[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19057-19058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the majority leader filed a cloture 
motion on the motion to proceed to the resolution dealing with Iraq. I 
happen to be proud of the fact the Senate has bipartisan support for 
this resolution.
  The President has worked hard on it, as well as Senator Lieberman, 
Senator Warner, Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others. I compliment 
them for that. I look forward to the debate. I think we can have a good 
debate.
  We can pass a positive resolution that will reaffirm the United 
States in saying we believe the resolutions we supported and passed in 
the United Nations should be enforced. This body and the United Nations 
have passed several resolutions telling Iraq they must comply, and then 
not enforcing them, and we have done it year after year.
  In 1998, we passed a resolution unanimously saying we should enforce 
the existing resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. Unfortunately, that 
resolution was good on paper, but it was not enforced.
  Now we have an administration that says they are willing to enforce 
it. I believe this Congress will stand behind President Bush in saying: 
Yes, we will give you the authorization to enforce it.
  These resolutions mean something. We don't think it is acceptable to 
have a person with Saddam Hussein's known history of using weapons of 
mass destruction against his own people, and also invading his 
neighbors, and lobbing missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia--it is 
not acceptable for him to be developing further these weapons of mass 
destruction. That is against the United Nations resolutions.
  We are saying these resolutions mean something. Let's enforce them. 
We said that unanimously in 1998. It is going to be interesting to see 
if people want to weaken what we passed in 1998.
  I hope our colleagues read President Clinton's statement he made in 
1998 to the Pentagon that talked about the need for strong enforcement. 
That is not the same speech President Clinton made yesterday in London, 
unfortunately. And I am very disappointed in President Clinton's 
speech.
  Former Presidents usually have a tradition to not undermine current 
administrations in foreign policy, certainly in foreign lands, and that 
is not what President Clinton did. President Clinton, in London, I 
think, made a speech that very much undermines the current 
administration, including the administration in London, in trying to 
develop an international coalition to stand up to Iraq and Saddam 
Hussein.
  I mention that. I don't really like being critical of anyone or any 
administration, but for the former administration, which did not 
enforce the existing U.N. resolutions during their tenure, during their 
8 years in office, did not pursue terrorists, including terrorists that 
were al-Qaida, who were directly responsible for blowing up two U.S. 
Embassies in Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole in the year 2000--when 
they did not go after the terrorists aggressively after those two 
terrorist attacks, did not enforce the U.N. resolutions, then to have 
President Clinton being critical of President Bush in

[[Page 19058]]

Great Britain I think is very demeaning to the office, and I am very 
regretful a former President would make such a statement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________