolution condemns in the strongest possible terms the absurd selection of Libya as Chair of this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by expressing my sincere gratitude to my colleagues across the aisle, our distinguished Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who chairs our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, for collaborating with us on the text of this important resolution.

   Mr. Speaker, on January 20, Colonel Muammar el-Gaddafi's Orwellian regime, a state sponsor of terrorism and a gross violator of human rights under United Nations sanctions, was elected by member states to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a body charged with responsibility for promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. This, Mr. Speaker, is the ultimate theater of the absurd.

   By virtue of its position in the Africa group of member states in the United Nations, Libya emerged as the preordained Chair of the U.N. human rights commission.

   Traditionally, Mr. Speaker, this post has rotated among the U.N.'s geographic groups, with each group respecting the other's nominee without a challenge. Realizing that the Africa group's turn was due and that, appallingly, Libya would be its choice, our administration took the unprecedented step of breaking with tradition and challenging Libya's nomination.

   It was the right move, Mr. Speaker. The United States cannot stand idly by as monstrous abusers of human rights such as Libya hijack the human rights commission.

   Given the absurd realities of the United Nations in so many instances, our protest was too little, too late, and Libya survived the challenge. Only Canada and Peru had the courage to stand by us in standing up to this outrage.

   Although this piece of legislation focuses on the selection of Libya to chair the human rights commission, it is also relevant to a similar outrage which we learned about only recently. Because of an absurd alphabetical rotation scheme, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is set to assume the presidency of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament for a 30-day term starting on May 1. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this is Saddam Hussein's reward for 13 years of success in his efforts to defeat U.N. sanctions and inspectors by rebuilding his capacity to create mass havoc with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.

   Mr. Speaker, in response to these twin outrages, many of my colleagues here today will no doubt argue that enough is enough and conclude that it is time to pull the plug in our participation of such U.N. agencies. I fully understand their sentiment, but as we have seen in the current Iraq crisis, the U.N. is both a reality and, to some extent, a necessity. We cannot solve all of the world's problems without a forum to discuss our differences and hopefully to coordinate our responses.

   Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that H. Con. Res. 27, the first piece of foreign policy legislation to be considered by the 108th Congress, will be remembered as a watershed event in our efforts to reclaim the United Nations human rights commission and other hopelessly misguided institutions from the rogue states which have captured them for their own propaganda purposes.

   This resolution is only a first step. We must follow up with a multipronged effort to bolster U.S. leadership at the U.N. and to reform its membership and leadership criteria.

   First, Mr. Speaker, we have to increase the capacity of our State Department to engage in multilateral diplomacy. Our diplomats have to become more effective in lobbying other governments to vote with the United States on critical matters at the U.N.

   The United States must also engage in a vigorous and sustained effort to establish and to build a new democracy caucus within the U.N. that will assist democratic nations to work within and across regional lines to promote democratic leadership within the U.N. system.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to engage in a comprehensive effort to reform the outmoded system of regional voting and decision-making, and we must challenge rotational alphabetical and other leadership schemes that permit nations under U.N. sanctions to assume leadership positions at the United Nations.

   I urge my colleagues to support this measure and to continue to work toward a more rational, sane, and effective United Nations.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

   As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, on January 20 of this year, Libya, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism, was elected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights despite the Bush administration's best effort to block this

[Page: H337]

   The commission is one of the few international forums confronting human rights violators, and it sets much of the tone and the agenda for a global human rights accountability. Its mission essentially is to give voice to those who are oppressed; thus, the selection of Libya was not only a defeat for justice and human dignity but a betrayal of all those brave souls worldwide who risk imprisonment, exile or even death to fight for universal rights and for fundamental freedoms.

   It was, and is, a betrayal of millions upon millions living under brutal regimes from North Korea to Cuba to China to Vietnam to Iran and Iraq. It is a betrayal also of the suffering endured by the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103. It shows contempt for the mission and work of the commission, and it only serves to empower and embolden pariah states who are increasing their presence on the commission and manipulating its agenda in order to legitimize their unacceptable practices.

   How can a regime which does not allow U.N. human rights monitors into its borders and refuses to comply with its obligation under international human rights covenants be a member of the commission, much less be elected to preside over it? How can a nation subject to U.N. sanctions for its role in terrorist attacks be rewarded with a leadership position such as this?

   Enough is enough. The U.S. cannot and will not sit idly by and allow dictators and terrorist states to further hijack the commission and other U.N. bodies.

   That is why the resolution before us, which I had the pleasure of drafting with my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member, not only provides overwhelming evidence about Libya's record on human rights and terrorism but gives direction and support to the Bush administration as it attempts to reclaim the commission from the tyrants.

   Toward this goal, we look forward to continuing our discussions with the administration on such possible areas of reform such as the establishment of at least a minimum set of standards which should be met by all states who seek to be members of this body; also, the creation of a democracy caucus where its members make decisions based on shared values and commitments, rather than regional or bilateral considerations; to establish criteria for accreditation of nongovernmental organizations to the commission, to make sure that these NGOs are not agents of violator governments; also, to provide recognized prisoners of conscience and human right dissidents in exile an opportunity to render testimony on the situation of their country of origin during debate of pertinent resolutions at the annual session of the commission.

