[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9009-S9010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          IRAQ AND THE ECONOMY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I spent the weekend in my home State of 
Illinois, from the southern part of the State, the metro east, St. 
Clair County, Madison County, and the city of Chicago, going from one 
place to another, and it is interesting to me that people will stop and 
ask me about our going to war in Iraq.
  I have not found a single person who makes any excuses for Saddam 
Hussein. I will not. He is a man who certainly distinguished himself--
if that is the word--in the history of this world: for his aggression, 
his militarism, his inhumane treatment of his own people and his 
neighbors.
  He is someone who cannot be trusted but must be watched carefully and 
closely. He is someone who must be monitored at all times for fear he 
could go too far in his development of weapons and his development of 
military strategies as a threat to the world. Everyone concedes this. I 
certainly concede it.
  We found what he was all about when he invaded Kuwait. We have 
watched him closely ever since. The United Nations put restrictions on 
what he can do in defense of his own nation, limitations on his own 
military power. One of those limitations prohibits weapons of mass 
destruction: chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons.
  The United Nations started inspecting for those weapons after the 
Persian Gulf war. Saddam Hussein threw every obstacle he could find in 
their path. He discouraged them when he could, and ultimately the 
inspections were withdrawn 4 or 5 years ago. We still do a flyover with 
our planes to watch everything that happens in his country, not to 
mention all the other sources of intelligence. We worry about him, as 
we should.

  Having said all those things, and the fact that almost everyone 
acknowledges them to be true, it is still interesting, as I go around 
my State--a State which is fairly diverse in terms of its economy, in 
terms of its culture, in terms of its politics--there is no ground 
swell for America to invade Iraq and to displace Saddam Hussein from 
power.
  The idea of a land invasion, for what the President calls a ``regime 
change'' has not brought the people out cheering, as they cheered after 
September 11 when we said we were going after Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaida. Instead, what I hear from the people I speak to in Illinois is 
that certainly we have to keep an eye on this man, but why should we do 
it alone? Shouldn't the United States have standing with it a coalition 
of countries around the world? Why would we do this by ourselves? Isn't 
it better to invite other nations to be part of it because there is 
strength in numbers, more clarity of purpose, a sharing of the burden 
not only of the war but of controlling Iraq after it is defeated?
  I can tell you that Thomas Friedman, the foreign Times correspondent 
for the New York Times, said it best. He said: Our situation in Iraq, 
if we go it alone, is much the same as the person who walks into the 
store and sees a sign which says, ``If you break it, you own it.''
  If we displace Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, then, frankly, as 
those who displaced him, we will have a burden to bring some stability 
and security to that country. Is it not better for us, in that 
circumstance, to have other Western civilized democratic nations 
standing behind us, not only behind the muzzle of the gun pointed at 
him but standing in league with us to make sure Iraq is peaceful and 
safe for a long time?
  Let me add one other element that comes up time and again. This is a 
different world since September 11 of last year. We have to measure our 
foreign policy against its impact on terrorism. There is not a country 
in the world which would knowingly attack the United States. We have 
the best military in the world, the best men and women in uniform, the 
best technology, but we know we are vulnerable, we are vulnerable to 
terrorism.
  If we make that decision to go it alone in Iraq, to do it by 
ourselves, and say to the rest of the world, we don't care what the 
opinion of the United Nations is or any other country is, we will go it 
alone, would that not invite a backlash from parts of the world that 
are preaching extremism and fundamentalism? Wouldn't that, 
unfortunately, sow the seeds of terrorism?
  Isn't it far better for us to have a coalition with Arab States, as 
President Bush's father did in the Persian Gulf, a grand coalition of 
countries that say Saddam Hussein has to be watched carefully?
  When I saw the resolution that President Bush sent us last week, that 
is not his intension, that is not his design. If you think that trip to 
the United Nations was an appeal to that body to move forward and do 
things, it might have been, but, frankly, his resolution he sent to us 
basically says: Ignore my speech; ignore my visit to the United 
Nations; ignore the United Nations; give me the authority to do it by 
myself.
  I have no doubt we could win that war, that we could displace Saddam 
Hussein, but isn't there a better and more cautious and more prudent 
and more successful strategy we should consider--bringing in the United 
Nations for real inspections, unconditional inspections, enforced with 
military force, if they must be, including some troops from the United 
States, to make sure the inspectors get into the places they need to; 
and failing that, if Saddam Hussein stops the inspectors, that we issue 
an ultimatum to him through the United Nations, that if you do not 
allow unconditional inspections, you can expect there will be a 
forceful effort by the countries of the world to enforce United Nations 
resolutions already in place? Isn't that a far better approach than to 
say, we have a battle plan; we are going to attack; we will send you a 
note, United Nations, and let you know what happens?
  The United Nations should not dictate American policy, but President 
Bush's father was right. When you can involve a coalition of nations 
around

[[Page S9010]]

the world in your effort to bring peace to a region, you have a far 
greater chance of success, world acceptance, sharing the burden; and, 
ultimately, the American people would not stand by themselves but stand 
in concert with those of like mind and like values.
  As I return to Illinois, people tell me over and over again: Senator, 
when you go back, please go to the floor of the Senate and express our 
feelings that we do need a coalition of force, not just for the 
principle and value of it but for the military significance of it, not 
just so we are not standing alone but so we are validated in the eyes 
of the world that what we are standing for is not just a narrow 
interest of the United States but in the best interest of a free and 
peaceful world.
  That is what makes sense. That is what we ought to move forward with.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend from Illinois, is it true, when you 
returned to Illinois, people were asking about things other than Iraq?
  Mr. DURBIN. Exactly true.
  Mr. REID. Are people concerned about the stumbling, staggering, 
faltering economy?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Nevada, that is where I was 
headed next.
  This chart, which I have brought to the floor, talks about the lost 
private sector jobs in the last 50 years. Look at what has occurred 
under President Eisenhower through George W. Bush. Look at the only 
period that shows red ink, the net loss of jobs; and it turns out to be 
under President Bush.
  The people of Illinois talk about Iraq because it is in the 
headlines. That is all the media talks about. But when it comes to the 
issues they worry about, this is what they are concerned about. There 
are not enough jobs, not enough good-paying jobs.
  Unfortunately, under this administration, the economy is not even a 
major issue. They are ignoring it. I asked last week--and I will renew 
my request to the President--can you give us 1 hour a week on America's 
economy, 1 hour to talk about income and job security? That is a valid 
issue.

  Take a look at long-term unemployment. It has more than doubled under 
President Bush. In January 2001, when he came to office, there were 
648,000 under long-term unemployment, people unemployed for half a 
year. That number has more than doubled in this period of time. The 
President may rally America to stand behind him, as he should, on the 
war on terrorism and foreign policy. But he ought to rally America to 
work, give people opportunities so they can be employed, so they have 
some opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this country.
  We are facing now the weakest economic growth in 50 years. This chart 
shows economic growth, the average rate of growth over the last 2 
years. Under President George W. Bush, it has been 1.0 percent. The 
next worst President, since Eisenhower, was his father. Then you have 
to go back to Gerald Ford to find another bad period of time.

                          ____________________