Mr. Reed: The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. Inhofe: Mr. President, I do think our distinguished Senator from New Jersey stressed the sense of urgency that is upon us right now when he said perhaps the greatest decision we will have to make during the terms we are serving is going to be tomorrow. I think that is probably right. Even though I disagree with many of the things he stated, I certainly respect him for the commitment and belief he has in his interpretation of the facts and the course we should take.
I have been listening for quite a number of hours now, and I quite frankly have to say it has not been all that easy. I believe tomorrow we will give the President of the United States the full support of this body in order to send the right message to Saddam Hussein and to terrorists all over the world, and that message is this: The United States of America will not live in fear.
I have ended every speech I have made since 1995 with one sentence, and I feel compelled to start this speech with that sentence. That sentence is that we today are in the most vulnerable and threatened position we have been in in our Nation's history.
In January 2002, our President gave a magnificent State of the Union address. He said:
Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life.
The handwringers have already marshaled their special interest groups to delay this body from giving our President the homeland security bill he asked for way back in June. And just like the homeland security bill, they are trying to weaken the President's ability to protect this Nation with a hollow resolution against Iraq.
We are going to have to give the President the flexibility he needs to protect this Nation. Making the potential use of U.S. military force contingent upon the current deliberations of the U.N. Security Council is absurd. Our national security must not be tied to the actions of the "mother of all handwringers," the United Nations.
I keep hearing a grinding noise. It is our forefathers turning over in their graves. Can they really believe this Nation would get into the position where we would have to ask some multinational organization before our President had the right to defend America? I think not. And why are we letting the same groups of individuals that have prevented us from getting a homeland security bill, during a time of war, by the way, from supporting the President of the United States? What is next? Do they want us to go to the United Nations to get a homeland security bill?
The American people have to wonder about this one simple question: Why do those who oppose the President's resolution trust the United Nations more than they trust the President of the United States?
The United Nations did not stop in 1992 the threat of 100 servicemen in Yemen. The United Nations did not stop the 18 rangers from dying in Somalia or their naked bodies from being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The United Nations did not stop the World Trade Center, the first bombing in 1993. They did not stop Khobar Towers in 1996. They did not stop the Embassy bombings of Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. They did not stop or prevent the loss of 17 sailors' lives in Yemen in 2000. The United Nations did not stop the airplanes from flying into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. The United Nations will not stop Saddam Hussein from giving a nuclear device to a terrorist, putting it on an airplane and flying it into an American city. Of course, this time, instead of 3,000 deaths, there could be hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I often remember the television scenes, the horrible scenes from New York City of the airplanes hitting into the World Trade Center. Then I thought, if that had been the weapon of choice of a terrorist--in other words, a nuclear warhead on a missile--there would be nothing left but a piece of charcoal. We would not be talking about 3,000 lives, we would be talking about 2 or 3 million lives.
Why should the President of the United States delegate his responsibility of protecting this Nation to the United Nations? We made a similar mistake back in 1998. Look where it has gotten us. In 1998, in an attempt to get the Iraqi regime to comply with the U.N. resolutions--doesn't that sound familiar--the administration blessed Secretary Annan's trip to Baghdad, and in doing so let the United Nations negotiate on behalf of the United States, which proved to be a very serious mistake. Part of that particular agreement was the recognition of the eight palaces as special sites. And that compromise continues to haunt us today. The administration should not have let the United Nations negotiate and compromise for the United States in 1998. And the current administration should not do it now and will not do it now.
My distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, likes to say: Saddam is looking down the barrel of a gun. He should be looking at the international community at the other end, not the United States.
While I respect my friend and colleague and admire his passion behind his convictions, I could not disagree more. Saddam Hussein has been looking down the gun barrel of the international community for 11 years. The problem is that he knows the gun is full of blanks. The Iraqi regime knows the United States does not shoot blanks, which is why they continue to manipulate and deceive the United Nations.
I know our Secretary of State is working very closely with the members of the Security Council in order to get a U.N. resolution against Iraq that is not full of blanks. I hope he has already expressed to the Security Council this Nation is united, and with the overwhelming support of the American people and this Congress in the form of support of the President's resolution, we choose to exercise our right to defend ourselves. How unreasonable of us.
We have the right under international law to defend ourselves. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states: Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of an individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.
The current Iraqi regime has been harboring and supporting terrorist networks since the early 1990s. We know that, maybe before that. We have been under attack ever since. I challenge any of my colleagues to tell any of our brave soldiers who fly combat planes over Iraq every day that the surface-to-air missiles Iraq has been firing is not a hostile act. Iraq forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots 1,600 times since 2000. Since September 18--remember what happened on September 18 of this year--hours after Saddam Hussein promised to allow the return of U.N. inspectors without conditions, he fired on American and British pilots 67 times. That is 67 times since September 18 when he made the promise. Is anyone home? What message are we sending our brave men and women in uniform if we only consider it a hostile act when one of those missiles hits an aircraft?
The message we must send our military, our allies, the United Nations, and those who support the current Iraqi regime is that the United States of America chooses not to live in fear and we will defend ourselves. That message will be sent with the overwhelming passage of the President's resolution.
