[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5291-5294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           SENATE ENGAGEMENT

  Mr. WARNER. The public, today, across this Nation is exercising our 
greatest freedom, freedom of speech. Central to many town meetings, 
central to the media today, are the issues relating to Iraq. I find 
this strong and thoughtful debate, no matter on which side of the issue 
individuals or writers may be, extremely important at this key time in 
America's history.
  I have been fortunate to be on planet Earth somewhat longer than 
many, and I have been fortunate to have been on the scene and been in a 
position to observe World War II, Korea, Vietnam and, this being my 
25th year in the Senate, together with my colleagues in this Chamber 
over these many years, these wonderful years, I have been in a position 
to observe, and if I may say with some modesty, participate in those 
decisions facing our Nation as it relates to national security.
  I have said many times of recent that this particular framework and 
decisions facing this President, President George Bush, this very 
courageous President, are as complicated, if not

[[Page 5292]]

more complicated, than any I have ever seen in this span of my 76 
years.
  I commend our President and his team--Secretary of State Powell, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and many others. I 
followed, as I hope other colleagues did, another brilliant speech 
given today by the Secretary of State--no equivocations, respect for 
others and their views, but clearly staying the course, a course on 
which our Nation embarked to pursue diplomacy to resolve these issues. 
Iraq is foremost in our minds but close in parallel to significance is 
the Korean peninsula. There, again, we are being confronted with a 
situation that requires the strongest of commitments and the strongest 
of diplomacy. And our President, again, is guiding that diplomacy such 
that we should address this issue in a multilateral context. I think he 
is on the right track.
  Worldwide terrorism: How many could have foreseen before September 11 
that this country would be in the grip, not of state-sponsored 
terrorism--some state-sponsored but now more the individual. The al-
Qaida, the Hamas, you can recite these organizations that challenge our 
freedoms, our very security, and our most precious security at home.
  Yes, America is engaged in this important debate. I commend all. 
There is a diversity of thought, and I am perfectly willing to listen 
carefully and heed the thoughts of others. But in that debate a 
question has arisen, and an important one: What has been, what is, and 
what is to be, the role of the Congress, and most particularly, the 
Senate?
  The Senate is known and respected worldwide as a debating society; an 
institution where we have this marvelous opportunity for unlimited 
debate in certain instances, but most significantly, debate among 100 
individuals, well-informed, very conscientious Members who work hard at 
their duties. We are the world's greatest institution for 
deliberations, and I am proud, modestly, to be a part. But we symbolize 
the hope across this world for freedom such as we enjoy in the United 
States, the hope to fight despair and hunger and political oppression. 
The Senate so often and carefully addresses those issues day by day.
  As there is diversity of views in debate on Iraq across this Nation, 
there is diversity among Members in the Senate. That is the way it 
should be. Therein lies our strength. But there are some who have come 
up with some viewpoints which I simply do not share.
  Some in this Chamber have exercised their very right to criticize the 
body as an institution for what it has done, is doing, and, more 
particularly in their views, has not done. Some have gone so far as to 
say, ``We are sleepwalking through history;'' ``this Chamber is 
hauntingly silent.''
  Those are strong words, and words that I heed, and listen to, and in 
this instance I have great respect for the marvelous Senator who stated 
those words.
  I can remember in the debate on Iraq that we had back in November, 5 
hours one day, debating with that particular Senator, whom I admire. So 
the debate goes on.
  But my point is, even though the rafters of this Chamber are not 
rattling with the rhetoric on Iraq, there are many very important 
functions going on beyond this Chamber, in the halls of the Senate, in 
the committee rooms, in the offices of Senators, throughout the entire 
infrastructure of this institution--in our field offices in our 
respective States where I and others so frequently meet our 
constituents. The debate on Iraq is taking place in a responsible way, 
in my judgment, in the Senate, and this institution is fulfilling its 
role.
  Other Senators have criticized our President. We are really at war 
now. Yes, I agree that diplomacy is still at work and that final 
decision to go or not to go is yet to be made by our President, by the 
very courageous Prime Minister Tony Blair, and other heads of state and 
government of the group of willing nations, those willing to face up to 
the need to remove weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. 
Yes, they criticize the President. But really we are at war now, and I 
question how severe that criticism should be.
  I was with the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Levin, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, Mr. Roberts, and the vice chairman, Mr. Rockefeller. The 
four of us toured Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region. As we were 
there, missions were being flown in Operation Northern Watch, Operation 
Southern Watch, and other activities were taking place regarding which 
I am not at liberty to describe, nor should I describe, here on the 
floor.
  But men and women in the uniform of the United States, and indeed a 
great many civilians--particularly those of the Agencies and 
Departments of this Government who perform our intelligence missions 
throughout the world--are taking grave risks at this very hour. For 
that reason, I think we should exercise a measure of restraint and 
caution exercising our right to criticize, be it the President or 
criticize this institution. I looked into the faces of those 
individuals, some who might well have been involved in the recent 
capture of this individual who allegedly plotted 9/11, planned it, and 
those plans might well have included the very building in which I am so 
privileged to stand at this time. We shall learn in due course more and 
more about the aims of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, the aims 
of the terrorists who are still planning to strike us.
  But let the debate go on. This is a strong nation, and our citizens 
are of strong mind, and our citizens are of a fair mind. Our citizens 
are very mindful of those in uniform, and those not in uniform, who 
today are taking the risks beyond our shores to interdict those who 
would bring harm to these great United States of America.
  Homeland defense, how important that subject is. Our President again 
has led. We created that Department. But homeland defense begins beyond 
the shores where the men and women of the Armed Forces and civilians 
and others are stationed, in so many nations. It begins there for the 
reason that, to the extent they can interdict, to the extent they can 
crush the terrorists before their plans are unwrapped to inflict damage 
on our beloved homeland--that is where homeland defense begins.
  So my reply today to my good friends who have taken this institution 
and called upon it in certain ways, as to what it is doing, I would say 
most respectfully that the Senate as a body has been, is, and will 
continue to be responsibly engaged in this debate; responsibly engaged 
in the consultation as it relates to these issues, consultation with 
the administration, consultation with our constituents, consultation 
with heads of governments and states--which I was privileged to do on 
this trip with my colleagues--consultation with our militaries of the 
United States and the military leaders of other nations.
  There is a broad range of activity by many Members of this body, a 
broad range of activities that I think are as important as any debate 
that takes place on the floor of the Senate.
  We had a historic debate, as I alluded, last fall. My calculation--
others' may be different--is that debate lasted longer than the one we 
had in 1991. I remember that debate very well. I was privileged to be 
one of the coauthors of the resolution, as I was a coauthor of this 
resolution, this resolution which, after this very lengthy debate, was 
adopted with a strong vote of support for our President to have the 
authority to use force--77 strong votes.
  But those activities did not end. In other words, there were many 
activities going on apart from the debate at that time: The same series 
of meetings and briefings, the same consultations going on just prior 
to that debate and during that debate. Those same meetings have 
continued on to this very hour. I am proud of the role of this 
institution. I am proud of it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chronology 
that I put together of the meetings in which I have participated with 
many other Senators. For example, on September 4, a meeting to discuss 
Iraq

