Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will attempt to respond. Please, I ask both my colleagues. I have a very good friend whose interest is more practical in academics, and every once in a while I will say, ``Bob, do you understand what I am saying?'' And he will look at me, and say, ``Joe, I not only understand, I overstand.'' If I get into the ``overstand'' category, please let me know if I am overresponding to what you wish me to respond to. But let me answer the French issue first. It is always difficult, as my friend knows, understanding what the French mean. But the short answer to his question is that France has changed its view. France has publicly now said that in fact it will now meet its share of the expansion cost. Second, on the first question asked about target goals, I remind my friend of a little bit of history; that is, that it is important to note that Greece, Turkey, Germany, and Spain were admitted to NATO without any target force goal, and that no ally meets--including us--100 percent of the target force goal now, No. 1. No. 2, to the extent that the three new applicants are committing to and fulfilling their targets in advance of accession is another demonstration that their commitment to the alliance and their capability to fulfill those target goals are, in fact, real, Poland has stated that it will fulfill all the target force goals that are due prior to accession. The Poles address the capabilities of NATO military authorities to determine what NATO military authorities have determined are necessary for new members. Of the additional target force goals over the planning period of 1999 to 2003, only a portion of them have target dates that are applicable prior to accession. Poland has also stated that it will complete all the remaining target goals; the other nations as well. And when you talk about the target goals, the Senator makes it sounds as though it will be 10 years before anything is done, 10 years before all of these things are met. Many of them will be met within the next 6 months; some will take as long as 10 years. With regard to what number I am using in terms of the cost of enlargement, I am using the figure $40 million a year for the next 10 years. If you want me to elaborate on that, I will be happy to explain what I mean by how I arrive at that and why I think the figure that has been put forward by NATO is an accurate figure. But I do not want to take the time of my colleagues, if they wish to respond. So I say to my friend, the figure that I am using is the figure of $40 million a year based upon a U.S. commitment of $400 million over 10 years. That reflects roughly a 25 percent burden sharing on our part for the costs of enlargement, the total cost being, over 10 years, roughly $1.5 billion. That is how I arrive at our cost. I will be happy, as I said, to go into detail on that if my friends would like me to.

Mr. BIDEN. Let the Record reflect that I will not engage the Senator now, but I totally disagree with that argument and that statement that we are signing a ``blank check.'' It is nowhere near a blank check. But I will be happy, again, to engage at the appropriate time.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a request, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Tauber, a State Department Pearson Fellow on my staff, be accorded floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, Treaty Document 105-36.

Mr. BIDEN. While the Senator from New York is in the Chamber--and I have said this privately but also sometimes it is worth saying in public--there quite literally is no one for whom I have greater respect than the Senator from New York. I think he is the single most erudite, single brightest and the single most informed person serving in the Senate. I must tell you only he has made me wonder even for a moment, after 5 months of debating this with myself, whether the resolution I have reached with expansion is correct. Only he has given me a twinge in his opposition. I mean that sincerely. He was kind enough, after meeting with some of our colleagues, to call me at my home a couple weeks ago and to sort of forewarn me--that was not the purpose of the call--but forewarn me that he may be settling on the position he has, and I made my plea over the phone with him. I kept him on the phone for about 15 minutes making my arguments why I thought we should expand. And I got off the phone, and I turned to my son, who knows of my admiration for the Senator, and I said, I have been around this place a long, long time. Here I am on the phone trying to--and I say this very respectfully--educate the most informed man I know about a position that I thought he was wrong on. I was certain of my assertions on the phone. And I hung up and I thought for a brief moment, if he thinks that way, I must be wrong. But I quickly overcame that, and I would just suggest that it is one of the rare occasions I have disagreed with the Senator. So it is not hard to be civil when you admire someone as much as I do the Senator. I promise I will not resort again to such personal references, but I mean it sincerely when I say to my friend that I listen to everything he has to say. I disagree with him on this. I would make one comment--I know he has to leave the floor--and then I will yield the floor to my friend from Rhode Island, because I have had plenty of occasion to speak already today. With regard to the document my friend references, it does reference expansion of NATO. But I would respectfully suggest that, like many times in human endeavors, the same conclusion would have been reached had expansion not been contemplated. I assert that the demise of the Soviet--I doubt whether my friend would disagree with me--the demise of not only the Soviet Union and the Soviet Army but the Russian military had nothing to do with the expansion of NATO.

Mr. BIDEN. And I would further argue, although I have not read the document, that if the document is complete, which it is asserted to be and I believe it to be, that the strategic judgment made to rely upon nuclear weapons was arrived at in the same way that NATO arrived at a similar judgment 30 years earlier when we concluded that we were not prepared or able to keep 40 or 50 or 60 divisions in Europe to meet a conventional attack by our Warsaw Pact enemies. That is a long way of saying that, were we to announce that we were ceasing and desisting from an effort to expand NATO at this moment and went on record, the strategic planners in Moscow, in my view, would be compelled to reach the conclusion that they reached in the document that was posited on the Senate floor for the Record today. I do not in any way underestimate the impact of damaged psyches on national policy. I do not in any way, in any sense, underestimate that feelings of isolation on the part of the Russian military, the Russians, might produce an extension of a position that otherwise would have been reached anyway. But I would conclude by saying I do not believe that the strategic document that the Senator spoke to today is as a consequence--notwithstanding that it mentions the expansion of NATO--of the talk of expanding with the inclusion of Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland into NATO. But my friend from Rhode Island has another urgent meeting he wishes to attend. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today, we commemorate the great moment when Greece began to reassert its historic role as a leading light of democracy. In 1821, when valiant Greeks raised the flag of revolt against their Ottoman Turk oppressors, they were striking a blow for liberty that captivated freedom-loving men and women all over Europe, and in the young American Republic. Thomas Jefferson was inspired enough to become involved in the Greek struggle in the twilight of his life. In the summer of 1823 the Greek Hellenist and patriot Adamantios Koraes wrote to our third president, requesting advice on drawing up a constitution for the liberated Greece he was certain would be achieved. Jefferson's lengthy reply detailed his views on the fundamentals of democracy--freedom of religion, freedom of person (habeas corpus), trial by jury, the exclusive right of legislation and taxation reserved to the representatives of the people, and freedom of the press. The 80- year-old scholar-president concluded his letter with a moving tribute to Greece's unique importance to the world. It took nearly a decade more of struggle until Greeks once again became masters in their own house. And maintaining Greece's independence and freedom over the ensuing 163 years has proven not to be easy. Greece has had to cope with internal divisions and external threats. Seemingly unending arguments over the Greek constitution and form of government occupied much of the nineteenth century. Then came the two Balkan wars, World War I, the Anatolian War, World War II, the Civil War that pitted Greek against Greek, and after a peaceful, if troubled, interlude, the short-lived dictatorship of the Colonels. Thankfully, today we can celebrate