The Armed Services Committee recently had a series of hearings with former civilian and military leaders regarding the Iraqi issue. My fellow colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been using some of the testimony of witnesses to make their case that the United States must wait for the United Nations to make a decision. A lot of people do not realize, but there are over 4,000 retired generals floating around the country today. They have only found three who would agree with them. So they went out and found the three who said we have to continue to wait for the United Nations to solve the Iraqi issue.
The fourth member of that panel, not quoted by any of my fellow colleagues, disagreed with the other three generals. Lieutenant General McInerney had the following comments about the suggestion of weakening the President's authority. Members have not heard this from anyone, just the other three generals.
He said: If you water this down--talking about the President's Iraqi resolution--you are going to send a signal to al-Qaida. You may not want to, but you are going to send it to Saddam and say, well, we don't quite trust them. The signal you want to send is this nation is united. You want to send that to the U.N. because I happen to believe--which is different than General Clark--I happen to believe this strong signal will ensure that we have a better chance of getting it through the United Nations.
That is what General McInerney said at the same time the other three generals said we need to decide what fate the United Nations will give this great country.
Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He butchered his own people. Everyone agrees. He butchered members of his own family, two of his own sons-in- law. He must be stopped. He will be stopped. Each day that goes by he gets stronger. There are those who believe the President has not made a strong enough case. They say: Where is the evidence? Why now? Additional inspections will work, and we do not want another Vietnam.
To them I ask, Are they more concerned about a war that took place over 30 years ago, or the tragic events that took place on September 11?
As I stand here today, is there more likely to be another Vietnam or another September 11?
The President asked a critical question the other night. He said, if we know Saddam has dangerous weapons today, and we do, does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? I know what the people of Oklahoma are more concerned about. The people of Oklahoma are well aware of what can happen when evil people unleash weapons of terror.
Go back and listen to the speeches the President gave to the U.N. on September 12 and in Cincinnati on October 7. He has made his case. He has made it to the United Nations, the Congress, and most importantly to the people of the United States. The threat is real. And with every day of delay and deceit the menace grows stronger.
The current Iraqi regime will continue to use the United Nations as his tool until he gets what he may be close to having--a nuclear weapon. It may have been the right decision not to go after Saddam Hussein in 1991, just like it may have been the right decision for the previous administration not to go after Osama bin Laden in the 1990s when they had the opportunity to do so. But is it right to go after them both today? I believe it is.
The big question is does he have a nuclear weapon? The scary thing is, no one is able to say that he does not. Does he have a delivery system? Nobody is in a position to say that he doesn't. This Congress is going to do the right thing. This Nation is united. We will defend ourselves. This Congress must once again unite as we did following the tragic events of 9/11.
There is another statement a President made following another tragic event in our history. Some of you may remember. The President was motored from the White House to the Capitol under heavy security. The American people were full of emotions, from apprehension to anger. After being greeted by rounds of loud applause, the President of the United States addressed the Joint Session of Congress. Here is a quote from that speech. You have to listen to this, Mr. President. This is a long quote. This is what the President said:
The facts . . . speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinion and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation. As Commander in Chief, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in danger. With confidence in our armed forces--with the unbounded determination of our people--we will gain the inevitable triumph--so help us God.
The date of that speech was December 8, 1941. President Franklin Roosevelt gave the speech. Pearl Harbor and the war that followed led to the restructuring of our national security structure.
Today, more than 1 year since 9/11, an ongoing war against terror, and a possible conflict with Iraq, we, the Congress, have not given the American people a homeland security bill and some Members of Congress want to put the security of this country in the hands of the United Nations.
I repeat, did our forefathers ever believe we would have to go to a multinational organization in order to defend America?
The President of the United States during a time of war has asked Congress to give him support to show the world that this Nation is united. He has requested the Congress give him the necessary flexibility to protect the homeland, to protect the Nation. Telling the President that he must first bow to the will of the United Nations is the wrong message. Here we are today, just like with the homeland security issue, letting the hand wringers drive the debate in a direction that has nothing to do with the task at hand.
We are going to have to and will give the President an Iraqi resolution that does not tie his hands. The Secretary of Defense has said--and I think this is so important for us to understand today, for all of us, for all Americans to understand. He said:
If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today will be able to honestly say it was a surprise. Because it will not be a surprise.
Mr. President, I remember so well--I am old enough to remember World War II. I was a very small child. I remember going to a country schoolhouse named Hazel Dell. It was way out in the country. We had eight grades in one room with a pot-bellied stove there and a schoolteacher named Harvey Beam. He was a giant of a man, but I suspect he wasn't quite as big as I thought he was at the time.
I remember studying American history and studying about how we won a war and won the freedom in this country against impossible odds, and how the greatest army on the face of this Earth was coming over from Great Britain and marching toward Lexington and Concord, and here we were, a handful of hunters and trappers with homemade weapons. We fired that shot heard round the world.
