A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress to commend and express the gratitude of the United States to the nations participating with the United States in the Coalition to Disarm Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require on this initial statement.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner and Allen be added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 30.

I rise in support of this resolution thanking those nations participating with the United States in the ``Coalition to Disarm Iraq.'' I am pleased that this resolution enjoys the strong support of the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senator from Delaware, and the leadership on both sides of the aisle.

Our resolution cites the important diplomatic initiatives originally undertaken by our allies in Europe in support of U.S. resolve to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003, the Prime Ministers of Denmark, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, and the Presidents of the Czech Republic and the Spanish Government issued a declaration stating the ``the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security.'' The declaration went on to say that ``. . . our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. . . .''

These European leaders were immediately joined by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. In a declaration of February 5, 2003, the Foreign Minister stated in part: ``the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the United Nations Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.''

This is not the first time the Senate has commended the important contributions made by the leaders and Foreign Ministers of these countries, but at a time when some question international support in Iraq, we thought it important to revisit their statements of support and reiterate our gratitude.

In addition to these statements of support, our resolution identifies additional nations that have expressed their support for coalition action in Iraq. Nations around the world are providing important diplomatic and strategic support in a number of ways, including expressions of political support, overflights and basing authorization, intelligence-sharing, and other important strategies contributions. This list includes long-standing U.S. allies and relatively new partners in the war on terrorism: large nations with strong militaries and small nations who share our view of the inherent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In addition to the nations mentioned, international support grows each day. In an effort to acknowledge the contributions of each, I will list those nations who have made their contributions public to date: Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Azerbajian, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, The Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

More specifically, our resolution expresses our Nation's sincere gratitude to Australia, Denmark, Poland, and the United Kingdom, whose forces have joined with the United States in sending troops into harm's way. Each of these nation is making important contributions to coalition efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime of its weapons of mass destruction. In addition, we thank the numerous other nations that are providing military and logistical support to operations in the region.

We also pay special tribute to the leaders of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Spain. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prime Minister John Howard, and President of the Spanish Government, Jose Maria Aznar, have provided courageous leadership to efforts to disarm Iraq, and the Senate of the United States commends them for their efforts and expresses its thanks.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this resolution of gratitude to our allies around the world who are supporting our efforts in Iraq in so many important ways. I am hopeful this resolution will receive the unanimous support of the Senate, to ensure a strong expression of appreciation and commendation of the important contributions by members of the international community who are making the ``Coalition to Disarm Iraq'' a success.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Delaware has pointed out, the resolution addresses very specifically the future, and I cite language from the resolution we are considering. Clause 5 says:

(5) welcomes and encourages the active involvement and

participation of these countries--

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

other nations, and key international organizations in the

reconstruction and administration of Iraq after the current

conflict in Iraq;

That is an important clause. This is a resolution of commendation, of affirmation. This is our expression, as the U.S. Senate, of thanks, and we are very specific about the nature of contributions many nations have made, and their leaders specifically.

It is our intent to be inclusive deliberately and to indicate that we welcome the very broadest participation in the work to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Having said that, we also welcome their thoughts, their contributions, their revenues, their physical support as we think of the postwar situation. That is a very important set of situations, as a matter of fact.

I appreciate the good counsel of my colleague from Delaware when he talks not only about the inclusiveness and the need for participation along with us to share both the opportunities and the burdens but, likewise, the fact this will not happen by chance; this is going to require active American diplomacy.

I commend the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Rice, and others who have been visibly active in this role. But this is a role in which we can assist as a body in commending the nations today and through all of the contacts any of us may have with these nations to indicate ways in which they can be helpful and reasons they should be helpful.

The distinguished Senator from Delaware, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee last year, commenced hearings which he has cited today on the post-war Iraq situation. We could not have predicted last summer or last fall precisely in the circumstances, but at some point it was apparent to many of us that it would be important for those weapons of mass destruction to be found and to be destroyed. Our prayer then was that the coalition of nations in the United Nations, working through the Security Council or other groups, might, in fact, be persuasive; that declarations of the weapons would be made and that international authorities that could work with us in verifying their destruction. We are still in that quest. The large coalition we have talked about today is determined, in fact, to find the weapons and to destroy them, to rid the world of the problems of proliferation that could endanger any of the nations we are citing today, and others who have not chosen to join with us as yet.

