[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 36 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1662-H1667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING THE CASE AGAINST IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to cover two
points. One will cover recent rulings in the FCC regarding the 1996
Telecommunications Act, and the other is we are going to talk about our
foreign policy with Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Telecommunications Act was heralded as a
grand attempt to move the telecom markets toward competition. I was a
conferee on that bill. It was a great compromise between the House and
the Senate. That bill was greatly heralded by many people, but 7 years
later the Act's intent has been overrun by the FCC's recent decision
that has effectively blocked competition and created disincentives for
investment by maintaining the UNE-P status quo.
{time} 1415
It is not only the intent of the act that is being circumvented. More
tangibly, the already-fragile telecom industry has suffered another
financial setback. In response to the FCC's decision, many of Wall
Street's analysts have made their voices heard on the negative effects
that the decision will have on the economy, including Morgan Stanley,
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and others.
An analogy of the FCC's decision would be to allow McDonald's, or
Burger King, a competitor, to come into their restaurants and use their
entire facilities. You bring your meat, you fry it up, you bring your
own drinks, you use it all, you use their advertising, you use their
building, you use their drive-up window, you use their cash registers,
and you are in competition with the McDonald's or Burger King
franchise?
No one in America would ever allow a competitor to do such a thing.
But that is what is happening in the telecommunications industry. What
incentive is there at all to allow investment, if that in fact is what
is going to occur?
As a matter of public policy, the FCC's decision simply makes no
sense. On one hand, the commission deregulates broadband, and on the
other hand it complicates and multiplies regulation on UNE-P.
Last year, this body passed the Tauzin-Dingell broadband legislation,
273 to 157. I think we could argue that the will of the Congress had an
impact on how the FCC views broadband. Do we now pass another bill to
show the FCC that further regulation on UNE-P offers no help to the
Nation's economy? Mr. Speaker, if that is what it takes, then I say,
let us do it.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services has joined us here for this Special Order on behalf of the
Republican leadership.
There were some what I call the voices of dissent that came to the
floor, the voice of dissent with regard to war. I call it the sounds of
freedom. One was asking, please give peace a chance. The other one was
saying I am concerned about the long-term damage to our alliances if we
do not follow what Germany, Russia, China, and France are asking for.
The other says we just need to continue our diplomacy and we should
follow the lead of the French. That was the voice of dissent that came
here to the floor today.
I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), to those
voices out there that say give peace a chance, it is easy to say that
when you sit in freedom, and peace is truly the consequence of freedom.
America represents freedom, and we export hope and opportunity; and
Iraq and some of the sub-national terrorist organizations that
represent tyranny, they export fear and terror.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I agree with
the gentleman that the folks who express their dissent and have been
expressing their dissent in government, basically giving the other side
of the debate, are providing a public service by doing that. But I
think there are a few observations that are important here.
There have been people demonstrating worldwide in large numbers,
hundreds of thousands of people, against the prospect of war with Iraq.
I do not think any of those people demonstrated when the Kurdish babies
were laid low by the gas attacks with poison gas that Saddam Hussein
spread over their villages.
I do not think any of those folks demonstrated when he gassed
Iranians by the tens of thousands, or when he executed his own people,
cut off their ears and did the myriad of reprehensible acts that have
now been ascribed to him, both in closed-door sessions by our
intelligence officers and in open sessions by various human rights
agencies.
So I think it is always important to set the record straight, or to
come into these debates with a full understanding of where they come
from. And I think one of the most honest talk shows that was ever
devised for television was ``Crossfire,'' where the conservative would
say ``from the right,'' and the liberal would say ``from the left.''
But it is obvious that the people who are demonstrating by the
hundreds of thousands, some of them well-meaning people, also include
lots of people who are not necessarily demonstrating because they have
a great love of mankind, or that they are special peace people or have
a special care about humanity, because, if they did, they would have
been demonstrating when Saddam Hussein gassed those Kurdish babies by
the hundreds. They were not demonstrating there, so that did not bother
them.
It did not bother them because it was not destabilizing. I think a
lot of folks do not like the idea that war in itself is something
unsure, it is destabilizing, that it potentially affects the cost of
gasoline in your automobile, it potentially affects your community, it
may affect relatives who may have to go off to war. So it is something
that brings about a feeling of unsettlement.