   This resolution extends beyond the commission. It seeks to prevent a repetition of this unacceptable situation in other U.N. fora, forums such as the Conference on Disarmament which may have Iraq at its helm in May of this year. And to achieve these goals, Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls for a diplomatic initiative to ensure that states that are gross violators of human rights, sponsors of terrorist activities or subject to U.N. sanctions, they will not be afforded membership or elected to any leadership position on any non-General Assembly U.N. entity or affiliated agency.

   Article V, in fact, of the U.N. charter provides, in principle, the suspension of a member state's rights if it is subject to U.N. sanctions. In addition, the resolution seeks to address attempts made by the Libyan dictator to escape his regime's responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing. It calls on the President to seek full reinstatement of sanctions against Libya until it is in full compliance with all of its obligations under these sanctions, sanctions which were imposed, Mr. Speaker, as a result of Libya's orchestration of this terrorist attack.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive, forward-looking resolution which seeks to restore the commission's moral authority as well as the relevance of other U.N. bodies so they may fulfill their mandates. It enjoys bipartisan support, and I ask my colleagues to vote for passage of this resolution today.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, one of the most effective global fighters for human rights in this body or any place.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is very kind, and I thank him for his remarks; but more than that, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues of vital concern to human rights internationally.

   I also want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman. He himself is a giant in standing up for human rights. He and I have traveled overseas and participated in the Helsinki process together, he chairing delegations on which I had the honor of serving with him.

[Time: 14:45]

   Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California, for bringing this very important resolution to the House floor. It is, I believe, a moral imperative and a matter of principle that this House speak as one today.

   The selection on January 20 of Libya, a gross, and I have heard that word used a number of times, and in our own lexicon of law ``gross'' means beyond the pale, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism to ironically chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is, in my opinion, an affront to basic decency and it demeans the United Nations itself.

   Absurd, grotesque, tragic. Those are just a few of the words that have been used to describe Libya's election to this post. Our State Department includes Libya on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Amnesty International has documented Libya's extrajudicial execution of government opponents and torture of political detainees. Human Rights Watch has called Libya's human rights record over the last three decades appalling.

   Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights, which claims to stand for free elections, free expression and fair trials, will now be chaired by a Nation that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that itself refuses, refuses to admit U.N. human rights investigators. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and they harbored for years and years the perpetrators of that act; responsible for the 1986 bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin that killed two U.S. servicemen; and for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger.

   The selection of Libya to head the Commission on Human Rights undermines the credibility, integrity, and relevance of the United Nations. We must not, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we must not countenance or ignore or rationalize the dangerous, illegal and destabilizing behavior by criminals and nations whose rogue status endangers international security and stability.

   The only bright spot in this otherwise outrageous, dismal act is that it may, it just may spur the international community to closely scrutinize Libya's human rights record and force serious thinking about reforming the Commission and the way of selecting the Commission. I urge our government, Mr. Speaker, to work to accomplish both of those ends.

   I believe this resolution is an important step in focusing our attention on this egregious act of irresponsibility by the United Nations and by its member states, and I urge my colleagues to support unanimously this very important resolution.

   Again, I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois,

[Page: H338]

   Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say what a pleasure it is to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on important issues such as these. They are immensely helpful and, as I say, are a real pleasure.

   Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to echo the words of my good friend from Illinois. It is a pleasure and an honor to begin yet another session of Congress with him. We look forward to achieving many things together.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to express my grave concerns with the content of the resolution condemning the election of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   I abhor Libya's human rights record. I don't agree with Libya's selection to head the Commission. But, the members of the United Nations have held a legitimate, democratic vote. Despite our serious reservations we have a responsible obligation to abide by the U.N.'s decision. We should not, as this resolution calls for, hold nations accountable for their votes.

   In a straight up or down vote, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights voted to elect Libya as its chair. Many people don't agree with that decision--Members of Congress, human rights advocates and many others. There is clear evidence of Libya's state sponsorship of terrorism and it's human rights record. Yet, regardless of our distaste with the outcome, this was a fair election in which the member nations elected Libya to this post. Everyone involved had an opportunity to vote and a majority decided who they wanted to lead them. Democracy has prevailed. Now, the U.S. Congress is asked to vote to condemn that practice of democracy?

   The United States should practice what it preaches. We cannot in one breath say democracy is good and in the next say democracy is bad, simply because we disagree with the result.

   Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 exploded in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 innocent people. Sadly, the government that sponsored this terrorist act only fifteen years ago--Libya--has now been selected to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of this reaches far beyond the Pan Am tragedy. Libya continues to stand in consistent violation of international human rights treaties. It's not just that torture and random executions are not condemned by Libya, such gross violations of human rights are heavily practiced and supported by high ranking government officials.