Our resolution is not one of censure or condemnation. We are not about the job of finger-pointing and asking why or why not. We are affirmative. We are saying affirmatively, these nations have taken a stand, and we hope they will take a larger stand because there will be much work to do. We hope there will be more joining with us in an inclusive move.

As the Senator from Delaware has spoken, and I concur with him, we would include in that, as our resolution does, international organizations, our NATO allies, the United Nations, others who are very important for the future of the world in many sectors quite apart from the one we are discussing today.

Having said that, it is important that we all understand that we are going to have to stay the course with regard to operations in Iraq, both with regard to the military situation, the disarmament situation, and the reconstruction situation. That will not be easy. The expense of that, regardless of the estimates--and many learned people throughout this country and throughout various organizations have been addressing this issue, our own government has been addressing the issue because it will be soon upon us, but the necessity of staying the course is absolutely imperative not only with regard to our credibility as a nation and the welfare of the people in this country and the people of Iraq and others who are with us, but with regard to the surrounding neighborhood and everybody who may be impacted by the military action presently.

The great fear of many nations, either expressed or unexpressed, is that without extraordinary leadership and statesmanship, there will be chaos in Iraq in the postwar situation. There are many historical reasons for that which most of us have reviewed in the course of discussing Iraq.

The whole origin of current Iraq, the repression of the Kurds which did keep the peace, albeit in a very cruel and harmful way to the people who were involved in the country, and frequently with enormous loss of life to the neighbors, as Iraq and the Saddam regime invaded other countries, used weapons of mass destruction to kill hundreds of thousands of people outside of Iraq, quite apart from those he repressed within the country. This is the history of a situation that is not on the face of itself correcting, or that of a unified spirit, or with lots of basis for democratic institutions and the ways in which people might find their way automatically.

I commend the Senator from Delaware for pointing out that it is not our purpose--and we point that out in what we are saying today--to be governors of Iraq. The whole idea is Iraq for the Iraqis, for people who come forward to take leadership swiftly and surely, but with the right instincts with regard to human rights, freedom of expression, and a respect for other nations around them, and with all of the pursuits that we think are important to express up front. This is one of the basic reasons nations have joined with us, and we commend them as they commend us. This is a coalition of the willing with regard to disarmament, but it is a coalition of countries that are striving toward some common ideals as to how people should live and how they should treat each other.

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

Granted, the Iraqis have lots of problems. We are all for them working it out and doing the best they can. This is

likely to lead to the chaos that is generally feared.

Nations, not altogether cynically, advocated the continuation of the current regime because they said it would create stability. Some nations were prepared to accept tyranny because at least it brings stability. There are not going to be changes of boundaries, changes of government, people coming and going with strange doctrines. Or, from our standpoint, having watched a failed state in Afghanistan prior to the time that al-Qaida was utilizing camps, utilizing organization and finance, using that failed state as an incubator, attacked America, Iraq is a much larger country. A failed state there is conceivably an incubator for even more harm, whether it be al-Qaida or any number of other groups, some national, some unknown to us, who find sustenance, who find the possibility for proliferation of dangerous weapons and perhaps in due course weapons of mass destruction.

To allow chaos to occur would be a monumental foreign policy and security policy failure by the United States. That is why we need to be forward looking, affirmative, inclusive, signing up more partners, commending those who come as they come.

I have heard some say, the contributions of some of the countries that are listed in our resolution are very modest. In some cases, they have barely said: We are for you. We think you are on the right track. We want to identify with the United States.

They say: Where is the beef? Where are troops? Where is money? Where are supplies? Those are legitimate questions. I would simply respond for each of the nations that we list today. They have made a declaration that could be fateful with regard to those who have authority in those countries. The leaders of those countries must answer to their parliaments, to their people, to others in the press and those who play some role in public opinion. This was not a casual association or declaration. Nor will it be after the war is over, and the responsibility for Iraq comes front and center for all of us.

By ``all of us,'' I mean the countries we now have gathered together in the commendation and those, prayerfully, that will join us. That, hopefully, at some point will include all the nations of the United Nations and of NATO. It will include those that may not be with us as of this moment.

I will take at least a minute of this debate to commend our colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, simply because he was a person, in my own experience as a young person, as mayor of Indianapolis going with him to Brussels when he was a counselor to President Nixon and representing this country in a group called the Challenges for a Modern Society, as we talked about the problems of urbanization in our NATO countries, the problems of the environment, the problems of jobs for people. With Daniel Patrick Moynihan at my side, I invited the mayors of all the countries of the world to come to my city of Indianapolis in 1971, and he came.

