John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. We will recognize the Senator from Montana then. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator from Montana to address the Senate, I want to thank our colleague, Senator Brownback, for an excellent statement. I was privileged to follow it, and it is an important contribution to this debate. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, while I disagree with the thesis of our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oregon, I do respect his views on it. I wonder if I might engage him in a brief colloquy. This doctrine of preemptive attack unilaterally, clearly the Senator knows the President is diligently working with the United Nations, with the Secretary of State--the Secretary of State visited here with a group of us at midday today and held a press conference, and he indicated progress is being made. For the moment, we have to accord the administration at least clear support for trying hard to gain a coalition of nations and a new resolution in the Security Council which hopefully will be much stronger than anything we have seen before, and could act as a deterrent to the use of hostilities for a period of time, and hopefully, who knows, the regime may have a change of heart and cooperate. Cooperation is a keystone to any successful inspection regime. But back to the preemptive--and I have shared this with others--in my research, the United States, under a number of Presidents, has directed military action in the following: Panama in 1901; Dominican Republic in 1904, 1914, 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; Cuba, the naval quarantine, 1962, President Kennedy--clearly that was a preemptive threat and action by our President--Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama, that was just cause in 1989; Somalia in 1992; Sudan, Afghanistan, August of 1998. You recall the bombing raids we did at that time. Iraq, that was Desert Fox in December of 1998, and I remember well as ranking member going over and talking with then- Secretary of Defense Cohen, a valued friend and colleague in the Senate of many years. And Kosovo in March of 1999. Now, they fit the description of the preemptive type strikes my esteemed colleague from the great State of Oregon has enumerated. They were done under the concept, which is tried and true in international law, recognizing ``the anticipatory self-defense if a country is imminently threatened.'' I think the Senator pointed out he feels President Bush has indicated this country is imminently threatened. So there are some examples. I do not think this contemplated action by the President--he says he has made no decision to use force, but then again I point out we have been in a state of hostility with Iraq for some time. I point out our airplanes, our brave pilots, together with Great Britain, have been engaged in enforcing a resolution of the United Nations. Here are two nations flying missions, clearly trying to enforce the resolutions. We are fortunate even though they have been shot upon many times by ground fire directed at the aircraft, some 60 times in September of this year alone--our military has been engaged in this conflict with Iraq for 12 years. So I think it is a continuation of the conflict to which we refer in this resolution. I ask my good friend if he has any views with regard to my points.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Is that the desire then?

Mr. WARNER. I am asking then if I might just have time to consult with our leadership, recognizing the Senator has a right, so I could get such instructions as my leader may wish to contribute.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator use his microphone?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could, because I have been aligned with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Levin, and others on both sides of the aisle, together with our colleague from Georgia, about this concurrent receipt--this Senator knows of no time the President of the United States has directly spoken to this issue. Thus far, only the individuals who are working in the budgetary matters at OMB have. As you mentioned yesterday, I say to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Chu, who is a principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense, had made comments. At this point in time I find no foundation to associate the President personally with this decision. Furthermore--and then I will yield right away--being an active member of the conference of the four principals between the House and the Senate, the targets are moving back and forth. There is the Senate version, there is the House version, and there is the amended Senate version. There is also one Senator McCain and I have talked about, and that is, should we move forward on concurrent receipts, we would do it in the context of the Purple Heart winners and those who have injuries that are directly associated with having served in combat zones. That may not be to the liking of all of us, but all types of options are being explored. I know at this time no basis of fact that the President is personally involved.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend he is very correct and accurate, as always, in what he stated yesterday as not being associated to the President personally. I say to the Senator, I associate myself with your goal of having broader concurrent receipts. But I am faced, as the ranking member of the committee, with the reality of the situation. We will have to ascertain exactly: Is there a line at which the executive branch will accept some version of concurrent receipts? And we just have to bring that back to our colleagues. Because if we were to experience a veto--I am not suggesting in any way it has been communicated other than through the staff to this Senator--our bill would go down. Twelve months of work by the Armed Services Committee would go down. Many benefits, pay raises for the men and women of the Armed Forces, new weapons--it all goes down on this one issue. I say to the Senator, I share with you--I find it very hard to think that could come about. But, nevertheless, all of us having been here many years, under several Presidents, know there are junctures in conferences when this does happen. It is our responsibility--and I assume it--to try and ascertain, is there some form? And then we bring it back to our colleagues. If there isn't, then I think we should all recognize the situation.

