The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: We have had excellent cooperation in the management of this very important matter. Senators have been forthcoming. I note that the Presiding Officer is now scheduled to speak. Is there a means by which we could accommodate him? I would be happy to sit in the Chair. But I also observe the presence of another Senator who immediately follows the distinguished Senator. We could perhaps flip.
If I might suggest that.
The Presiding Officer: The Chair is prepared to recognize the Senator from Montana.
Mr. Warner: We will recognize the Senator from Montana then.
Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator from Montana to address the Senate, I want to thank our colleague, Senator Brownback, for an excellent statement. I was privileged to follow it, and it is an important contribution to this debate.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. Brownback: Thank you.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Montana.
Mr. Burns: Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia.
I thank my good friend from Delaware, whose kindness and generosity is as good as the size of his State is small, in allowing me to speak now. And I understand the Presiding Officer may get some relief in a little bit and will be able to make his statement.
As we get into a debate such as this, every time we spend a lot of time going over and saying about the same thing. We know who Mr. Hussein is.
I congratulate the President for an excellent speech on Monday night. Not only did it complement his words before the United Nations, some would construe the speech as a statement of war. I think that is not the case. I had an opportunity to hear our Secretary of State, General Powell, put it very well when he said it was "a statement of what we intend to do."
We know and we have seen this man operate who claims the Presidency of Iraq, going way back to the time he attacked Iran, then his actions against a neighbor, Kuwait. And since then, Saddam Hussein has deceived the world for over a decade.
He has violated 16 U.N. resolutions without consequence. He has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and has a clear intention of obtaining nuclear weapons. His brutal regime has used these weapons on his own people. On one occasion this dictator used sarin, VX, and mustard gas agents to kill 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day.
He has abused the U.N.-established Oil-for-Food Program, weaponizing his oil to finance his fanaticism. All this time he has bankrupted his own country. Saddam has amassed black market revenues of $6.6 billion since 1996. I tell the American people this is not an Oil-for-Food Program. It is oil for terror.
Peace in our time, how long have we been kicking that phrase around? And it is still with us. It is in peril again and will be so long as Saddam Hussein is in power with the most destructive weapons in history in his hands.
Evidence of Saddam Hussein's complicity in and sponsorship of international terrorism is ample. He praised the September 11 attacks, calling them "God's punishment" in his government-controlled press. Al-Qaida terrorists are known to be hiding and harbored in Iraq. He continues to play host to networks and has ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. And the worst of all worlds, though, is that he paid Palestinian families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 as a reward for mass murder.
We know he violated U.N. sanctions and resolutions for inspections in that country, and now we are going back to the U.N. again for another resolution. There is one pitfall that we do not want to fall in again. By allowing new weapons inspections with conditions makes a mockery of our capacity for trust. He will exploit every opportunity to conceal and lie about what he has and where he has it--not only from us here in this country, but from the rest of the world. And the rest of the world should be outraged. What else is new?
He has a known record. Rather than playing the role of appeasers with a terrorist regime, the world community must vigorously pursue enforcement and compliance of those United Nations resolutions. If the United Nations Security Council cannot enforce its own authority and prove itself relevant and effective, then President Bush has no choice but to take whatever action he deems necessary to protect America from avowed enemies.
I understand fully the seriousness of committing our military, our men and women, in harm's way. I also understand the seriousness of the situation, not only just for Americans but for those freedom-loving and those freedom-desiring nations and societies around the world. I see a threat that overrides my fears and most of my concerns. We must act to depose a brutal regime and religious extremist who hates our freedoms and would do us harm.
I know America's intent is never to dominate other nations but to liberate them. We have a strong historical track record there. Our intent today with Iraq should be no different--to bring liberty and democracy to the Iraqi people who suffer arbitrary imprisonment, execution, torture, starvation, gang rape, and mutilation at the hands of this tyrant.
It is a changed world. It is a different time. Let me tell you that September 11 did not make it this way. September 11 gave us a horrible and graphic picture of the dangers of a changed and smaller world. No longer can we look the other way when the bully on the other side of the world pushes us and others around.
By today's standards, Saddam Hussein has been the bully on the block, right here at home. No longer can the international community simply do nothing.
How can we idly stand by and allow this monster to hide behind the veil of sovereign nation status? My conscience cannot allow it. There are no national boundaries when it comes to ferreting out and ending human injustice and suffering. We do have a responsibility to our fellow man. We always have. We also have an absolute right to defend ourselves.
Monsters are not going to be given a free hand to inflict unending suffering and death upon their own people and others, nor shall they be allowed to export terrorism or provide solace for terrorists. As Americans, we have a moral and ethical obligation to assure that each global member conducts themselves in an acceptable manner. Depending upon the magnitude of the offense, the remedy is different.
Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime has committed such severe atrocities that the world community can no longer stand idly by and do nothing. We cannot turn a blind eye.
A new world requires a new philosophy regarding defense. This new philosophy has been evolving for over a decade, ever since the end of the cold war. Deterrence and containment no longer suffice.
In this new age, this smaller world, we can no longer look the other way because a conflict is on the other side of the world. It is just like a conflict in our own neighborhood. There is no other side of the world anymore. It is just down the street.
So not only do we have a right, but a duty to protect ourselves and freedom-loving people around the world. The world community needs to be involved in making sure our partners in the world community treat their citizens and other nations fairly and with respect. If nations fail to do this and rise to a certain level of threat, just like kids at home, these nations must be dealt with. This is an evolving sense of conscience, and mine cannot sit back and wait until there is another strike.
