Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada had an inquiry. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. It is 5 minutes and 3 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. It is all Democrats.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator aware that Republican Members of the House of Representatives who are not in that caucus because it is purely a Democratic caucus do support this nominee?

Mr. STEVENS. I mean in the House of Representatives. The Senator is trying to leave the impression that people of Spanish background in the House of Representatives all oppose this nominee.

Mr. STEVENS. Which is all Democrats.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 2 p.m., with the time equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, and that Members be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, January 30, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. tentative agenda I. Nominations: Miguel Estrada to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the D.C. circuit. II. Bills: S. 151, PROTECT Act [Hatch/Leahy]; S. 153, Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act [Feinstein/Kyl/ Grassley/Sessions]; S. 205, Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003 [Biden/Lugar/Specter/Hatch/Leahy]. III. Committee Resolution Honoring Beryl Howell.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on The Smallpox Vaccination Plan: Challenges and Next Steps during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on 30, January 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hold a hearing on The January 27 UNMOVIC and IAEA Reports to the UN Security Council on Inspections in Iraq.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at a time to be determined, to Report out the Nomination of John W. Snow to be Secretary of the United States Treasury.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on pending committee business. Then, immediately following, a full committee hearing on Media Ownership: Radio.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct an Executive Session for the purpose of approving the committee budget and the committee rules.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of the Honorable Paul McHale to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for homeland defense and Mr. Christopher Ryan Henry to be Deputy under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on U.S. Borders: Safe or Sieve?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 30, 2003 from 2:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. in Dirksen 430 for the purpose of conducting an organizational meeting.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber to state my support for John Snow's nomination as the Treasury Secretary. In the 20 years I have known John, I have found him to be honest, capable, and up to the challenge of heading our Nation's Treasury Department. While John and I have not always agreed on issues, I have never found him to be disagreeable. I am confident he will be a valuable member of the President's Cabinet and will work well with Members of Congress. As a business leader, a public servant, an academic, John has proven he has the ability to lead our Nation's economic recovery and spur economic growth. I look forward to working with John on our Nation's economic challenges, and I urge a rapid report and consideration of his nomination.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to commend Mr. Art Rynearson, the Deputy Legislative Counsel of the Senate, who retires on January 31, 2003, after serving in the Senate for more than 26 years, including more than 3 years as Deputy Legislative Counsel. As President pro tempore of the Senate, it is my pleasure to oversee the work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I appreciate the great dedication and professionalism Art Rynearson has displayed in his role as an attorney in the Office and in his service as Deputy Legislative Counsel. The Office of Legislative Counsel plays a very important role in the legislative process. We all rely upon the attorneys in the office to provide legislative drafts to effectively carry out our legislative policy. Mr. Rynearson, in his role as Deputy Legislative Counsel, has helped to see that we are all served well by a professional, career, and nonpartisan staff. In addition to his service as Deputy Legislative Counsel, Art Rynearson served for more than 26 years as the principal drafter in the Senate on virtually all matters relating to international relations, international security, immigration and the State Department, and all matters relating to Senate consideration of international treaties. He served the Senate well in that regard, with a commanding knowledge of international law and the dedication to put in long hours in service of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this resolution, and I am proud to have known and worked with Art Rynearson. He has served his Nation well for over 28 years, including 2 years with the Library of Congress. I wish Art and his wife, Mary Linda, the very best for the future, especially time spent enjoying their retirement.

Mr. STEVENS

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 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. 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 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, be referred to President Saddam Hussein of 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting. Agenda The Committee will consider and vote on the following agenda items-- Committee Organizational Matters: (1) Committee Rules for the 108th Congress and (2) Subcommittee Jurisdiction and Membership for the 108th Congress.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on the Nomination of John W. Snow to be Secretary of the United States Treasury.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SR-253, to consider the State of the United States Olympic Committee.