Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 37 (Friday, March 7, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 37 (Friday, March 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3341-S3348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WAR ON TERRORISM

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia organizing this
opportunity to discuss what is obviously one of the most serious issues
which we as a nation are facing and which the world is facing; that is,
the question of how we address terrorism, and specifically how we
address terrorist states such as Iraq.
The leadership of the Senator from Virginia on this point has been
long and strong and continuous. I admire the fact that he has given us
that leadership, and I appreciate the fact that his service in the
Senate and his expertise are brought to bear on this type of a very
difficult question.
When we begin to address this issue of terrorism, I think we should
start with the source. Let us turn to the

[[Page S3342]]

words of the man who has basically orchestrated the attacks on the
United States, Osama bin Laden, and his intentions and the intentions
of the people he directs, and unfortunately encourages. Osama bin
Laden, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, in an interview in
1999 from Time magazine, said the following:

Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious
duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons--

Weapons of mass destruction--

--then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek
to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would
be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that
would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

In a religious order he states:

We, with Allah's help, call on every Muslim who believes in
Allah and who wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's
order to kill Americans and plunder their money wherever and
whenever they find it. The ruling to kill the Americans and
their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty
for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is
possible to do it.

These are the words of a fanatic who has a purpose. We have seen the
execution of his purpose in the attacks on Americans, with thousands
dying in New York and others here in Washington, military men and women
in Yemen, and in our Foreign Service personnel in Africa.
The question becomes: From whom would he obtain these weapons of
destruction? It is clear that one of the core sources of weapons of
mass destruction is terrorist states which are producing those weapons
of mass destruction--states which act outside the responsibility of the
civilized world.
The state which has most flagrantly pursued that course of action is,
of course, Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction. That has been
confirmed beyond question--biological and chemical--and they clearly
are trying to develop nuclear. More importantly, Saddam Hussein has
used those weapons not only against what he perceives as an enemy--the
Iranians--but against his own people. He has killed thousands of his
own people and tens of thousands of Iranians using weapons of mass
destruction--chemical weapons.
We know there are literally tons of Vx gas and pounds of anthrax
which are unaccounted for and which cannot be found--and which are in
the possession of Saddam Hussein. Should they fall into the hands of
Osama bin Laden, it is very clear from his own words that they would be
used against us here in the United States, and the implications are
staggering. If they were to be dispersed in any number of ways, tens of
thousands of Americans might be harmed and possibly even die.
The United Nations has equally recognized that Saddam Hussein is a
threat to the civilized world, and a number of resolutions have been
passed by the United Nations calling for action to be taken by Saddam
Hussein and his regime to comply with international law.
In April 1991, almost 12 years ago, the U.N. Security Council decided
in Security Council Resolution 687 that Iraq shall unconditionally
accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal, or
rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic
missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. It further required Iraq to
make a declaration within 15 days of the location, amounts, and types
of such items.
Twelve years ago that resolution was passed. It is uncomplied with.
It has been ignored. It has been intentionally obfuscated by Saddam
Hussein.
In August 1991, Security Council Resolution 707 demanded that Iraq
provide, without further delay, full, final, and complete disclosure of
its proscribed weapons and programs as required by the previous
resolution.
That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, undercut, and actively
avoided by Saddam Hussein's regime.
In June 1996, Security Council Resolution 1060 deplored the refusal
of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the
Special Commission, which constituted a clear violation of three
previous resolutions.
That resolution has been ignored, obfuscated, and undercut by Saddam
Hussein, and intentionally undermined.
In June 1997, Security Council Resolution 1115 condemned Iraq's
actions and demanded Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to any sites for inspections, and officials for
interviews by UNSCOM. Again, the resolution has been ignored,
undermined, and actively obfuscated and circumvented by Saddam Hussein.
In October 1997, Security Council Resolution 1134 demanded that Iraq
cooperate fully with the Special Commission and demanded also that
Iraq, without delay, allow the inspection teams immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas,
facilities, equipment, records, as well as to persons whom the
inspectors wish to interview.
The resolution has been ignored, undermined, and actively obfuscated
by Saddam Hussein.
In November 1997, Security Council Resolution 1137 condemned the
continued violations by Iraq, its tampering with monitoring cameras of
the Special Commission, and demanded that Iraq cooperate fully, and
immediately.
That was in 1997. And there has been no immediate cooperation. In
fact, there have been active--active--attempts to interfere with and
undermine that resolution.
In March 1998, Security Council Resolution 1154 stressed that Iraq
must accord immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the
Special Commission, and that any violation would result in the severest
consequences for Iraq.
Again, Iraq has ignored the resolution and actively worked to
undermine it.
In November 1998, Security Council Resolution 1205 condemned the
decision by Iraq to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a
flagrant violation of Resolution 687 and other resolutions.
In November 2002, Security Council Resolution 1441, which was
unanimously approved, decided that Iraq has been and remains in
material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and
decided to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to
comply with its disarmament obligations under the relevant resolutions.
Resolution 1441 has been ignored, obfuscated, and actively--
actively--undermined by Saddam Hussein and his regime.
There can be no question--absolutely no question--but that Saddam
Hussein and his regime in Iraq continued to possess weapons of mass
destruction, continued to hide those weapons from the inspectors,
continued to violate resolution after resolution of the world
community, as presented by the United Nations, and represents a clear
and present and immediate threat not only to its neighbors, but more
specifically to us, the United States.
There are some in the world community, obviously--mostly in Europe--
some of our allies, who, for whatever their personal reasons or
whatever their national interests, have decided Saddam Hussein does not
represent the threat we know he is. I might even recall the words of
Washington when I think of that. Washington advised us, of course: Why,
by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle
our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice? There are interests there that are not
ours. But in the end our purpose must be our national security and the
security of our people.
It was not, of course, Berlin or France or Paris that was attacked.
It was New York City that was attacked. As a result, it is America that
is at risk.
Former President Clinton made it very clear he understood the threat
of Saddam Hussein. He has described Iraq as 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.'' He went on to imagine: What if Saddam fails
to comply with the U.N. resolutions and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third course, which gives him yet another opportunity to
develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Clinton
answered his own question by saying:

