[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16785-16786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe it is important today to talk 
about the remarks President Bush made at the United Nations. I believe 
he has made a courageous call on the United Nations to defend its 
credibility in its dealings with Iraq by ensuring that Iraq does not 
continue to update its weapons of mass destruction and does not 
continue to violate with impunity the 16 U.N. resolutions of which he 
is in violation. I think those remarks were a true example of world 
leadership.
  President Bush spoke as one who knows right from wrong, who has 
honest convictions, and he has the courage to express and to act on 
them. In direct words, he detailed the incontrovertible case that 
Saddam Hussein deliberately used his promises at the time of his defeat 
in the Gulf War as a considered strategy to cause the allies to stop 
their hostilities before removing him from power, which has proven to 
be a trick. Since then, his actions have clearly confirmed his 
deception and have shown his insincerity, his duplicity, and his 
complete rejection of the U.N. resolutions--his rejections, indeed, of 
the United Nations itself and of the United States and the nations that 
joined together to defeat him in 1991. He rejects them. He does not 
respect them and his promises made to them.
  Those agreements, he has said he will follow, but he has never 
intended to follow them because he doesn't give them respect or 
credibility.
  The ``Economist'' magazine of London said it is well and good to talk 
about multilateralism, but it asked, ``what happens when people agree 
to things and do not do them?'' That brings up a problem, particularly 
when their failure to do so deals with matters that threaten the peace 
of the world.
  I don't think anyone can deny that Saddam Hussein's consistent policy 
has been to defeat, obstruct, and get around the agreements he has 
made.
  Some tell us that the world--the international community--is all 
against us. They say we are acting unilaterally. Some leaders around 
the world have indeed said that. But the truth is that President Bush 
is consulting regularly with world leaders. His speech to the U.N. 
struck the right balance. And progress is being made in obtaining 
support around the world--with not enough help, I am afraid, from this 
Congress.
  But who would ever deny that Saddam Hussein is a unilateralist? With 
whom did he consult before he invaded Kuwait in 1991? With whom did he 
consult before he utilized poison gas to kill thousands of his own 
citizens, the Kurds, in the 1990s?
  Who did he consult with, what other nation did he consult with, when 
he plotted to assassinate the former President of the United States of 
America? Who has he consulted with, as he deals to construct, develop, 
and produce weapons of mass destruction?
  So I would like, Mr. President, to just make a few comments here to 
bring us some perspective that I think is very important at this time 
on the kind of support we have around the world.
  First of all, I think one of the clearest-headed nations--a nation 
that consistently gets it right around the world on matters of foreign 
policy--the United Kingdom, is in total support of the United States. 
Indeed, it was reported in the paper today that they were moving troops 
into the Middle East, and prepared to use them, if necessary, with us.
  So the Foreign Minister of the U.K., commenting on President Bush's 
speech to the U.N. said it was ``tough and effective'', and the speech 
received quite good remarks from the British leadership.
  The Belgian Foreign Minister, heretofore a critic of the United 
States action, Louis Michel, said, after the speech: ``Now we have to 
press Iraq.'' He added, if the U.N. ``doesn't deliver, it will be 
uncomfortable for some European countries not to support the United 
States.'' That was in today's Washington Times.
  Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the U.N., who has criticized the 
United States recently, also ``urged Council members yesterday to take 
action or lose legitimacy.''
  Even France, which has been pretty outspoken against the United 
States actions, accusing the United States of unilateral activities, 
has said: ``We don't have sympathy for the Iraq regime.'' And their 
Foreign Minister further added that ``he defies the authority of the 
Security Council, raises the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and, therefore, jeopardize the stability of the region.''
  The Danish Prime Minister's views were remarkable. A few days ago, on 
September 11, in an op-ed piece here in the Washington Times, Anders 
Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, said, in a strong statement 
of affection and support for the United States wrote:

       Our common values, shared destiny and visions have been 
     further fortified by the horrors of September 11.
       On the first anniversary of that somber date, Danes will 
     think back with sympathy and sorrow on the victims of the 
     terrorist attacks against the United States and their 
     bereaved families. One year later, our solidarity with 
     America is undiminished.
       September 11 was a defining moment calling for determined 
     action in defense of humanity and fundamental freedoms. 
     Acting can entail dangers but the dangers of inaction are 
     far, far greater. In the face of today's new threat, the only 
     way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it.

  He goes on to add:

       America and Denmark see eye-to-eye on the real challenges 
     facing us today. In the fight against terrorism, Denmark was, 
     is and will be fully behind the United States. Our best 
     soldiers have been in Afghanistan on the ground and in the 
     mountains, fighting alongside U.S. special operations forces. 
     The danger is far from over and the international community 
     must not waver now.

  So said the Prime Minister of Denmark.
  Representatives of the Romanian Government have been in town 
recently, and they have expressed strong support for the United States 
position in Iraq.
  Norway, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, after the speech by President 
Bush, made these comments: ``We are challenged to live up to our 
responsibilities.'' And then he said something that I think is true for 
most of the world leaders: ``I guess we'll have to choose among a lot 
of bad options, really.''