[[Page 5293]]

with President Bush at the White House; a number of us were there; 
September 5, a briefing on Iraq with CIA and DOD officials; programs, 
25 in number, of all of the times that I have been involved. Most 
particularly, I am very proud of the record of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Again in the fall, under the able chairmanship of 
my distinguished colleague here. We have been at business, Mr. 
President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               SASC/Senate Chronology of Activity on Iraq


                             september 2002

       9/4: Meeting to discuss Iraq with Pres. Bush, The White 
     House.
       9/5: Briefing on Iraq with CIA/DOD officials.
       9/9: Briefing on Iraq with CIA/DOD officials.
       9/17: Closed SASC Hearing to discuss Iraq w/George Tenet, 
     Admiral Jacoby.
       9/19: SASC Hearing to receive testimony on Iraq from Gen. 
     Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld.
       9/23: Full SASC Hearing to discuss Iraq with Gen. 
     Shalikashvili, Gen. Clark, Gen. Hoar, Lt. Gen. McInerney.
       9/25: Full SASC Hearing to discuss Iraq, Dr. James 
     Schlesinger and Sandy Berger.


                              october 2002

       10/8: Senators Briefing to discuss Iraq.
       10/8-10/11: Senate debate and vote on authorization of use 
     of force against Iraq.
       10/6: Senators Only Briefing with Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. 
     Myers.


                             november 2002

                             December 2002

       12/10: SASC Briefing by Sec. Wolfowitz and Gen. Pace to 
     discuss current operations.