Three-thousand people died on September 11, 2001. I do not want to see the tragic loss of American life again because of our inaction. It cannot happen to me, my children, or their children, or any innocent life.
So what do we do with a leader who has so blatantly violated 16 U.N. resolutions over the last decade, has invaded neighboring countries, and has tortured and killed his own people? Do we sit idly by and watch? That has never been the American way. America has never stood paralyzed by inaction when its citizens are threatened. Does Saddam pose a threat to this country's livelihood and to the American people? I believe he does.
September 11 also taught us another lesson--how fragile our freedoms are, especially when you inject fear. Also, we found out how fragile our economy was. He clearly has growing and increasingly sophisticated biological and chemical weapons capabilities, which strikes fear into the heart of every citizen on this planet. He has used them in the past and has the intent to use them again. He also actively continues his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
To those who still do not see the link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on America and American interests, I say look again. The absence of an obvious link does not mean that one link does not exist. To those of us who study and learn from history, there should be no question what we need and should do. Hussein is a monster and a threat to the United States as we know it. Congress must speak with one united voice. The Nation must speak with a united voice. The world community must speak with one united voice. Those who resist speaking with a strong, united voice have a very short memory. The security of this country is the responsibility of each and every one of us who live here. If this great Nation wants to stand by and pacify, I tell you we will get hit again.
We have heard lots of speeches and seemingly a lot of logic that would say this is a wrong thing to do. I can remember when another President by the name of Theodore Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." With Saddam Hussein, we have tried to speak softly and, so far, it has not worked. He has not responded to any U.N. resolution, sanctions, or even oil for food. So people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who hate Americans, hate our system, hate what free people have built here, will find a soft spot somewhere else at a later time--another vulnerability--and they will seize upon this opportunity to attack us once again.
That is what a blind eye creates. So I will vote for this resolution. I would even like to see it stronger because I think it strengthens the hands of our Secretary of State as he maneuvers his way through developing a new resolution in the world community called the United Nations. It also sends a very strong message to the rest of the world that all of us have a responsibility when a cancer falls upon the face of our planet. I will vote for this one and even a stronger one if I could get it.
Once again, speak softly, but carry a big stick.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Cantwell): The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. Wyden: Madam President, I hold the Senate seat of the late Wayne Morse. Senator Morse lost his job in 1968, and many have attributed his loss to his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war. Wayne Morse's election loss makes his words from that era no less true today.
In a 1966 debate on the role of the Senate with respect to the great issues of war and peace, Senator Wayne Morse said:
This is what the United States Senate is for. It is what the Founding Fathers created the Senate to do--take the long- range view of actions prompted in national councils that may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest.
It is the long-term interest of our country, Madam President, that Wayne Morse so presciently focused on in 1966 that leads me to outline the following conclusion that I have made with respect to the Iraq resolution.
Saddam Hussein is the bad actor here and the United States of America is the good actor. I believe the authorization of a unilateral preemptive military attack based on the information now available will cause much of the world, unfortunately, to lose sight of this reality. This perception in a region racked by poverty and already marked by a deep mistrust in American foreign policy could foster decades, possibly even centuries of undeserved hatred of our great Nation that will threaten our children and our grandchildren.
Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a staggering financial commitment from our National Government. Given the pressing financial needs here at home for public safety, for education, for health, where are the funds going to come from after our Nation wins such an engagement with Iraq?
Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require an American policy of energy independence--especially independence from Middle East oil. We are a long way from there, and on some issues, such as saving energy and the crucial transportation sector, it seems that now we have been going backward.
Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq will require a plan for rebuilding confidence among many of the countries that stood with us during the gulf war conflict, but do not stand with us today. Many of those countries do not believe diplomatic and other steps have been fully exhausted. If our Government cannot convince them of that, it is certainly going to be tough to restore faith after a unilateral, preemptive attack.
For many weeks now, I have waited and listened patiently, I feel, for the administration to make its case for the resolution. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I followed this issue very closely, and I believe neither partisan politics nor the pressures of an anxious public should be factored into a decision of this magnitude.
Instead, I see my duty as an elected representative of the great State of Oregon to listen, to inquire dispassionately, and make the decision I believe to be in the best interest of Oregon and this great country, and leave the judgment to history and the voters as to whether I made that judgment in the right way.
In approaching the decision about whether to vote to authorize the military option this measure calls for, I laid out some criteria on which to base my decision.
My criteria were: If our security agencies were to provide me with compelling evidence of a significant threat to our domestic security if Hussein's Iraq is not defeated militarily, I would be willing to grant authority for the use of force. But I am unwilling to give my approval for a first-strike, unilateral attack until and unless there is assurance under the resolution that before such an attack, the administration exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our goals.
Second, I am convinced it is essential to have a workable plan to contain the situation if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel enters the conflict.
And third, I am concerned there has to be a showing such an attack will not make our Nation less safe by setting us back in the war on terrorism.
The President has made a compelling case--I believe a sincere one-- regarding the danger posed by Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein, but his argument--and I say respectfully--does not meet the criteria I have laid out.
First, I am not convinced, regarding a clear and present threat, Saddam Hussein currently imposes a clear and present threat to the domestic security of the Nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq's support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al-Qaida, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11.
While Iraq has aided terrorism for many years, there are any number of regimes who have aided terrorism, including some with far more direct links to Osama bin Laden's network of terror. In this regard, I note the first conclusion in the Central Intelligence Agency's declassified letter to Chairman Bob Graham of Florida dated October 7 of this year which states that at present, Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States.
Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict.