Well, [Saddam] 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 someday, some way, I guarantee
you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's
worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[[Page S3343]]

That was President Clinton.
Last night, President Bush made it very clear that he understands his
purpose as President, his responsibility as Commander in Chief, but
more importantly, his responsibility as a leader of the free world, and
the protector of the interests of the American people and the lives of
Americans, must involve the disarmament of Iraq.
There can be no question about that. Iraq must be disarmed. We are
engaged in a war. Some on the other side have said or implied there is
no war and, therefore, we should not go to war. But when our buildings
were attacked and our people died in New York, and when our people died
in Washington, and when our sailors were killed in Yemen, and our
Foreign Service people were killed in Africa, clearly, those were acts
of war directed at us and at our people.
Were this the 19th century or well into the 20th century, when
despots such as Saddam Hussein also existed--all through time there
have been despots--then maybe we could take a more casual or leisurely
approach to this, and maybe we could live by the code of some of our
European allies: That we simply will do business with them and hope
they go away. But those times no longer exist.
Today, when a rogue nation, led by a criminal individual, attains
weapons of mass destruction, the death and destruction which they can
level on people who they perceive as their enemies is overwhelming. The
smoking gun is no longer a single bullet. The smoking gun may be a
nuclear bomb or a biological weapon or a chemical attack which kills
tens of thousands of Americans.

We cannot wait for the smoking gun. We know the weapons exist. We
know the person who controls those weapons is fundamentally evil. And
we know the people who want to attain those weapons have already killed
thousands of Americans. We must take action.
So I congratulate and support our President as he moves forward to
make it unquestionably clear we will not tolerate an Iraq that has
weapons of mass destruction, and we will do what is necessary to
protect our Nation and our people and the freedom which we enjoy.
Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Virginia granting me
this time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the contribution of
our distinguished colleague.
We have two speakers on our side ready to go forward, and we will
rotate, as the case may be. But we now have the distinguished chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, who is also the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense within the larger committee, a man who has
dedicated much of his lifetime to defense issues, beginning in World
War II with his distinguished service in the Army Air Corps.
I would hope the chairman might make reference to the work that has
been done in his committee with reference to the issues relating to
international terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea, because there is some
challenge to the Senate as an institution as to whether or not we are
giving attention to these issues. Within the last day or so, I put into
the Record a very long recitation of what the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate has been doing. I know the Committee on
Appropriations, particularly the subcommittee, has been very active. We
also are likely to hear from the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee. His committee has also been doing a great deal of work.
We all recognize the value of debates in this historic Chamber, but
there is much work going on within the committee structure by
individual Senators in their town meetings. So, collectively, this
institution has a good record of addressing the serious issues of our
time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia is right. As a
veteran of World War II and a child of the Depression, I harken back to
the days before World War II when we had so much information coming our
way concerning the scourge that was threatening and did threaten and
almost destroyed Europe. We have tried to be vigilant in this country.
We have had a series of debates not only on this occasion but at the
time of the decision of the United States to fulfill the request of the
United Nations to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. We had similar
divisions on the floor of the Senate then. I was sad to hear comments
made before that action was initiated, but I was very proud of the
Senate that after the decision was made to go to war against Iraq in
order to eject them from Kuwait the Senate came together and supported
President Bush in 1991 to achieve that objective.
Now we face a different circumstance. I like to harken back to the
words that my good friend, the former Secretary of State, Henry
Kissinger, said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last
September. He said then:

We must consider not only the result of action but the
consequences of our inaction.

Secretary Kissinger presents the watchwords for this body to consider
and think about, especially since this administration and I personally
believe that Saddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger to
the United States and to those who believe in freedom throughout the
world.
As a consequence of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and
the war on terrorism that ensued, Secretary Kissinger pointed out that
a new geopolitical reality was born. The world must recognize that the
potential connection between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction
moved terrorism to a new level of threat. In fact, that nexus should be
the overriding security issue of our Nation.