   Libyans--especially those that freely express their political opinion--live in fear of their own government every day. Torture, abuse and unfair detainments are common practice within the Libyan system of justice, yet Libya has not admitted to a single case of human rights abuses within their country.

   The preamble of the United Nations' Charter appropriately states: ``We the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.'' As Libya assumes the chair of the U.N.'s Commission on Human Rights, it is clear that this faith has been seriously compromised.

   It is appalling that a nation with a clear and consistent record of complete disregard for human rights now stands in this key role in helping combat human rights violations. I believe that the legitimacy of this Commission has been lost and thousands of innocent men and women across the world, who fall victim to harsh and unfair treatment every day, will continue to suffer without hope as long as nations like Libya lead the fight to protect human rights by chairing this commission.

   I join my colleagues in supporting H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, on the basis of abominations like Libya's recent election to chair the Human Rights Commission, it's plain that the U.N. has tripped over the final precipice and is now descending ever-deeper into the abyss of moral relativism.

   We've seen from the U.N., for decades, a flagrant pattern of amoral accommodation, calculated appeasement, and even the willful suppression of the distinction between good and evil itself.

   We see a disturbing lesson at work: In the United Nations of the Twenty-First Century, a documented record of state-sponsored terrorism, aggressive militarism and systematic brutality are no impediment to a country's rise within the U.N.'s bureaucratic hierarchy. From the International Criminal Court's excesses, to Iraq's chairmanship of the disarmament conference, and Libya's chairmanship of the Human Rights Commission, the U.N. is utterly marginalizing itself.

   The free world can't delegate international security decisions to an organization capable of absurd actions like the elevation of Libya to the Human Rights Commission or Iraq to the Disarmament Conference.

   Let's not hedge the truth: The U.N. is legitimizing indefensible regimes and at the end of this path lays utter irrelevance. The free nations of the world face a number of grave problems and we can never allow illegitimate regimes to dictate the terms of our freedom or security.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest possible terms the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Libya has committed untold acts of terror against the United States and its citizens. Libya has not demonstrated sufficiently that it does not support international terrorism. Nor has it abandoned its quest for weapons of mass destruction. Congress correctly extended the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act until August 2006.

   To be sure, lets look at Libya's record of uncivilized behavior during the last two decades: In the 1980s it was reported that Libya used chemical weapons against government rebels in the Chad civil war. It was also reported that during this time Libya was seeking chemical and nuclear weapons. Muammar al-Qadhafi also stated that he supported international terrorism, and defended terrorism in wars of national liberation. Because of this support, the United States named Libya a state sponsor of terrorism on December 29, 1979.

   Libya was suspected of being involved in the April 5, 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub frequented by U.S. Armed forces personnel. Three U.S. soldiers died in the blast. On April 15, 1986 the United States bombed three target areas in Libya in retaliation for the Berlin incident.

   The United States and the United Kingdom accused Libya of complicity in the December 21, 1988 explosion of Pan American Airways flight 103 en route from London to New York that crashed in Lockerbie Scotland, killing 259 passengers and crew and 11 people on the ground. Also, France suspected that Libyans were involved in the bombing and crash of UTA flight 772 over Niger in Africa in 1989.

   The United States has noted al-Qadhafi recent recantations on his support for terrorism with some skepticism and caution.

   Mr. Speaker, if indeed Mr. al-Qadhafi and his regime have indeed reformed, the civilized world would feel a lot better if they had more time to establish a favorable track record in this regard. To reward such recent behavior with this very important and prestigious appointment makes a mockery of what this commission stands for.

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H. Con. Res. 27, which condemns the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

   The international community has long known that Libya has a deplorable record on human rights and is a sponsor of terrorism. For that reason, it is shocking that Libya is now the chair of a body charged with the responsibility of promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for the world's citizens.

   The United Nations' decision to elect Libya as the Chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is alarming for several reasons. First, it is remarkable that United Nations would even consider Libya's candidacy for the position, given the fact that Libya has not accepted responsibility for its role in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed hundreds of innocent people over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Until Libya takes responsibility for its actions and complies with particular Security Council mandates, Libya cannot have any credibility in being the chair of a United Nations commission that promotes human rights. In today's world, where we seek to defeat the threat posed by international terrorism, it is irresponsible for a state like Libya to be elected to such a leadership position.

   Second, Libya's selection to be chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights reflects a disturbing trend in international institutions. It has become highly prevalent that states which violate human rights laws seek to secure positions in global bodies that espouse such laws so they can protect their reputations and those of similar regimes. Members of the international community must speak out against such practices lest these institutions become a mockery of international law and human rights.