nearly a quarter-century of restored democracy and peace in Greece. Greece is now solidly integrated economically and politically in the European Union. Greece's relations with most of its neighbors have improved. Despite some lingering problems, relations are relatively good with the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and with Albania. Greece continues to maintain a solid relationship with Bulgaria. I will not hide the fact that--like every other country--Greece still faces formidable problems. Athens' relations with Ankara remain stormy. Turkey continues its illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus and its belligerent behavior in the Aegean. Moreover, the state of the Greek economy still leaves much to be desired. Let us be honest--as in the United States, there have been gross inefficiencies and wasteful policies. Greece will have to put its financial house in order if it hopes to take part fully in the ambitious integration that the European Union foresees in the coming years. I am confident that Prime Minister Simitis' reform program will bear fruit. Improving Greece's economy and finding ways to improve relations with Turkey are daunting tasks. But one look at hard-working, talented Greek-Americans, assures me that Greeks everywhere will continue to triumph over adversity and will remain an inspirational democratic ally.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am told by staff of the majority that there will be some additional time available. If the Senator needs more than the remaining 5 minutes, I am sure we can arrange it.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer be added as a cosponsor to this resolution.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Minnesota, and the remainder to my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Connecticut is on the floor, I will just say one thing. In this case, I think he underestimates what he has undertaken here and the impact of it. This is more than merely a resolution. It calls for a very specific action. The truth of the matter is that, according to my information, every single time we have responded to Milosevic's thuggery, every single time we have threatened action and/or taken action, he has backed down. I happen to think that the one thing that can alter his conduct in Kosovo--because it will reoccur again--the one thing that he pays most attention to is his own naked personal self-interest. He has been playing on this Serbian nationalism as communism has collapsed in the former Yugoslavia like a harp. But even his people are beginning to tire of what he is doing. He has been spreading lies and has been on Belgrade television talking about the awful things that are happening to Serbs--orthodox Serbs--in Kosovo, which are not true. He has been fomenting this kind of awful conduct for some time. I think, in addition to what we have here in the resolution, that ultimately we are going to have to face up to the fact that he is a war criminal. We should have him tried as one. I think that will change his conduct more than anything else. But I compliment the Senator from Connecticut for his initiative. In this case, words count. I am confident that if we are able to take this action, in the sense that the administration follows through on the essence of the resolution here, that we can impact upon the circumstances of Kosovo. We are not asking for independence. We are not dictating an outcome. We are dictating an end to the conduct. I think the answer lies in autonomy, which he revoked in 1989. But that is to be negotiated. But I compliment the Senator on his initiative. Words count here. I yield the floor. Is my friend seeking recognition?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the United States in concert with its allies must act immediately to prevent a resumption of the brutal repression of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and to get real--not sham-- negotiations started. The past two weeks have seen appalling massacres of innocent ethnic Albanians in Kosovo by heavily armed Serbian paramilitary forces. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's black-suited thugs used artillery, armored personnel carriers, heavy caliber machine guns, and even helicopter gunships to carry out their gruesome work. The pretext for their violence was an ambush of Serbian policy by the secretive Kosovo Liberation Army, which left four policemen dead. But we know that Milosevic had been planning military action in Kosovo for months. He was just waiting for an excuse to issue the final orders. Not only were supposed members of the Kosovo Liberation Army murdered, but scores of innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed. There is strong circumstantial evidence indicating that many victims were tortured before being put to death. Demands by Kosovo Albanians for outside forensic investigations before their kin were buried were cruelly denied by the Serbs, who dumped the corpses into mass graves. Next, the world witnessed the spectacle of survivors exhuming the bodies of their loved ones in order to give them dignified, Muslim burials. Mr. President, this behavior is worthy of the Dark Ages, not the end of the twentieth century. Having ordered these massacres and ghoulish follow-up, Milosevic, true to form, attempted to con world opinion. He sent a delegation to Pristina and offered to talk with the Kosovo Albanians ``without preconditions''--except for the little detail that the Albanians would have to negotiate within the framework of the Republic of Serbia. In other words, the Kosovo Albanians would have to give up their only bargaining chip at the outset, namely their demand for independence. Some deal. Moreover, the Belgrade Bully rubbed salt in the wounds of the community whom his storm troopers had just massacred by declaring that he would negotiate with the ``Albanian minority,'' meaning a minority in Serbia, not the ninety percent majority they hold in Kosovo. No, Mr. President, this was not a serious offer of negotiations. It was vintage Milosevic ``bait and switch.'' Rather than beginning the necessary quiet dialogue, he cynically tried to make a public splash, while continuing to repress. Once again, the civilized world is faced with a deadly serious challenge. There is a real possibility that if Milosevic in his Greater Serbian haze tries to ``ethnically cleanse'' Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian population, the violence could spread into a full-scale Balkan War, cutting short the recent progress we have made in Bosnia and fracturing NATO. The cynical side of me tells me part of why he moved when he did was because of Bosnia. Mr. President, I hope this time we will act without having to have 4 years of convulsions like we had on Bosnia, even though it is a very different circumstance in terms of what is at stake. It is not different in terms of the brutality and the atrocities that have occurred. It is time to act. The bipartisan resolution I am cosponsoring is just a beginning. I believe the United States should immediately reimpose all financial sanctions against Serbia, except for democratic assistance. We should insist that Milosevic lift the repressive martial law in Kosovo and withdraw his storm troopers. The United States must actively facilitate immediate good faith negotiations between Belgrade and Kosovo without preconditions as called for by the contact group to which we belong. If Milosevic does not unconditionally come to the negotiating table by next week, we should freeze Yugoslavian assets abroad, attempting to exempt assets in Montenegro whose new reformist President has been cooperative in a number of ways. Milosevic and his Serbian colleagues should understand that if the atrocities resume, and if he does not protect lives, human rights, and the autonomy of the people of Kosovo, the pressure from the United States, and hopefully others, will escalate. I believe the President is right when he suggests that no option should be ruled out. Milosevic is a thug. He is the President of a country but he is a thug. He should be indicted as a war criminal. He should be tried at The Hague. I reiterate what I told him to his face 4 years ago in his office when he asked me what I thought of him. He is a war criminal. He looked at me as if we were having a civilized discussion and said, ``And what do you think of me,'' and I repeat publicly what I said to him privately. I said, ``I think you are a war criminal and should be tried as such.'' Unfortunately, I have never been more correct than I was then. This guy is a thug. We should make no bones about who he is. Mr. President, I hope that the concurrent resolution for which we have 1 hour of debate here, the concurrent resolution that is introduced by Mr. Nickles, Mr. Dodd, myself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Lieberman and others, I hope we pass it, and pass it swiftly. I see my friend from Connecticut. I yield the floor to my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, to introduce important