President Bush and his team of national advisers has determined that
Saddam Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction--
chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear--which could be used by
terrorists to threaten the world. There is a great deal of information
collected by the United States in the past year concerning that fact.
In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had
visited 20 secret facilities for chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with Iraqi
Government contracts complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed
said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the
United Nations and then secretly used that equipment for their weapons
programs.
Iraq admitted to producing biological agents and, after the 1995
defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to weaponization of
thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin for use
with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft. Our Defense Department
reported in 2001 that Iraq had continued to work its weapons programs,
including converting an L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential
vehicles for delivery of chemical or biological weapons. Just think of
that, weaponization of an airplane and using an airplane in a way
entirely foreign to its original purpose. It reminds me of September
11.
This jet trainer is capable of delivering both of these systems,
chemical and biological weapons. In fact, Iraq has not accounted for
hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of
unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads. It has not
accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were
its preferred vehicles for delivering nerve agents, nor has it
accounted for almost 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agents.
Iraq is still purchasing chemical weapons agent precursors and
applicable production equipment. It is making an effort to hide the
activities at the Fallujah plant, which is one of Iraq's chemical
weapons production facilities, which was one of those production
facilities before the gulf war. At Fallujah and three other plants,
Iraq has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need
for water treatment. Evidence indicates that some of its chlorine
imports are being diverted for military purposes.
A report issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies
concluded that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months
if he were able to obtain fissile material. In the last 14 months, Iraq
has sought to buy thousands of specifically designed aluminum tubes
which intelligence officials believe were intended

[[Page S3344]]

as components for centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iraq has withheld
documentation relative to its past nuclear program, including data
about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons designs,
experimental data, and technical documents.
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over
the past 2 years, signaling his continued interest in developing a
nuclear program.
Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a greater
range than 150 kilometers, as prohibited by U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687. Iraq continues to work on the al-Samoud liquid
propellant short-range missile which can fly beyond the 150 kilometers
barred by the agreements into which it has entered. The al-Samoud and
the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in
Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both were nearing
operational deployment. The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal
site for testing liquid propellant missile engines, and it has been
building a new larger test stand there that is clearly intended for
testing prohibited long-range missile engines.

Each of these actions point to the creation of an environment that
will permit Saddam Hussein to go after his enemies, whether they are in
Iraq or any other region in the world. And we have seen time and time
again Saddam Hussein has no regard for the ideals of freedom, equality,
and justice for others. He lives in an empty echo chamber of evil.
What we must face is that the United Nations resolutions were
systematically and brutally ignored and violated for the past 12 years.
It was the U.N. inspectors who found it impossible to do their job and
had to leave their work unfinished. They returned, and they have been
at it again, trying to find the evidence to prove what we all believe
is true.
Clearly, the Senator from New Hampshire has just stated Iraq has
ignored now 17 resolutions and blatantly violated the agreement it made
after defeat in 1991.
What we face is existence of a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction. I wonder if anyone here denies that. They have the
willingness to use these weapons and have demonstrated in the past,
both against the Kurds and Iran, that they have a hatred for the
civilized world. It is a terrorist state now, in my opinion. If we were
to go to war with Iraq again, we will not be ignoring our war on
terrorism but trying to stamp out the source of it. Americans must face
this responsibility and the realization that we are the one country in
the world that can both eradicate this man, bring him to justice, and
bring the seeds of democracy to a new nation.
I hope we will finally hear soon that all of the nations we believed
were our partners in seeking freedom will support the objectives of the
U.N. resolutions that have already passed. I think if we would enforce
those, we would achieve a safe and lasting peace for Iraq and remove
Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, I remind the Senate and the
President of section 6 of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which urged
then-President Clinton to call upon the U.N. to establish an
international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting,
prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials,
including his sons Qusay and Uday, who are responsible for crimes
against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of
international law.
Mr. President, I also awakened this morning to find the Washington
Times. This story bothers me considerably. It is a story headlined
``Iraq Strengthens Air Force with French Parts.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be
printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this disturbs me greatly. For the last 20
years, 21 years, I have been privileged to attend the Paris Air Show,
along with a substantial number of Americans and our American
companies. I visited those companies in their chalets there. We tried
to develop what was called a ``two-way street.'' We would buy some
materials from them and they would buy some from us.
There is no need for France to sell equipment to Saddam Hussein. It
is international treason, Mr. President. It is in violation of a U.N.
resolution, and there should be no question about French officials--
they should come forward quickly to deal with this story. As a pilot
and former war pilot, it disturbs me greatly that the French would
allow, in any way, parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis
could continue to use those planes. They are good planes, Mr.
President. The French make very good aircraft parts. But they should
not be finding their way to Saddam Hussein at this time.
I share the concern of the writer of that article about the position
of the French government, in view of this information now disclosed by
our intelligence officials. As Senator Warner stated, as chairman of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to get to the bottom
of that. We intend to make inquiries today and find out what more we
know about what is disclosed in the article regarding the shipment of
military parts from either France or Germany into Iraq. I believe the
American people need to know more about this. We need to know why these
two countries, among the best of our allies, are standing on the
sidelines as we prepare to try to destroy this regime that threatens
the world. In my judgment, it is something the Senate must take very
seriously if either of those governments has allowed the export of war
materials to go to Iraq at this time.
I thank my friend for allowing me this time.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Times, Mar. 7, 2003]