   I urge the House to pass this resolution, which states in the strongest possible terms the outrage of Congress at the selection of Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Resolution clearly states that: (1) Libya is a gross violator of

[Page: H339]

   Libya has a horrific human rights record. Citizens do not choose their leaders in free and fair elections, nor are they able to petition their government for redress of grievances. It uses summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition. Security forces torture prisoners during interrogations and as punishment. Security forces arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and many prisoners are held incommunicado. Many political detainees are held for years without charge. There is not an independent judiciary that enforces legal rights of citizens, and citizens do not have the right to a fair public trial or to be represented by legal counsel. The

   government infringes on citizens' privacy rights, and citizens do not have the right to be secure in their homes or persons, or to own private property. Libya restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. Is this the type of country that should be charged with being the chair of a commission that promotes human rights? I think not.

   Libya is one of seven countries on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. As I have said in the past, Libya has continued to acquire weapons of mass destruction and promote state-sponsored terrorism. Last year, our Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security said that there was no doubt that Libya seeks nuclear weapons. Furthermore, he said that Libya has produced at least 100 tons of different kinds of chemical weapons. It is antithetical to the United Nations' mission for peace that a state engaged in creating global havoc be in charge of one of its most important committees.

   It is imperative that members of the international community do not retreat from their responsibility to ensure that those charged with monitoring human rights are not, in fact, grave violators themselves. We must not give credibility to countries which violate human rights and support terrorism. To do otherwise is to legitimize their practices.

   Congress has recently made its policy clear with respect to Libya's alarming behavior. In 2001, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law in August 2001. I was an original co-sponsor of the bill, and in the Ways and Means Committee I argued in favor of extending the current sanctions in place against Iran and Libya for an additional five years. ILSA threatens the imposition of economic sanctions against foreign entities investing in Iran and Libya's energy sectors. ILSA combines deterrence (the possibility of sanctions) with presidential discretion (through broad waiver authority). ILSA has been very effective so far, the Congress overwhelmingly approved the reauthorization of legislation to keep the pressure on Libya and Iran to stop their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistics missile technology. Libya also remains hostile to the State of Israel and may support terrorist activities against Israel.

   Mr. Speaker, it is this great nation's hope that it can one day live in a world where it is not threatened by international terrorism and that human rights for all will be respected. The selection of Libya as chair to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights undermines these goals. I, therefore, urge the House to pass this resolution by a strong bipartisan vote.

   Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and the American people.

   Two years ago, many in this chamber were shocked when the United States was removed from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and of the International Narcotics Control Board.

   The U.S. was a founding member of the Human Rights Commission and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was its first Chair.

   The U.S. spends more money fighting the use of illegal narcotics than any other nation in the world.

   Despite these facts, some of our ``friends''--and I use the term with increasing skepticism--at the United Nations felt it was more important that nations like Libya and Syria serve on the U.N. agency overseeing human rights and that the Netherlands--a country whose own Web page admits they will not enforce their drug laws--should serve in our place on a board designed to enforce drug laws.

   Chairman HYDE stood up and led this body to call for the suspension of U.S. funds to the U.N. until we were reinstated on the Human Rights Commission. We are now back on that board.

   I offered an amendment that passed this House to curtail our funding of the International Narcotics Control Board until we were returned to its membership. This year the U.S. was again shut out while Iran, Brazil and Nigeria were added to the Board.

   We have seen that the United Nations does not learn from its mistakes. As former President Reagan might have said, ``There they go again.''

   While we have been reelected to the Human Rights Commission, Libya has been elected to its Chairmanship. Think about that. Libya. A nation led by a brutal dictator who is known to sponsor international terrorism. Yet only two other nations joined the U.S. in opposing their election to head this prestigious body whose duty is to protect human rights. Eight European nations made the ``courageous'' decision to abstain.

   And in an example of how momentum is the true ruler of the United Nations and its bloated bureaucracy, this year's meeting of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament will be presided over by Iraq--despite the fact that Iraq is under U.N. sanctions for failing to disarm and even now faces international action for this failure.

   I wish I could tell you I was surprised.

   But the United Nations has not been the effective body it could have been over the past two decades. Time and time again, the U.N. in recent years has done more harm than good.

   I still believe the U.N. can be a useful body. One that helps promote dialogue and the exchange of ideas around the world. But many of its members have forgotten that respect is earned through logical decisions that advance the security of the world--not by blindly following bureaucratic momentum that promotes rogue regimes at the expense of the greatest democracies in the world.

   I truly hope that the actions we take here today send a message to the U.N. and its members that if they want the body to continue to be a force for good and progress in the world, they must think before they act and make decisions worthy of respect. The election of Libya to Chair the Human Rights Commission, and the continued exclusion of the U.S. from U.N. committees and boards, are not decisions of which they should be proud.

3B) Report Concerning the Justification of the Australia Group
CERTIFICATION REGARDING AUSTRALIA GROUP--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- (House of Representatives - February 13, 2003)


[Page: H675]  GPO's PDF
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States, which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the Committee on International Relations:
To the Congress of the United States:

   Consistent with the resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, adopted by the United States Senate on April 24, 1997, I hereby certify pursuant to Condition 7(C)(i), Effectiveness of the Australia Group, that:

   Australia Group members continue to maintain equally effective or more comprehensive controls over the export of: toxic chemicals and their precursors; dual-use processing equipment; human, animal, and plant pathogens and toxins with potential biological weapons applications; and dual-use biological equipment, as that afforded by the Australia Group as of April 25, 1997; and

   The Australia Group remains a viable mechanism for limiting the spread of chemical and biological weapons-related materials and technology, and the effectiveness of the Australia Group has not been undermined by changes in membership, lack of compliance with common export controls and nonproliferation measures, or the weakening of common controls and nonproliferation measures, in force as of April 25, 1997.