But let us answer that question the gentleman brought up, why are we
entering into this confrontation, it appears? I think one question that
could be well thrown back is this: in 1991, when we had not only lots
of folks in this country and around the world against us taking action
against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, we not only had lots of folks on
the streets around the world, but we also had a majority of the
Democrat leadership. I do not fault that Democrat leadership for having
taken their position, which they have a political right to do, and
taking that side of the debate. But we found afterwards, to answer
those people who said give peace some time, give it a chance, give us
another 10 months, 18 months, whatever, we found out that according to
United Nations estimates, Saddam Hussein at the time that we defeated
him in battle was 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon.
So certainly those well-meaning folks who thought that time was on
our side discovered afterward, and to the surprise of everyone,
conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, none of us knew how
close he was to having that system. So time is not always on our side.
It is my estimate, after having conducted some closed hearings and
some open hearings, eight hearings in total, it is my judgment that
this country is going to have a nuclear device in about 3 years, and,
along with that capability, possessing that capability, because we have
allies who have nuclear devices, Britain has nuclear devices and we are
not worried about them,
[[Page H1663]]
that country has with its present leadership, I think, the intent to
use that capability against Americans, either in theater or in the
American homeland.
Mr. Speaker, when you add up capability plus intent, you have a
national interest; and our national interest now is to take that away
from him before he has the full capability. So I think that reasonable
people can differ on this subject. But the lesson of Desert Storm I was
that time is not always on our side.
Mr. BUYER. Reclaiming my time, beginning with the threat, I think is
probably the right place for us to start this discussion here today.
A report released on September 9, 2002, from the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent research organization,
concludes that Saddam Hussein at that time, actually Saddam Hussein
could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain the
fissile material. Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and
has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb.
We all know about the aluminum tubes, the dual-use material and
technologies that he has been trying to obtain.
So the gentleman's comments with regard to time, it is true; and I do
not know why some people are unwilling to acknowledge this individual's
ambitions. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear
scientists over the past few years, signaling his continued interest in
developing a nuclear weapons program.
With regard to chemical munitions, Iraq admits but UNSCOM cannot
confirm the destruction of 6,500 chemical-weapon bombs filled with
1,000 tons of agent, over 3,000 tons of chemical warfare agents, 614
tons of precursor chemicals used to make the most toxic nerve agent,
VX, 550 artillery munitions, 155 millimeter, filled with mustard and
chemical warfare agent, and 31,658 empty and filled chemical weapons
munitions.
Iraq continues to rebuild and expand the dual-use infrastructure that
could quickly divert from chemical weapons production such as chlorine
and phenol plants.
Iraq is seeking also to purchase chemical weapons, agents,
precursors, and applicable production equipment and is making an
effort, obviously, to hide those facilities while inspections even
continue.
With regard to biological weapons, Iraq admits, but the U.N. cannot
confirm, the destruction of 8,500 liters of anthrax, 2,160 kilograms of
bacterial-growth media, enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax,
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 5,500 liters of aflatoxin.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield on that point, the facts
that the gentleman is putting out are especially important because
those are not guesses on our part. In fact, they are not even guesses
on the part of the United Nations or on the part of the arms
inspectors. Those come from documents from the Iraqis themselves, from
their own declarations and their own documents. So the 6,500 liters of
anthrax, for example, which is enough anthrax to kill around 1 million
folks, is something that came from their documentation, not ours. That
is something that they have not turned over.
The thousands of chemical munitions that the gentleman has gone
through, that comes from their documentation, not ours. So this is like
the storekeeper who says here is my inventory list, and then later on
he wants you to expect that somehow, without any outward manifestation
or anything that could be picked up or anything that was shown to the
rest of the world, all of those weapons have disappeared.
Let me just say, and this might be the time to comment on this, the
easiest bet in show business is that this tiny little handful of so-
called inspectors, and there are less inspectors than there are
policemen in the average small town in America, the idea they are
somehow going to be able to go through this massive state and discover
weapons of mass destruction in these vast empty buildings that the
inspectors are being shown by the Iraqi bureaucrats, the idea that that
is in some way going to happen is an absolute fantasy.
