[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2115-2120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  A FORMER PRESIDENT'S SPEECH ON IRAQ

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

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

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

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

  I will now move down in the speech.

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

  He was killed, Madam President.

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

[[Page 2116]]

     with these weapons or to attack his neighbors. And he will 
     know that the international community continues to have the 
     will to act if and when he threatens again.
       Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's 
     activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to 
     rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared 
     to strike him again. The economic sanctions will remain in 
     place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions. 
     . . .
       Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the 
     weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send 
     our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first 
     answer. But sometimes it's the only answer.
       You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained 
     fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary 
     for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will 
     do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men 
     and women under their command. No military action, however, 
     is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in 
     uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as 
     well.
       Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We 
     have seen that constant vigilance pays off, but it requires 
     constant vigilance. Since the Gulf war we have pushed back 
     every time Saddam has posed a threat. When Baghdad plotted to 
     assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's 
     intelligence headquarters. When Saddam threatened another 
     invasion by massing his troops in Kuwait, along the Kuwaiti 
     border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our 
     ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down. When Saddam 
     forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our 
     control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.
       But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. 
     weapons inspections system itself. Yes, he has tried to 
     thwart it in every conceivable way. But the discipline, 
     determination, the year-in, year-out effort of these weapons 
     inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.
       Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. But Saddam 
     Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the 
     weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn 
     commitment to the international community to do that and to 
     give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago, now. 
     One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes 
     good on his own promise. . . .
       That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the 
     future I ask our allies to imagine. If we look at the past 
     and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we 
     still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic 
     resolution to this and, if not, God willing, a chance to do 
     the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
       Thank you very much.

  That speech was made by President Clinton on February 17, 1998. I 
find it very strange that my friends on the other side of the aisle--
and they are my friends--are attacking President Bush for having made 
statements weaker than these statements.
  If one reads this statement in full, the President of the United 
States, then speaking to the generals who command all our forces, told 
them to be ready. He had just had the briefing. He had the briefing 
that convinced him in 1998 that he might have to act as President to 
take military action against Saddam Hussein.
  Five years later, another President is saying the same thing, and he 
is attacked. We never attacked President Clinton. We never doubted his 
sincerity. But now my friends--and they are my friends--are saying that 
this President does not know what he is doing. I believe the President 
knows what he is doing, and I think he made a masterful statement last 
night of the position in which the United States finds itself. It is 
not different from the position President Clinton was in in 1998. 
Should he be in this position now? Should we have done something in the 
interim? The answer is simply yes. We should have done something years 
ago--gone to the U.N. and said: If you are going to have any meaning in 
the world at all, you must insist that Saddam Hussein obey the mandates 
you have issued.
  I come from a State that has a great many of our military planes, and 
I talk to our military pilots wherever I travel in the world. One thing 
is clear: Our pilots, our Air Force pilots have been enforcing the no-
fly zones since 1991. They have been flying every day in harm's way. 
They have been shot at nearly every week. We retaliated, retaliated, 
retaliated, but young men and women are up there tonight flying planes 
over portions of Iraq, at the insistence of the United Nations that we 
prevent Saddam Hussein from having any aircraft in those zones in the 
north and south. We are following their request. We are carrying out 
that operation at our expense and with our pilots, with our planes, and 
we have been doing it now since 1991.
  How long will this continue? How long do we have to fly to prevent 
Saddam Hussein from having weapons in the air that are really minuscule 
compared to what is on the ground--weapons of mass destruction, that 
President Clinton described adequately and succinctly and honorably in 
1998.
  Madam President, I think it is high time we came together. I am 
sincerely disappointed that we do not have a uniform force here, that 
we do not have a uniform force right here on the floor of the Senate 
saying: Mr. President, we understand that you--as did President 
Clinton--have in front of you a horrendous decision to make. When do we 
have to go in and destroy these weapons?
  How many weapons has he created since 1998? How much more difficult 
will it be to find those weapons than it would have been in 1998? I say 
in all sincerity, as one who has watched over the Defense Department's 
appropriations now since 1981, either I or my friend from Hawaii, the 
two of us jointly have done that job. We have been to this part of the 
world of the Persian Gulf many times.
  This is an awesome problem that faces the President of the United 
States. We should help him, not challenge his decision and what he is 
doing. He is asking the world to come together to demand that Saddam 
Hussein do what he agreed to do in 1991, as President Clinton 
repeatedly said in his statement, and as our President, President Bush, 
has said before the U.N. in a masterful statement he made when he went 
before the U.N.
  The time is now for us to come together and realize we are 
approaching decision time. I served in combat in World War II, and many 
of us know the awesome days we went through then. They were nothing 
compared to what this world will be if Saddam Hussein ever uses those 
weapons of mass destruction. I think we have changed our way of life. 
We have changed our lifestyles. We have already been affected by his 
collusion with the al-Qaida force, and those people who are part of 
that terrible force.
  President Clinton called it the unholy axis. President Bush called it 
the evil axis and has been criticized for saying so. President Clinton 
said we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st 
century, and I say things are worse today than they were in 1998.
  I am one of those who gets these intelligence briefings. I have told 
my wife when I come home after those briefings I find it hard to think 
about the work I have to do other than just think about these terrible 
intelligence reports. This is not a simple world we live in, but it is 
a world in which I believe the freedom-loving people look to us for 
leadership. I say, thank God we have a leader who means what he says, 
and I am willing to follow him when he says it is necessary to use 
force if that day ever comes.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

       Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks 
     and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the 
     superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this 
     most recent, very difficult problem. Thank you, General 
     Shelton, for being the right person at the right time. Thank 
     you, General Ralston, and the members of the Joint Chiefs, 
     General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCI 
     Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger. Senator Robb, thank you for 
     being here, and Congressman Skelton, thank you very much, and 
     for your years of service to America and your passionate 
     patriotism, both of you, and to the members of our Armed 
     Forces and others who work here to protect our national 
     security.
       I have just received a very fine briefing from our military 
     leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. 
     Before I left the Pentagon I wanted to talk to you and all 
     those whom you represent, the men and women of our military. 
     You, your friends, and your colleagues are on the frontlines 
     of this crisis in Iraq. I want you and I want the American 
     people to hear directly from me what is at stake for America 
     in the Persian Gulf; what we are doing to protect the peace, 
     the security, the freedom we cherish; why we have taken the 
     position we have taken.

[[Page 2117]]

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

[[Page 2118]]

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

       Note: The President spoke at 12:37 p.m. in the auditorium. 
     In his remarks, he referred to President Saddam Hussein of 
     Iraq.

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

[[Page 2119]]

trying to hide items that may be the size of a 5-gallon bucket. He is 
manufacturing biological weapons and moving them on mobile units the 
size of a van. He is trying to hide them in a place the size of 
California, and there are only 120 inspectors in Iraq, as the President 
suggested last night, in some sort of scavenger hunt. The idea was not 
that we would go into Iraq and have to find these items. It was that 
Iraq would step forward and disarm and say we agree, we are going to 
disarm. That was what they were supposed to do, come forward and 
disarm. Instead, we have this hide-and-seek that Saddam continues. It 
is what he did when we had weapons inspectors in Iraq previously. It is 
what he continues to do now.
  What happens if we wait? Let's say we agree we are going to wait. 
Maybe we will find something, maybe not. What if we do find something 
else? Is that going to be enough for us to move forward and say we need 
to completely disarm Saddam Hussein? I think we are left with a similar 
set of circumstances-plus, if we do not do anything.
  Let's say we do not do anything, we let this go on for another couple 
of years because there is not an impetus now to really move. Saddam has 
biological and chemical weapons. He has terrorists on his soil. At any 
time, he can easily start distributing the chemical and biological 
weapons to terrorists, who know no bounds. I could easily see us in 2 
years with a special committee of the Senate, holding hearings as to 
how did these biological weapons come in from Iraq, that were 
distributed to terrorists, to be used against U.S. citizens. I think it 
is a clear possibility that it would occur.
  Nobody wants to go to war. None of us want to do that. That is an 
absolute last option. We have been working for 12 years with economic 
sanctions. We have been working for 12 years with no-fly zones. We have 
been working with the Iraqi opposition. We have been doing everything 
we can, and yet now we are at this point in time where he has 
terrorists and weapons of mass destruction together on his soil, and 
more people are saying, wait.
  Wait for what? So they can distribute them further? So that he can 
attack us?
  I realize we all have difficulty with moving forward to a war 
situation. We do not want to do that. We want to respond if somebody 
comes at us. The problem with this new war on terrorism is that the 
terrorists, when they attack, attack civilian targets. They want to try 
and kill as many people as possible. By our waiting, we actually invite 
them to come forward.
  Some might suggest if we act, we are going to further foment 
difficulty in the region of the United States. I point out that even 
prior to September 11, we had 10 years where there were attacks on the 
United States, on our people, in foreign places by these terrorist 
groups. We had two embassies in Africa that were attacked by terrorist 
groups. We had the USS Cole attacked by terrorist groups. We had Khobar 
Towers. They have attacked us for a period of 10 years.
  People are saying, show restraint or else they will act more. We have 
seen it for 10 years, showing restraint. Then we had September 11, and 
we responded aggressively in Afghanistan. That was a fully appropriate 
way to respond. If we wait for the terrorists, they will continue to 
come at us. If we sit and wait, it does not mean they will stop. They 
will not stop. They have not stopped in the past. They are going to 
continue to come at the United States because they do not believe in 
what we believe. They are attacking our sets of values by attacking our 
civilians, our civilian population.
  No one wants to go to war. That is the last thing anyone wants. In 
this situation, not to move forward is to invite more catastrophic 
events to happen to our citizenry and to citizens around the world.
  Remember, terrorists go at soft targets. They go at the twin towers. 
