Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1719-S1724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

A FORMER PRESIDENT'S SPEECH ON IRAQ

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to read from a speech of a
President of the United States. In order that there be no question
about its source, I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks
the speech in full be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I intend to read excerpts of the
speech. It is too long to read completely in the time allotted to me. I
hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will listen to it because
when I heard of this speech in the first instance, I was very impressed
by it. I think the Senate should be reminded of it. I will start off
with this paragraph, and it is not the first, but I will call attention
to it. The President said:

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military
leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf.
Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all
those whom you represent, the men and women of our military.

The President was speaking to the force of generals of the United
States.

You, your friends, and your colleagues are on the
frontlines of this crisis in Iraq. I want you and I want the
American people to hear directly from me what is at stake for
America in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the
peace, the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have
taken the position we have taken.

I will now move down in the speech.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The
superpower confrontation has ended on every continent;
democracy is securing for more and more people the basic
freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by
bit, the information age is chipping away at the barriers,
economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked
in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in
this room know very well that this is not a time free from
peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw
nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers,
and organized international criminals. We have to defend our
future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on
the free flow of information and technology. They actually
take advantage of the freer movement of people, information,
and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow
them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot
allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam
Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his
people, the stability of his region, and the security of all
the rest of us.
I want the American people to understand, first, the past:
How did this crisis come about? And I want them to understand
what we must do to protect the national interests and,
indeed, the interest of all freedom-loving people in the
world.
Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf
war, the United Nations demanded--not the United States, the
United Nations--and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare
within 15 days--this is way back in 1991--within 15 days
his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the
missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration.
That's what he promised to do.
The United Nations set up a special commission of highly
trained international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure
that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good
reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a
terrible arsenal, and he used it, not once but many times. In
a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against
combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary,
and even against his own people. During the Gulf war, Saddam
launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Bahrain.
Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at
the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better part of
the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.
Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false
declarations about weapons that it had left in its possession
after the Gulf war. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence
that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the records. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear
declarations 4 times within just 14 months, and it has
submitted 6 different biological warfare declarations, each
of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief
organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program,
defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to
conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many
more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers
of weapons in significant quantities and weapons stocks.
Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just
simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to
Jordan and told the truth.
Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among
other things, an offensive biological warfare capability,
notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;
2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads;
and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors
believe that Iraq had actually greatly understated its
production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all
know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the
untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

He was killed, Madam President.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have
undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the
inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras,
literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect
facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and
our people were there observing it and have the pictures to
prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a
remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the
civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of
mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf
war. This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than
100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational
missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and
biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons
facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other
deadly agents. . . .
That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to
do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the
end of the Gulf war, to do what should have been done within
15 days--within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the
Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is
by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and not
simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a
diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable,
reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to
free, full, unfettered access to these sites, anywhere in the
country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the
integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in
place.
Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence
of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security
Council many times since has reiterated this standard. If he
accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or
continues to evade his obligation through more tactics of
delay and deception, he, and he alone, will be to blame for
the consequences.
I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he
promised to do within 15 days at the end of the Gulf war,
what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in '95,
what the inspectors have done against all odds.
We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that
does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining
sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in
the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's
what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for
it so hard. That's why the United States should insist upon
it.
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 more opportunities to develop this program of
weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the
release of 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 he can go right on and do more to 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 has really worked on this for any length of time
believes that, too. . . .
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat
posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want
to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I
am quite confident from the briefing I have just received
from our military leaders that we can achieve the objectives
and secure our vital strategic interests.
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all
the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will
leave him

[[Page S1720]]

That speech was made by President Clinton on February 17, 1998. I
find it very strange that my friends on the other side of the aisle--
and they are my friends--are attacking President Bush for having made
statements weaker than these statements.
If one reads this statement in full, the President of the United
States, then speaking to the generals who command all our forces, told
them to be ready. He had just had the briefing. He had the briefing
that convinced him in 1998 that he might have to act as President to
take military action against Saddam Hussein.
Five years later, another President is saying the same thing, and he
is attacked. We never attacked President Clinton. We never doubted his
sincerity. But now my friends--and they are my friends--are saying that
this President does not know what he is doing. I believe the President
knows what he is doing, and I think he made a masterful statement
last night of the position in which the United States finds itself. It
is not different from the position President Clinton was in in 1998.
Should he be in this position now? Should we have done something in the
interim? The answer is simply yes. We should have done something years
ago--gone to the U.N. and said: If you are going to have any meaning in
the world at all, you must insist that Saddam Hussein obey the mandates
you have issued.