Iraq Strengthens Air Force With French Parts

(By Bill Gertz)

A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for
its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past
several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading
company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the
parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made
Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.
An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts
pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that
sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the
parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded
in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the
official said.
The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi
military to build up materiel for its air forces before any
U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the
month.
The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the
Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment.
The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq
from a neighboring country the officials declined to
identify.
Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number
of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based
International Institute for Strategic Studies.
An administration official said the French parts transfers
to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed
U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. ``No wonder the
French are opposing us,'' this official said.
The official, however, said intelligence reports of the
parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned
by the French government or that Paris knows about the
transfers.
The intelligence reports did not identify the French
company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the
parts were new or used.
The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation.
Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later
became a part of a consortium of European defense companies.
The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under
U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991
Persian Gulf war.
Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy,
said her government has no information about the spare-parts
smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government
about the matter.
``We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no
sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq,''
she said.
A CIA spokesman had no comment.
A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's
purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. ``It is
well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to
obtain a number of prohibited items,'' the official said.

[[Page S3345]]

The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment
in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for
using force to disarm Iraq.
A senior defense official said France undermined U.S.
efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required
Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons programs.
France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said
yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N.
resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told
reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France ``will not allow
a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force.''
``Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security
Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this
point,'' he stated.
France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms
sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier
Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called
Saddam Hussein a ``personal friend.''
During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against
Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard
aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it
by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure
construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S.
officials believe France is opposing military force to oust
Saddam.
Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation
Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military
equipment to Iraq would have ``an immediate and relevant
military consequence, if this was done.''
``The United States with its allies are going to suppress
the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any
conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a
company complicate that mission,'' Mr. Sokolski said.
Secretary of State Collin L. Powell last month released
intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1
Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores.
A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that
Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. ``A
thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed
Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger
arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems,
and armored vehicles,'' the CIA stated.
Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the
U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program.
A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction stated: ``Iraq imports goods using planes,
trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international
inspections--in violation of UN Security Council
resolutions.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is always a great pleasure to listen to
my distinguished colleague.