                              january 2003

       1/9: Meet with Sec. Rumsfeld, Senator Levin, Congressman 
     Skelton and Congressman Hunter, Pentagon. Budget and Iraq 
     issues discussed.
       1/15: Closed Hearing on current and potential military 
     operations with Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers.
       1/15: Closed Briefing on Iraq and weapons inspection by CIA 
     and DIA.
       1/17: Meeting with George Tenet.
       1/23: Senators Only Briefing with Sec. Powell and Sec. 
     Rumsfeld.


                             february 2003

       2/5: Meeting to discuss Iraq with President Bush, Dr. Rice, 
     Senate Leadership and Chair/Ranking Members of SASC, Intel, 
     FR, White House.
       2/12: SASC Hearing on Worldwide Threats with Director Tenet 
     and Adm. Jacoby.
       2/13: SASC Hearing regarding DOD Authorization for FY04 
     with Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers.
       2/25: SASC Hearing to discuss DOD Authorization with 
     Service Chiefs.
       2/26: Closed SASC Briefing on Planning for Post Conflict 
     Iraq with Feith.


                               march 2003

       3/4: Closed SASC Briefing on current operations by Lt. Gen. 
     Schwartz (J-3) and Major Gen. Shafer (J-2).

  Mr. WARNER. Here is the record. Decide for yourselves. I would like 
most respectfully to encourage the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, to likewise put in the Record the 
activities which they as individuals, they as leaders of their 
committee, have done in connection with this very important issue, or 
series of issues facing our Nation today.
  The Armed Services Committee and the entire Senate have spent an 
enormous amount of time reviewing, discussing and debating Iraq. In the 
Armed Services Committee alone we have had at least twelve hearings or 
briefings since September 2002 where the issue of Iraq was discussed 
extensively, if not exclusively. That is in addition to numerous 
briefings for all Members by Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell and 
other Administration officials. Also, the President, Vice President and 
other members of the Administration have hosted countless events for 
Congressional leadership to exchange views on Iraq.
  In October 2002, we had a thorough debate on the floor of the Senate 
on a resolution to authorize the use of force. That debate exceeded the 
amount of time we spent debating the resolution to authorize the use of 
force against Iraq in 1991. The resolution passed by an overwhelming 
vote of 77 to 23.
  While there have been many developments since October, the vast 
majority have all reinforced the case that the authorization for the 
use of force should remain unchanged. The military buildup has been in 
support of the President's diplomatic efforts. If anything, the events 
since October have clearly shown that inspections are not succeeding 
and there is no compelling evidence that they will succeed in disarming 
a regime that will not cooperate with the inspectors. We must keep in 
mind that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs have been 
designed to operate under an inspection regime. That is why more time 
for inspections will not produce substantive results--if Saddam Hussein 
continues to deny, deceive and defy inspectors.
  President George Bush wants to build a broad international coalition 
to confront the threat Iraq poses to global security. Far from ``going 
it alone,'' he has taken his case to the United Nations. President Bush 
presented a remarkable speech to the U.N. on September 12, 2002, that 
brought to the attention of the world the threat this man, Saddam 
Hussein, represents. Were it not for the leadership of President Bush 
and Prime Minister Blair, the world would not be focused on this clear 
and growing threat to global security.
  The U.N. is really the organization that is being tested here. Is it 
to be a decisive fore in international affairs that enforces the will 
of its members, or is it to be the organization that stands in the way 
of timely, decisive action and takes no action to enforce its mandates?
  The United States, Britain and Spain tabled a clear resolution this 
week that reaffirms U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and the 16 
resolutions that came before it, and simply states what is plain to all 
of us: that Saddam Hussein has failed in this, his final opportunity to 
cooperate fully with U.N. demands that he destroy his weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The Security Council now must decide whether it will live up to its 
sometimes difficult responsibilities. By failing to act, the U.N. would 
only damage its own credibility, not deter the U.S. and the other 
members of the ``coalition of the willing'' from exercising their 
rights and responsibilities to protect the security interests of their 
nations from the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
  Failure to achieve consensus cannot and should not be used as an 
excuse for inaction. If our principles, our security, our interests are 
at stake, we must act, in spite of differences with others, and whether 
or not others choose not to act for their own reasons.
  A strong, clear-thinking and decisive UN can make the world stronger 
and safer, but a UN unable to make difficult decisions will be of 
little use in dealing with Iraq and other security challenges, such as 
North Korea.
  Resolution 1441, which the security Council passed 15-0, is not about 
inspections, it is about disarmament. It is about offering Iraq a 
final--17th--opportunity to turn away from a rogue, non-cooperative 
status and become a responsible member of the community of nations, in 
this case by living up to the terms of the cease fire signed 12 years 
ago.
  With other Senators, I had the opportunity to travel to the Middle 
East and Afghanistan recently, and I can say without equivocation that 
our brave young men and women mobilizing in support of this mission are 
the best trained, best equipped fighting force ever assembled, and the 
best defenders of freedom any country could possibly have in this 
situation. They are ready, and so is America, to lead a coalition of 
nations in disarming Saddam, if necessary.
  The decision time is rapidly approaching. We will welcome UN support, 
but, make no mistake: we will do what is necessary, without the UN if 
need be. America is ready to face that challenge.
  This is not a ``rush to war'' as some have suggested. Saddam Hussein 
agreed to disarm 12 years ago this month. The United Nations has passed 
17 Security Council Resolutions with regard to Iraq and their 
transgressions against their own people, their neighbors and the 
international community. Every conceivable diplomatic, economic and 
military avenue, short of overwhelming force, has been tried. There is 
one last faint hope that diplomacy can succeed, if Saddam Hussein