legislation that will benefit all Americans by helping-- in important ways--both our global environment and our global economy. I first became interested in this issue almost ten years ago, when the world's attention was focused on an international debt crisis, much of it centered in Latin American countries. At that same time, we were beginning to understand the crucial role that tropical rainforests--all over the world--play in our own lives here in the United States. Tropical rainforests are among the most complex and fundamental components of our planet's ecology. These natural wonders affect the global climate through their influence on rainfall patterns, which in turn makes them the sources of some of the world's greatest rivers, which in its turn affects farmlands and coastal fisheries all over the world. Tropical rainforests are also the richest environments for all forms of life--they harbor the greatest biodiversity of any ecosystem. With increasing frequency, we find there the chemicals that go into new medicines, more robust food crops, and other direct economic applications of the rainforests' riches. We may picture rainforests as among the most primitive environments-- with climate and wildlife left over from the beginnings of time. But it is only now, with the accelerating integration of the global economy and the realization that burning fossil fuels can alter our planets weather, that we recognize that rainforests must be preserved if we want to protect our modern way of life. The accumulation of over one hundred years of man-made greenhouse gases from the industrial world is now joined by the increasing emissions of industrializing nations, accelerating the threat of global climate change. Rainforests absorb the carbon dioxide that can change our climate, and that would change every assumption we have about how what our future will be. But these crucially important rainforests are under increasing threat from fundamental trends in our international economy. As the nations whose borders contain important rainforests take their place in the world market, they face increasing incentives to turn their rainforests into cash crops--cutting them for lumber, clearing them for croplands-- trading the long-term global benefits of rainforests for short-term needs. Not just the lumber and agricultural markets offer short-term local gains in exchange for long-term global costs. The explosion of international capital flows has brought the benefits and dangers of debt to many nations with rainforests. To manage debt owed to nations such as the United States, these nations turn to their rainforests for quick cash. However appropriate their borrowing may be--who among us here does not use debt to finance a house, a car, an education?--that choice has consequences for the whole planet. So we have the convergence of two important global trends--the cutting of rainforests, and the spread of international debt. Ten years ago, when these trends were at a much earlier stage, I brought the idea of debt-for-nature swaps to Senator Lugar, who agreed that we faced a classic public policy problem: short-term, local incentives to engage in behavior that has long-term, global costs. That is why we introduced the first legislation that facilitated debt-for- nature swaps. That legislation was signed into law in 1989. The following year, we made debt-for-nature swaps part of President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Act. Since then, $154 million in developing country debt has been restructured into environmental protection programs in Latin America. The legislation I am introducing here today, with Senator Lugar, Senator Chafee, Senator Leahy, and my other distinguished colleagues, will expand the techniques of debt-for-nature exchanges to meet a wider variety of financial situations, and will include qualified countries in every part of the world. In essence, we arrange for the repayment of sovereign debt owed by qualfied countries to the United States, in exchange for their commitment to use the savings to establish local trust funds to protect their rainforests. We gain the environmental protection that would otherwise not occur, they reduce their foreign exchange and debt burdens. It's a classic win-win deal. Two of the options allow us to transform debt owed to the United States into funds to protect the world's rainforests at no cost to the Treasury. The third option, for the poorest nations of the world, provides funds to subsidize the debt exchange--and the rainforest protection--that they could not otherwise afford. As we watch with concern the developments in Asia, Mr. President, we see the importance of far-sighted, creative debt management programs for developing economies. The accumulation of unmanageable debt burdens threatens both the stability of the international economy and the health of our planet's ecology. At the margin, but in important ways, the legislation we are introducing today addresses both of those concerns, and weakens the link between the burden of developing country debt and the wasting of our rainforests. I am pleased to see that the House companion to this legislation is already moving in the International Relations Committee. I look forward to working with Senator Lugar and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, to introduce important legislation that will benefit all Americans by helping-- in important ways--both our global environment and our global economy. I first became interested in this issue almost ten years ago, when the world's attention was focused on an international debt crisis, much of it centered in Latin American countries. At that same time, we were beginning to understand the crucial role that tropical rainforests--all over the world--play in our own lives here in the United States. Tropical rainforests are among the most complex and fundamental components of our planet's ecology. These natural wonders affect the global climate through their influence on rainfall patterns, which in turn makes them the sources of some of the world's greatest rivers, which in its turn affects farmlands and coastal fisheries all over the world. Tropical rainforests are also the richest environments for all forms of life--they harbor the greatest biodiversity of any ecosystem. With increasing frequency, we find there the chemicals that go into new medicines, more robust food crops, and other direct economic applications of the rainforests' riches. We may picture rainforests as among the most primitive environments-- with climate and wildlife left over from the beginnings of time. But it is only now, with the accelerating integration of the global economy and the realization that burning fossil fuels can alter our planets weather, that we recognize that rainforests must be preserved if we want to protect our modern way of life. The accumulation of over one hundred years of man-made greenhouse gases from the industrial world is now joined by the increasing emissions of industrializing nations, accelerating the threat of global climate change. Rainforests absorb the carbon dioxide that can change our climate, and that would change every assumption we have about how what our future will be. But these crucially important rainforests are under increasing threat from fundamental trends in our international economy. As the nations whose borders contain important rainforests take their place in the world market, they face increasing incentives to turn their rainforests into cash crops--cutting them for lumber, clearing them for croplands-- trading the long-term global benefits of rainforests for short-term needs. Not just the lumber and agricultural markets offer short-term local gains in exchange for long-term global costs. The explosion of international capital flows has brought the benefits and dangers of debt to many nations with rainforests. To manage debt owed to nations such as the United States, these nations turn to their rainforests for quick cash. However appropriate their borrowing may be--who among us here does not use debt to finance a house, a car, an education?