I wonder if I might just make reference to a point of history. Give
or take a year or so, both of us lived through the World War II period.
You were a distinguished aviator with the Air Corps. I was a mere
sailor in the closing months. You got overseas and, fortunately, my
generation didn't have to go because of the courage of Harry Truman.
Mr. STEVENS. I am always pleased to be with young men, Mr. President.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator very much.
We have to use history as a rearview mirror to explain the complexity
of the times. You will recall that period in 1937 when the war clouds
were gathering in Europe, and Neville Chamberlain went over to see
whether or not he could reconcile the situation involving Hitler and
the extraordinary buildup of his forces. The world was apprehensive.
Chamberlain emerged from the meeting and flew back to London with a
piece of paper that said ``peace in our times.'' And then we know the
tragic events that unfolded after that, with the invasion of Poland in
1939, and then down through and into France in 1940, and the entrapment
of the British forces at Dunkerque. The whole world came in on top of
us because we failed to heed what was absolutely manifest--that Hitler
was a despotic dictator, with the then-current generation of weapons of
destruction, and he unleashed them on the whole world as we stood by.
Mr. President, I fear the same consequences now. That is why I
commend our President for his steadfastness, tenaciousness, courage,
and wisdom in addressing these issues and not flinching or blinking,
but staying the course and trying, as he said last night, to make
diplomacy work, but recognizing that if diplomacy fails, we have to
step into the breach and lead.
The Senator mentioned the only nation is the United States, but I
know he wishes to include Great Britain.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is why I amended my comment. I certainly do
admire greatly the position of Great Britain and its leaders right now.
Regarding the comment of the Senator about my memories of 1937, I was
14 then. I recall listening to people who tried to explain to me what
was going on in Europe. It wasn't until much later, really, that I
learned, as I entered college and started studying about world
policies, just really the sadness of that trip Chamberlain made.
I join the Senator from Virginia, Mr. President, because I have just
total admiration for our President and his fortitude.
Would there had been leaders in Europe at the time we are discussing
who had the courage to stand up to Hitler and try to put together
coalitions to stop him from expanding. Once on the floor I compared
Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and I was criticized for that. In my mind, a
tyrant is a tyrant and evil is evil. From the days of my youth, Hitler
was the epitome of evil. In the time we are now living, I believe
Saddam Hussein is the epitome of evil, and the President is correct to
talk about evil in relationship to this man and his intentions.
Above all, I admire the President for his courage to stand up despite
all the criticism, all the apparent division that is developing in this
country, and saying: We, as a nation, have declared ourselves to be the
agents for freedom in the world, and we are going to pursue our goal of
changing that regime so it cannot threaten the world.
I am involved, as the Senator knows, with the problems of the
development of oil in my State. I shudder every day to think that as
the delivery of oil from Alaska to what we call the south 48 States has
declined, our purchase of Iraqi oil has increased. I wonder how many
Americans realize we are sending daily to Iraq moneys that Saddam
Hussein uses to buy this equipment, uses to buy these Mirage parts.
The problem of today is we compartmentalize information to the extent
of saying: Yes, we know that, but on the other hand, some people say,
we should not be disturbed by those facts.
I am disturbed, and I wonder, as we do go to war with Iraq, about the
future of this country and what happens to that oil and what happens to
our Nation as we now import about 55 percent of the oil we consume
daily. We used to be self-sufficient in oil and gas. We are not today.
It is because we have been lured into thinking perhaps if we traded
with tyrants such as Iraq, they would recognize the bond of business
rather than the bond of commitment to principle.
I hope we will find the day when the Nation as a whole will join
President Bush and his advisers--what a wonderful array of advisers he
has with Secretary Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary Rumsfeld. I
cannot think of a generation of individuals who are better trained to
guide this country through a period of crisis than the ones with whom
the President has surrounded himself, with the approval of the Senate.
I have every confidence in what the President is trying to do. I
think it will be a swift and decisive war. It will involve casualties--
casualties that could be avoided if other nations of the world would
join with us and the people of Iraq understood the world was joined
together to condemn this man and his cohorts.
Right know, I believe it is time for us to realize, those who support
the President, that we may have to do what he says: We may have to go
it alone almost. We will have a coalition. The coalition will actually
be bigger than 1991 but not the same partners.
I agree with the President, we do not need partners on this one. We
do not need them. I believe we have right on our side and we have might
on our side and we should use that might for the best interest of the
world and the future.