A speech was made that I remember so well, in the House of Burgesses, when a tall redhead stood up and said:
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
At that time, we fired the shot heard around the world. We knew we were one nation depending on God to give us the strength to win a battle that now historians say could not have been won. That was the sublime courage we had in this country, and now the hand wringers are back.
In 1996, we had an opportunity to end this whole thing, to get Saddam Hussein. I suggest to you, if George W. Bush had been President in 1996, we would not be here today. It is a no-brainer. It would have been done.
We had the opposition, including about 100,000 troops, well trained, and the Kurds in the north ready to join us, and we implied to them that we would do that and we would together take out Saddam Hussein. What did we do? We turned our backs on them, and we walked away. Several thousand Kurds died as a result of that. Now they are back. They are willing to join us again.
I wonder about this. Why is it that so many of the people I have heard on the floor of this Senate objecting to giving the President the recognition he needs to do what he has to do, what is his constitutional obligation--where were they in 1998, back when we had another President, President Clinton, and he wanted to go after Saddam Hussein? They were in line, saying: That's fine; let's go get him. Our distinguished majority leader Senator Daschle said:
Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force if force is required. And I must say it has the will.
Senator Biden--I have the utmost respect for him. He came down to the floor, and he is now saying we don't want to move too fast. Then he said we risk sending a dangerous signal to other proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's intransigence. That was 1998. What is different now? Nothing, except Saddam Hussein is stronger.
Does he have the weaponry? Does he have the weapons of mass destruction? Does he have a nuclear warhead? We don't know for sure, but we don't know he does not.
Let's go back to the Rumsfeld Commission. This is 1998. The Rumsfeld Commission was made up of, I don't know, 16 or 18 of the very top military experts in this country. They said that U.S. intelligence was shocked by a 1990 Iraqi test of a long-range booster rocket, showing Iraq was involved in an extensive, undetected, covert program to develop nuclear capability ballistic missiles with intercontinental range. That was 1990.
People keep saying: Oh, no, this is not going to happen; they don't have this. I remember in 1998, it was August 24 when our intelligence said that it would be something like 5 to 15 years before North Korea would have a multiple-stage rocket. That was August 24, 1998.
Seven days later, on August 31, North Korea fired one. We know when the weapons inspectors came back in 1998 after Saddam Hussein kicked them out, they came before our committee. I can tell you exactly--I have the transcript over here--what they said. By and large, this was it. For the sake of time, I say in response to our question, in 1998-- this is the weapons inspectors who were over there:
How long would it be until Saddam Hussein has the weapons of mass destruction capability, including nuclear, and a missile with intercontinental range to deliver those?
The answer was he could have it in 6 months. That was 1998. George Tenet at that time said:
I agree with that testimony.
Unclassified intelligence told us that China was transferring technology of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and missiles to Iraq.
On August 24, in the Washington Times, it was revealed the intelligence community warned President Bush that weapons of mass destruction could be on their way in a very short period of time.
Just 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, from a satellite image, we were able to photograph trucks, 60 trucks that were moving around--a biological lab that we knew was a weapons lab. They are up to something. Every day something has happened. The intelligence report to the administration was that Saddam Hussein is preparing to use weapons of mass destruction.
On September 27, Rumsfeld said there is solid evidence that Saddam Hussein is negotiating for weapons of mass destruction with al-Qaida-- they are negotiating with each other, I mean.
With all these things that we know are going on today, why is it that we are sitting around, wringing our hands? We don't know that he doesn't already have it, but we do know this. Every day that goes by, every week that goes by, he has a greater opportunity to have these.
So, I look at this and I think that we have to remember what Secretary Rumsfeld said when he talked about the consequences. He said:
The consequences of making a mistake during the days of conventional warfare meant that we might lose 100, maybe 200 lives. But the consequences of making a mistake now could mean hundreds of thousands of lives.
I think tonight we have the Churchills and the Chamberlains. Tomorrow we are going to have a lot more Churchills than Chamberlains and we are going to stop the hand wringing. It will all stop tomorrow, and we are going to give the President of the United States the resolution that he knows he needs in order to have the full support of Congress and the American people behind him to do what he knows he must do in defending America.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Modification to Submitted Amendment No. 4869
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, this has been cleared with the minority.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask unanimous consent to modify his amendment No. 4868 to remove paragraph 2, and further I ask consent to modify amendment No. 4869 to change references to section 3(a) to 4(a).
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment (No. 4869), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--The authorization in section 3(a) shall terminate 12 months after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a period or periods of 12 months each, such authorization if--
(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress for each such period, not later that 60 days before the date of termination of the authorization, that the extension is necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq under section 4(a); and
(2) the Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of the authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 12-month period.
(b) Congressional Review Procedures.--
(1) In General.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) shall be considered in the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936-1937), except that--
(A) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) Joint resolution defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "joint resolution" means only a joint resolution introduced after the date on which the certification of the President under subsection (a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: "That, pursuant to section 5 of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, the Congress disapproves the extension of the authorization under section 4(a) of that joint resolution for the additional 12- month period specified in the certification of the President to the Congress dated ____.", with the blank filled in with the appropriate date.