--that choice has consequences for the whole planet. So we have the convergence of two important global trends--the cutting of rainforests, and the spread of international debt. Ten years ago, when these trends were at a much earlier stage, I brought the idea of debt-for-nature swaps to Senator Lugar, who agreed that we faced a classic public policy problem: short-term, local incentives to engage in behavior that has long-term, global costs. That is why we introduced the first legislation that facilitated debt-for- nature swaps. That legislation was signed into law in 1989. The following year, we made debt-for-nature swaps part of President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Act. Since then, $154 million in developing country debt has been restructured into environmental protection programs in Latin America. The legislation I am introducing here today, with Senator Lugar, Senator Chafee, Senator Leahy, and my other distinguished colleagues, will expand the techniques of debt-for-nature exchanges to meet a wider variety of financial situations, and will include qualified countries in every part of the world. In essence, we arrange for the repayment of sovereign debt owed by qualfied countries to the United States, in exchange for their commitment to use the savings to establish local trust funds to protect their rainforests. We gain the environmental protection that would otherwise not occur, they reduce their foreign exchange and debt burdens. It's a classic win-win deal. Two of the options allow us to transform debt owed to the United States into funds to protect the world's rainforests at no cost to the Treasury. The third option, for the poorest nations of the world, provides funds to subsidize the debt exchange--and the rainforest protection--that they could not otherwise afford. As we watch with concern the developments in Asia, Mr. President, we see the importance of far-sighted, creative debt management programs for developing economies. The accumulation of unmanageable debt burdens threatens both the stability of the international economy and the health of our planet's ecology. At the margin, but in important ways, the legislation we are introducing today addresses both of those concerns, and weakens the link between the burden of developing country debt and the wasting of our rainforests. I am pleased to see that the House companion to this legislation is already moving in the International Relations Committee. I look forward to working with Senator Lugar and all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Specter for his leadership in championing the resolution passed overwhelmingly by the Senate a short time ago. Our action has put the Senate on record in support of establishing an international commission and criminal tribunal for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, and ultimately punishing Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials for genocide and crimes against humanity. Through his genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the Shi'a, the brutal treatment of Kuwaiti civilians, and the repeated use of chemical weapons, Saddam Hussein has earned his place as one of this century's most odious tyrants. Perhaps the best documented case of Saddam's genocidal policies is the infamous Anfal campaign launched in February 1988 against Iraqi Kurdistan. The purpose of Anfal was to break the back of the Kurdish resistance using whatever means necessary. Large tracts of rural Kurdistan were declared off-limits and forcibly depopulated. Those who remained were branded ``traitors'' and ``saboteurs'' and were systematically liquidated during a ruthless six and a half month campaign. Human Rights Watch estimates that, in all, between 50,000 and 100,000 innocent civilians were killed during Anfal. On March 16, 1988--nearly ten years ago to the day--Saddam unleashed a deadly cocktail of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja. Wednesday's Washington Post piece by Christine Gosden is a poignant reminder of the suffering that the innocent men, women, and children of Halabja endure to this day as a result of that cowardly attack ten years ago. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Gosden's account be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BIDEN. The weak international response that followed Halabja emboldened Saddam. In August 1988, he launched his final offensive against dozens of other villages, killing hundreds, and causing tens of thousands to flee to neighboring countries. A staff report prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, based on interviews with survivors, described the atrocities in vivid detail: The bombs . . . did not produce a large explosion. Only a weak sound could be heard and then a yellowish cloud spread out from the center of the explosion. . . . Those who were very close to the bombs died almost instantly. Those who did not die instantly found it difficult to breathe and began to vomit. The gas stung the eyes, skin and lungs of the villagers exposed to it. Many suffered temporary blindness. After the bombs exploded, many villagers ran and submerged themselves in nearby streams to escape the spreading gas. . . . Many of those who made it to streams survived. Those who could not run from the growing smell, mostly the very old and the very young, died. The survivors who saw the dead reported that blood could be seen trickling out of the mouths of some of the bodies. A yellowish fluid could also be seen oozing out of the noses and mouths of some of the dead. Some said the bodies appeared frozen. Many of the dead bodies turned blackish blue. Saddam's outrageous act prompted only a muted response from the world community. One of the few sounds of protest came from this body, where Senators Pell and Helms promptly introduced legislation to impose sanctions against Iraq. The bill sailed through the Senate on a voice vote, a day after it was introduced. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration, still under the delusion that it could deal with Saddam, denounced the bill as ``premature,'' and later succeeded in blocking its enactment in the final days of the One Hundredth Congress. The Kurds are not the only victims of Saddam's atrocities. The ``Marsh Arabs'' of Southern Iraq have seen hundreds of their villages destroyed. They have been subjected to arbitrary killings and forcibly relocated. The mainstay of their ancient culture--the marshes of Southern Iraq--have been drained so that military operations can be carried out against them and other rebels with greater ease. In addition to terrorizing his own citizens, Saddam Hussein has unleashed his wrath against Iraq's neighbors on numerous occasions. He used chemical weapons repeatedly during the Iran-Iraq War in clear violation of the 1925 Geneva Convention. His troops raped and murdered with impunity during the occupation of Kuwait. And he has rained scud missiles on the civilian populations of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel. It is high time that the international community stop looking the other way when presented with these blatant crimes against humanity. It is time to systematically compile the evidence of Saddam Hussein's atrocities and undertake criminal proceedings to deliver the punishment that he so richly deserves. Our action in passing this resolution presents a challenge to the international community to join the United States in putting the wheels of justice into motion. We should not underestimate the difficulty of physically delivering Saddam Hussein to a tribunal, but it would be unconscionable to abandon the quest for justice. Silence and inaction would be a grave injustice to the hundreds upon thousands of his victims. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 11, 1998] Why I Went, What I Saw (By Christine Gosden) We have all talked so long and so reflexively about ``weapons of mass destruction'' that the phrase has lost much of its immediacy and meaning. It has become, like ``nuclear devastation'' and ``chemical and biological warfare,'' an abstract term of governmental memos, punditry and political debate. For many it calls forth neither visual imagery nor visceral revulsion. Two Sundays ago, the TV program ``60 Minutes'' got a good start on changing that when it broadcast the story of the Iraqi city of Halabja 10 years after its civilian population had been the target of a chemical attack by Saddam Hussein. That population is mainly Kurdish and had sympathized with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. The gassing of its people was in retaliation for that sympathizing. ``60 Minutes'' has given us permission to make still pictures from the film, which was originally shot, both in 1988 and 1998, by the British film maker, Gwynne Roberts. The ``60 Minutes'' staff also helped us to get in touch with the remarkable Dr. Christine Gosden, a British medical specialist, whose efforts to help the people of Halabja is documented. Dr. Gosden, who went out to Halabja 10 years after the bombing, agreed to write a piece for us, expanding on what she saw in Iraq. People around the world have seen the evidence of deformity and mutation following from the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It shaped their attitude toward the use of atomic weapons. Maybe if more evidence of the unimaginable, real-life effects of chemical warfare becomes available, a comparable attitude toward those weapons will develop. On the 16th of March 1988, an Iraqi military strike subjected Halabja, a Kurdish town of 45,000 in northern Iraq, to bombardment with the greatest attack of chemical weapons ever used against a civilian population. The chemical agents used were a ``cocktail'' of mustard gas (which affects skin, eyes and the membranes of the nose, throat and lungs), and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. The chemicals to which the people were exposed drenched their skin and clothes, affected their respiratory tracts and eyes and contaminated their water and food. Many