Mr. WARNER. Could I inquire of the leader, before he departs the floor, regarding the order that is in now, we are dealing with matters relating to debate on Iraq; the nature of this substitute amendment is what?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I reiterate what our distinguished colleague from Connecticut has said, what my longtime friend of over 30 years, Senator McCain, just said. This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people. I have been privileged to be a Member of this body nearly a quarter of a century now, and if the good Lord returns me in January, it will mark the 25th year. I cannot recall any moment when I have stood on the floor with a greater sense of humility and pride to be associated with three more courageous individuals than Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh, as we, the four horsemen, work to direct and guide a resolution which the four of us put together with the assistance of the President, through his surrogates, and the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is our best effort to provide leadership to this body which we do so, the four of us, with a great sense of humility. There is not a day in the life of those who serve in the Senate when politics is not raised. It has been raised with regard to this issue. When Senator McCain and I approached Senator Lieberman in the past few weeks about his interest, Senator Lieberman stood up and said, I want to be counted from the very first. I remember so well in 1990 and 1991 when I was privileged to work with Senator Dole, Senator McCain, and many others, Senator Dole said: Let us find a partner for the 1991 resolution. This great Senator from Connecticut had just joined the Armed Services Committee. He was, if I may say, a freshman Senator. I said to our leadership on this side: I think there is our man. And the Senator proved to be just that man. The resolution that the Senator and I and others drew up in 1991 provided the basis for one of the great debates in contemporary times in the Senate, 3 days and 3 nights, culminating in a historic bipartisan vote. By a mere margin of only five votes did the Senate pass and adopt that resolution which gave the President the support of the Senate to follow through with his constitutional responsibilities. That was George Bush, we call him ``old 41,'' President at that time, the father of our President today. I say to you, Senator, as the history of this institution is written, you will properly take your place in history. You showed courage then, courage now, and not politics. Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction. We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now. I thank our President. It is important, in my judgment, and, I think, that of the three of my cosponsors, that the Congress and the President speak with one voice on behalf of this Nation--one voice. It is my fervent hope this body will adopt this resolution, the House of Representatives will adopt the identical language which is before the House at this moment, and there be no air, no daylight, no distance perceived by anyone between the Congress and the President--arm in arm, leading the world towards a solution to this problem. The President, time and time again, made tireless efforts, engaging heads of state and governments throughout the world to join. Now is the time. We will be visited today by the Secretary of State, who has courageously worked on behalf of the President, with the nations at the United Nations, in framing a resolution which leaves no doubt in the mind of anyone that this Nation and other nations are together for an inspection regime. It will not be like the previous regimes but will have clear directions clearly showing Saddam Hussein now is the time for cooperation, not for thwarting the efforts of the team. Should this resolution be adopted and should they go in, and that is yet to be determined, clearly, the enforceability of their task is with the commitment of the member nations of the union. More will be said following the four of us as we speak about that resolution. Right now it is being debated largely behind closed doors. But we know enough that our President and our Secretary of State have made it eminently clear past efforts have failed, and if we are to undertake a 17th resolution, it must leave no doubt as to the outcome in terms of enforceability of carrying out that inspection. The question is raised: Why now? Let's wait and see. I say with no disrespect to those who raise it, but I say it for my own views, that is sort of: Give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. I do not find anywhere in the history of that dictator, those facts, that justify--whether it is the Senate, whether it is the House, whether it is the Congress, whether it is the President, whether it is any nation in the world--that this man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt that he will do the right thing now, tomorrow, or in the future. It is now we must act. For those who say take time and wait, then point out what is the cost of waiting; what is the cost of waiting if he were to finish his program. We do not know exactly what is established with this nuclear program. We know the courage of the Israeli government, I believe it was in 1981, to go in and bomb that plant that was then clearly manufacturing components for nuclear weapons. We have other bits of information from the inspections that took place following the 1991 conflict that he clearly was endeavoring to build a nuclear weapon. More evidence is coming in he is continuing to acquire the raw material, the parts, and the other pieces that are essential to build a nuclear weapon. So there is no doubt he is propelling his nation forward to acquire it. What would be the status of the states in the Middle East, indeed our own Nation, or other parts of the world, if this man, given his past and his proclivity to use poison gas against his own people, to behead those in his own nation who have the courage to