[[Page S3346]]

I thank the Senator for the privilege of being with him this morning.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I wish to associate
myself with his comment about the great team of advisers the President
has. They have time and again gone into the forums of the world to
indicate the necessity for strong action and strong leadership at this
time. We certainly have it in this President and his administration. I
thank my colleague.
I see, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, with the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee still in the Chamber and likewise my
colleague, Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I
wish to say what a privilege it is to work with these two great
Senators.
Senator Warner, mentioned, as did Senator Stevens, the great team the
President has assembled with Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and
Condoleezza Rice. We are very pleased in the Senate with the leadership
of Bill Frist as our majority leader, and committee chairmen are
working together vigorously.
I congratulate the Senator from Virginia for his construction this
morning of a very important opportunity for us to think together about
the events of the present and likewise our possibilities for the
future.
My hope is that the United States of America will continue to lead in
forming a global coalition that will combat terrorism in a very
effective way.
Terrorists, when armed with weapons of mass destruction, are in a
position to create what philosophers would call existential events for
countries. By that I mean that weapons of mass destruction in the hands
of relatively few people--a rogue state, a sub-national group, or maybe
even a small terrorist cell--are capable of obliterating large cities,
killing hundreds of thousands of people, and creating panic in entire
countries. One terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction has
the potential to create such dislocations in the economy of a country
that recovery could take decades. This existential threat from
terrorism is a new condition for the world that requires changes in our
policy priorities. All nations do not understand this with the same
precision that the United States and our leadership does. All nations
have not been attacked in the same manner we have been.
For some members of our body politic, the September 11 attacks were a
wake-up call, but it was a call that has been heard. When President
Bush and his strategists put forward a response, it was supported by
the vast majority of the American people. We knew that the hijackers
were from the al-Qaida group. We knew there were al-Qaida terrorists in
Afghanistan who had been in training camps. We knew that the
Afghanistan Government, under the Taliban regime, had been hospitable
to terrorists.
We asked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to turn over the
terrorists. They were unwilling to do so. As a result, our country led
an international effort in Afghanistan to root out the terrorists. As
President Bush has pointed out, we pursued this mission in the most
careful and humane way with regard to innocent civilians in that
country. We sought to find one by one the individuals who were
perpetrating not only deeds in the United States of America, but a long
string of terrorist atrocities over the previous decade.
The military action that occurred there had the support of our NATO
allies.
It had the support of many countries that understood immediately the
problems terrorism in the world presents. For example, President Putin
of Russia and President Bush were on the phone both voicing mutual
support. I mention that particular call because in the past 2 days the
Senate has had extensive debate on the Moscow Treaty. This debate had
significance for our global position and for an important relationship
that has been changing for the better, and which must continue to
improve.
One reason for discussing the Moscow Treaty at this particular point
in the life of the Senate was because the Senate is deeply engaged in
world affairs, in foreign policy, in defense policy, and deeply
concerned about our relationship with Russia. The participation of
Russia in the war against terrorism is vital. Even at this moment,
President Bush and Secretary of State Powell are working with the
Russians to come to a somber understanding of what our mutual
obligations are with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and
in North Korea and, for that matter, everywhere.
These are important conversations. The President of the United States
in his news conference last night, talked about this vigorous
diplomacy. Our President has been reaching out to world leaders on the
phone. He has been active in attempting to make certain that all
nations understand the gravity of danger to each one of us and how much
the community of nations depend upon the actions of the Security
Council and those who take leadership in the United Nations. These are
extremely important days for diplomacy. They are critical days for the
success of the Security Council and the United Nations.
In the Senate, we have understood this in our committees. Chairman
Warner pointed out already the extraordinary number of hearings in the
Armed Services Committee and the specific ways in which the problems of
Iraq have been addressed by his committee. I congratulate the chairman
and his committee.
Likewise, Senator Stevens has mentioned this morning the
extraordinary amount of work that occurs in all of the subcommittees on
appropriations, but especially those that are dealing with our national
security. In the Foreign Relations Committee we have had hearings
almost daily on Iraq, on North Korea, on Afghanistan.
Last week, the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, was before
our committee making a personal appeal for the kind of support that he
hopes will be forthcoming from not only the United States, but also
from the European countries and from nations in his neighborhood.
Democracy must succeed in Afghanistan, as we hope that it will in Iraq,
and as we hope that it will in all countries of the Middle East.
Aspirations for freedom can be fulfilled if democratic institutions are
built.
This is what the coalition against terrorism is about. Clearly, we
are concerned with the threats from Iraq, but we also want the
coalition to understand the role of expanding freedom. The future is a
great one for people who have freedom, but at this particular moment
terrorists would deny all of us the opportunity to have freedom.
Last evening President Bush indicated that Saddam Hussein has the
ability and opportunity to surrender the weapons of mass destruction
that were cataloged by the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 and are
still in Iraq. Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security
Council of the United Nations, said to Saddam Hussein: This is your
last chance. Disarm or show evidence you have disarmed.
Each of the succeeding reports from the inspectors have indicated
that Iraq has minimally cooperated in allowing inspectors to go to
various sites, but the Iraqi regime obviously has been very reluctant
to show evidence of disarmament or, in fact, to disarm. Even the Iraqi
missiles possessing an illegal range, which are an undisputed and
tangible violation, are being surrendered only gradually in the most
resistant manner possible.
There are reports in the American press of destruction of a few of
these, but in the Iraqi press, or at least among people in that
country, there is no word of this. In part, it is supposed that Saddam
would be embarrassed by the disclosure that he has been found out and
is disarming at all.
I mention all of this because these are fateful days in bringing
together a coalition, hopefully of the Security Council--absent that, a
coalition of the willing--that knows the war against terrorism can only
be won if weapons of mass destruction in the hands of aggressive
dictators are destroyed. Our President has said as the bottom line,
Saddam will be disarmed. In the aftermath of that event, we will have a
great deal of work to do in this body.
There are expenses involved in disarming Saddam. I think every one of
us, as committee chairmen, as Senators, have been up front with our
people. We know this is costly and we