I come from a State that has a great many of our military planes, and
I talk to our military pilots wherever I travel in the world. One thing
is clear: Our pilots, our Air Force pilots have been enforcing the no-
fly zones since 1991. They have been flying every day in harm's way.
They have been shot at nearly every week. We retaliated, retaliated,
retaliated, but young men and women are up there tonight flying planes
over portions of Iraq, at the insistence of the United Nations that we
prevent Saddam Hussein from having any aircraft in those zones in the
north and south. We are following their request. We are carrying out
that operation at our expense and with our pilots, with our planes, and
we have been doing it now since 1991.
How long will this continue? How long do we have to fly to prevent
Saddam Hussein from having weapons in the air that are really minuscule
compared to what is on the ground--weapons of mass destruction, that
President Clinton described adequately and succinctly and honorably in
1998.
Madam President, I think it is high time we came together. I am
sincerely disappointed that we do not have a uniform force here, that
we do not have a uniform force right here on the floor of the Senate
saying: Mr. President, we understand that you--as did President
Clinton--have in front of you a horrendous decision to make. When do we
have to go in and destroy these weapons?
How many weapons has he created since 1998? How much more difficult
will it be to find those weapons than it would have been in 1998? I say
in all sincerity, as one who has watched over the Defense Department's
appropriations now since 1981, either I or my friend from Hawaii, the
two of us jointly have done that job. We have been to this part of the
world of the Persian Gulf many times.
This is an awesome problem that faces the President of the United
States. We should help him, not challenge his decision and what he is
doing. He is asking the world to come together to demand that Saddam
Hussein do what he agreed to do in 1991, as President Clinton
repeatedly said in his statement, and as our President, President Bush,
has said before the U.N. in a masterful statement he made when he went
before the U.N.
The time is now for us to come together and realize we are
approaching decision time. I served in combat in World War II, and many
of us know the awesome days we went through then. They were nothing
compared to what this world will be if Saddam Hussein ever uses those
weapons of mass destruction. I think we have changed our way of life.
We have changed our lifestyles. We have already been affected by his
collusion with the al-Qaida force, and those people who are part of
that terrible force.
President Clinton called it the unholy axis. President Bush called it
the evil axis and has been criticized for saying so. President Clinton
said we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st
century, and I say things are worse today than they were in 1998.
I am one of those who gets these intelligence briefings. I have told
my wife when I come home after those briefings I find it hard to think
about the work I have to do other than just think about these terrible
intelligence reports. This is not a simple world we live in, but it is
a world in which I believe the freedom-loving people look to us for
leadership. I say, thank God we have a leader who means what he says,
and I am willing to follow him when he says it is necessary to use
force if that day ever comes.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks
and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the
superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this
most recent, very difficult problem. Thank you, General
Shelton, for being the right person at the right time. Thank
you, General Ralston, and the members of the Joint Chiefs,
General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCI
Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger. Senator Robb, thank you for
being here, and Congressman Skelton, thank you very much, and
for your years of service to America and your passionate
patriotism, both of you, and to the members of our Armed
Forces and others who work here to protect our national
security.
I have just received a very fine briefing from our military
leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf.
Before I left the Pentagon I wanted to talk to you and all
those whom you represent, the men and women of our military.
You, your friends, and your colleagues are on the frontlines
of this crisis in Iraq. I want you and I want the American
people to hear directly from me what is at stake for America
in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the peace,
the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have taken the
position we have taken.
I was thinking, as I sat up here on the platform, of the
slogan that the First Lady gave me for her project on the
millennium, which was: Remembering the past and imagining the
future. Now, for that project, that means preserving the
Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means