On my second point, while I am not privy to the administration's war plans, I am of the belief the administration is satisfactorily preparing for a potential enlargement of the conflict with Israel or other allies. I am concerned this issue has not been adequately addressed.
I do believe the administration needs to outline in further detail how they would address issues with respect to the enlargement of the conflict, and I want to make clear I do not believe that point has been addressed clearly and fully to date. The possibility this conflict would be enlarged with an attack on Iraq to one that involves Israel is one I think needs to be laid out and laid out clearly.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for my purposes, I reached the conclusion that pursuit of a first-strike war, absent any credible sign Saddam Hussein is preparing to wage war against our Nation or other nations, will leave this Nation less secure than before. I believe we have to look at greater length at these key questions, and I do not believe that has been done to date.
It is the sacred duty of the Senate to focus and act upon the long- term interests of our beloved Nation. Saddam Hussein is an extremely dangerous and extremely despicable man. Time and again, he has demonstrated that to his enemies, as well as his own people. He lives in a part of the world where there is no shortage of dangerous and despicable men who pose a threat to the security of the United States. In my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have not seen satisfactory evidence he is any more despicable than the threat presented by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
In summary, those are the central questions. Making sure we have exhausted all of the diplomatic opportunities before one considers a first strike, making sure we are ready to deal with the region after a first strike and one that, in my judgment, we are clearly going to win, the unanswered questions of what happens when there is an attack on Iraq and the possibility of enlarging the conflict to Israel--these questions have not been addressed, and they have not been addressed fully.
There is no question in my mind Saddam Hussein represents a very real threat to this country and to the world, but I do not want to, in the days ahead, compound the problems we already face with Hussein in the region by authorizing a unilateral, preemptive military strike at this time, and that is why I will oppose the resolution.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, while I disagree with the thesis of our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oregon, I do respect his views on it. I wonder if I might engage him in a brief colloquy.
This doctrine of preemptive attack unilaterally, clearly the Senator knows the President is diligently working with the United Nations, with the Secretary of State--the Secretary of State visited here with a group of us at midday today and held a press conference, and he indicated progress is being made. For the moment, we have to accord the administration at least clear support for trying hard to gain a coalition of nations and a new resolution in the Security Council which hopefully will be much stronger than anything we have seen before, and could act as a deterrent to the use of hostilities for a period of time, and hopefully, who knows, the regime may have a change of heart and cooperate.
Cooperation is a keystone to any successful inspection regime. But back to the preemptive--and I have shared this with others--in my research, the United States, under a number of Presidents, has directed military action in the following: Panama in 1901; Dominican Republic in 1904, 1914, 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; Cuba, the naval quarantine, 1962, President Kennedy--clearly that was a preemptive threat and action by our President--Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama, that was just cause in 1989; Somalia in 1992; Sudan, Afghanistan, August of 1998. You recall the bombing raids we did at that time. Iraq, that was Desert Fox in December of 1998, and I remember well as ranking member going over and talking with then- Secretary of Defense Cohen, a valued friend and colleague in the Senate of many years. And Kosovo in March of 1999.
Now, they fit the description of the preemptive type strikes my esteemed colleague from the great State of Oregon has enumerated. They were done under the concept, which is tried and true in international law, recognizing "the anticipatory self-defense if a country is imminently threatened."
I think the Senator pointed out he feels President Bush has indicated this country is imminently threatened. So there are some examples. I do not think this contemplated action by the President--he says he has made no decision to use force, but then again I point out we have been in a state of hostility with Iraq for some time. I point out our airplanes, our brave pilots, together with Great Britain, have been engaged in enforcing a resolution of the United Nations.
Here are two nations flying missions, clearly trying to enforce the resolutions. We are fortunate even though they have been shot upon many times by ground fire directed at the aircraft, some 60 times in September of this year alone--our military has been engaged in this conflict with Iraq for 12 years. So I think it is a continuation of the conflict to which we refer in this resolution.
I ask my good friend if he has any views with regard to my points.
Mr. Wyden: I thank my distinguished colleague for the chance to further discuss this. My colleague makes a good point that clearly last night in the President's speech, and further today, he made it clear he was interested in trying to mobilize world opinion, and I think all of that is extremely constructive.
At the same time, the letter to Senator Graham that now has been declassified--I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee--makes it clear the CIA does not believe, as of October 7 of this year, the threat is imminent. That is why I think we have now reached the point where we are debating whether there is a continuing threat, which clearly Saddam Hussein is, or whether there is an imminent threat. It was the imminent threat I really set out as one of the thresholds I thought was relevant for supporting this resolution.
As the Senator could hear from my speech, A, I do not doubt the President's sincerity; B, I thought what he said last night was clearly a step in the right direction, and he elaborated on that further today.
On this matter with respect to the nature of the threat, for me what has been dispositive has been the now-declassified letter from the CIA where the CIA did not believe, as of October 7, the threat was imminent. I thank my distinguished colleague because he makes a number of good points, and always does.
Mr. Warner: Could the Senator direct himself to the point made by the Senator from Virginia, that our aircraft have been fired upon in enforcing resolutions 60 times in the month of September of this year alone? The total firings by ground-to-air missiles on our aircraft-- fortunately, they have not hit or brought down an airplane as yet--is that not engaging in combat, in war?
Mr. Wyden: Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. Warner: Yes.
Mr. Wyden: The Senator again makes a legitimate point, but what we are talking about now, it seems to me--and this is what the CIA is talking about in their letter of October 7--is an imminent threat to the American people. It is very clear that conflict is a hostile one. It is one that must be countered. It is being countered today. I do not take a backseat to any Member of the Senate in terms of supporting our troops, our military, in terms of countering that conflict. But the question for the Senate then becomes whether a conflict like that should translate into support in this body for a resolution that would authorize a unilateral preemptive strike.