They do not go at military targets. They did go at the Pentagon, but 
they went at Bali most recently. They will continue to go at civilian 
targets. They will go at the soft targets. If they have biological and 
chemical weapons, they will kill that many more people if we fail to 
act.
  I was raised in Kansas. On Saturday night, we would watch 
``Gunsmoke.'' That was a great show and a favorite of mine. At the end 
of every ``Gunsmoke'' episode, Matt Dillon walks out on Main Street and 
the bad guy walks out on Main Street. They face off. The bad guy pulls 
the gun, Matt shoots, and the other guy goes down. That is the way 
every show ended: Nice, clean, good versus evil. Evil at the last 
minute is allowed to walk away. He could walk away or he is going down. 
He never does. He pulls his gun, and Matt Dillon always shoots him 
down.
  There is a sense of honor that we always let the other side, the bad 
side, go first. You get to pull the trigger because you always have a 
chance to walk away. What if we do that with terrorists? We have a 
sense of honor that we should let the other side go first. If you let 
terrorists go first, they do not walk out on Main Street of Dodge City 
and face Matt Dillon. They go around the back alleys. They are looking 
for people who are sleeping. They are looking for families. They are 
not looking for someone who is armed. They are looking for soft targets 
to hit, kill, and destroy. That is what they will continue to do.
  Now, taking the other side of the argument, what if we do move? What 
if Saddam Hussein is moved out of power, as has been the stated policy 
of the United States since 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act which 
President Bill Clinton signed into law? What if Saddam Hussein is 
removed from power by a coalition of the willing--it will be an 
international coalition--what takes place then?
  We have a group of people, Iraqi opposition and others, who have been 
working on a democratic Iraq with opportunities for all people, for 
human rights, for people to be able to vote and to express their 
desires for that country. We have a country that sits on 10 percent of 
the world oil supplies and an ability to rebuild itself, an educated 
population that is willing to change. They want to change now. Iraqi 
opposition is united. We are hearing from people inside of Iraq who 
want to see a change. People inside the Iraq Government, inside the 
Iraq military, want to get out and into a different situation.
  Look at the seeds of change sown within Iraq and that region, if you 
have coming forward a democracy, with human rights, with religious 
freedom, with freedom for women, with people able to vote and 
participate and a marketplace that allows people to participate. Look 
at the future for the people there in that region, in that country, if 
that is what takes place. There is a substantial positive benefit.
  It all is with risk. It all has risk. Whether you choose to act or 
whether you choose not to act, they both have risk. After looking at 
this matter for some period of time, the option of not acting has far 
more risk--little, if any, upside potential--than the choice of acting. 
And the choice of acting has a downside potential. But it has 
substantial upside potential, and it does not have the downside that 
not acting has.
  Clearly, the President and his Cabinet and the people have thought 
this through. It is an extraordinarily difficult choice. Saddam Hussein 
still has the choice. He can still choose today to disarm and to engage 
in the international communities and comply with the 12 U.N. 
resolutions that have followed in the 12 years since he invaded Kuwait.
  I point out, we need to remember: Saddam Hussein has attacked two 
adjacent countries. He has used chemical weapons against his own people 
and against the Iranians. He has used these weapons in the past. He has 
threatened to attack, and has attacked, his neighbors in the past. This 
is not a good man. He is not good for the world. He is certainly not 
good for the region. He does not get better with time, nor does the 
situation get better with time. The obligations only get worse.
  For all these reasons, I applaud what the President has done. I 
applaud that he came to the Congress in the first place asking for a 
resolution. He got it.

[[Page 2120]]

He got broad bipartisan support. I applaud that he went to the United 
Nations and got a resolution with broad international support. He has 
done the things we have asked. And now he is coming forward and saying: 
Look, Saddam Hussein, the time is running out. Either act now or 
actions will be taken.
  The President has done most of the things we have asked him to do. He 
has tried to engage the world and get an international coalition. A 
number of other countries will join. We should back the administration 
at this point and not try to do more second-guessing or buying of time 
for Saddam Hussein to develop more weaponry, to develop more terrorist 
networks to supply and provide the things the terrorist networks want 
to be able to threaten and to kill our people.
  For all these reasons, I hope we will not back a resolution calling 
for allowing of more time and, instead, support the administration's 
efforts as they move forward, trying to find a peaceful solution but, 
if not, forcing Saddam Hussein to choose whether he is going to hold on 
to his weapons of mass destruction or whether he is going to hold on to 
power. It is a difficult choice the President has to make and we have 
to make. We have looked at this pretty thoroughly.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________