So I predicted early on, before this thing ever started, on the
record, that they were not going to find anything of import. These
folks have had a long time to bury it. And the Iraqi bureaucrat who
actually leads arms inspectors into these places, and 90 percent of
them are places where they have been before, time and again, big empty
buildings, and lo and behold, there is a weapon of mass destruction
that somehow the maid forgot to clean up from the night before, that
bureaucrat is going to be considered two things: one, the dumbest
bureaucrat in Iraqi history, and, secondly, shortly thereafter, the
deadest bureaucrat in Iraqi history.
So this is a state that has had an entire agency devoted to hiding
things very effectively, and the idea that this little bitty corporal's
guard of so-called inspectors is somehow going to find them, is like
saying that this massive police force in Washington, DC., and the
police force in D.C. is 10 times as big as the inspectors for all of
Iraq, it is like saying that the drug lords of Washington, DC. are
expected to pile all of their cocaine at an intersection on
Pennsylvania Avenue at a given time. When they do not pile it up, and
the Washington Post thereby concludes that there is not any cocaine in
Washington, DC., you will have the equivalency to what some of the
media is doing today with these reports of negative findings with
respect to Iraq.
Of course, they are not going to turn over this stuff that they have
spent millions of dollars hiding to this little bitty force which does
not have the ability to go in and which is having absolutely no success
in terms of finding it.
Remember this great idea where we were going to isolate or bring out
for interrogation these people in the Iraqi technical establishment,
the scientists, the engineers who build this stuff? Somehow we were
going to get them and the families alone outside of the country, and
then they were going to tell us things, just like the ones that have
come out have told us.
Now, that has not happened; and not surprisingly, while these people
are under the control of Saddam Hussein, while the Iraqi guard stands
there and looks them in the eye, they say, I would rather not talk
unless I am accompanied by one of Mr. Hussein's officials.
{time} 1430
Well, of course they say that. The safety of their lives and the
lives of their children depend on them saying that.
This country has to act in the security interests of the United
States. I recall, with respect to these other countries that have not
come on board, that when Menachem Begin hit the Iraqi nuclear reactor
site in Osirak in the 1980s, lots of countries in the world publicly
deplored the act, and said this was a terrible intrusion on the Iraqi
airspace. They then walked quietly into the security of their own
offices and they breathed sighs of relief because that capability had
been taken way.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is this the same
nuclear reactor that was built by the French?
Mr. HUNTER. Yes. I think one French engineer was killed that way.
There was one engineer working on a Saturday or Sunday at the Iraqi
site. As I recall, there was one engineer killed.
My point is, the world has two faces; one face in which they, too,
are deathly afraid of an emerging nuclear capability on the part of
Saddam Hussein, and terrified with the present-day chemical and
biological weapons capability. They do not want him to hurt them, they
want us to protect them. On the other hand, those people, especially
the people that Don Rumsfeld describes as those who live in the
neighborhood, who have to deal with them, are going to be very
reluctant to publicly say that the bully should be taken on, because
the bully is going to remember what they said.
Mr. BUYER. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
since we talked about the present threat, let us spend a little time on
what Saddam Hussein has done from 1991 to present.
With regard to his repression of the Iraqi people themselves, there
is his refusal to admit human rights monitors; continued torture; the
executions and repression of political opposition; disappearances of
people in the night;
[[Page H1664]]
withholding of food and medicine in the food for peace program; the
mass murder of Iraqi Kurds and Iraq Shi'a Muslims. He continues to
support international terrorist organizations, which has been well
known.
He also has refused to account for Gulf War prisoners. In his failure
to account, Saddam Hussein has been unwilling to come forward on 609
cases of missing Gulf War prisoners of war and missing in action
representing 14 nationalities, including one American pilot. We also
have Saddam Hussein failing to return and account for a large number of
Kuwaiti citizens and citizens of other countries who were detained
during the Iraqi occupation.
Also, Saddam Hussein has refused to return stolen property from
Kuwait, and Saddam Hussein has continued his efforts to circumvent the
economic sanctions.
So for those who are saying give peace a chance, let us let the
economic sanctions work, are they working, I ask the gentleman from
California?
Mr. HUNTER. I think the gentleman has given an excellent
representation of what this dictator does, Mr. Speaker, and what he
stands for. I think that builds an excellent context in which we can
try to evaluate whether or not peace would work, given a chance.
First, he is deceptive. Secondly, I think he believes his future
depends on manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Third, he is
willing to take his own people through enormous discomfort and
inconvenience and danger in order to achieve his own political ends.