[[Page S1721]]

making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to
get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad
slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult,
more dangerous matters.
Those who have questioned the United States in this moment,
I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have
neither remembered the past nor imagined the future. So,
first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our
security in the new era we are entering.
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The
superpower confrontation has ended on every continent;
democracy is securing for more and more people the basic
freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by
bit, the information age is chipping away at the barriers,
economic, political, and social, that once kept people locked
in and freedom and prosperity locked out.
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in
this room know very well that this is not a time free from
peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw
nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers,
and organized international criminals. We have to defend our
future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on
the free flow of information and technology. They actually
take advantage of the freer movement of people,
information, and ideas. And they will be all the more
lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to
deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam
Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his
people, the stability of his region, and the security of all
the rest of us.
I want the American people to understand, first, the past:
How did this crisis come about? And I want them to understand
what we must do to protect the national interest and, indeed,
the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.
Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf
war, the United Nations demanded--not the United States, the
United Nations demanded--and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare
within 15 days--this is way back in 1991--within 15 days his
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to
deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he
promised to do.
The United Nations set up a special commission of highly
trained international experts, called UNSCOM, to make sure
that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good
reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a
terrible arsenal, and he had used it, not once but many
times. In a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical
weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a
foreign adversary, and even against his own people. And
during the Gulf war, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi
Arabia, Israel, and Bahrain.
Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at
the end of the Gulf war, Saddam has spent the better part of
the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.
Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false
declarations about the weapons that it had left in its
possession after the Gulf war. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would
simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its
nuclear declarations 4 times with just 14 months, and it has
submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each
of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief
organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program,
defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to
conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many
more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers
of weapons in significant quantities and weapons stocks.
Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just
simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to
Jordan and told the truth.
Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among
other things, an offensive biological warfare capability,
notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;
2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads;
and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors
believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all
know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the
untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have
undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the
inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras,
literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect
facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and
our people were there observing it and have the pictures to
prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions UNSCOM has, nevertheless, done a
remarkable job. Its inspectors, the eyes and ears of the
civilized world, have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of
mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf
war. This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than
100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational
missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical
biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons
facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other
deadly agents.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity,
Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their
ambition by imposing debilitating conditions on the
inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been
inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. By comparison--when you
hear all this business about ``Presidential sites reflect our
sovereignty; why do you want to come into a residence?''--the
White House complex is 18 acres, so you'll have some feel for
this. One of these Presidential sites is about the size of
Washington, DC. That's about--how many acres did you tell me
it was--40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms
here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the
whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect
whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass
destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feedstocks
necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological
munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the
capacity to restart quickly its production program and build
many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past,
here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly
and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic
solution. The inspection system works. The inspection system
has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after
obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work
deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked.
That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to
do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the
end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within
15 days--within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the
Gulf war--if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is
by far our preference. But to be a genuine solution and not
simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a
diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable,
reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree, and soon, to
free, full, unfettered access to these sites, anywhere in the
country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the
integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in
place.
Now, those terms are nothing more or less than the essence
of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf war. The Security
Council many times since has reiterated this standard. If he
accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or
continues to evade his obligation through more tactics of
delay and deception, he, and he alone, will be to blame for
the consequences.
I ask all of you to remember the record here: what he
promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf war,
what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in '95,
what the inspectors have done against all odds.
We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that
does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining
sites by people who have integrity and proven competence in
the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's
what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for
it so hard. That's why the United States should insist upon
it.
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 to 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 has really worked on this for any length of time
believes that, too.
Now, we have spent several weeks building up our forces in
the Gulf and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our
force posture would not be possible without the support of
Saudi Arabia, of Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC States, and Turkey.
Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces,
bases, or logistical support, including the United Kingdom,
Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and The Netherlands,
Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina,
Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, and our friends and
neighbors in Canada. That list is growing, not because anyone
wants military action but because there are people in this
world who believe the United Nations resolution should mean
something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved,
because they remember the past, and because they can imagine
what the future will be, depending on what we do now.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat
posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want
to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I
am quite confident from the briefing I have just received
from our military leaders that we can achieve the objectives
and secure our vital strategic interests.
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all
the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will
leave him