He gave a great speech about international relations, what NATO could do. He gave it at a time that he was on the threshold, as it turned out, of going into a diplomacy as our Ambassador to India and then to the United Nations.

I remember visiting with him when he was our Ambassador. It was a year in which both of us were considering candidacies for the Senate, which, in fact, occurred in the year of 1976, successfully, for both of us. We came to this body together and served for 24 years.

Throughout that period of time, his counsel, I am sure if he were on the floor today speaking on some issue, would have been to be inclusive, to be hardheaded, to understand the facts, to understand the history, the traditions, the difficulties, sometimes the cynicism and the remorse, but also the triumphs that can come with successful diplomacy and successful international relations. Those were missions he undertook gladly on behalf of our country and finally in service with the Senate.

I mention that spirit today because I think it is appropriate. This is an important resolution. I appreciate the decision of the leadership to take it up now before this weekend, before any more time passes, even this sense of appreciation and mission and what is to follow, it seems to me, is critically important for all Americans, both to understand and then to participate in the debate which we surely will have.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor to this resolution.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I yield such time to the Senator from Virginia as he desires.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the chairman of the committee, in support of S. Con. Res. 30, which commends and expresses the gratitude of the United States to the other nations participating with us in the Coalition to Disarm Iraq. The American people and this Congress stand with our Commander in Chief and behind our men and women in uniform. It is their responsibility, and the Commander in Chief's, to prosecute this war in Iraq, but it is our responsibility to give them the support they need and deserve.

There may be difficult days ahead, but I am confident of the extraordinary skill and ultimate success of our endeavor. As we gather here today, the sons and daughters of four countries--the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark--are fighting alongside our troops. Our purpose today is to thank them from the bottom of our hearts for the courage they are demonstrating. It is to tell their families and loved ones of our gratitude for their sacrifice and to express to their leaders our profound admiration for their determination to join other nations, including ours, in a common and just cause.

Several dozen nations are supporting this coalition in other ways-- politically, diplomatically, and strategically. They, too, have our deep appreciation. The Senator from Indiana has read the names of those nations.

Let me say a word to the leaders and the people from friendly countries and allies who do not support our effort to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. This Senator and many others disagree profoundly with the choices they have made. But this Senator, at least, respects-- equally profoundly--that that choice is the right of a sovereign nation to make, to differ with us.

I think it is time that we move beyond the finger-pointing and recriminations that have been flying across the Atlantic and around the world. We need one another. We will need one another in other endeavors. It is time to, again, heal the differences. We could not come together in war, but we are going to have to come together in peace.

This resolution expresses that hope. By its words, it ``welcomes and encourages the active involvement of [the countries in this coalition], other nations, and key international organizations in the reconstruction and civil administration of Iraq after the conflict.''

When this war ends--hopefully, that will be soon--we will face a tremendous responsibility and an equally important opportunity in terms of Iraq's future. Even as our thoughts and prayers are with our President, our troops, and our allies, we need to think about and act on that future now.

Why is this so important? I believe it is important because it is profoundly against the interests of the United States to be left the sole responsibility for Iraq. As my friend, and the friends of many here, Tom Friedman, has put it: We may have to rent this country for a time; but it is not our desire to own it.

There are three reasons for that:

First, it will cost tens of billions of dollars and take years to rebuild an Iraq that is secure, whole, free, and governed by its own people. We should not bear that burden or responsibility alone.

Second, an indefinite American military occupation of Iraq would fuel resentment throughout the Middle East, bolster al-Qaida's recruitment, and make Americans a target for malcontents everywhere. We need to make the peace in Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own.

Third, failure to engage the U.N. and as many countries as possible in post-Saddam Iraq would miss an opportunity to repair the damage that has been done to the U.N., to our alliances, and international cooperation--all of which we will need to win the war against terrorism, to contend with North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs, to slow the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to deal with outbreaks of disease, and to contend with so many other threats that have no respect for borders.

I hope the administration will spare no effort in securing the sanction of the United Nations for everything that will have to be done to keep the peace in Iraq after the war, to provide humanitarian aid, to rebuild the country, and to help put Iraq back into the hands of its own people.