[[Page S3347]]

know our Armed Forces are at risk. We know a lot of things are at risk.
One thing that must not be at risk, however, is the movement to build a
greater coalition in the war against terrorism.
I will now speak specifically about the fact that in the Foreign
Relations Committee, starting March 25, we will be having hearings on
ratification of the NATO treaty of enlargement. The occupant of the
chair will recall that a fairly short time ago, seven nations were
invited into NATO membership. They have been busy fulfilling the
requirements that came with that invitation. They include the Baltic
States, as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Slovakia. I will
suggest that the hearings on NATO enlargement will, in fact, fulfill an
even a greater purpose. We will have an opportunity to discuss the
importance of each of the countries in NATO and the historical
importance of America and Canada reaching across the Atlantic for over
50 years and working with European friends to guarantee peace on a
continent which has known no peace in any 50-year period in the last
millennium.
This is the reason that European countries have sought NATO
membership. They have wanted to be in a Europe whole and free. They
have talked freely about obligations out of area. They are eager to
participate in the war against terrorism. They want to be strong
friends of the United States of America and manifest that every day.
That is something to celebrate. We will do so as we discuss NATO.

But as we discuss NATO, we will also discuss its future, which must
be a very strong future. My prayer is that all of our NATO allies will
be with us in the event Saddam Hussein does not disarm. I hope that in
the event NATO allies are not with us on that particular day, they will
get their soon. All of our friends are going to be needed as we think
about the future of Iraq and work with the people of that country for
the building of democratic institutions.
I hope we are all prepared for vigorous activity in Afghanistan to
ensure the success of that state. I hope that we will sustain a
partnership with Afghanistan that will inspire confidence throughout
the world in our commitment to freedom.
I conclude simply by saying that the President is offering strong
leadership and I support him. I am prepared to work with the President
in pursuit of all the objectives he has in the days and months ahead. I
know from the words of the President that he foresees a future that is
filled with complexity, but one that also is filled with promise for
our country and for others that share our vision.
Therefore, we should face this day with optimism because we have a
plan for a future that looks brighter than the future did on September
11, 2001. On that date we discovered that the oceans did not guarantee
our safety, that we were vulnerable, that Americans were dying, that
our most cherished landmarks--including this Capitol--were at risk. And
I suspect each of us prudently understands that this is still the case.
But rather than going into a situation of panic, as resolute Americans,
we found leadership with President Bush and new reservoirs of strength
within ourselves. This is a place of resolute activity in each of our
committees and on the floor of the Senate in discussing the most basic
foreign policy and defense issues of our time, doing so with
intelligence, with optimism, and likewise, with an ability to listen to
each other.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the services of our
distinguished colleague from Indiana and his long experience in the
Senate and now having risen to new heights in his distinguished career
as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
I have also enjoyed a very warm and strong relationship with my
colleague through the years. He is too modest to talk about it, but he
served in the U.S. Navy in a position as adviser on foreign policy to
the then-Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Burke. He watched many of
the key issues on the world scene unfold.
I made reference to the Chamberlain speech that we will have peace in
our time. I addressed this colloquy to Senator Stevens who, like me,
lived through that era. I wonder if the Senator might have some
comments on it. It is so appropriate that the world be reminded that
there have been parallels in history where we have been faced with the
rise of a dictator, and the dictator possessed vast arsenals of weapons
and had a proven track record of having used the weapons against other
people and other nations, and how this is the time for the strongest
leadership, which I believe is being offered by our friend. It is being
offered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
How severely we regret the leadership of France and Germany,
certainly nations venerable in history, having lived through so many
periods of turbulence on that continent, cannot recognize today the
parallels of years past. I wonder if the Senator might have a viewpoint
on that, particularly with reference to France.
Mr. LUGAR. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who,
likewise, distinguished himself as Secretary of the Navy at another
time in his career. The Senator clearly has seen parallels at various
times.
Historically the path for the United States, France, and Germany was
not always easy during the Cold War period. The potential for
hostilities with the old Soviet Union tested us many times. I can
recall, as can the Senator, when Helmut Schmidt went to London in 1979,
and came forward with a very bold statement. He said that if the Soviet
Union did not withdraw medium-range missiles that were aimed at Europe,
then NATO must put missiles on European soil to counteract them. The
Russians perhaps predictably, moved their missiles forward and
indicated in an intimidating way that they might be prepared to take
action sooner, rather than later, against Europe.
There were rallies throughout Europe, with people saying, ``better
red than dead.'' All the major capitals had frequent marches with
people claiming peace is what they wanted, but also with some admitting
that they would be prepared to live under communism as opposed to
having the proper military preparation to combat and deter communism.
In those days the stepping forward of Prime Minister Kohl was
critical. Germany came forward and said you can put Pershing missiles
on our soil, and so did the Italians.
I cite that event because it was an important and courageous step in
a time of great uncertainty and fear. It led, ultimately, to President
Bush, the father of our current President, committing America to German
unification well before Great Britain, well before France. And Germans
understand that. That was the basis upon which the unification of the
country came.
Now, from time to time, the French have been extraordinarily helpful,
and I think we need to remember that they have participated in many
critical NATO policies and operations. They have asked us to step
forward specifically in Bosnia where they believed they had a history,
as did Germany, that they simply could not overcome.
I mention all these things off the top of the head because they are
important, as ways in which we have worked together when there were
urgent mutual problems. NATO has not been a hollow alliance. It has
been central to the security of Europe and our nation.
On this floor we debated the INF Treaty which provided that all
intermediate-range missiles come down, every one of them, on both
sides. This happened only because of the strength of the alliance and
our mutual action. That is what we ask of our friends now, that they
remember that fairly recent history of our solidarity against
tyranny. And they understand that terrorism could hit them. The war
against terrorism is not just the United States versus al-Qaida.
Terrorists could just as well level the Brandenburg Gate or the Eiffel
Tower or symbols that are important quite apart from the human losses
of those who got in harm's way.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If I might bring
another issue to the forefront on which he has a great deal of
experience? As this debate is taking place in the Senate Chamber this
morning, Hans Blix presumably is addressing the Security Council. I,
frankly, think that the inspection process under his leadership--they
have tried and tried hard. What the world fails to realize is that
Saddam Hussein, having observed the first

[[Page S3348]]