people simply fell dead where they were, immediate casualties of the attack estimates put these deaths at about 5,000. A few were given brief and immediate treatment, which involved taking them to the United States, Europe and Iran. The majority of them returned to Halabja. Since then, no medical team, either from Iraq, Europe or America or from any international agency has monitored either the short- or long- term consequences of this chemical attack. Gwynne Roberts, a film director, made the award-winning film ``The Winds of Death'' about the attack in 1988. I saw this film, and it had a tremendous effect on me. Gwynne revisited Halabja in 1997 and was concerned that many of the survivors seemed very ill. He could not understand why no one had tried to find out what was happening to them. He convinced me that this was something I had to do. Why would a female professor of medical genetics want to make a trip like this? I went to learn and to help. This was the first time that a terrible mixture of chemical weapons had been used against a large civilian population. I wanted to see the nature and scale of the problems these people faced, and was concerned that in the 10 years since the attack no one, including the major aid agencies, had visited Halabja to determine exactly what the effects of these weapons had been. My medical specialty was particularly apt. My principal field of research is directed toward trying to understand the major causes of human congenital malformations, infertility and cancers including breast, ovarian, prostate and colon cancers. I am carrying out studies on a group of about 15 genes called tumor suppressor genes, which include breast/ ovarian cancer genes BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 colon cancer genes and the Retinoblastoma and Wilm's tumor genes associated with childhood cancers. When these genes are disrupted or mutate, they have a number of effects. Alterations lead to congenital abnormalities or pregnancy loss. Their role after birth is to try to prevent cancers from forming. Later in life, loss or mutation may lead to infertility and cancers. I was particularly concerned about the effects on the women and children. Most of the previous reported exposures to chemical weapons and mustard gas had involved men involved in military service; chemical weapons had never been used on this scale on a civilian population before. I was worried about possible effects on congenital malformations, fertility and cancers, not just in women and children but in the whole population. I also feared that there might be other major long-term effects, such as blindness and neurological damage, for which there is no known treatment. What I found was far worse than anything I had suspected, devastating problems occurring 10 years after the attack. These chemicals seriously affected people's eyes and respiratory and neurological systems. Many became blind. Skin disorders which involve severe scarring are frequent, and many progress to skin cancer. Working in conjunction with the doctors in the area, I compared the frequency of these conditions such as infertility, congenital malformations and cancers (including skin, head, neck, respiratory system, gastrointestinal tract, breast and childhood cancers) in those who were in Halabja at the time with an unexposed population from a city in the same region. We found the frequencies in Halabja are at least three to four times greater, even 10 years after the attack. An increasing number of children are dying each year of leukemias and lymphomas. The cancers tend to occur in much younger people in Halabja than elsewhere, and many people have aggressive tumors, so that mortality rates are high. No chemotherapy or radiotherapy is available in this region. I found that there was also a total lack of access to pediatric surgery to repair the major heart defects, hare lip and cleft palate or other major malformations in the children. This meant that children in Halabja are dying of heart failure when children with the same heart defects could have had surgery and would probably have survived in Britain or the United States. It was agonizing for me to see beautiful children whose faces were disfigured by hare lip and cleft palate when I know that skilled and gifted surgeons correct these defects every day in North America and Europe. The neuropsychiatric consequences are seen as human tragedy on every street, in almost every house and every ward of the hospital. People weep and are in great distress because of their severe depression, and suicidal tendencies are alarmingly evident. The surgeons often have to remove bullets from people who have failed in their suicide attempts. In collecting data from the Martyrs Hospital in Halabja, the doctors said that they are not able to see patients with psychiatric and neurological conditions because there is a lack of resources and there is no effective treatment. Many people have neurological impairment or long-term neuromuscular effects. Most people cannot afford even the cheapest treatment or drugs and so are reluctant to come to the hospital. At present, even for those with life- threatening conditions, there is no effective therapy for any of these conditions in Halabja. On the first day of my visit to the labor and gynecological ward in the hospital, there were no women in normal labor and no one had recently delivered a normal baby. Three women had just miscarried. The staff in the labor ward told of the very large proportion of pregnancies in which there were major malformations. In addition to fetal losses and perinatal deaths, there is also a very large number of infant deaths. The frequencies of these in the Halabjan women is more than four times greater than that in the neighboring city of Soulemaneya. The findings of serious congenital malformations with genetic causes occurring in children born years after the chemical attack suggest that the effects from these chemical warfare agents are transmitted to succeeding generations. Miscarriage, infant deaths and infertility mean that life isn't being replenished in this community, as one would expect if these weapons had no long-term effects. The people hoped that after the attack they could rebuild the families and communities that had been destroyed. The inability to do so has led to increasing despair. Their lives and hopes have been shattered. One survivor described being in a cellar with about a hundred other people, all of whom died during the attack. Not only do those who survived have to cope with memories of their relatives suddenly dying in their arms, they have to try to come to terms with their own painful diseases and those of their surviving friends and relatives. For instance, many people have more than one major condition, including respiratory problems, eye conditions, neurological disorders, skin problems, cancers and children with congenital malformations and childhood handicaps such as mental handicap, cerebral palsy and Down's syndrome. The occurrences of genetic mutations and carcinogenesis in this population appear comparable with those who were one to two kilometers from the hypocenter of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs and show that the chemicals used in this attack, particularly mustard gas, have a general effect on the body similar to that of ionizing radiation. Ten years after the attack, people are suffering a wide spectrum of effects, all of which are attributable to long- term damage to DNA. A radio broadcast was made the day before our arrival to ask people who were ill to come to the hospital to record their problems. On the first day, 700 people came; 495 of them had two or more major problems. The cases we encountered were extremely sad. The people of Halabja need immediate help. There is a need for specialists (such as pediatric surgeons), equipment and drugs. Even more basic than this, though, is the need for heat, clean water and careful efforts to safeguard them against further attacks. We have to realize that there is very little medical or scientific knowledge about how to treat the victims of a chemical weapons attack like this effectively. We need to listen, think and evaluate with skill, since many of these people have had exposures to strange combinations of toxic gases. They have conditions that have not been seen or reported before. We may severely disadvantage a large group of vulnerable people and deny them effective diagnosis and treatment if we are intellectually arrogant and fail to admit that we have virtually no knowledge about how to treat the problems resulting from these terrible weapons, which have been used to more powerful and inhumane effect than ever before. The pictures beamed around the world after the attack in 1988 in newspapers and on TV were horrifying. One picture was of a father who died trying to shield his twin sons from the attack. The statue in the road at the entrance to Halabja is based on that picture. This is not a traditional statue of someone standing proud and erect, captured in stone or bronze to represent man triumphant and successful, but of a man prostrate and agonized dying in the act of trying to protect his children. A deep and lasting chill went through me when I entered the town and saw the statue, and it settled like a toxic psychological cloud over me. This proved hard to dispel; it intensified as I met the people, heard their stories and saw the extent of the long-term illnesses caused by the attack. The terrible images of the people of Halabja and their situation persist and recur in my nightmares and disturb my waking thoughts. Perhaps these thoughts persist so vividly as a reminder to me that the major task is now to try and get help for these people.