In spite of all of the attacks which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has mentioned--and they are very serious ones--as of October 7 of this year, the CIA did not believe there was an imminent threat to our country. I assume in making that judgment before the Intelligence Committee, if they had felt the attacks the Senator was talking about are dispositive, they would not have written that letter.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, I guess I am missing something, but drawing on my own modest experience in the military, where I for a period was communications officer in the 1st Marine Airwing, living with aviators who were being shot at every day, to me they are American citizens. I think Americans are being shot at as that fire is trying to interdict their aircraft. They may not be home in the United States-- perhaps they would like to be--but they are out there pursuant to orders of the Commander in Chief. It is not just President Bush. It was President Clinton. To me, that is hostility. To me, Americans are involved. Great Britain likewise is flying with their brave pilots. Somehow I am missing it.
Mr. Wyden: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Warner: Yes.
Mr. Wyden: Again, I want our people who are in harm's way, as the Senator has outlined, to be able to counter that very hostile attack. They are doing so today under existing law and it is an effort I support. In spite of those attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency stated at present Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States which, after 9/11, was the stated concern that was vital to our national security.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, was the Senator among the group that was being briefed in S-407 this afternoon from 2:00 to 3:00?
Mr. Wyden: I was not, but I will tell the Senator I have probably sat in more briefings, as a Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on this point than just about any Member of this body. I have kept fully abreast of this issue.
Mr. Warner: I would ask unanimous consent that the letter to which Senator Wyden referred be printed in the Record. Is that possible?
Mr. Wyden: It is declassified.
Mr. Warner: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Wyden: It is declassified.
Mr. Warner: The Senator has been speaking to it and reading excerpts from it. I am unfamiliar with the letter.
I am not familiar--I heard the Senator addressing a letter from the CIA. I was under the assumption it was a declassified document. Is it a classified document?
Mr. Wyden: It is a declassified document.
Mr. Warner: The Senator has been referring to a classified document, is that it?
Mr. Wyden: Throughout this afternoon, I have been speaking from a declassified document.
Mr. Warner: I apologize to the Senator.
Mr. Wyden: I have mentioned on several occasions it was declassified. I take my responsibilities as a Member of this committee very seriously.
Mr. Warner: I am not challenging the Senator. I was not able to hear him as he spoke. I tender an apology. Since the Senator referred to the letter, and if it is declassified, perhaps it should be a part of the Record so those who are following this debate can read the letter in its entirety.
Mr. Wyden: It would be possible to do that and have that made a part of the Record. I appreciate the Senator's thoughtfulness. We all have strong views on this. The Senator from Virginia is an expert on national security and military affairs. That happens to be an area where I believe reasonable people may differ. I look forward to working closely with my colleague.
Mr. Warner: I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida.
Mr. Nelson of Florida: Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Virginia.
While I was in Florida this weekend, I had a number of people say they had been listening to the debate in which the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from West Virginia had both engaged. They found the quality of the debate to be excellent, and they were looking forward to the continuation of the debate.
On grave matters of war and peace, as the Senate is considering this resolution, I add my comments. They are addressed to perhaps one of the gravest things we discuss in a constitutional body such as this. That is, authorizing the sending of Americans into harm's way--moms and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--into combat. We must determine whether the situation in Iraq threatens the United States sufficiently enough to send Americans into harm's way, and put American lives at risk.
I have spoken with many citizens across Florida. I understand the concerns and the reservations many of them have.
We must use force only as a last resort. That is what this resolution is about; it is authorizing the use of force.
I remain convinced that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq poses a clear and increasing danger to the national security interests of the United States. We must disarm its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. We must halt the development of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, one way or another, those weapons of mass destruction have to be taken out. If it means taking out Saddam Hussein along with them, then so be it. Our hope is that this threat can be dismantled by means less than the use of force, and discussions in the United Nations toward that goal are underway now. But if those efforts in the U.N. are not successful, we cannot sit and do nothing as the danger grows.
On a regular basis, Saddam's troops fire on the United States and British aircraft seeking to enforce the no-fly zones created to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. These no-fly zones exist to keep Saddam contained and to prevent him from acquiring technologies aimed at further enhancing his military capability.
At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 set forth the conditions for peace. The cease- fire conditions required Iraq to disarm all weapons of mass destruction, fully declare and disclose all weapons of mass destruction, and not seek to further acquire weapons of mass destruction. That was in 1991--11 years ago.
Those terms have been clearly violated by Saddam Hussein. When a country willfully violates cease-fire terms which end war, a state of conflict continues to exist. The regular hostilities endured by coalition pilots in the no-fly zones make that state of conflict even more acute.
Saddam Hussein seeks regional hegemony. He seeks control of the oil supply of the Middle East. That is his end game. He wants to control all of those vast reserves so that he can have his fingers in a stranglehold around the industrialized world of planet Earth. He associates with known enemies of the United States. He has paid compensation to suicide bombers aimed at undermining the peace process in the Middle East. And Saddam seeks at every turn to flout international law and the will of the United Nations. His aggressiveness and thirst for war and blood are evident by his own actions and brutality, past and present, against his own people and against his neighbors.