   The factors underlying this certification are described in the enclosed statement of justification.

   George W. Bush.

   THE WHITE HOUSE, February 12, 2003.


3C) Smallpox Vaccine Safety and Compensation Act of 2003
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to enhance the ability of the United States to respond to a terrorist attack that uses the lethal smallpox virus. This legislation establishes a program to compensate those injured by the smallpox vaccine. It also contains provisions to assist state efforts against smallpox and to protect health care workers and their employers during the vaccination campaign.

• I am introducing this bill today to begin a dialogue that I hope will culminate in the quick passage of legislation. This is not a partisan issue. I know that all members of the House and Senate are committed to protecting the American public from potential bioterrorist threats. I look forward to working with members from both the Republican and Democratic parties and with the Administration to develop a bipartisan solution. I hope that my ideas, as outlined in this legislation, can provide a starting place for discussion.

• Three weeks ago, President Bush launched a national program to vaccinate millions of healthcare workers against smallpox in order to protect the United States in case of a bioterrorist attack. To date, the number of those vaccinated is far lower than anticipated. According to press accounts, about one thousand health care workers have been vaccinated, despite an initial goal of about 500,000 in the first month.

• According to public health officials, one reason for this gap is that health care workers are concerned about the risks of the smallpox vaccine itself. About one out of every million people who receive the vaccine will die, and several others will suffer severe medical complications, including brain damage, blindness, and significant scarring. Serious injury can occur even among people who have never been vaccinated, but who come into close contact with someone who has recently received the vaccine.

• The homeland security bill passed last fall limited the liability of hospitals, doctors, and vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine. However, the legislation did not provide compensation to those who are injured.

• I have heard from public health officials and vaccination experts that many health care workers are understandably reluctant to accept a vaccine to protect the public while being forced to face the consequences of an adverse reaction alone. These consequences can include large medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and death. There can be no doubt that a compensation program is urgently needed.

• Some have suggested that existing workers compensation programs can cover those vaccinated in case of injury. This approach is not adequate. It is clear that some state programs do not cover vaccine injuries at all, others provide insufficient compensation, and not one covers those who fall ill from contact with someone who has received the vaccine.

• Health insurance may also fall short. Some insurers have threatened not to cover smallpox vaccine injuries. And some volunteers or contacts who get injured by the vaccine may not have health insurance at all.

• Aside from the lack of compensation for vaccine injury, there are other impediments to the smallpox vaccination effort. States are straining under the weight of their usual public health responsibilities and need additional funding. Volunteers who need immediate medical care because of a smallpox vaccine reaction may not be able to afford it, and those volunteers who fall ill for a few days with common local reactions to the vaccine may lose wages while recovering.

• The legislation I am introducing today addresses these problems. My goal is the same as the President's: to enhance the ability of the United States to defend against a bioterrorist attack. I believe that changes in the law are urgently needed to achieve this goal.

• First, the bill establishes a no-fault compensation program for those injured by the smallpox vaccine modeled on the successful program for children injured by routine immunizations. This system is fair, efficient, and less litigious than the traditional court system. Most importantly, a compensation program will provide real security to health care workers and their families in case of injury and will remove a major impediment to the vaccination effort.

• Second, the bill would provide grants to states to pay for their vaccination programs, including education and testing for medical conditions that are risk factors for severe reactions to the smallpox vaccine.

• Third, the bill would provide states full funding to pay for the immediate medical care of any health care worker or first responder injured by the vaccine, or anyone injured by coming into contact with someone who has been recently vaccinated. Timely medical attention can help to prevent the most serious complications of adverse reactions from ever developing.

• Fourth, the bill would prohibit discrimination against any worker who refuses to be vaccinated.

• Fifth, the bill would permit up to four days of paid leave for health care workers who experience transient but significant local reactions. Employers can obtain reimbursement for this expense from the compensation program.

• Each of these provisions will support our nation's preparations for a smallpox attack. In the coming days, I look forward to a productive legislative exchange to assure that these issues are quickly addressed.
  

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative WAXMAN in co-sponsoring the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003''.