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I assume the reason why the Senator thinks that is because what I say is such content that he thinks I have spoken longer. Let me be very brief and blunt. The fact is that we have several schools of thought about China on this floor and what our future relations will be. We constantly hear that those of us who are critical of China's human rights policy and proliferation policy should not tie our opposition to their point of view to trade. They say let's keep things in their proper perspective. Well, if this is not the place to go, if to go to an organization that is an international organization constituted for the express purpose of discussing and identifying those nations that do not engage in practices consistent with what civilized countries should be doing relative to human rights, then there is no circumstance in which we can criticize China. They say we should not criticize China and tie it to trade, and they say we should not criticize China here, we should do it privately. Privately malarkey. We should do it privately; we should also do it publicly. We are not treating China any other way than we treat any other civilized nation in the world. As a member of the largest country in the world, they have to grow up and understand that if they take affront at us raising their human rights record in a forum, an international forum, that is constituted for that express purpose, then they have a great deal of political maturation they have to go through in order to be a world power that will gain respect from the rest of the world. I will conclude, Mr. President, by saying, I think this is one of those cases where our silence would be deafening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask the Senator for 2 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Committee on the Budget will begin consideration of the concurrent budget resolution for Fiscal Year 1999. I would like to take a few minutes today to discuss the continuing need for our government to provide sufficient resources for international affairs. Since becoming the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Foreign Relations, I have focused special attention on this question, because I believe that adequate funding for these programs is essential to our national interest. With the collapse of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet empire, the United States has emerged as the world's sole remaining superpower. With that position comes a responsibility to take a leading role in international affairs. Around the globe, American leadership is essential to preserving stability and security, and advancing prosperity and economic opportunity. The United States cannot remain an effective world leader without devoting sufficient resources to diplomatic readiness. Just as we need to maintain and train robust military forces in order to protect our security, we need a well-trained and well-equipped diplomatic corps to advance our nation's numerous international interests. Indeed, with the reductions in our military presence overseas in the last decade, it is all the more important that we maintain a robust diplomatic presence around the globe, and that our diplomats, who work on the front line of our national defense, have the resources necessary to do their jobs. It is sometimes said that, in the modern information age, embassies and the diplomats who staff them are no longer relevant. The assertion is, in my view, absurd. While modern technology has eased communications and travel across the miles, there is no substitute for being physically present in a foreign country. No one can fully comprehend all the intricacies of a nation's politics and government without living in that country. Equally important, diplomacy is about building trust; trust between governments cannot be secured over the phone and fax, but comes, ultimately, from personal relationships that are built over a period of time. In short, the telephone and the facsimile machine cannot replace the on-site presence of well-trained diplomats. Unfortunately, in recent years we have short-changed our diplomats, and ultimately our nation's interests, by reducing funding for international affairs. Indeed, by almost every measure, the budget for international affairs has declined precipitously over the past decade. Importantly, Congress is waking up to this problem. In Fiscal 1998, Congress increased funding for the Function 150 account--which encompasses foreign affairs funding--for the first time in eight years. But measured against historical averages, funding for international affairs remains low. According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared at my request, the discretionary budget authority for Function 150 in Fiscal 1998--$19.05 billion in Fiscal 1998 dollars--is 22.9 percent below the average of the past two decades ($24.69 billion). Using constant FY 1998 dollars, in only two years in the last two decades (Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997) was foreign affairs funding at lower levels than the current fiscal year. Similarly, as a percentage of total budget authority, Function 150 funding in FY 1998 is 1.129 percent, nearly one-third below the annual average (1.653 percent) for the past two decades. An examination of the subfunctions of the foreign affairs budget tells a similar story. Funding for international development activities is 14.7 percent below the average of the last twenty years. Security assistance in Fiscal 1998 is 46.4 percent less, in real terms, than the average of the past two decades. Foreign information and exchanges-- this is, the broadcasting, public diplomacy and exchange programs carried out by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the U.S. Information Agency--are at a level 13.3 percent below the average of the period covered by the CRS study. Only the ``Conduct of Foreign Affairs'' subfunction, which includes State Department operational costs, as well as contributions to international organizations and peacekeeping, is above the twenty-year average. But it should be emphasized that the budget for this category in Fiscal 1998 is the smallest, in real terms, since Fiscal 1990. Moreover, the relative size of this category, as compared to the 1970s and 1980s, can be explained by significant increases in the international peacekeeping account, an account which was small during the Cold War, but has increased substantially since the late-1980s. Ethnic conflicts and regional rivalries--long submerged during the Cold War--have led to the creation of more U.N. peacekeeping missions in the last decade than there were in the previous three decades of the United Nations. In Fiscal 1990, for example, U.S. contributions to peacekeeping was $81 million. By Fiscal 1994, largely because of the U.N. operations in Bosnia and Somalia, this account totaled $1.07 billion. The United States bears 25 percent of the cost of these missions, and paid 31 percent prior to 1994. I am pleased that the President has recognized the importance of assuring enhanced funding for foreign affairs by requesting $20.15 billion in Fiscal 1999, roughly one billion dollars over Fiscal 1998. I would like to briefly discuss the highlights of this request, and the notable increases within it. First, the budget for State Department operations contains two important initiatives. First, the Department seeks authority to construct a new embassy in Beijing, China, and to begin construction on a new embassy in Berlin, Germany. Both projects are essential. Our embassy in Beijing is in deplorable condition, and is barely sufficient given our important interests there. The decision of the German government to move its capital from Bonn to Berlin necessitates the construction of the new embassy there. Several years ago, Congress urged the State Department to fund capital projects of this sort from proceeds derived from sales of existing assets. Because of uncertainties in several foreign real estate markets, however, several anticipated sales have not been realized, thus requiring the Department to seek funding for these construction projects, which I support. Second, the State Department seeks an increase in its Capital Investment Fund, which provides resources for modernizing its aging information technology infrastructure. The Department is significantly behind the times