It is time now to complete the job that was left undone in 1991 when we failed to completely disarm and remove Saddam. The longer he remains in power, the longer he delays, obfuscates, and lies--all the while he strengthens his arsenal. Weapons of mass destruction must be removed from Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people need to be liberated from his brutal grip. This is not a fight we can enter alone. We must pursue this cause with as much international support as is possible. The revised resolution makes this clear.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking to several hundred at Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base along with the Commander in Chief, GEN Tommy Franks. I brought words of a grateful nation to those men and women in uniform, and to all of our coalition partners who are part of this effort in going after the terrorists. That international support is critical to our successful prosecution of the war against terrorism, and that international cooperation is critical as we now approach military hostilities in Iraq.
Our European allies are starting to come around. It is very important that our Arab friends in the region do come around. The United States needs the world community to support us in eliminating these threats of weapons of mass destruction. As we consider engaging in a military conflict, we need this international support so as not to hurt our efforts in the war against terrorists in 30-some countries, nor hinder our efforts to try to strike a peace accord in the Middle East.
Madam President, the President has asked the Congress to authorize the use of American troops in Iraq for these purposes. He presented his case to the American people last night.
As it exists now, the Lieberman resolution clearly has been improved enormously from the draft resolution sent to us several weeks ago by the White House which, in essence, was nothing more than a blank check. Now it requires that the President must certify that diplomatic and other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security interests of the United States, or that diplomatic and other peaceful means will not lead to the enforcement of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. The President must certify those conditions.
It also has language regarding the United States' responsibility in planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq--an Iraq that the United States, after Saddam Hussein, had best not abandon, as we did after the Soviets got licked in Afghanistan and tucked their tail between their legs and left--and we left also. That created a vacuum in Afghanistan and allowed the terrorists to fill that vacuum. In the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, we don't want that same thing to occur. The United States must be there for the long run to give military, diplomatic, and economic security assistance to ensure that the Free World's interests are clearly protected in an Iraq after Saddam Hussein.
It was good that President Bush addressed the United Nations on September 12, and sought broad-based support from the international community. Secretary Powell will and must continue efforts at getting strong language--strong language--in a United Nations Security Council resolution that clearly spells out the actions Iraq is required to take and the consequences if it fails to do so. Such a resolution would strengthen the U.S. position and help us gain support from our Arab friends in the region. We must keep the focus on Saddam Hussein and the resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction that he has ignored.
The Lieberman resolution also requires the President to report regularly to the Congress on ongoing operations in Iraq and the administration's plans, specifically, as I mentioned, for the post- Saddam Hussein Iraq and ensuing reconstruction. All of the additions that have been included in the Lieberman resolution have clearly improved upon the blank check that was sent here early on as a draft from the White House.
Having detailed plans in place will be crucial to ensuring that after Saddam Hussein, Iraq does not disintegrate into a permanent source of instability in the Middle East which would pose a serious threat to U.S. national security interests.
The current resolution also is improved from earlier drafts because it also makes reference to Navy CAPT Scott Speicher of Jacksonville, FL, the American pilot still missing since the first night of the gulf war when he was shot down over Iraq. Through a series of mistakes, the United States walked away from a downed pilot.
We have kept at this, over and over, in the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, and have been talking to world leaders asking them to task their intelligence apparatus for word on Captain Speicher.
He is still considered Missing In Action. He was first declared Killed In Action. The Department of Defense changed that to Missing In Action. The Department of Defense is reportedly considering a change in status even from Missing In Action.
He is the only American among the thousands who are still unaccounted for at the hands of Saddam Hussein--thousands, I might say, going back to the Iran-Iraq war.
I appreciate the fact that the majority leader worked to ensure that the request of Senator Pat Roberts and myself to make reference to Captain Speicher was honored. It is honored in this resolution. It is my hope that our upcoming efforts and actions in Iraq will make progress towards resolving the fate of Captain Speicher.
You can just imagine what it is like for that family back in Jacksonville--a family with children that has not heard the fate of their father for the last 11 years.
This resolution, in my view, asserts the role of Congress granted by the Constitution and the War Powers Act. We have heard hours of testimony from senior administration officials and outside experts representing many different views on the subject. I have sat through hours of testimony in the two committees I have the privilege of serving on--the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee--that have delved in detail into this subject in preparation for our coming to this floor in this debate.
We have heard those hours of testimony in both classified and unclassified form. My office, as well as all of our offices, has received thousands of calls, letters, and e-mails. I have heard those voices. I share those concerns.
The threat posed by Iraq grows with each passing day. Since September 11 of a year ago, we can't wait to protect ourselves against the threats of weapons of mass destruction and regimes hostile to the United States with their links to terrorism. We must not leave ourselves exposed to an attack, which, after it comes, we will wish we had acted to prevent.
That is why I come to this floor to announce my support of the Lieberman-Warner-McCain-Bayh resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. It is the right thing to do, and it is in the vital national security interests of the United States.
I thank the Chair for allowing me this time. I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. Nickles: Madam President, I wish to speak on this resolution.
First, I compliment my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for his speech and for his tenacity in trying to remind everyone about the condition of Naval Aviator Speicher. I think that keeps pressure on our Government, other governments, and the Iraqi Government to disclose his whereabouts and his status. Whether he is alive remains to be seen.
I appreciate my colleague from Florida for continuing to press that issue. I join with him. I know the President of the United States is also pushing that issue. I appreciate his effort as well.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, will the Senator yield? I just wish to express my profound appreciation for the support of the Senator from Florida for the Lieberman-Warner-McCain-Bayh resolution. He is a valued member of the committees here in the Senate. Certainly he has worked hard on our committee. I listened carefully as he stated the case. He stated it clearly. I join with my colleague from Oklahoma in commending him for the fight on behalf of that brave airman, Captain Speicher.