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

By gaining U.N. approval, as I said, we would help the political leaders around the world who know that is in their interest as well-- whose people oppose the war--to justify their participation, including financial participation. And we would demonstrate a U.S. commitment to rebuild ties to the U.N., which will be important in our long-term security.

I personally think Kosovo provides a powerful precedent for such a course of action. In Kosovo, we chose not to pursue a use of force resolution at the U.N. that we knew Russia would veto. I was in this Chamber urging that we bypass the U.N. and go directly to a coalition of the willing--in this case, the EU and NATO--to gain support for what many of us here strongly believed was in the interest of the United States, the interest of Europe, and in the humanitarian interests of hundreds of thousands of people. We moved.

But even before the first bombs fell, we worked closely with the Security Council on an agreement to put the U.N. and other countries front and center in Kosovo for humanitarian aid and civil authority once the peace was made. As a result, we did not have to build the peace alone. Our motives were not questioned alone, and we did not bear the costs alone. Evidence the fact that we were carrying roughly 15 percent of the freight, 15 percent of the personnel, after Milosevic was defeated.

I know there is tension between those who see the efficiency of an American military occupation and those who seek the legitimacy of a U.N.-led effort.

I have made close to a dozen trips, during and after the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, to the Balkans. I can tell you, there is no U.N. organization, there is no multilateral organization, there is no organization in the world that can deliver with the speed and efficiency whatever is needed that equals that of the U.S. military; it doesn't exist--whether it is building a road, digging a well, or securing a neighborhood. But the fact is, we have to find a place between that efficiency and the need for legitimacy.

In the immediate weeks after the war, our military will have to be in charge of the country, and long term, we will have to be in charge of the security side of the equation in the country. Longer term, our goal--working with our allies and the international community--must be to put Iraq back in the hands of the Iraqi people, and this, again, in order for it to have legitimacy and, in my view, the prospect of succeeding, will have to be viewed by the region and the rest of the world as having been and gotten the imprimatur of the international community. The last thing we need to do is look as though we are putting in a puppet government--which is not our intention--in Baghdad in order to serve our purposes. There will be no legitimacy, and it will commit us much longer and in a more costly way.

During this critical interim period, we must achieve a very difficult balance. On the one hand, we have to avoid prolonging American military occupation, and, of course, for as long as our troops are there, security must be their responsibility--U.S. responsibility, not the responsibility of the U.N. or any other organization. We also had a bite out of that apple in the Balkans, in Bosnia. It did not work. It was a mistake. We corrected that mistake in Kosovo. But it should not be their role long term to administer Iraq or to choose its future leaders.

We don't want the American military having to make political decisions day in and day out and being blamed for every grievance. That would fuel resentment and turn us from liberators into occupiers. We do not want the American military putting in place a new Iraqi government, in my view. It would be seen as a puppet and, I believe, with no legitimacy.

On the other hand, we must not leave too quickly or hand over power to the Iraqis who lack the ability, the authority, and the institutions to govern their country--and risk Iraq coming apart at the seams.

Again, this is a different circumstance in Iraq than it was in Bosnia and in Kosovo, but we had a piece of that in both those countries.

This is a difficult balance. I am not suggesting any absolute formula, but I am suggesting that, to the degree the American military commander is seen to be handpicking and/or putting in place a new Iraqi regime, a new Iraqi government, it will diminish its legitimacy. To the degree to which an American sergeant, lieutenant, or captain has to stand someplace in Kirkuk and tell a returning Kurd, who was expelled through ethnic cleansing 15 years ago, whether he can go into his home and expel the Arab Sunni living there, that is a problem for us. I do not want some American GI having to make that decision, although they are qualified to make it. They should not have to be the ones to make each of those decisions.

Again, the handoff in the transition will be difficult, but as long as we move toward involving the international community without yielding any of our security interests, that is the way to go.

How would they deal, for example, as I said, with the Kurds, the Turkmen, and Arabs literally fighting over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, trying to claim that city? How will they contend with uncooperative ethnic leaders bent on revenge instead of reconciliation?

We are the ones who will have to provide the military muscle for the coalition to interface between those groups, but we should have the rest of the world in on the deal and the responsibility. Instead, someone must be given the authority to resolve the incredibly complicated problems that will arise, and we should look to those experiences, as I said, in the Balkans, some of it good, some of it not so good, and draw from that experience.