disagree with him--what is the cost of waiting? I say most respectfully to those who want to wait and see and give him the benefit of the doubt, do explain what is the cost if we wait until he acquires not only a nuclear capability but further builds upon the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological and chemical weapons. This is what the President said last night, very clearly. I would like to read it: Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only . . . choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited. I think that is the persuasive case of why not and not wait for the future. The President went on to say: Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. He acknowledged that is a option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. . . . As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein. The American people understand that. They understand that, and I think they will receive with gratitude the action of this body, as we will pass this resolution most assuredly in the days to come. Last, I will talk about one aspect of the weapons of mass destruction program in response to those who say, What's new? The four of us follow intelligence very carefully because of our respective assignments. But I did not realize until it is now in open literature Saddam Hussein had progressed in his biological infrastructure to the point where he now has his plants on truck beds: One, two, three, four trucks--just like the ones you see every day on the highways of the United States--that can be brought together at, I suppose, any number of places to manufacture biological material. It can be containerized in small vials. Obviously it can be transported, given it is manufactured as trucks move about. As our President said very carefully last night, that can be placed in the hands of terrorists, the international organizations of terror, and transported to the United States through our open borders of freedom. Those small vials can be released upon communities large and small, and wreak havoc and devastation. We have seen that on 9/11, a year ago, we are no longer protected by these great oceans, by the friendly nations--to the north, Canada, and our friends to the south. We are a vulnerable Nation. Saddam Hussein has the capability either directly or indirectly to strike us.

Mr. WARNER. Last sentence, and then I will yield. As the President said, that strike could come and we cannot trace the fingerprints. We are still trying to study who brought the anthrax against the U.S. Senate, the post offices--I reiterate, without fingerprints. I yield to my friend.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks for 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, you and I, on the Armed Services Committee--as a matter of fact, several years ago, when I was privileged to be chairman of that committee--initiated a program among all our U.S. services to move more in the direction of unmanned vehicles--aircraft, vehicles on the ground, and in every other way-- recognizing the tremendous advantages to that. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, as well as others, recently has said that he is pursuing that program unrelentingly to encapsule in small, sometimes large, unmanned aircraft--just point them in a direction and away they go. Now, just speaking from my own knowledge, not intelligence, I say to my good friend, there are 1,000 hobby shops in America where anyone--or you can go into catalogs--and you can buy model planes with a 6-foot wing span, and maybe it can carry only a small amount. But sometimes only a small amount of a weapon of mass destruction, if released over a community or otherwise disbursed, depending on the winds, can bring about incredible devastation. I say to the Senator, you are so right about that particular set of facts. I tell you, America should be on alert. And we should show the support of this Congress behind our President at this time so that we can send that message to the United Nations that this 17th resolution, if in fact it comes into being, has to be the last, the final. Hopefully it will deter any use of force over and above what is necessary to enforce the Resolution No. 17, I will call it. But again, if Saddam Hussein does not cooperate on No. 17, then it has to be made imminently clear to him that the member nations then have no other recourse but to resort to the use of force, hopefully collectively.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator is so correct in his views. We know not what he might be able to build. Frankly, we do not know a great deal about what he has today by way of nuclear capacity. The best knowledge that is in the open is that he does not have a finished weapon, but we do not know whether it is 6 months, 6 years, or what time it may be. But that might be a single weapon or maybe two, whereas the biological, in small containers, can be multiplied 100 times over in 100 different locations. Therefore, the tragic death and injury to Americans or others--as a matter of fact, we keep focusing on this Nation. There are other nations that stand at peril to this dictator. I must conclude to stay within the allocation of time. I say to my friend, I look forward to our further debates on the floor. But I close by saying this vote which we will cast here has to be a vote of conscience, not influenced in any way by political considerations. And above all in our hearts and minds will be the men and women of the Armed Forces who will undoubtedly bear the burden if it is necessary to use force. May God bless them.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I ask for one minute to say to my good friend, Senator McCain, his leadership on this issue, in helping with the drafting of this resolution and working particularly with Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh, has been invaluable. I wanted to get into a colloquy with Senator McCain, but I was drawn away from the floor for a moment. Maybe we will have that colloquy a little later.