Mr. Nelson of Florida: Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for one comment so I can respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia?
Mr. Nickles: Certainly.
Mr. Nelson of Florida: I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. He told us how he and Senator Nunn were leading our Armed Services Committee 11 years ago as the Nation was preparing for the gulf war and how important it was in Senator Warner's mind that the Record be laid out so a record would be there as to why the Congress should vote to give the President the authority to unleash the military might in Kuwait and going after Iraq.
I thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin, the chairman, for how they have laid that predicate, and Senator Biden and Senator Helms, and, in his absence, Senator Lugar, in the Foreign Relations Committee. They laid that predicate with lengthy hearings, and provided access to classified information we have had in those two committees, which helped me to draw the conclusions I have drawn in support of this resolution.
So I particularly thank the great Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia for his leadership.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, I thank my colleague. I share the same sentiments towards the distinguished Senator from Florida.
Madam President, in 1990-1991, Chairman Sam Nunn and I, as ranking member, had nine hearings. It is interesting, in the first hearing we had Secretary of Defense Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. Isn't that interesting? And then in the ninth hearing were the same two witnesses, Cheney and Powell. And today, of course, I shared briefly a press conference with now-Secretary of State Powell and had lunch with now-Vice President Cheney. So that same team is together that was together under the first George Bush, "Old 41," as we say.
So I thank the Senator for that.
We did lay before the Senate a record. We have put a record before the Senate of hearings in the two committees to which you have referred. I had hoped we would have had more hearings in our committee, but for reasons best known to our chairman, apparently, that was not possible. I very much wanted to have all four of the military chiefs. They don't want to sit this thing out. They are heavily involved. I was hopeful we could have had them, and then also the CINC, General Franks, who has the leading responsibility in the area of operation. But, unfortunately, no matter how hard we tried, it did not come to pass. My chairman, I respect whatever his views are on that.
Senator Kennedy raised the question, why we did not have more facts. I just say that there were some of us who wanted to go on and have some additional hearings, but it was not possible.
I thank the Senator.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Dayton): The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. Nickles: Mr. President, I appreciate the colloquy.
Just for the information of my friend from Florida, I was also here in 1991, and, unfortunately, Senator Nunn did not support the resolution in 1991. There was a partisan divide, for whatever reason. One, the resolution passed with bipartisan support. I tell my friend and colleague that. But at that point in time, the Democrat leader at the time, Senator Mitchell, was opposed to the resolution. Many Democrats opposed it, although several Democrats did support it.
It passed, if my memory serves me correctly, 52 to 47. It was one of the first votes we had in early January of 1991. And it was one of the most important votes that this Senator has cast. I believe, probably this Thursday, the Senate likewise will be casting one of the most important votes we will cast.
I appreciate the support of my friend and colleague from Florida for this resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the joint resolution.
The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Nickles: Mr. President, I likewise would like to compliment my colleague, Senator Warner, because he has been leading the debate, certainly on this side of the aisle, but, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warner has carried the debate on this side almost all of Friday, almost all of Monday, a great deal of today, and I am sure tomorrow and Thursday.
He has also been joined by Senator Lieberman as a principal sponsor, as well as Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others. I compliment them.
I heard some people debating this resolution as if they had not read it. Senate Joint Resolution 46 is well written. It is supported by the administration. There was a lot of time spent in putting this resolution together. Sometimes we legislate without reading. Sometimes we talk to people without listening.
I encourage my colleagues to read the resolution. I hope it will get a unanimous vote.
I looked at the resolutions we have passed in the last many years dealing with Iraq. Going back to the resolution we passed in 1991, I remember that resolution very plainly. A few days before that resolution passed, I was in Israel. Saddam Hussein was making statements like: If war broke out, Israel would burn. It would be consumed with fire. He was making all kinds of statements against the United States, against Israel, against any potential ally.
As the previous administration, President Bush 1, was putting together an international coalition, Saddam Hussein was threatening anybody in that coalition. Congress debated, for months. You might remember that Kuwait was invaded in August of 1990. President Bush made a very strong statement. He said: This invasion will not stand. And he made that statement: You are going to be removed from Kuwait, one way or another. Frankly, he made that strong statement, and he backed it up. He sent 550,000 United States troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to build the military force and, in the next 6 months, built an international coalition that was unprecedented, unbelievably strong and powerful, with a number of countries, Arab and other countries, neighbors and from across the world, to stand up to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and to kick him out of Kuwait.
That war was fought. It was very successful. And then President Bush stopped the war at that point because we achieved the U.N. resolution objectives, kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Then there were several resolutions that were passed, to which Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government agreed, that called for their disarmament and inspections. They agreed to these resolutions. We also passed resolutions that said we would use military force, if necessary, to compel compliance. And the United Nations, subsequent to that, beginning in 1991, all the way through 1998, passed 16 resolutions telling Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government: You must comply with these resolutions.
We went to war, developed an international coalition to force him out of Kuwait and to force him to disarm, and he agreed. Unfortunately, he did not live up to his agreement. He lied. He did not comply. He was defiant in his noncompliance.
As a result, he continued to build weapons of mass destruction. And the United Nations passed resolutions saying: You must comply, and, if necessary, we will use force. I could put in all these resolutions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the resolution that passed Congress, the Iraqi Breach Of International Obligations, because it is about a four-page summary, a short summary, but it is a resolution we passed on July 31, 1998, Public Law 105-235, and talks about the Iraqi breach of international obligations.
I will not read it all, but basically the Iraqi Government totally failed to comply with the U.N. resolutions. The essence of the resolve--and I will read it--
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.