But I would say to the gentleman that there are pieces of Saddam
Hussein's activities, although maybe not the composite, but it can be
fairly said, and it has been said by lots of people, are there not
other dictators in the world who do the same thing, and we are not
attacking them?
I would say that that is true. I would say the reason that I think we
should move forward, and I think is the major justification for this
massive operation, is American security. This guy is the leader who has
used ballistic missiles against American troops and killed them with
it. He has used poison gas against his own people in recent times. He
has exhibited a willingness to kill Americans.
As a result of the background that I have seen and the facts that I
have seen, it is my conclusion that if he can achieve the production of
a nuclear device, that at some point he will use it on our troops in
theater or on Americans. I think it is a wise decision to keep him from
being able to do that.
That takes us to, I think, what I think is a very important point for
policy debate. It has been a point for policy debate. We now have what
I call the Pearl Harbor school emerging from the other side of this
debate. Those are the people who say, by golly, we are America. We wait
for our Pearl Harbors before we respond. When the enemy inflicts a
heavy blow on us, that is when we rally; that is when we talk about the
day of infamy; and that is when we go out and strike back and overwhelm
the enemy, and justice prevails.
The problem with the Pearl Harbor school is that these weapons are so
severe today and so dangerous and so destructive that we cannot afford
to wait to have a Pearl Harbor occur before we eliminate the source. To
some degree, we are carrying that out right now. September 11 killed a
lot of Americans; but, arguably, the new tightening of our borders, the
new security efforts we have undertaken in the American homeland should
prevent some of those things from being able to happen again.
Therefore, it could be argued that there is no reason for us to be in
Afghanistan going after people and disrupting terrorist groups; in
fact, in some cases taking on people who personally were not involved
in the event of 1995.
But what we have discovered is that we do have to do some preemption.
I think this question is going to be facing us again and again in this
century: Are we going to stand by and watch somebody who has
demonstrated an intent to kill Americans develop high technology with
which he can kill lots of Americans, and stand by and wait for him to
gain that weapon and use it on us before we respond; or are we going to
try to eliminate that danger before the Pearl Harbor occurs?
That is a tough thing, because Americans do not like to be the first
ones to strike out. When we watch the speech of FDR after Pearl Harbor,
there was no dissent in the House Chamber. That was an easy vote, that
vote for war. We were all together, we had that common ground, and had
that feeling that we were in the right. As Joe Lewis said, we felt that
God was on our side.
Now we are faced with these terrible weapons, and we cannot afford to
take the blow that will come from those systems. In a way, we are a
little bit like little tiny postage stamp Israel that stood there and
watched this nuclear reactor being built in Iraq. They had seen the
speeches by Saddam Hussein where he made thinly veiled threats to the
effect that the final recipient of the output of those nuclear reactor
plants would be weapons detonating in Israel. Israel realized they were
too small, too flimsy, too frail to take that massive blow, so they
went out and destroyed that plant.
Unfortunately, one person was killed. He was an engineer from France
who was working there over the weekend. But because of that, they saved
thousands of people from being killed.
So whether we embark on this policy of preemption or not is a valid
subject for a major policy debate, but I think, in many cases, the
answer must be yes; and certainly in this case this person is a person
who has already killed Americans with ballistic missiles as well as
with conventional capability, and has tried to acquire these other
capabilities.
Because of that, I think we see the intent, and when the intent is
married up with the ability to do it, we are going to rue the day that
we, for convenience' sake and for stability's sake and for safety's
sake, we gave up an opportunity to disarm him when we had the
opportunity.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, to support the gentleman's position on a
preemptive strike, I think it has been clear that Saddam Hussein's
efforts to circumvent the economic sanctions has proven itself very
successful. Saddam has illegally imported hundreds of billions of
dollars in goods, in violation of economic sanctions, and even outside
of the U.N.'s oil for food program.
For example, Iraq has imported a fiberoptic communications system
that supports the Iraqi military. It has diverted dual use end items
obtained under the oil-for-food program for military purposes. For
example, Iraq diverted U.N.-approved trucks for humanitarian relief
purposes for military purposes, and has used construction equipment to
rebuild weapons of mass destruction-affiliated facilities. They came to
Iraq under the dual use program.
Saddam Hussein also has about $3 billion in illegal proceeds that he
is able to use with these items. He is contracting with over 75 nations
around the world, and he is giving priority contracts to France,
Germany, and Russia in return for their support in this very difficult
time.