technologically. In many important posts and offices, it remains reliant on obsolete and obsolescent computer and telecommunications technology. To give just one example, the Department still has an ample supply of Wang computers; several generations of computer technology have emerged since the Wangs were installed, and it is long past time for the Department to replace these antiquated systems. Information is central to the task of diplomacy; modernizing these systems is essential to enable our diplomats to perform their jobs. The foreign assistance budget contains three increases which are critical to American interests. First, the Administration seeks an increase in the assistance for the Newly Independent States (NIS) of the Former Soviet Union, from $770 million to $925 million. These programs are designed to assist the nations of the region, including Russia, to make the transition from communism to democratic capitalism. A similar U.S. effort in Eastern Europe has already resulted in the ``graduation'' of several nations from U.S. aid programs, demonstrating that American assistance to this region need not be permanent. Second, the Administration requests $216 million for the Non- Proliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs account, an increase over the $133 million appropriated in Fiscal 1998. This funds a number of key programs, including the effort to keep former Soviet scientists employed on useful projects--a program designed to prevent them from selling their knowledge and skills to rogue regimes. Like the Nunn-Lugar program, which is funded in the 050 account, the Science Center program is a critical element in a strategy of containment--a strategy directed not at a nation or ideology, but at controlling the threat posed by the proliferation of dangerous technologies. Third, the Administration seeks a significant increase in the budget for international narcotics and law enforcement at the State Department. Specifically, it requested $275 million, a $44 million increase. These resources are required to continue the ongoing struggle against the narcotics cartels in this hemisphere and elsewhere. I commend the President for seeking a 20 percent increase in the budget for the Peace Corps, an increase designed to put the Corps on a path to 10,000 volunteers by the year 2000, well above the current number of 6,500 volunteers. The Peace Corps represents the best of American values and ideals, and advances American interests overseas immeasurably. Finally, the Administration has requested a supplemental appropriations legislation for Fiscal 1998 for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and urge passage of legislation to pay off our arrears to the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations. Last year's budget agreement allows for an adjustment in the discretionary spending caps for these important priorities. I hope we will act on this legislation soon--and without linking it to unrelated issues. Mr. President, in closing, let me emphasize this: funding for foreign affairs is but one percent of the total federal budget. But as is reflected in the daily headlines and our own priorities here in the Senate, foreign policy comprises far more than one percent of our nation's interests. As our Secretary of State likes to say, it may account for fifty percent of the history that is written about our era. This is not to suggest that the foreign policy budget should constitute half of our federal budget; it is to remind us, however, that any reduction in that budget would be symbolic in its effect on the federal fisc, but would be significant in its effect on our national interests. I hope my colleagues will bear that in mind as we begin debate on the budget for the coming fiscal year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I rise today to condemn the murderous attacks carried out by Serbian paramilitary units against civilians in the province of Kosovo. Mr. President, the immediate cause of the violence was an attack several days ago by units of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, which killed four Serbian police. The fundamental cause, however, is the Serbian government s brutal repression of the ethnic Albanians, who make up more than ninety percent of Kosovo s population. In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic, as part of his demogogic policy of whipping up Serb ultra-nationalism, abolished the autonomous status of Kosovo, granted by the Yugoslav Constitution of 1974. Flooding the province with Yugoslav military units, special police forces, and nationalist militias, Milosevic set up a police state that has prevented the ethnic Albanians from exercising their basic political and cultural rights. To their credit, Kosovo s Albanian leadership, led by Ibrahim Rugova, opted for a non-violent approach in their struggle for independence. They established alternative institutions, including a shadow parliament with various political parties, independent schools, and trade unions. For eight years Mr. Rugova was able to keep the lid on a potentially explosive situation. Inevitably, however, the weight of Serbian repression had its effect, particularly on younger Kosovars, as the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo are called. A so-called Kosovo Liberation Army was formed, and last year began an armed campaign against Serbian officials and ethnic Serb civilians. While this development is understandable, Mr. President, it is regrettable. Aside from causing casualties and deaths, the armed resistance has provided Milosevic the pretext for his brutal crack- down. The violence in Kosovo could provide the spark to ignite the Balkan tinderbox into full-scale regional war, which, in the worst case, could bring in neighboring Albania, Macedonia--and perhaps even Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. Immediate action is necessary. Already the Administration is consulting with our NATO allies about an appropriate response. One immediate step should be to extend the mandate of the NATO-led UNPREDEP, the U.N. preventive deployment force in neighboring Macedonia which includes several hundred American troops, beyond its August 1998 termination date. The Clinton Administration has already revoked several concessions granted to Milosevic as a reward for support of the new Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia. The Bush Administration s Christmas 1992 warning of military action-- which meant air strikes against targets across Serbia--unless violence against the Kosovar Albanians stopped, should be restated. We should mobilize international pressure on Milosevic to restore the pre-1989 autonomy to Kosovo and to the ethnically heterogeneous Vojvodina (voi-voh-DEEN-uh) province in northern Serbia. To coordinate our policy, President Clinton should name a high- profile Special Representative for dealing with the Kosovo Problem. Our current Special Representative for the former Yugoslavia, Robert Gelbard, is simply stretched too thin to devote adequate time to this explosive situation. Mr. President, it is difficult to exaggerate the stakes in the current Kosovo violence. A continuation of the Serbian repression and Kosovar Albanian counter-violence could easily spin out of control and endanger the entire Balkan peninsula. It could undue the recent progress we have made in Bosnia and endanger NATO solidarity. We must act at once to prevent these developments.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, over the last two days we have been debating in the Senate various amendments aimed at curbing drunk driving--a devastating byproduct of alcohol consumption. Today, I want to raise another alcohol-related issue--that of drinking on college campuses. In recent years, we have all heard the stories about college students who are dying because of alcohol. A drunk student falls out of a dorm window in Virginia. Students from Massachusetts to Mississippi die of alcohol poisoning--drinking so much so fast that the alcohol literally kills them. In fact, so far this academic year, there have been at least 17 college students who have died in binge drinking incidents. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated minority of college students. According to surveys, 44 percent of college students are binge drinkers, and nearly one in every five college students is a frequent binge drinker. This is not what parents expect when they send their kids off to college. It is time for the culture on college campuses to change. So, today, I am submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling on college and university administrators to carry out activities to reduce alcohol consumption on college campuses. This resolution--the Collegiate Initiative to Reduce Binge Drinking--was first submitted in the other body by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. I want to commend him for his initiative, and thank him for allowing me to join in this effort. Specifically, the resolution calls on colleges and universities to appoint a task force to establish a policy on reducing alcohol and other drug-related problems; provide students with the opportunity to live in an alcohol-free environment; enforce a zero tolerance policy on the consumption of alcohol by minors; and eliminate alcoholic beverage- related sponsorship of on-campus activities. It also encourages colleges to work with local officials in the town in which they are located. These activities are very similar to what is happening now at my state's largest college--the University of Delaware--which, according to a study by Harvard University, has had a binge drinking rate 50 percent higher than the national average. But, Mr. President, under the direction of the University's President, David P. Roselle--along with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation--the University is actively seeking to reduce this rate and to reduce alcohol consumption on campus. So far, it appears to be working. In just one year--from October 1996 to October 1997--there were 30 fewer alcohol-related incidents on campus. The lesson is that if we take the problem seriously and seriously address the problem, we can make a difference. The lives of students can be saved. I ask my colleagues to join me in encouraging college administrators to step up to the challenge--before the problem gets any worse.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will you be kind enough to add me as a cosponsor?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I listened with great interest yesterday to the comments of the majority leader on the agreement between the United Nations and Iraq. I did so particularly since I had come to the floor in the past and publicly credited him and complimented him for his forceful assertion the night of the State of the Union indicating we would stand united, Democrats and Republicans, in our opposition to Saddam Hussein. That was badly needed at the time. It was a statesmanlike thing to do, and it was applauded by all of us. But I must admit I was perplexed yesterday by the majority leader's comments. He seemed, in my view, Mr. President, to rush to judgment to engage in a pessimistic fatalism that I think permeated his remarks and I think are unwarranted. The majority leader is correct, based on what I heard yesterday, at least in one important respect, and that is the agreement between the United Nations and Iraq should be judged by whether it furthers American interests from our perspective. This is entirely consistent with the position taken by President Clinton. He and his national security team are in the process of making that judgment, which is: Is this agreement consistent with and does it further U.S. interests? The administration is seeking clarifications to the ambiguities in this very general agreement. It is using our formidable diplomatic muscle, Mr. President, to settle unanswered questions in our favor, as I speak. In contrast to the gloomy assessment presented by the Senate majority leader, things appear to be breaking our way so far, as we seek the proper interpretation of that agreement. Secretary General Kofi Annan has provided assurances on some of the key questions that have arisen in the accord. First, the new special team will be an integral part of UNSCOM and not a separate entity, as some worry. Second, the diplomats to be appointed to the new team will act as observers only. UNSCOM will retain operational control of the entire inspection process. Third, the head of the new special team within UNSCOM for inspecting Presidential sites will be an arms control expert with a solid track record in arms control. Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, the current Undersecretary General for disarmament, who has recently completed a tour as Sri Lanka's ambassador to the United States, will be that person. He has played a key role in making the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty permanent. He and Ambassador Richard Butler have known each other for nearly 20 years, and they appear to be able to work together and respect one another. Fourth, UNSCOM and the Secretary General, not Iraq, will develop the procedures for inspecting the Presidential sites. Fifth, UNSCOM and Chairman Butler will retain their independence. Sixth, the reporting lines remain intact. The new team leader will report to Ambassador Butler, who, in turn, reports to the Security Council through the Secretary General, as UNSCOM's chairman has done since 1991. Finally, the new representative of the Secretary General in Baghdad will not have a direct role in the UNSCOM inspections process. If these assurances pan out, then this agreement will go a long way toward furthering the United States national interests. I have personally known the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for many years, and I regard him as a man of his word. So I have no reason to doubt these assurances that have been made now on the record. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Secretary General is attempting to deceive us, which I know he is not. In that case, I don't see that we have given up any of our options, even if that were his intention. We are not bound by this agreement. If it provides unworkable mechanisms to let UNSCOM do its job, or if it undermines the integrity of UNSCOM, we can and should walk away from it. The critics would have us believe that we are the ``helpless superpower,'' that we are bound by the terms of an agreement negotiated by an omnipotent United Nations. This simply does not conform with reality or square with the facts. We have a formidable armada assembled in the Persian Gulf poised to strike at a moment's notice. That armada can be called into service if the agreement falls short or if Saddam Hussein reneges on his commitments. The agreement does not in any way suspend our right to act unilaterally or multilaterally for that matter. Indeed, should the agreement be violated, the use of force would meet with, in my view, much less international opposition than it would have in the absence of an agreement. An allegation that I find particularly puzzling is that we have ``subcontracted our foreign policy'' to the United Nations. Granted, it makes for a crisp sound bite that everybody will pick up, but like most sound bites, it lacks substance. Those who make this politically motivated charge seem to ignore that the Secretary General is acting according to specific guidelines issued by the Security Council. They seem to forget that the United States is in the Security Council and our Secretary of State, in particular, played a central role in preparing these guidelines. Would the critics have preferred the Russians and the French coming up with an agreement without our input, or the Secretary General acting on the basis of his own instincts? Or would they rather have him act on the basis of the red lines that we drew in the agreement as a member of the Security Council? Or to avoid subcontracting our foreign policy, would the critics have preferred our diplomats traveling to Baghdad? The charge also misses the fact that we have maintained support for our policy by acting within the bounds of the U.N. resolutions, which we crafted. We have not subcontracted; we have set the terms for Iraqi compliance. Throughout this crisis, the same critics have leveled exaggerated charges that we have precious little international support for our policy; yet, in the same breath they call for a course of action, such as toppling the regime, that would guarantee absolutely no international support and without the willingness to supply our military with the force necessary to do that. It seems to me that this is a glaring contradiction in arguments made by the critics of President Clinton's approach. You can't have it both ways. I believe that the Presidents resolve in backing diplomacy with force has been vindicated. It has not been easy. He was subjected to criticism from those who wanted to go farther and those who wished he hadn't gone as far as he did. These critics make some valid arguments, but they fail to put any realistic alternatives forward. They also fail to recognize that their suggested course would entail far greater costs than the President's approach. In their rush to criticize the Clinton administration, the critics have gotten lost in the proverbial weeds. They have conjured up worst- case scenarios and portrayed American options as being much more limited than they actually are. As the facts come in, the false picture they have painted is gradually being chipped way. The agreement moves us to a far more advantageous position than we were in before the crisis began. If Iraq implements the agreement, we will have access to all suspect weapons sites in Iraq for the first time. If Iraq refuses to comply this time around, then we will be in a much stronger position to justify our use of force, which I am convinced we will exercise. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we have given up none of our options, while the agreement has very likely narrowed the options for Saddam Hussein. I yield the floor.