That is the key phrase. This is what passed Congress in 1998. That was our unified statement that we made in 1998, that resolved we will "bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations," and we will use "appropriate action," i.e., military action, if necessary, to get him to comply.
That resolution passed the Senate unanimously--unanimously--with no opposition.
It had very strong support. I am looking at some of the statements made. I will just read part of one made by President Clinton on February 17, 1998 regarding Iraqi noncompliance. He made this speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon dealing with Iraq. It is very relevant today, as it was in 1998. This is President Clinton:
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more and rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
President Clinton continued:
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
I mention this. This was from President Bill Clinton, a very strong statement. I read that statement. I am kind of proud of him and I think he was exactly right. Though his rhetoric was pretty strong, his actions, unfortunately, were not. He said, we are going to compel compliance. The Congress passed a resolution saying, we will do what is necessary to compel compliance. But we didn't follow up.
I will read to you a statement made by Senator Daschle on the floor, the Democrat leader at the time. This was made on February 12, 1998:
. . . Iraq shall not be permitted to develop and deploy an arsenal of frightening chemical and biological weapons under any circumstances.
Skipping a couple paragraphs:
The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist--it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will.
I think Senator Daschle was right. I could go on. I have quotes from Vice President Gore, other prominent leaders in Congress at the time. We passed a strong resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the 1998 resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Public Law 105-235
A joint resolution of the 105th Congress finding the Government of Iraq in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations.
"Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease- fire were specified in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);
"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 requires that international economic sanctions remain in place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally never to resume such activities;
"Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems, subsystems or material from Iraq;
"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;
"Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;
"Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to a site storing nuclear equipment;
"Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected plans to install long-term monitoring equipment and cameras called for in United Nations resolutions, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 which declared that Iraq was in "continuing material breach" of its obligations;
"Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons, resulting in the Security Council Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992, which reiterated that Iraq was in "continuing material breach" and noted a "further material breach" on account of Iraq's failure to allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment;
"Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, which declared that Iraq was in "material and unacceptable breach" of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;
"Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons inspectors, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq was in an "unacceptable and material breach" of its obligations under United Nations resolutions:
"Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a Security Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, reaffirmed the previous finding of material breach, followed on January 13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17, with an allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;
"Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a "material and unacceptable breach";
"Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30 miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with UNSCOM;
"Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of biological weapons material resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
"Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale biological weapons program, but denied weaponization of biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
"Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again barred UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a Presidential Statement condemning "clear violations by Iraq of previous Resolutions 687, 707, and 715";
"Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1060, noting the "clear violation on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, and 715" and in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's "gross violation of obligations";
"Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, the United Nations oil for food plan;
"Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis, resulting in a Security Council Presidential statement which "deplore[d]" Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;
"Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone in southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution 670, banning international flights, resulting in a Security Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of "special consultation" with the Council;
"Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections, endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 1997, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 threatened sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these interferences;
"Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection mission, an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged in photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the October 23, 1997, adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi officials responsible for noncompliance with United Nations resolutions;
"Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot down United States U-2 surveillance flights in support of UNSCOM, resulting in a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1137 on November 12, 1997, which imposed the travel ban on Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified "further measures";
"Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled United States inspectors from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull out its remaining inspectors and resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding Iraq revoke the expulsion;
"Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by American Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being barred for three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, resulting in the adoption of a United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement deploring Iraq's decision to bar the team as a clear violation of all applicable resolutions;
"Whereas despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United National Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation of the agreement with Annan would have the "severest consequences" for Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;
"Whereas on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler presented information to the United Nations Security Council indicating clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to information provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent VX; and
"Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: NOw, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
Approved August 14, 1998.
Mr. Nickles: Later in 1998, the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. We bombed them. Then nothing happened. Since 1998, for the last 4 years, we haven't had any weapons inspectors in Iraq. They have done exactly as President Clinton forecasted they would do. They have continued to build their weapons of mass destruction, and they have been emboldened by our lack of action, by the lack of will.
As a matter of fact, in all those years, the Oil-for-Food program grew. At that point he was exporting a little bit of oil for food. That figure has quadrupled in the last few years. Every 6 months it was renegotiated. And due to pressure from a lot of countries it was renegotiated; yes, we don't want the Iraqi people to suffer so we will allow them to sell more oil. Saddam Hussein has abused that program and exported a lot more oil. He has basically been producing almost all he can.
He has taken that money and put it back into his weapons of mass destruction. He is not taking care of his people. We have Congressmen who were in Iraq last week talking about how pitiful it is that some of the kids are living in the hospitals and so on. Saddam Hussein has made billions off of oil, most of it illegally, but instead of using that money for the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, he has used it to build weapons of mass destruction.
President Clinton was pretty insightful of what would happen. Unfortunately, during his term, things got worse. The inspectors were basically kicked out of Iraq. They were denied access. There is a long litany. I will insert in the Record a list of Iraqi noncompliance with the arms control inspectors, how they basically stopped them from doing their job. They did a decent job on occasion because they would get some insights from a defector, but Saddam Hussein's mistress was laughing about the fact Saddam Hussein would laugh that he would continue to conceal these weapons and basically defy the United Nations and the United States.
We have had a change in the United States. Now we have President Bush, who said we should enforce the U.N. resolutions. We should stand up to Saddam Hussein. Things have changed. September 11 of last year did change things. It made us aware we are vulnerable to terrorists. Saddam Hussein has coalesced, has financed, has trained terrorists. The idea he is building these weapons of mass destruction and they might be distributed to potential terrorists is just not acceptable.