Does the gentleman have any comments he would like to add?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, and I hope my colleague
will excuse me, because I have to go try to do something we have both
been working on, and that is talk to some folks from our Committee on
the Budget and convince them we need more for defense.
But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the gentleman has laid out
a very well-documented case for taking action. I notice also that the
gentleman is a veteran of the Gulf War. He told me about the
apprehension that he and other Americans had when they heard those
missiles coming in.
This is a very dangerous situation we are in. I think we have to
acknowledge it every time we debate this issue. Is this dangerous? Yes,
it is dangerous. The policies of doing nothing are also extremely
dangerous. This is not going to be the easy century following the
disassembly of the Soviet empire that we once thought it was going to
be.
I think we need to have a broad military capability, the ability to
make a surgical strike, to fight guerilla warfare, to take on
conventional attack and armored attack, and also the ability to stop a
missile attack. We live in an age of missiles, and we have to be able
to stop that.
In this case, we have to have the ability to preempt and disarm an
adversary whose intended goal is to destroy Americans. I know it is a
difficult,
[[Page H1665]]
tough thing to do, and I would just ask the gentleman to comment on
this a little in his remarks after I leave.
I have been impressed with this President, because if he had wavered
slightly through this last process of the last 6 months or so, we would
be faltering right now. But he understands his role, which is as
President of the United States, and his duty to the security of the
United States.
That is not a role which is to be subverted by a vote by Cameroon,
for example, or some other country whose name Americans have difficulty
remembering. It is an American obligation to defend Americans. He is
our Commander in Chief. He staged the forces very effectively for this
operation. He is willing to account for the success or failure of any
military operation. He is a good commander in chief. I think he has
done the right things.
I think some of the allies falling by the wayside was entirely
predictable, because when good old Americans can carry the load, other
countries are often willing to let us do that. That is why, when we
bring 90 percent of the funding to a military operation that they ask
us to do, like Bosnia, we sometimes choke a little bit but we usually
do it; and usually they are willing to stand back and let us bear the
brunt of those operations, because it is practical for them for their
politics and economy.
But this President has kept his eye on the ball, which is to disarm
Saddam Hussein. I think he is moving this mission forward in a very
effective manner.
I want to thank the gentleman. I would like him to talk a little bit
about Desert Storm. I have to take off, but I would like the gentleman
to share with folks about Desert Storm, that the gentleman is a veteran
of, and the quality and capability of the folks we have in the Armed
Forces.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker.
There have been over 17 resolutions before the United Nations in
which Saddam Hussein continues his open defiance.
The first resolution was November 29 of 1990, that said Iraq must
comply fully with Resolution 660 regarding the illegal invasion of the
country of Kuwait.
The next resolution was number 686, on March 2 of 1991. It says Iraq
must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War. Iraq must return
Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. Iraq must accept the
liability from international law for damages during its illegal
invasion of Kuwait. He has not done anything about that.
The next resolution, number 687 on April 3 of 1991, Iraq must
unconditionally accept the destruction, removing and rendering harmless
under international supervision of chemical and biological weapons, all
stocks of agents, and all related subsystems and components of all
research development, support, and manufacturing facilities. This was
in 1991.
Iraq must unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons or nuclear weapons-usable material, or any research,
development, or manufacturing facilities. It continues, recalcitrant.
Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal and
rendering harmless under international supervision all ballistic
missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. Now he is destroying
missiles; this was back on April 3 of 1991. The list goes on and on
under that resolution.
The next resolution out of the U.N. Security Council was number 688
on April 5 of 1991. It condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian
population, the consequences of which threaten international peace and
security.
Iraq must immediately end repression of the civilian population, and
Iraq must allow immediate access of international humanitarian
organizations to those in need of assistance. It never happened. Those
were the words of the U.N. April 5 of 1991.
The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council, number 707,
on August 15 of 1991.
{time} 1445
It condemned Iraq's serious violation of resolution 687. It condemned
Iraq's noncompliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and
its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iraq must
halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems
Iraq in full compliance. August 15 of 1991. Never happened.
The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council, No. 715, October 11
of 1991, said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Never happened.
The next resolution from the U.N. Security Council, No. 949, October
15 of 1994, condemns Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner
to threaten its neighbors or U.N. operations in Iraq. Iraq must fully
cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and Iraq must not enhance its
military capability in southern Iraq. Never happened.