Mr. WARNER. I wanted to reply for 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. I wish to thank our colleague and compliment him on a very fine recitation of the facts relating to the vote we will soon take. The Senator raised the important question of the preemptive issue. That has been an issue on the minds of a number of our colleagues. If he would allow me, I ask unanimous consent to have printed, following my remarks, a list of the times the Senator enumerated, the times the Presidents of the United States, going back as far as 1901, have initiated action preemptively to protect the security interests of this country. They have done it under the well-recognized international law or maxim of anticipatory self-defense. With the advent of high-tech now, with so many other changed factors throughout our 215-year history of this Republic and this body of the Senate, there have to be changes. The Senator was right on point of the need this time to recognize those changes and to understand better this doctrine of taking preemptive action, if that is necessary to protect the security interests of this country. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is in the true spirit of this institution, which Senator Byrd knows so well, that we exchange viewpoints as we have done Friday, yesterday, and again today, and we will continue to do that. Hopefully, these facts which the Senator deems essential--and I also--will be brought to the attention of this body. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Allen to authorize the President to apply the indemnification authorities now available to the Department of Defense and other agencies for national defense purposes to those agencies engaged in defending our Nation against terrorism. This authority is needed to enable America to access the best private sector solutions to defend our homeland, particularly from those innovative small businesses who do not have the capital to shoulder significant liability risk. There is an urgent need for this authority. For example, contractors will not sell chemical and biological detectors already available to DOD to other Federal agencies and state and local authorities because of the liability risk. Some of our Nation's top defense contractors will not sell these products because they are afraid to risk the future of their company on a lawsuit. In the meantime the American people are vulnerable. We should give the President the option that he currently does not have, of deciding whether the Federal Government should facilitate these purchases. This legislation would do precisely that. This liability risk has been a longstanding deterrent to the private sector freely contracting with the Federal Government to meet national security needs. Congress has acted in the past to authorize the indemnification of contracts, particularly in times of war. On December 18, 1941, less than two weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Congress enacted Title II of the First War Powers Act of 1941. By providing authority to the President to indemnify contracts, this legislation and its successor have enabled the private sector to enter into contracts that involve a substantial liability risk. Administrations since Roosevelt's day have used these authorities to indemnify or share the risk with defense contractors. This was required to jump start the ``arsenal of democracy'' in 1941. It was true in 1958, when the nuclear and missile programs were facilitated by the indemnification of risks associated with the use of nuclear power and highly volatile missile fuels. it is true today for technology solutions required by agencies engaged in the war against terrorism. This war is going to be different in many ways. For one, much of the Nation's homeland defense activities are going to be conducted by State and local governments. It is thus imperative to ensure that State and local governments can access vital anti-terrorism technologies. To facilitate this, this bill would require the establishment of a Federal contracting vehicle to which state and local governments could turn to rapidly buy anti-terrorism solutions from the Federal Government. The President would also be authorized, if he deemed it necessary, to indemnify these purchases. I want to emphasize two points. One, that this authority is discretionary. The President, on a case by case basis will decide whether to indemnify contracts. I expect the President will use this authority much like it has been used at the Defense Department, carefully and thoughtfully, and only for those products that the government cannot obtain without the use of the authority. The second point I want to emphasize is that indemnification not in conflict with any efforts to limit or cap liability. I see these two efforts as complimentary. This legislation should not be seen as an alternative for tort reform, but merely as one tool that can be used by the President to ensure that vitally needed technologies necessary for homeland defense are placed into the hands of those who need them. During World War II and all subsequent wars, conflicts and emergencies in which the U.S. has been involved, we have needed domestic contractors to be innovative, resourceful and ready to support efforts at home and abroad. In 1941, the Congress wanted contractors to know that if they were willing to engage in unusually hazardous activities for the national defense, then the U.S. Government would address the potential liability exposure associated with the conduct of such activities. Our position should be no different now.