[[Page S1722]]

significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the
ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack
his neighbors. And he will know that the international
community continues to have will to act if and when he
threatens again.
Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's
activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to
rebuild his weapons of mass destruction we will be prepared
to strike him again. The economic sanctions will remain in
place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolution.
Consider this: Already these sanctions have denied him $110
billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be
today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations
he would have hidden around the country if he had been able
to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military
rebuilding.
We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern
suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq,
making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again
and threaten the Kurds in the north.
Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the
weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send
our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first
answer. But sometimes it's the only answer.
You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained
fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary
for me to exercise the option of force, you commanders will
do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men
and women under their command. No military action, however,
is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in
uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as
well.
Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We
have seen that constant vigilance pays off, but it requires
constant vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back
every time Saddam has posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to
assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's
intelligence headquarters. When Saddam threatened another
invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the Kuwaiti
border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our
ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down. When Saddam
forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our
control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.
But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N.
weapons inspections system itself, Yes, he has tried to
thwart it in every conceivable way. But the discipline,
determination, the year-in, year-out effort of these weapons
inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.
Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam
Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the
weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn
commitment to the international community to do that and to
give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now.
One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes
good on his own promise.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the
20th century and warns us of what we must know about the
21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience
that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is
firmness, determination, and, when necessary, action. In the
next century, the community of nations may see more and more
the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide
them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals,
who travel the world among us unnoticed.
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.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send
a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that
the international community does have the wisdom and the will
and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.
That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the
future I ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past
and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we
still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic
resolution to this and, if not, God willing, a chance to do
the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the auditorium.
In his remarks, be referred to President Saddam Hussein of
Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished senior colleague from Alaska.
He speaks with a corporate memory dating back to when at age 17 he went
into World War II and, as he said, flew those combat missions.
I am proud of what the President has shown by way of leadership, and
I said the other night, yes, I feel I know most of the facts but he may
know a few more, and I repose trust in his judgment and his team to
make the right decision. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of
my distinguished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, Senator Stevens is the senior
Republican in terms of time--I am sure many people do not know it, but
I am second--and I want to say I am very proud that he has said what he
said.
Many people speak all the time. The Senator from Alaska speaks when
it is important. He does not come to the Chamber and engage himself in
rhetoric. He is too busy doing tough work. He understands this issue.
Truly, many of the Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves. We
try to support Presidents. We would have supported President Bill
Clinton if he had done what he was talking about in that statement the
Senator read. I do not think there is any doubt about it. We would not
have questioned whether he had the right security briefing and whether
he knew what he was doing.
Our President has been warning us, he has been going back to the
table, letting the inspectors go in again, coming to the American
people, going to the U.N., and nothing happens. As a matter of fact, I
believe it is correct, when the Senator cites the date that President
Clinton gave that speech, I do not believe anything of a positive
nature has happened in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein since that
time. It has gotten worse, if anything. He has not ameliorated or made
anything better, to my knowledge, and look what it was like on the date
the Senator read in his statement.
I commend the Senator, and I do believe the resolution introduced
today ought not deter anyone from what we are doing. It ought not
change minds in this Senate which voted overwhelmingly in support of
our President. I thank the Senator for what he has said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am delighted to join my colleagues
in talking about the situation in Iraq and what the President has said
and what some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
saying, that we need to wait, and wait longer.
I will make a few simple points. I have served on the Middle East
subcommittee since I have been in the Senate. I have chaired it for a
good portion of the time. I have worked on the issue of Iraq since
1996. I have worked with the Iraqi opposition. I have held hearings on
this topic. We have had meetings with the then UNSCOM inspectors. We
have really worked the full gamut of what is taking place in Iraq. My
colleagues on the other side want to wait longer. We have waited 12
years. How much longer do we need to wait?
They want to allow the weapons inspectors to work longer. We had them
in there for a number of years and then Saddam Hussein threw them out.
They have only been back for a short period of time. I remind my
colleagues that we were not finding anything when the weapons
inspectors were there prior to 1998. We did not find anything until we
had some high level defections on the part of the Iraqis. That is when
we started finding things.
Iraq is a country the size of California. It has a dedicated leader
who is seeking to thwart the will of the international community to
disarm. He is trying to hide items that may be the size of a 5-gallon
bucket. He is manufacturing biological weapons and moving them on
mobile units the size of a van. He is trying to hide them in a place
the size of California, and there are only 120 inspectors in Iraq, as
the President suggested last night, in some sort of scavenger hunt. The
idea was not that we would go into Iraq and have to find these items.
It was that Iraq would step forward and disarm and say we agree, we are
going to disarm. That was what they were supposed to do, come forward
and disarm. Instead, we have this hide-and-seek that Saddam continues.
It is what he did when we had weapons inspectors in Iraq previously. It
is what he continues to do now.
What happens if we wait? Let's say we agree we are going to wait.
Maybe we will find something, maybe not. What if we do find something
else? Is that going to be enough for us to move forward and say we need
to completely disarm Saddam Hussein? I think we are