The next U.N. Security Council resolution was No. 1051 on March 27,
1996. They said Iraq must report shipments of dual-use end items
related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and to the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Iraq must fully cooperate with the
U.N. and these agency inspectors and allow immediate unconditional,
unrestricted access. It never happened.
The next U.N. Security Council resolution, 1060, on June 12, 1996. It
deplores Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and Iraq's
clear violations of previous U.N. resolutions. Iraq must cooperate
fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate unconditional
and unrestricted access. It never happened.
The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1115 on June
21 of 1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraq authorities to allow
access to U.N. inspectors which constitutes a clear and flagrant
violation of U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715 and 1061. Iraq must fully
cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access. Iraq must give immediate
unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom the U.N.
inspectors want to interview. It never happened.
The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1134 on October 23,
1997. It condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to all access
to the U.N. inspectors which constitutes a flagrant violation, again,
of resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1061. It says Iraq must fully
cooperate with the U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate
unconditional, unrestricted access.
Boy, this sounds like a broken record.
Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi
officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview. It never happened.
The next resolution came from the U.N. Security Council on November
12, 1997. It condemned the continued violations by Iraq of previous
U.N. resolutions including the implicit threat of safety of aircraft
operated by U.N. inspectors and the tampering of U.N. inspectors'
monitoring equipment. It reaffirmed Iraq's responsibility to ensure the
safety of U.N. inspectors, and Iraq must fully comply with U.N.
inspections and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access. It
never happened.
The next U.N. Security Council resolution was 1154 on March 2, 1998.
They said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and the International
Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors and allow immediate
unconditional, unrestricted access and notes that any violation would
have the severest of consequences for Iraq. That was in 1998. Do you
think Iraq was scared? These words are beginning to get very, very
empty if you say them over and over again.
The next resolution was 1194, September 9 of 1998. It condemned the
decision by Iraq on the 5th of August 1998 to suspend cooperation with
the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, which
constitutes a ``totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations
under the U.N. resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.'' And
they said Iraq must fully cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA weapons
inspectors and allow immediate unconditional, unrestricted access.
The next resolution came on the 5th of November of 1998. It was
resolution 1205 of the U.N. Security Council. It condemns the decision
by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with
[[Page H1666]]
the U.N. inspectors as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 and other
resolutions. And they said Iraq must immediately and completely and
unconditionally cooperate with the U.N. and IAEA inspectors. It never
happened.
The next resolution by the U.N. Security Council was No. 1284,
December 17, 1999. It created the United Nations Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission to replace previous weapons
inspection teams. And they said Iraq must allow this new inspection
team the immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to Iraqi
officials and its facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to
return Gulf War prisoners, this is 1999, and calls on Iraq to
distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and
address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. It never
happened.
The next resolution then was the one which is presently being
discussed, 1441. This resolution was meant to be different from all of
these that I just mentioned. Because this resolution was by its very
nature words that were negotiated painstakingly to give a final
opportunity for Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations under
all these relevant resolutions by the council.
During that same time, Congress decided it would also exercise a
voice. In 1998 there was H.R. 4655, a sense of the Congress that U.S.
policy is regime change and democracy for Iraq. That was during the
Clinton administration, October 5 of 1998.
On December 20 of 2001, House Joint Resolution 75, Congress spoke and
said Iraq is in material breach of U.N. resolutions. It passed this
House by a vote of 390 to 12.
The next resolution that came from this House was on October 10,
2002, which authorized military force in Iraq and passed this House by
a vote of 296 to 132. So we have had a continued decade of deception
and defiance that has been noted.
The decade of deception and defiance continues. I went through this
long litany. Sure, it may have taken 15 minutes, but it was 10 years of
work and labor by the U.N.
The time for the U.N. in its relevancy and materiality of this
present is before us. Are the words going to have meaning? The
President has come forward and made that point very clear to the United
Nations.
My hope is that the U.N. stands firm and gives definition to their
meaning. Saddam Hussein has had a long history of complying with
inspectors on a very small and technical scale, and then he continues
to cheat inspectors on a very large scale. His tactical concessions are
designed to buy time and ease pressure on his regime and to split the
international community and to hopefully end resolve.