• The smallpox vaccine helps the body develop immunity to smallpox . The vaccine is made from a virus called vaccinia which is a ``pox''-type virus related to smallpox . The smallpox vaccine contains the ``live'' vaceinia virus--not dead virus like many other vaccines. For that reason, the vaccination site must be cared for carefully to prevent the virus from spreading. Also, the vaccine can have side effects such as fever and body aches to much more serious and life-threatening side effects. People most likely to have serious side effects are: people who have or had skin conditions (especially eczema or atopic dermatitis) and people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have received a transplant, are HIV positive, are receiving treatment for cancer, or are currently taking medications, such as steroids, that suppress the immune system. In addition, pregnant women should not get the vaccine because of the risk it poses to the fetus. Women who are breastfeeding should not get the vaccine. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions to the vaccine. It is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result. Careful screening of potential vaccine recipients is essential to ensure that those at increased risk do not receive the vaccine.

• The Administration's smallpox vaccination program began on January 24, 2003 with a much lower participation than expected and lower than is needed to adequately protect our nation against a bioterrorist threat. The low participation rate is due to the Bush Administration's failure to create a compensation program for the health care workers who will be injured by the smallpox vaccine. The Institute of Medicine reported that the lack of a compensation program could seriously impact the program's goal of increasing terrorism preparedness in the United States. The Administration has included protection for the vaccine manufactures and hospitals but seems to have forgotten the people who could suffer the most--the volunteers who are performing their patriotic duty by volunteering to participate in the vaccination program.

• We need legislation which includes funding to states to provide for education, screening, medical surveillance, and treatment; protection against discrimination in the workplace, and compensation for those harmed by adverse reactions. The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' creates a no-fault compensation program modeled on the existing childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program has been extremely beneficial in providing compensation to the families and children who have been injured or suffered by routine vaccination. Smallpox vaccine compensation will cover the people vaccinated or who are injured by coming into contact with someone who has recently been vaccinated for their unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages.

• In addition the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will establish state grants to help with the costs of a safe vaccination program which includes pre-screening, education, follow-up care, and health care for people experiencing side-effects. This legislation would provide medical leave for health care workers and first responders who get sick from the smallpox vaccine and will make it unlawful to discriminate against workers who opt not to participate in the vaccination program.

• The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will help to establish a safer vaccination program and provide a safety-net for the inevitable injuries due to vaccination. Ultimately, this should enhance participation in the Smallpox Vaccination Program and help reach the goal of preparedness against a bioterrorist smallpox threat.
  
  *************
  IRAQ
  *************

  4A) Making Americans Safer in Their Homes
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.

     Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Americans are nervous. The United States is on Orange Alert. The reports are that stores have sold out of duct tape, plastic sheeting, bottled water, minimal supplies for people to defend themselves against the unthinkable, chemical or biological attack, and to make themselves safe in their homes. Americans do not feel safe in their homes or here in the United States of America.

     We are told by intelligence sources and the FBI that there are hundreds of al Qaeda operatives at large in the United States of America who they are either tracking or cannot find. Yesterday Osama bin Laden, their fanatical leader, gave a speech urging them to attack, suicide attacks against the United States of America.

     Osama bin Laden. My colleagues remember him. Remember, the President wanted, dead or alive; we will get him; we will bring him to justice. The President is not allowed to mention his name anymore. It has been more than 10 months since the President has mentioned the name Osama bin Laden because his administration has failed miserably in finding and bringing him to justice. In all probability, he has been given safe haven by the intelligence services in Pakistan, and he, according to our intelligence services and his operatives, according to our FBI and others, presents the greatest threat to the security of Americans and the most immediate threat to the security of Americans.

     There are other threats that are out there that are making people nervous. We have here a poster from a rally in Pyongyang a week ago Saturday. Now, Kim Jong-il, psychopathic leader and oppressor of the people of North Korea, he has thrown out the U.N. inspectors, thrown them out, and he is actively pursuing more, not a, more nuclear weapons. He already has them. He is actively building more missiles of longer range.

     We were told today by Mr. Tenet he may have already achieved a missile that can reach the western United States and target my home State in addition to Alaska and Hawaii.

     He has threatened preemptive strikes against the United States of America or, minimally, against our 36,000 troops who are trying to safeguard the people of South Korea from this fanatic. This is a poster from a rally a week ago Saturday, and it says here, Merciless Punishment to the American Empire, and it depicts the United States Capitol being blown up by a North Korean soldier.

     But this is a back-burner issue with the Bush administration. It pales in the face of the real threat to America. Osama bin Laden? No. Saddam Hussein, who is in a box, without nuclear weapons, without the capability of delivering whatever chemical-biological weapons he might have had hidden and he is shuffling around his country, trying to keep them away from the inspectors who are on the ground in Iraq, unlike the inspectors who were thrown out of North Korea.

     But the Bush administration says, Do not worry, we will get around to this someday, sometime, maybe later, through diplomacy. This could be settled through diplomacy, a maniac who has nuclear weapons and is encouraging rallies, showing the United States Capitol being blown up, someone who has the capability of actually doing that; we can solve that diplomatically, but somehow we cannot work through the U.N. and the inspectors in Iraq.

     We have got Saddam Hussein in a box. Get more inspectors in there. Get the overflights going. Keep him in that box, work with our allies. Keep him in that box. Sooner or later, the inspectors will find and destroy his weapons just as they did in the 1990s. Yeah, he is playing games. Yeah, he is hiding stuff. He did that then. We found it. We destroyed it. We can do that again.