[[Page S1723]]

left with a similar set of circumstances-plus, if we do not do
anything.
Let's say we do not do anything, we let this go on for another couple
of years because there is not an impetus now to really move. Saddam has
biological and chemical weapons. He has terrorists on his soil. At any
time, he can easily start distributing the chemical and biological
weapons to terrorists, who know no bounds. I could easily see us in 2
years with a special committee of the Senate, holding hearings as to
how did these biological weapons come in from Iraq, that were
distributed to terrorists, to be used against U.S. citizens. I think it
is a clear possibility that it would occur.
Nobody wants to go to war. None of us want to do that. That is an
absolute last option. We have been working for 12 years with economic
sanctions. We have been working for 12 years with no-fly zones. We have
been working with the Iraqi opposition. We have been doing everything
we can, and yet now we are at this point in time where he has
terrorists and weapons of mass destruction together on his soil, and
more people are saying, wait.

Wait for what? So they can distribute them further? So that he can
attack us?
I realize we all have difficulty with moving forward to a war
situation. We do not want to do that. We want to respond if somebody
comes at us. The problem with this new war on terrorism is that the
terrorists, when they attack, attack civilian targets. They want to try
and kill as many people as possible. By our waiting, we actually invite
them to come forward.
Some might suggest if we act, we are going to further foment
difficulty in the region of the United States. I point out that even
prior to September 11, we had 10 years where there were attacks on the
United States, on our people, in foreign places by these terrorist
groups. We had two embassies in Africa that were attacked by terrorist
groups. We had the USS Cole attacked by terrorist groups. We had Khobar
Towers. They have attacked us for a period of 10 years.