Since 1991 Saddam has presented no fewer than six, six full and final
and complete declarations of his illegal biological weapons programs
alone. Each of these has been an outward lie and has failed to account
for large stockpiles of prohibited materials.
The United Nations has worked with three countries to give very good
examples of cooperative disarmament. Those countries would be South
Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. And there are three very basic
elements of cooperation. One is a decision must be made at the highest
level to disarm. Next would be you have to state your national
intentions. And third is you cooperate with international efforts to
verify the disarmament behavior and that it is open and it is
transparent, not secretive.
Iraq with regard to its highest level, their efforts are concealment.
Iraq also tasked its key institutions toward thwarting the inspectors,
and instead of transparency, Iraq chooses to conceal and lie. That is
very, very different from what we have seen. So the cosmetic compliance
that is presently going on is nothing new.
With regards to Dr. Blix, I want to extend my thanks. He has a very
difficult job to do. He is trying to make Saddam Hussein comply.
Knowing that this track record that we have laid out, knowing the
little games he plays, and the cheat and retreat strategy that he has,
Dr. Blix has a tremendous job. But Dr. Blix was never meant there to be
a detective. He was meant there to work with a country cooperatively in
a transparent effort to disarm the country that was meant to comply
with all of these resolutions.
So almost what has happened is that the world has placed an
unrealistic expectation upon Dr. Blix. We cannot do that and should not
do that to him. That is why resolution 1441, it demands nothing less
than the full and immediate disarmament by Iraq. So this report that is
going to be presented tomorrow is extremely important. I believe that
no one can say that Iraq's cooperation has been full and immediate
because the regime has submitted a false declaration, it has blocked
private interviews. Only 5 of the 30 requested UNMOVIC have even taken
place. They have threatened witnesses and their families with death,
and they have hidden documents and concealed materials from inspectors.
The ``why now'' question for me is obvious. For others who perhaps do
not know about all these resolutions and what has gone on, it is a good
question to ask. The President has come forward with a preemptive
doctrine. Some maybe do not understand what a preemptive doctrine is.
What is extremely important is after September 11 is that we have a
right of self-defense. We also should be taking our defenses in doubt.
What that means is you do not just say we are only going to focus on
homeland security. We are going to cower in our defenses and seek the
security because we feel unsecure. No. You take it to where the threat
is. So whether it is in Afghanistan or whether it is in the Horn of
Africa or wherever al Qaeda is trying to hide, you work cooperatively
with nations; you take it to the terrorist organizations.
Likewise, with Saddam Hussein, who poses a threat to destabilize the
region of the Middle East, the United States as a superpower, some
people are uncomfortable with that word, but it is true. The United
States is the sole remaining superpower. We have a responsibility to
regional stability in the world.
Saddam Hussein has been recalcitrant to the world, and his threats
will continue along with his cooperation with these terrorist
organizations.
Now, I am a father, like many. My son is 17. I love Ryan. But if I
said, Ryan, you know, you have got a curfew and he violated his curfew
17 times and I did nothing, and I see he is getting ready to go out
tomorrow night and I said, Ryan, remember your curfew, what do you
think he is going to do? He is going to come home whenever he pleases.
Why? Because my words are hollow. They mean nothing. I say them, but he
will not follow them because they have no meaning or definition,
therefore, no consequence for the recalcitrant act. That is Saddam
Hussein.
So all these resolutions that I talked about, great words. They are
firm. But if the U.N. is not going to give meaning and definition to
the words, who will?
{time} 1500
Who will stand up and exercise the might to make right? Once again,
the United States, we have seen this before. We have been there before.
We are going to do it again.
I think about my comrades who find themselves on the desert floor. I
remember very much what it was like. One thing I can share and to the
mothers and fathers who have their loved ones who are about to be in
harm's way is that not only has this Congress taken the appropriate
resources to help train and equip these men and women over the last
decade, this force is better than the force that I fought with in the
Gulf War. I am so proud of them. When I see them, they give me chills.
They represent the very best of America.
I will never forget the scene in the Indianapolis airport of a young
sailor who was getting ready to be shipped off, and he has his sisters
with him, his very young brother, his parents are standing there and
his grandparents are also standing there, and he is standing there in a
sailor's uniform. His youngest brother is holding the sailor's cap as
if it were a crown, and it is a scene unlike many scenes all across the
country.