     Is the United States so diminished in the eyes of this administration and others that we cannot contain a threat like Saddam Hussein and deal with extraordinary threats like this up front, and find and apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and his operatives? I think not.

     I think the American people have real doubts about this rush to war and real doubts about the priorities that this administration is putting on the threats to our Nation and our country.

     I hope the administration begins to deal more seriously with this problem and gets out there and finds Osama bin Laden, and I will support those efforts, and then continue to contain and defang Saddam Hussein. That would make the American people safer in their homes.
  

  4B) Iraq
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the Senate has been dealing with some important matters these days, with a judicial nomination to the second highest court in the country, and shortly to bring up an appropriations bill that will determine spending across this country with hundreds of billions of dollars for the rest of this fiscal year.

     But there is something else going on in this country which is of overwhelming importance which really should supersede all of this, and that is the imminent prospect of a war against Iraq.

     At the same time we are talking about these other matters, this country is under a condition code orange, the second highest level of security we have. Our citizens have been told in the last few days to go out and get duct tape and sheets of plastic and water.

     Today at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, of which I am a member, the Secretary of Defense called the time that we are in now ``the most dangerous security environment that the world has ever known.'' It is for those reasons I wrote the majority leader and urged we not take a recess as planned next week, that we stay in

  [Page: S2414]  GPO's PDF

  Washington, stay in session, because I think this is a matter of such urgency and such paramount importance to our country and to the world that we should be continuing to focus on that matter.

     The ominous forewarnings of this last couple of days affirm to me what Robert Kennedy said after the Cuban missile crisis. He said:

     No action is taken against an adversary in a vacuum. The escalation on one side brings a counterresponse. A government of people will fail to understand this only at their great peril.

     For the last 55 years the leaders of this country have understood that principle. They, too, faced dangerous dictators who possessed weapons of mass destruction, who headed countries that were hostile to the United States, the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea. But they didn't attack another country to eliminate those threats, even though they persisted, even though we disagreed with those countries, what their leaders did to their own people, the threats they were around the world. The principal reason was we understood the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. We understood their destruction against the United States would be an intolerable cost for our destruction of them and for the objectives we might accomplish militarily.

     I believe these forewarnings we have received the last few days should cause us to ask this administration why would they expect Iraq to be any different. If the United States intervenes and begins to destroy that country and its cities, cause civilian casualties, why would we not expect Iraq to retaliate with every destructive force it has available to it within our own borders, against our own cities and our own citizens?

     Why wouldn't we expect Osama bin Laden to do his worst to exploit this situation, to twist facts to be seen by the rest of the world other than as they are, but in ways that would be destructive to United States standing around the world and to our own national security now and in the days and months ahead?

     Why does this administration believe it should disregard the lessons that other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have recognized and observed and proven to be as valid then as they are today? What is different about this situation?

     At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning I asked the Secretary of Defense his assessment of our ability to protect our citizens from retaliatory attacks against them if we were to invade Iraq. I asked that question twice. How do you assess, Mr. Secretary, our ability to protect our citizens in their homes and their schools and our cities from an enemy attack? Neither time did I receive a direct answer to that question. Neither time. I have the highest regard for the Secretary of Defense. He has an enormous responsibility. He brings tremendous experience and ability and a heroic dedication to our country to this task. But if

     all this administration can offer the American people, when our national security alert is raised to the second highest level, is duct tape, sheets of plastic and water, there is something very seriously wrong, if this administration intends to start a war, not against the most urgent threat to this country, not the threat that endangered us before, attacked us before and endangers us now, according to many of their own officials, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the tape that was released this week that issues that threat against us and our citizens once again, not an attack against al-Qaida but against Iraq, against a country that, no question, is ruled by an evil man, a dangerous dictator, a man who almost certainly, as the Secretary of State has demonstrated, the President in the State of the Union, possesses biological and chemical weapons and has for the last 12 years, ever since the first President Bush made a strategic decision at the conclusion of the gulf war to leave him in power, which may have been the right decision given the other options that were available.

     Yes, an evil dictator, but one who has been constrained in key respects by active, ongoing efforts of diplomacy with our allies and containment by international forces by both former President Bush and by President Clinton. Contained, constrained, not perfectly, not easily, certainly not voluntarily on his part, but effectively, more effectively than has been acknowledged in recent months. He is weaker, according to reports I have seen, militarily in most respects than he was before the gulf war. He does, by all accounts that we can obtain, not possess nuclear warhead capabilities at this time, which I agree with the President would be intolerable for this country to permit. He has not attacked his neighbors--not because he wouldn't like to, probably, but because he has not had the capability to do so under these containment policies for the last 12 years. And as far as I have been informed in various briefings, he was not actively threatening our country or his neighbors or anyone else when he was dusted off the shelf by this administration right after Labor Day.