What needs to be done? Frankly, what needs to be done is to enforce the existing U.N. resolutions and to reaffirm them. Some people have said: We don't think President Bush should just move unilaterally. The world community signed off on those U.N. resolutions, and at the time we gave those U.N. resolutions the use of force, if necessary, to compel compliance. What has changed?
In 1998, we reaffirmed the use of force, if necessary, to compel compliance. Are things better now than they were in 1998? He kicked the arms control inspectors out, and they are building all kinds of weapons. I don't see how anything is better. Things are worse, just as President Clinton predicted they would be.
We have rewarded his noncompliance. The international community has rewarded his noncompliance, and the United Nations has basically fallen into a group that lost its prestige and the status of being able to say: The world community is making a statement. This will not stand.
They have allowed it to stand. They have allowed it to be neutered, to be ineffective. Now we have a President Bush who went to the United Nations and said: These resolutions are still in effect. We need to enforce them. There is a real danger out there. It is a danger not to us, the United States, but to the world.
Many people in this body have said: I don't want him to move unilaterally, but let's do it in conjunction with the United Nations. President Bush didn't have to do that, but he did. He went to the United Nations and made a very strong speech. He is working to rebuild the international coalition that dissipated, if not disappeared, during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration inherited the strongest, largest international coalition maybe ever assembled against a tyrant in Saddam Hussein in 1990 and 1991. By the year 2000, that international coalition was totally gone.
Saddam Hussein was producing all the weapons he wanted. There were no arms control inspectors. It really deteriorated over those 8 or 9 years.
President Bush is trying to rebuild it. He made the speech to the United Nations. He has contacted Members of Congress. He has brought many of us into the White House. He made a speech last night to the American people as well as to Congress.
People said: We want Congress to speak on this so we will be united. He came to Congress. He asked for a resolution. We are going to give him a resolution. We are going to show the Congress is behind the President, I hope with an overwhelming vote, an overwhelming vote.
What have we learned since 1991? Many people who voted no on the resolution in 1991 said: Let's give the sanctions a chance. I think we have had a little period of understanding now that Saddam Hussein doesn't care about sanctions and he doesn't care about U.N. resolutions. He doesn't care about pieces of paper. He does care about force. He respects force.
He misjudged the will of President Bush 1. He misjudged the will of the United States, earlier in his invasion and also in events that led up to the war in 1991.
I think he understands, too, that President Bush is very forceful. He means exactly what he says. If there is any chance to have a peaceful resolution in Iraq, it will only be after we pass this resolution, and he understands quite well that we will use force, if necessary, to compel compliance. Maybe then he will have a change of behavior. If not, he will pull the U.N. around and play them like a fiddle and try to do some type of diplomatic dance, never to do anything. He did that quite successfully for years.
He will not be successful with President Bush and this team. President Bush has assembled a team--I respect President Bush greatly for the speeches he has made and for his courageous positions but also for the team he has put together. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is former Secretary of Defense, and he has dealt with Saddam Hussein. His Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the war in 1991. Secretary Rumsfeld is well respected by our military leaders and around the world. President Bush has put together a great team--one that probably wasn't designed for this problem, but it could not be more experienced and ready to take on this enormous challenge. I have great confidence in their ability to be able to do the job.
Is it without risk? No. Sure, there is risk involved. There is a lot that is involved. But doing nothing is a greater risk. Doing nothing is a much greater risk. If we want to have any hope of a peaceful resolution or to have this happen successfully without military conflict, it will only be after Saddam Hussein realizes the United States is behind our President, our Commander in Chief, and that we will enforce these resolutions. These resolutions don't have to be pieces of paper that are going to be ignored; they are the rule and effect of law. I hope the international community comes together.
The U.N. passing a strong resolution is much greater after they see the Congress speak with one voice and pass overwhelmingly a resolution stating we believe the existing resolutions should be enforced. We do not think it is satisfactory to have Saddam Hussein--a person who used chemical weapons against his own people, who fought wars with Iran, who has invaded Kuwait, and who lobbed missiles against Saudi Arabia and the Israeli people, we don't think it is satisfactory for that person, that regime, to be able to develop and continue to manufacture tons and tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons, and work on nuclear weapons that could threaten millions of people--millions of people.
That is not satisfactory. It needs to be stopped. I believe this President will do it. I think this resolution will be a big step in the right direction.
I want to make one final comment, and this is to the Iraqi people. They have suffered enough under Saddam Hussein. This is really for the liberation of the Iraqi people, just like getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan was liberation for the Afghan people. They have been suppressed for too long. This tyrant, this dictator who executed people himself and had relatives executed, and countless people who might be his political opponents have been executed--he needs to go.
In 1998, this Congress said we are for a regime change in Iraq. We were for it in 1998. We are for it now. In my opinion, we will not really have a return to a peaceful, growing, prosperous Iraq until there is a regime change. We will not have any confidence that there is any peaceful outlook for Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is in the area. This Congress spoke in 1998 strongly and unanimously for regime change. I still think that is needed. The point I want to make is that if military conflict breaks out, it will not be a war with the Iraqi people. The war is with the leadership of Iraq, the unelected leader, Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who continues to oppress his people, basically stealing their money and using it to build weapons of mass destruction for his purposes, which is not for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but, frankly, for his desire to build a military machine that can threaten us. That is not acceptable.
I believe this resolution, when it passes--and I hope it does overwhelmingly--will send a strong signal to the world and to Saddam Hussein that these resolutions can, should, and will be enforced.
I yield the floor.