Now this Congress has done its duty. It has been vigilant to make
sure that this force is prepared. It will be highly lethal, it will be
highly mobile, and it has very precise munitions.
With regard to the enemy for which they are about to face, I remember
the
[[Page H1667]]
Iraqi people themselves, to include the conscripts. I interrogated many
of them during the Gulf War. They do not like Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a
very wealthy country, and Saddam only takes the wealth of that country
to the benefit of a very few as he suppresses other tribes within Iraq.
They do not like Saddam Hussein.
One of the individuals I was interrogating had, under his blouse, I
saw this red and blue sort of semicircle. I could not understand
exactly what it was. I asked him to undo his blouse and it was a
Chicago Cubs T-shirt. He had relatives that lived in Michigan, and they
were fans of the Cubs, and so he tried to track the Chicago Cubs.
One other story. In order to help bring calm and peace at the Western
antiwar camp, we gave the Iraqi prisoners, over 46,000 of them, what
they wanted to hear. They wanted to listen to Madonna. So we piped in
Madonna music. They are more Western than one can imagine, and they do
like America, and they do not like Saddam Hussein.
With regard to the leadership, I came out of the interrogation tent.
My interpreter at the time was former King Fahd's grandson, Bandar, and
as I come out of this tent, there is an Iraqi general officer sitting
on the desert floor. He is sitting there with his legs crossed. His
elbows are on his knees. His hands are in his face, and he is weeping
like a child so hard that his shoulders are actually shaking. I stood
there and I looked at this and behind are his army. I walked up to the
gentleman, and I kicked the sole of his boot. I then ordered him to
stand at attention.
Through the interpreter he tells the general man to stand up. I got
really close to him, looked at him, asked if he was a general officer.
He asked him and acknowledged and shook his head and said yes, and I
told him then act like one. Now think about this scene. I am a United
States Army captain, telling an Iraqi general officer how to act. Why?
Why would a United States Army captain have to do such a thing? Because
he was not a general officer because of his strategic mind and his
tactics. He was a general officer because of his loyalties and
relationships to Saddam Hussein.
So, with regard to ``the enemy'' in which we are about to face, they
are not led by great military minds. So it would be no wonder why the
conscripts and others will fold quickly. I also believe that he was
weeping, not for his men which stood behind him, he was weeping for
himself because he knew that upon repatriation, Saddam Hussein would
probably execute him. That is the repression of Saddam Hussein.
The Kurds and the Shi-ites have been waiting a long time for this
day. I know that in my own sense and feeling of having gone through
what no differently that my ancestors have gone through for freedom and
liberty in this country, I know about the consequences of war. I know
about the long dark shadows of horror. I know about things that are
unimaginable and things one does not speak of and things that we see we
just cannot believe. War is inhumane toward mankind and I cannot
believe in this day and age, for all of our sophistication and
technological advances, that man still yet has not found a way to
resolve our differences.
The bottom line is this is not up to us. This is now up to Saddam
Hussein. I still hold out the hope that there is a country out there
that is willing to take him in and that we can actually move in
peacefully and change the regime. That is my desire, that is my hope.
It is my prayer and I know that the soldiers that are standing there
feel the same way. They pray for peace, even though they are prepared
for war because they are the ones that gave an oath to give their life
to defend the Constitution and our very liberties and freedom.
So let me end where we started, with the voice of dissent. I
acknowledge the voice of dissent as constructive to the discussion. I
find what is not constructive are those in an antiwar message that
would also be ``un-American.'' Do not go out and burn the flag. Do not
say and be obnoxious and do something stupid. If a person has got
something that is constructive that can bring peace and tranquillity to
this world, step forward and say it, but they can do so in a manner
without being un-American or being disrespectful of individuals of whom
have lost loved ones, or even have someone who finds themselves in
harm's way in the very next few days.
I think what we should do is go find something and send it to a
soldier that is in the desert. Pick it out, support the troops that are
over there. Believe me, it is a very lonely place, the Saudi Arabia and
Iraqi and Kuwaiti desert. Just to glance upon the American flag is
something that will give a chill because it is the only thing out there
that that can strike a memory of home and of loved ones.
I know that the decision that President Bush has in front of him is
one that he understands the burden of the decision because he also
understands the opportunity that the peace will bring, not only to the
regional stability, but the opportunities and new alliances and greater
heights for freedom.
____________________