We should empower an international civil servant to be the country's high commissioner or representative at some point as this transition goes forward. He or she should be backed up by an international civilian administration that empowers Iraqis, by a credible international security force with American forces at its core, American forces in the lead.

God willing, this war will continue to go well. Casualties on all sides, God willing, will be few, and, God willing, a victory will be sooner than later. And working with the international community, God willing, we will put Iraq on the path to a democratic society.

Even if we succeed in these difficult endeavors, we should not expect Iraq's promise that will come from this new government to automatically trigger progress throughout the region. Indeed, we will not truly win the peace unless we adopt and pursue a broader strategy for the Middle East. I believe the President has recognized that by underscoring and endorsing the road map between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now we must follow through and show a consistent commitment to its implementation.

Finding a solution to this problem would exponentially increase our ability to promote and support democracy and democratic reform throughout the region. We must do that for the sake of its people and for the safety of our own. For when there are no democratic outlets, dissent moves underground, it turns into resentment, and it is ventilated by extremism and even terrorism. So we must make it clear to our friends in that region that their future and their future with us requires--requires--a move toward democratization.

If we listen to the voices of Arabs themselves, if we heed the wisdom of the U.N.'s Arab development report that ties progress to empowering women, reforming economies, and expanding political participation, we can

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

Mr. President, by refusing to disarm, a defiant Saddam has made the fateful choice between war and peace. This is not an exercise of a doctrine of preemption. This is an exercise of enforcing a peace agreement. This is an enforcement action, enforcing an agreement a defeated president made in the early nineties to the whole world at the United Nations saying: If you let me remain in power, I commit to keep the following conditions to this peace agreement. That is what this was.

If this had been 1919, we would have been in Versailles having to sign an agreement. It was 1991, and it was at a time when the United Nations was available to us.

He made this choice. He made the choice between war and peace. Let us make sure that in winning the war, we also win the peace.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, today the Senate is expressing its gratitude to the nations of the world that support the U.S. determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his regime's weapons of mass destruction. I wholeheartedly endorse this resolution and the message it sends to the world about so many nations' view of Saddam Hussein's regime and about the resolve and bravery of the men and women who have stepped in harm's way to remove the threat he poses to international peace and basic human decency.

According to press reports, thousands of additional United States troops have entered Iraq over the last day or so. At the same time, tens of thousands of their comrades continue their relentless and courageous march to Baghdad, making all Americans proud as they battle extreme conditions and irregular--even illegal--tactics by the enemy. Each day, our admiration of these troops and their performance grows.

Unfortunately, as well as our troops have performed, much more fighting apparently lies ahead. Earlier this week, Secretary Rumsfeld declared that we are closer to the beginning than the end of this conflict. And press accounts indicate many in the military believe the conditions in which they will be fighting could get even more difficult.

Administration reports suggest that the closer our troops get to Baghdad, the greater the risk that Iraq will resort to chemical or biological weapons. Apparently, concern is growing within the administration that desperation could cause Saddam's sympathizers to resort to the use of poison gas to defend their despicable leader and his repressive regime.

I recently received a demonstration of what our troops must do to survive and continue to carry out their mission in an environment contaminated with toxic agents. While these briefers expressed confidence our soldiers in Iraq have both the necessary equipment and training to deal with a chemical attack, I pray the 250,000 American troops in the gulf--and the British, Australian, and Polish ground troops fighting alongside them--will not have to make use of that training. But the very fact that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with this possibility demonstrates that the risk of a chemical attack is very real.

All the soldiers in the coalition as well as their governments deserve our heartfelt appreciation for their willingness for to join us in this important cause. We owe them each an enormous debt of gratitude.

Senators Lugar and Biden were right to want to thank those countries who through their words or deeds have expressed support for our effort in Iraq. As I have said on a number of occasions, international support of our effort in Iraq is critical to share the costs and risks of both the fighting as well as the postwar reconstruction.

According to information provided by the administration, three other countries--Great Britain, Australia and Poland--have contributed ground forces to fight alongside the U.S. troops in the region. While we are grateful for the willingness of any country to stand with us, we are particularly grateful to these three countries that have deployed their young people to stand and fight with our troops.

While it may be too late for other countries to provide ground forces to assist us in the fighting, it is not too late for many others to back their words up with tangible help for what comes after the fighting ends. Administration officials indicate they are pressing to develop additional support as this conflict unfolds. That is the right thing to do, and I strongly encourage and support those efforts.