People are saying, show restraint or else they will act more. We have
seen it for 10 years, showing restraint. Then we had September 11, and
we responded aggressively in Afghanistan. That was a fully appropriate
way to respond. If we wait for the terrorists, they will continue to
come at us. If we sit and wait, it does not mean they will stop. They
will not stop. They have not stopped in the past. They are going to
continue to come at the United States because they do not believe in
what we believe. They are attacking our sets of values by attacking our
civilians, our civilian population.
No one wants to go to war. That is the last thing anyone wants. In
this situation, not to move forward is to invite more catastrophic
events to happen to our citizenry and to citizens around the world.
Remember, terrorists go at soft targets. They go at the twin towers.
They do not go at military targets. They did go at the Pentagon, but
they went at Bali most recently. They will continue to go at civilian
targets. They will go at the soft targets. If they have biological and
chemical weapons, they will kill that many more people if we fail to
act.
I was raised in Kansas. On Saturday night, we would watch
``Gunsmoke.'' That was a great show and a favorite of mine. At the end
of every ``Gunsmoke'' episode, Matt Dillon walks out on Main Street and
the bad guy walks out on Main Street. They face off. The bad guy pulls
the gun, Matt shoots, and the other guy goes down. That is the way
every show ended: Nice, clean, good versus evil. Evil at the last
minute is allowed to walk away. He could walk away or he is going down.
He never does. He pulls his gun, and Matt Dillon always shoots him
down.
There is a sense of honor that we always let the other side, the bad
side, go first. You get to pull the trigger because you always have a
chance to walk away. What if we do that with terrorists? We have a
sense of honor that we should let the other side go first. If you let
terrorists go first, they do not walk out on Main Street of Dodge City
and face Matt Dillon. They go around the back alleys. They are looking
for people who are sleeping. They are looking for families. They are
not looking for someone who is armed. They are looking for soft targets
to hit, kill, and destroy. That is what they will continue to do.
Now, taking the other side of the argument, what if we do move? What
if Saddam Hussein is moved out of power, as has been the stated policy
of the United States since 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act which
President Bill Clinton signed into law? What if Saddam Hussein is
removed from power by a coalition of the willing--it will be an
international coalition--what takes place then?
We have a group of people, Iraqi opposition and others, who have been
working on a democratic Iraq with opportunities for all people, for
human rights, for people to be able to vote and to express their
desires for that country. We have a country that sits on 10 percent of
the world oil supplies and an ability to rebuild itself, an educated
population that is willing to change. They want to change now. Iraqi
opposition is united. We are hearing from people inside of Iraq who
want to see a change. People inside the Iraq Government, inside the
Iraq military, want to get out and into a different situation.
Look at the seeds of change sown within Iraq and that region, if you
have coming forward a democracy, with human rights, with religious
freedom, with freedom for women, with people able to vote and
participate and a marketplace that allows people to participate. Look
at the future for the people there in that region, in that country, if
that is what takes place. There is a substantial positive benefit.

It all is with risk. It all has risk. Whether you choose to act or
whether you choose not to act, they both have risk. After looking at
this matter for some period of time, the option of not acting has far
more risk--little, if any, upside potential--than the choice of acting.
And the choice of acting has a downside potential. But it has
substantial upside potential, and it does not have the downside that
not acting has.
Clearly, the President and his Cabinet and the people have thought
this through. It is an extraordinarily difficult choice. Saddam Hussein
still has the choice. He can still choose today to disarm and to engage
in the international communities and comply with the 12 U.N.
resolutions that have followed in the 12 years since he invaded Kuwait.
I point out, we need to remember: Saddam Hussein has attacked two
adjacent countries. He has used chemical weapons against his own people
and against the Iranians. He has used these weapons in the past. He has
threatened to attack, and has attacked, his neighbors in the past. This
is not a good man. He is not good for the world. He is certainly not
good for the region. He does not get better with time, nor does the
situation get better with time. The obligations only get worse.
For all these reasons, I applaud what the President has done. I
applaud that he came to the Congress in the first place asking for a
resolution. He got it. He got broad bipartisan support. I applaud that
he went to the United Nations and got a resolution with broad
international support. He has done the things we have asked. And now he
is coming forward and saying: Look, Saddam Hussein, the time is running
out. Either act now or actions will be taken.
The President has done most of the things we have asked him to do. He
has tried to engage the world and get an international coalition. A
number of other countries will join. We should back the administration
at this point and not try to do more second-guessing or buying of time
for Saddam Hussein to develop more weaponry, to develop more terrorist
networks to supply and provide the things the terrorist networks want
to be able to threaten and to kill our people.
For all these reasons, I hope we will not back a resolution calling
for allowing of more time and, instead, support the administration's
efforts as they move forward, trying to find a peaceful solution but,
if not, forcing Saddam Hussein to choose whether he is going to hold on
to his weapons of mass destruction or whether he is going to hold on to
power. It is a difficult choice the President has to make and we have
to make. We have looked at this pretty thoroughly.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1724]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________