[[Page 5294]]

agrees to fully cooperate and disarm, without further delay. But, it is 
certainly not a rush to war.
  Some have asked, ``why now?'' I would remind those who ask such a 
question that the risks of further delay or inaction could be far more 
costly and devastating than confronting Saddam Hussein now. This is a 
man who has used chemical agents on his own people and his neighbors. 
This is a man who has had 4 unimpeded years to accelerate and hide his 
WMD program. This is a man who is attempting to develop new means to 
deliver weapons of enormous danger well beyond his own borders. This is 
a man who has ties to terrorist groups who have sponsored terrorist 
attacks against U.S. interests. We cannot wait for another 9/11 or 
similar event before we act.
  Meeting with leaders in the Persian Gulf region recently, I was 
persuaded that there is far more support in the entire Gulf region for 
disarming Saddam promptly than has been reported publicly. Most of 
Saddam's neighbors want him removed--quickly--so that he is no longer a 
threat to them, no longer a force for instability in their region, no 
longer repressing the quality of life of the people of Iraq.
  This confrontation with Saddam Hussein is about disarming a 
dangerous, brutal dictator. But, it is about other things, including 
freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people. As our President reminded the 
world in his address to the United Nations in September 2002, ``Liberty 
for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. 
The people of Iraq deserve it, and the security of all nations requires 
it.''
  Claims that the Administration has failed to plan or prepare for a 
post-conflict Iraq and accommodate the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi 
people are simply not true. The Departments of Defense and State, along 
with other interagency partners and international organizations have 
undertaken extraordinary steps to prepare to meet the security, 
economic and humanitarian needs of a post-war Iraq. We have received 
extensive briefings at the staff and Member level detailing these 
preparations. Can all of the questions be answered definitively? No. To 
try to do so would be deceiving to our people.
  While some have faulted the lack of specificity regarding cost of a 
conflict or of securing the peace following potential conflict, the 
Administration has been prudent and honest in its uncertainty about how 
long any conflict may last and how long it will take to transition to a 
democratic, free Iraq.
  Past administrations have provided quick, unrealistic estimates that 
satisfied the immediate concerns, but later proved wrong. For example, 
we all remember the famous claim of the previous administration that we 
would be out of Bosnia in one year. That was in 1995--we are now 
beginning our 8th year of military presence in that nation.
  I commend this Administration for its honesty. They will share 
information on costs and duration of any operations when they can have 
reasonable confidence in the estimates.
  Further delay and concessions will not lead to the disarmament of 
Saddam Hussein. He has proven that for 12 years. He must understand 
through the strength of our coalition--and, if possible, with the UN--
that disarmament without further delay is his only option. As history 
tells us, ``peace in our time'' with this man will not be achieved by 
appeasement. This is a time for action.
  I will perhaps at a later date expand on the theme I have spoken 
about today. But the principal reason I come forward is to show this 
Senator's strong support because of the action of our President, strong 
support for Secretary of State Colin Powell in my remarks today, and 
most significantly strong support for the work of this institution, of 
which I am privileged to be a Member, and for the work they have done.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________