     The President has properly refocused the world spotlight on this man and his intent. The President has drawn a line very clearly, which I support, that it would be intolerable for this Nation to permit that dictator to possess nuclear weapons or the missile capabilities to deliver those warheads or any warheads against this country or against neighbors in the region surrounding him.

     Certainly after September 11 and Operation Enduring Freedom, no one in this world could question the steely resolve of our President and his willingness, if necessary, to use military force. After Operation Enduring Freedom, no one could raise a doubt about the might of the United States Armed Forces and the strength we can bring to bear anywhere in the world as a last resort, as truly a last resort.

     But there is another lesson from September 11, which is that no matter how great our military might, we are not invulnerable. We are too big a country. We have too wide an expanse. We have too many possible targets for terrorists. And we saw on September 11 tragically, horribly, the damage and the destruction and the cost of human life and the untold human suffering and misery of families that a very small number of fanatical men could cause.

     I don't think we should back down or be deterred by any threat. I think we should do what we must to defend this country, and the principles we have established in the last half century of dealing with these threats have been ones that have prevented war, preserved our peace, and strengthened this country economically and socially in its position of leadership in the world.

     It would be a very dangerous precedent if we were to do, except as a very last resort, what no President in this country has done before, which is to start a war, which is to launch a preemptive attack against another country based on what it might in the future do to us.

     And I think we should consider what that precedent would mean if other nations were to follow that example. If we set a precedent in this ``new world order,'' as it has been called, that a preemptive attack against a possible future threat is the way to resolve crises or standoffs, what will happen when other countries adopt that path?

     We have seen now--and we have been forewarned--that the nuclear proliferation that we are seeing other countries undertake is the worst nightmare that many predicted years ago, decades ago if we didn't--the superpowers--bring to a halt the nuclear arms race and remove them from the shelves of the nations of the world. Now we are told that half a dozen countries--and more to come soon--will have them. That should be and must be a warning to us. What happens if we lead down a path on which we don't want other nations to follow?

     If we set a precedent of preemptive attack, that path is one that the world will follow at its peril. I urge the President to take that into the most careful consideration as he makes this fateful decision.

     I yield the floor.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Arizona is to be recognized for up to 60 minutes.
  

  4C) Welcoming Support of European Nations in Enforcing UN Res. 1441
  WELCOMING SUPPORT OF EUROPEAN NATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441 -- (Senate - February 13, 2003)
  

  [Page: S2500]  GPO's PDF
  ---

     Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 4 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the concurrent resolution by title.

     The legislative clerk read as follows:

     A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 4) welcoming the expression of support of 18 European nations for the enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

     There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

     Mr. MCCAIN. Madam President, after leading the U.S. congressional delegation to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last weekend, Senator LIEBERMAN and I introduced this resolution to thank 18 Europeans for standing with us in demanding that Security Council resolutions against Iraq be enforced. Contrary to what you may read in the press, and despite shrill objections from Paris and Berlin, most European governments believe Iraq must be held to account for its defiance of Security Council Resolution 1441. France and Germany are isolated within Europe in their approach to enforcing, or in their case failing to enforce, Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

     Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions.

     The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self-interest--a very flawed calculation, I fear--to a routine request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses

  [Page: S2501]  GPO's PDF

  against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For over three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is.

     Whatever NATO decides, Franco-German unilateralism will have a lasting impact on trans-Atlantic security calculations. If this minority French-German obstruction is not overcome, France and Germany will have to answer to those who argue that Iraq could be to NATO what Abyssinia was to the League of Nations.

     The United Nations Security Council risks that same fate should it fail to hold Iraq accountable for its defiance. Patient American and British diplomacy at the U.N. delivered a unanimous vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441. France played a key role in negotiating the resolution and knew what they were voting for, Germany was fully aware of the debate as it prepared to assume the Council presidency in January. Americans, and many Europeans, were therefore astonished when France and Germany announced in advance of further consideration of the problem of Iraq that under no circumstances would they support enforcing the resolution's terms against Iraq.

     The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe.

     The majority of Europe's democracies have spoken, and their message could not be clearer. Most European governments support the Security Council's clear mandate to require Iraq's full disarmament and do not shrink from the grave responsibilities such a commitment

     entails. Most European government understand clearly that if the Security Council fails to enforce its demands of Iraq, the Council risks impotence and irrelevance. In short, most European governments behave like allies that are willing to meet their responsibilities to uphold international peace and security in defense of our common values.

     As the foreign ministers of Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia have declared, ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.''

     As the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Portugal have written, ``Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. ..... [T]he Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.''

     We thank this European majority for standing with us.

     I ask unanimous consent that two pieces of supporting material be printed in the RECORD.

     There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

     United We Stand

     The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

     The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists--the enemies of our common values--are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense off these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

     We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

     In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

     The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Secretary Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

     In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction . We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

     The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and noncompliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

     Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction . Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

     The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

  --

     Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries

     Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.

     Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction .

     We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.S. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: ``We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq.''

     The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.

     Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the RECORD as if r