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. We talked together about the efforts your office, my office, Senator Allen, and Senator Sarbanes, working as a team, in fielding calls. We urge people to come to us. I also speak for the Mayor of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is grateful for the quick response led by our President, led by the Attorney General and others, to this crisis. I have been privileged to live in this area throughout my entire life. I was an assistant U.S. attorney one time. Never have I seen a crime situation such as this. It has brought about the unity between the regions to work to solve this problem. I join with my friend and thank her for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, any action by a strong, sovereign Nation such as ours, which I say with humility is a leader in the world in so many issues of foreign policy, can be used as a precedent. But I say to my friend, what is the precedent of inaction? I have given some comments about the League of Nations here earlier today. Throughout the history of the League, it is documented inaction, from Mussolini's attack on Abyssinia in the 1930s, to other operations militarily, naked aggression--inaction. So what is the precedent of inaction, if our President and our Nation does nothing collectively with Great Britain, in the face of this crisis? So, of course, it would be a precedent. But the times have changed. I also put a list in the Record the other day of some 13 instances where Presidents of our United States, going back as far as 1901, have instituted--you might characterize it, as I do, as preemptive; I certainly so characterize it--preemptive strikes in the use of the military, the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. Look here; it is documented: Panama, 1901; Dominican Republic, 1904, 1914 and 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; Cuba, the naval quarantine in 1962; Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama--just cause--1989; Somalia, 1992; Sudan and Afghanistan, August 1998; Iraq, Desert Fox--you recall that one. The eve of Christmas. I remember my good friend and your good friend, Bill Cohen, was Secretary of Defense. I went over and visited with him in his office as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, where we discussed the coming Desert Fox operation, a form of consultation between the executive and legislative branch. That was December of 1998. Kosovo, there was preemption. I will hand this to the Senator. That was March of 1999. International law recognizes the concept of anticipatory self- defense. That is a phrase known in international law--if a country is imminently threatened. I think the record at this point is replete with facts, where we could be in imminent threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein, and more likely his surrogates--any one of which in this international coalition of terrorists.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. We have had a very healthy debate here for 4\1/2\ hours on Friday afternoon--Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and myself. We resumed today with, I think, seven colloquies on both sides of the aisle addressing this issue. I think we are going to perhaps even exceed the thoroughness, the thoughtfulness, and the strength in the debate we had in 1991 on a similar resolution that I dealt with at that time, along with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman. I thank the Senator. Mr. Specter. Mr. President, it is true that in 1991 we had a debate which was characterized as historic. I recall the occasions when I was in the Chamber with the Senator from Virginia seated over there on the right-hand side. Senator Nunn was in the Chamber. We were debating that extensively in the Chamber today. I think it will be reassuring to the American people to see this kind of analysis and this kind of discussion--that we are not rushing to judgement.

Mr. WARNER. They deserve no less. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mark Swayne a Military Fellow in my office, as well as James Kadtke a Science and Technology Fellow in my office for the duration of the Senate's debate on S.J. Res. 45, a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.