[[Page 16786]]

  Nobody wants to choose. Nobody wants to have a war. We wish it were 
not so. But we have bad options here. And the President is confronting 
us with the truth, the history of violations by Saddam Hussein. He is 
forcing world leaders. He is forcing the U.S. Congress. And, frankly, 
as I have gone back and studied the history of Saddam Hussein, and the 
violations are more explicit, more repeated, more deliberate than I had 
remembered actually.
  So I think that is where we are today. And one reason it is 
appropriate for the United States to be most aggressive in leading this 
effort is that we are the ones--the United States military--that is 
overwhelmingly enforcing, as best we can, the resolutions of the United 
Nations in Iraq today.
  Many people do not realize that our planes are enforcing a no-fly 
zone over Iraq today. They fly every day. They are attacked on a 
regular basis. And we respond and retaliate on a regular basis, 
attacking Iraq. And they have surface-to-air missiles that they utilize 
against our aircraft. So far they have not been able to knock down one 
of our aircraft.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, I know that is a matter of concern to 
you as a member of the Armed Services Committee. But it is a real 
matter of significance that we are carrying this burden. How long do 
they want us to carry it?
  The Economist magazine, in an article on this entire matter, voting 
in their editorial for war, said that the ``box is leaking,'' our 
ability to contain him cannot continue. And who did they suggest are 
suffering most? The people of Iraq, the children of Iraq, because of 
this diabolical leader that they have.
  So, yes, we have to take action. We cannot continue to delay. We have 
troops there in the region that are specifically there to make sure he 
does not expand again as he did when he attacked Iran. And that war 
cost 1 million lives in Saddam's failed attempt to defeat Iran and take 
that territory from Iran; in addition to the gulf war.
  He moved, after the gulf war, 80,000 troops down on the Kuwait 
border, causing us to have to respond out of fear he might once again 
attack Kuwait.
  We have Patriot batteries in Saudi Arabia designed to shoot down 
Saddam's Scud missiles. I visited a Patriot battery with my legislative 
assistant, LTC Archie Galloway. And we visited the Alabama National 
Guard unit that mans a Patriot battery on duty to shoot down Iraqi Scud 
missiles, if need be at our expense, this very day.
  So that is not a problem that has been on the front burner of most of 
the nations of the world. They are not deeply involved in these 
matters. They are not paying that cost every day, as we are. They are 
not confronting the reality of Saddam Hussein's duplicity.
  But the President is leading us to understand. So I think it is now 
important for this Congress to speak. Are we with the President or are 
we against him? We don't need to be rushed, but we need to get busy in 
discussing this issue. It is not a new issue.
  Most of the evidence is there for the world to see, and has been 
there for many, many years. So we need to make clear whether we will 
support the President or not. And if we do not, what are we saying? Are 
we undermining Secretary of State Colin Powell's ability to negotiate 
with foreign nations? Are we encouraging the Socialist left in Europe 
to believe that if they object and fight and complain that they can 
ultimately prevail, and the United States will fail to act? Are we 
encouraging radical groups in moderate Arab nations to put more and 
more pressure on the Arab leaders of those countries who might at least 
privately be sympathetic to our efforts, by failing to support clearly 
the President of the United States?
  I believe we will act to support the President. I believe this 
Congress will move. We need to do it before we recess. If we do not, it 
will be unhealthy for our country. Am I confident we will vote in 
support of the President and his proposals and give him authority to 
take the action necessary to preserve and protect our security 
interests? Yes, I am. Let me tell you why.
  There are several important factors. In 1998, this Senate detailed, 
as I indicated on the floor of the Senate earlier in the week, a list 
of direct violations of United Nations resolutions by Saddam Hussein. 
On August 14, 1998, the President of the United States, President 
Clinton, signed Public Law 105-235 which declared that:

       The Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable 
     breach of its international obligations.

  It urged the President to ``take appropriate action in accordance 
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring 
Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I still have the floor, do I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, inasmuch as I still have the floor and the 
distinguished Democratic whip has asked me to adjourn the Senate in his 
absence, I will yield to the Senator 1 additional minute. I have a few 
brief comments with regard to what the Senator has said. I will be glad 
to yield, if there is no other objection, to the Senator for an 
additional minute without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his 
courtesy.
  It is time for this Congress to relook at our record of involvement 
with Iraq and study it, to take new testimony, have new hearings, and 
to stand up, and put up or shut up. We need to be with the President or 
not with the President. I am convinced this Congress will be with the 
President. We do not need to undermine his ability to be effective in 
policies that we support by delaying our support for them.
  I urge this Senate to move expeditiously, to not wait on the U.N., 
which is not elected by the people of the United States to decide this 
issue but to decide ourselves that we support the President's policies; 
make that clear, give him the authority he needs to be effective in 
protecting the United States and this world from a savage and dangerous 
criminal, Saddam Hussein.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia and yield the floor.

                          ____________________