inspection process, has carefully made his infrastructure, which has
gone on creating the weapons of mass destruction, be they biological,
chemical, or indeed his vigorous efforts to acquire a nuclear
capability. They have gone right on throughout this entire period of
time. And they have been constructed in such a way that they are
moveable. He did that recognizing that at some point in time another
inspection regime could be imposed upon him by the United Nations, as
was done with Resolution 1441.
I think the inspectors have tried. They have unearthed very little.
They have not received the cooperation from Saddam Hussein that was the
predicate on which Resolution 1441 was adopted. It simply said you are
to cooperate, the inspectors to verify and destroy. But in reality the
inspectors have been converted to a group trying to search out, given
the failure of cooperation, where these weapons might be located.
I will discuss later this morning a letter I received yesterday from
the Central Intelligence Agency, under the signature of George Tenet,
responding to the cooperation that our country has given the inspection
efforts of Hans Blix, by virtue of sharing the intelligence information
we had with regard to the location of probable caches of these weapons.
In fact, it has not borne out to be very fruitful because of Saddam
Hussein's skill of moving these caches, of moving the infrastructure of
manufacturing in such a manner that they cannot be detected and
discovered without his cooperation, which he has steadfastly refused to
give. Our President addressed that issue last night.
I wonder if my colleague would comment a little bit on the inspection
process. As we are speaking, Blix is giving his most recent report. As
you know, there are statements to the effect, from other nations, that
perhaps the period of time should be extended. The President last
night, when confronted with those questions, simply said, as I think he
should and very properly said: Time will tell.
I invite the Senator's observations.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for his inquiry. The Senator is
correct, times have changed with regard to inspection. Let me offer as
an anecdote the Russian facility at Pokrov. This situation is not well
known, but it is an agricultural chemical station. Pokrov is an example
of the problems which confront Hans Blix and the inspectors.
As I and others went there at the invitation of Russians, we looked
around at a rather desolate-looking place with run-down buildings. We
were led to a room in which people were making shampoo. They were using
stainless steel equipment. I would say, without two Russians at my
side, I would have had no idea about the history of that room, quite
apart from the facility. But they pointed out that just months before,
anthrax was produced in the same machinery. This is dual use in
a dramatic way. Equipment used for biological weapons had been easily
converted to producing a commercial product. Likewise on this premise,
but clearly not within view, were stores of anthrax. In fact, on the
third floor of another building they had been making anthrax. In
another building, they had been making dual-use materials for
agricultural livestock. One was to produce antidotes so they could
protect, they thought, the Russian livestock. The other use was to
produce toxins, deadly toxins, out of 14 serums that were in vials in a
room, in an icebox, that could kill all the livestock in the United
States.

My point is that we would have been clueless without those who could
give us a 25-year history of the activities at Pokrov. All of it could
have been completely hidden. There was not a ghost of a chance an
inspector would find anything there in years, quite apart from months.
These are old facilities. Saddam Hussein, and others, have gone to
school on dual use. Therefore I simply say, as the chairman already
knows, the production of chemical weapons is clearly enveloped in dual
use. There is not a ghost of a chance you will find a scintilla of it
unless Iraq wants you to find it.
Regarding the biological situation, as Secretary Powell already
pointed out in his public address at the U.N., the Iraqis are able to
break down all the equipment, put it in vans and cart it down the road
200 miles. Unless the inspector is clued in that this particular van
out of all the vans in Iraq has a biological laboratory in it, there is
not a chance, zero, of finding anything there.
This is the reason why the inspection business is at best a holding
action. Those who argue in favor say: After all, with all those
inspectors there, with all of the press following them out every day,
surely Saddam Hussein cannot now be producing a whole lot.
But that doesn't solve the problem of what is there, detailed by the
U.N., after all these years. Nor does it solve the problem of the
intellectual inquiry of scientists who even as we speak are working on
new formulations. They don't need huge factories and installations
visible from the air. They need only the necessary scientific knowledge
and, ultimately, fissile material from somewhere else to get the bomb.
And each intelligence report that we have all seen--those now made
public--say Iraq may be a year, 2 years, 3 years from making a nuclear
weapon. But there is always the footnote: If they get the fissile
material from somewhere else--it will take far less time.
That is the basis on which our President has to say the security of
the American people is at stake. This is not a speculative business for
we all know fissile material exists in the world, a lot of it in
Russia. A lot of it is still not pinned down by the cooperative threat
reduction program or anything else. That is a tremendous danger, and we
all ought to recognize that. It is not going to go away with
inspectors.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I guess what both you
and I find so perplexing is how responsible world leadership, most
particularly France and Germany, which have seen the same facts, have
access to basically the same intelligence, and cannot reach those
logical conclusions which our President and the Prime Minister of Great
Britain have reached.
Mr. LUGAR. We must continue to assist them in reaching those
conclusions.
Mr. WARNER. I must say, if I could just ask the indulgence of my
colleague, my father served in World War I as a doctor in the U.S. Army
in the trenches in France. My most prized possession, I say to my good
friend, is on the wall in my Senate office. For these 25 years that I
have been here, on that wall hangs this Croix de Guerre awarded him by
the French Government for his heroism in the trenches for administering
healing to Americans, British, Frenchmen, and Germans. I sometimes
thought myself, and when the French ambassador visited my office a few
days ago, in a courteous way I pointed it out and I said, you know, I
am thinking of taking it down, but perhaps better judgment will prevail
in your leadership. And therefore for a while I am going to leave it
up, in the hopes that reality can be brought to bear.
I thank my colleague for his time.
I recognize the order entered into at the direction of both the
majority and minority leaders of the Senate was that the Senate would
proceed this morning on the debate with regard to the worldwide
situation on terrorism with an emphasis on Iraq, North Korea, and other
areas, and the time under the control of the Senator from Virginia, the
time having been equally divided, is rapidly approaching the 2-hour
mark which is the halfway.
I see a colleague desiring recognition, but I remind that colleague,
who courteously advised me that perhaps the subject matter was not that
in the order, but I would have to say the time that he uses would have
to be charged to the other side.
I have some maybe 15 minutes remaining under the control of the
Senator from Virginia, which I will hold in reserve for such rebuttal
as may be required on the issues specifically recited in the order
before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The order before the Senate is for
morning business. Those in control of time may choose to speak on any
matter they so choose.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

____________________