We will want the concrete assistance of our friends and allies as the military effort continues and as we prepare for rebuilding a post- Saddam Iraq. To that end, this resolution calls on these and other countries as well as key international organizations to support the reconstruction and administration of a post-Saddam Iraq.

In closing, Mr. President, allow me to express my debt of gratitude to the families of the troops carrying out this effort in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday afternoon, on this floor, Senator Tim Johnson, whose son Brooks is currently serving in Iraq with the Third Brigade of the 101st Airborne, talked about the intense emotions the families of our troops and our allies are going through. They never know whether the next bit of breaking news will include something about their sons or daughters, mothers or fathers. We owe profound gratitude to them as well.

I yield the floor.

I thank my distinguished colleague and longtime friend. This is a very important step that the Chamber is about to undertake with this vote. I anticipate it will be a vote of resounding support for this initiative and this resolution. It sends a signal far beyond the shores of our Nation.

I also wish to say a word about the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. We have served in this Chamber together, for me a quarter of a century, for 25 years. I have known committee chairmen on both sides of the aisle and we take great pride, the entire Senate, in this magnificently trained individual. He has trained almost all his life to take on these responsibilities.

He is too modest to talk about it, but we often reminisce about our somewhat modest participation in the U.S. Navy many years ago when he was the foreign policy adviser to one of the more distinguished chiefs of naval operations in contemporary naval history. At a very young age he began to assume the mantle of responsibilities of foreign affairs. We are fortunate to have him at the helm, together with his distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, who likewise has spent much of his life in the field of foreign affairs. These two fine leaders bring to this Chamber this important piece of legislation which has my strong support.

But, as it relates to this coalition, our thoughts and our hearts and our minds go out to the families who have lost their soldier, sailor, airman, marine in this conflict, and those who have suffered the brunt of battle and now bear the scars of conflict.

We owe a great debt to these men and women who so proudly wear the uniform of our country, and who are willing to take the risks. I mentioned earlier today, if you look at the 290 million citizens privileged to live in this great Nation, the United States of America, less than one-half of 1 percent are currently wearing the uniform and assuming the risks as their forebears did, over the 200-plus years of this great Republic. Indeed, we owe them a tremendous, great, gratitude.

This unified support is one that our President, a distinguished Commander in Chief throughout this conflict, has worked so hard to put together. This resolution recognizes in many ways the efforts of our President and the Secretary of State, to some extent the Secretary of Defense, and others to put it together.

The coalition is currently engaged in very hard and dangerous work, to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a proven despot, and to give a measure of freedom and democracy to the long- suffering people of Iraq. Some 47 nations have publicly declared support. I do not doubt there are others in the silence of their councils that are likewise very sympathetic and are constructively engaged in this effort. Each member of the coalition that we cite here today has demonstrated they will face the threat and take the risk as relates to their individual contributions. Certainly, the forces of Great Britain, again under the courageous leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair, together with the Australians, Danish commandos, the Czech and Slovak units, and countless others are providing the forces necessary to bring about the goals I have just mentioned.

Every contribution, no matter how large or small, has its value. Not only its value, but it is part of the overall matrix to enable the accomplishment of these goals. Even though small in

proportion, that small participation is essential to the overall success.

I hope this coalition will grow in numbers in due course, because the importance is vital to a better understanding, not only here at home but across the world, as to the noble goals this coalition has undertaken.

I thank my colleagues who are managing this bill. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, all time be yielded back on H.R. 1307, the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the measure be temporarily set aside; provided further that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 30, expressing gratitude to our allies; that no amendments or motions be in order to the resolution or preamble; further, that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee; that at the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the resolution, without intervening action or debate; further, that immediately following that vote, the preamble be agreed to; provided further that following that action, the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 1307 as under the previous order.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the stacked votes.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that following any stacked votes today, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar No. 76, James Selna to be U.S. District Judge of the Central District of California; Calendar No. 79, Philip Simon to be a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana.

I further ask consent that the Senate then proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the mentioned nominations; further, that following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time and with one show of hands.

I now ask for the yeas and nays on the nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the last rollcall vote today, there be a period of morning business for tributes to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the tributes to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Senator from New York, be printed as a Senate document, and that Members have until 12 noon, Friday, April 11, to submit said tributes.