John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I compliment our distinguished colleague. I say to the Senator, even though you have given your statement, I anticipate this debate in the Senate will continue for 2 days, and perhaps you will find the opportunity to revisit the floor and, again, personally elaborate on your points. Today, you have given a very important and timely historical context of the events, and the sequence of those events. And you have placed extremely important emphasis on what the U.N. is trying to do today, as we are right here, in fashioning an inspection regime that is much stronger than the one that is on the books from when Hans Blix was appointed. But I am sure the Senator observed Hans Blix, after visiting with Iraqi officials in Austria, said he would like to wait until the Security Council acted. So what we are looking forward to now is the evolving process of a regime which I think has to meet the criteria established by our President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and others, before we can accept that as a workable solution. Would the Senator agree?

Mr. WARNER. Certainly I have no objection. I think that is very helpful.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Assuming the Security Council will act, I will personally await the judgment of our President and that of the Prime Minister of Great Britain with regard to the structure and effectiveness, potentially, of such a new regime. In this debate we have sort of gone back and forth in a very effective discourse on the issues. I wonder if at this time I might ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, might follow our distinguished colleague, Mr. Domenici.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, of course, but we are proceeding on the Iraq resolution. Following colleagues' comments and questions to our distinguished Democratic whip, we will return to, I believe, Senator Kyl to be recognized.

Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, we are now, as you know, in conference. Senator Levin and I work daily on this with our two colleagues from the House, Chairman Stump and Ike Skelton. This has not been resolved as yet. We, of course, have to take notice of what is stated here. Presumably the statement in the Pentagon, by Mr. Chu, would not have been made had there not been some consultation with the staff of the President. I don't know the extent this has been brought to his attention. After all, he has been among the staunchest defenders of the men and women of the Armed Forces-- past, present and for the future. So I say to my friend, I will join him and others and continue to try to work this issue in our conference. But I believe your statement at this time, I say to my colleague, comes at a critical moment. Because that decision could be made, indeed, today, tomorrow, the next day, as to how, finally, to constitute the provisions of the House-Senate conference document which would then be brought back to both Chambers for vote. So I take to heart your comments. I will share them with our conferees. I express again my appreciation to you for your staunch-- staunch defense of our veterans. I humbly say, modestly: I am a veteran. As a matter of fact, I would not be here had it not been for what the military did for me. I have often said they did a lot more for me than I ever did for them in my modest service. But I assure you, I am contemporary with the World War II generation, and you are absolutely right. One thousand a day are departing. I have met with them. They have been among the more vigorous, to try and bring forth congressional action on this, as have any number of veterans' groups and groups associated with our military. I say to my friend, your message is timely. We should take it to heart and do our very best.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to commend my distinguished colleague and friend on this particular issue. Among the group of us, you have been primarily the leader. My recollection is this is about the fourth year we have brought this up for attention and really asked the Senate to focus upon it. This year it was a direct focus upon it by the Senate and the House, and both Chambers put a provision in their bill.

Mr. WARNER. Could I ask my colleague, could your very important colloquy which I will have with you on this subject appear in a place elsewhere in the Record?

Mr. WARNER. I read the following excerpt: It is time to authorize the use of our military might to enforce the United Nations resolutions, disarm Iraq, and eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the world's, posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime. Later he asks the question, Why now? He replies: For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war to convince Saddam Hussein to keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not worked . . . So my answer to ``why now?'' is, ``Why not earlier?'' And, of course, that question has new urgency since September 11, 2001. Further, he quotes from former Secretary of Defense Jim Schlesinger, under whom I was privileged to serve as Secretary of the Navy. Senator Lieberman states: As former secretary of defense Schlesinger recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Vigorous action in the course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes preventive war.'' Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7, 2002] Our Resolution (By Joe Lieberman) The most fateful and difficult responsibility the Constitution gives to members of Congress is to decide when the president should be authorized to lead the men and women of the U.S. military into war. We are now engaged in such a debate regarding Saddam Hussein's belligerent dictatorship in Iraq. Although I disagree with many other aspects of President Bush's foreign and domestic policy, I believe deeply that he is right about Iraq, and that our national security will be strengthened if members of both parties come together now to support the commander-in-chief and our military. That's why I have cosponsored the Senate resolution that was negotiated with the White House. It is time to authorize the use of our military might to enforce U.N. resolution, disarm Iraq, and eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the world's posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime. responsibility Making the case for such action is a responsibility to be shouldered by those of us who have reached these conclusions. If we do so convincingly, not long will the American people and our allies better understand our standards for engagement, but governments around the world who defy the dictates of the U.N. to make weapons of mass destruction or to support terrorists will appreciate how painful the consequences of their brutality and lawlessness can be. In that spirit, let me now address a few of the most critical questions my Senate colleagues and many American are asking. Why has military action against Saddam become so urgent? Why not give diplomacy and inspections another chance? Why now? For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war to convince Saddam to keep the promises he made, and the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not worked. In 1998, Bob Kerry, John McCain, and I sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act declaring it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad. The act became law, but until recently little has been done to implement it. In the meantime, Saddam has not wavered from his ambition for hegemonic control over the Persian Gulf and the Arab world: He has invested vast amounts of his national treasure in building inventories of biological and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them to targets near and far. Saddam once told his Republican Guard that its national honor would not be achieved until Iraq's arm reached out beyond its borders to ``every point in the Arab homeland.'' So, my answer to ``Why now?'' is, ``Why not earlier?'' And, of course, that question has new urgency since Sept. 11, 2001. Won't a war against Iraq slow or stop our more urgent war against terrorism? To me, the two are inextricably linked. First, remember that Iraq under Saddam is one of only seven nations in the world to be designated by our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, providing aid and training to terrorists who have killed Americans and others. Second, Saddam himself meets the definition of a terrorist--someone who attacks civilians to achieve a political purpose. Third, though the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community, we have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq. Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a record of using them with regional hegemonic ambitions and a record of supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence from the Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, we will transform the politics of the region. That will only advance the war against terrorism, not set it back. Why should we launch a strike against a sovereign nation that has not struck us first? We should and will soon have a larger debate about the president's new doctrine of pre-emption, but not here and now, because the term is not apt for our current situation. We have been engaged in an ongoing conflict with Saddam's regime ever since the Gulf War began. Every day, British and American aircraft and personnel are enforcing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq; the ongoing force of about 7,500 American men and women in uniform costs our taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. And this is not casual duty. Saddam's air defense forces have shot at U.S. and British planes 406 times (and counting) in 2002 alone. As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Vigorous action in the course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes preventive war.'' Why not have two congressional resolutions, one now encouraging the U.N. to respond to President Bush's call for inspections without limits, and another one later authorizing U.S. military action if the U.N. refuses to act? This is sometimes described as the way to stop ``go-it- alone'' action by the U.S. unless and until absolutely necessary. But I believe that the best way to encourage forceful U.N. action, so that we never have to ``go it alone,'' is for Congress to unite now in authorizing the president to take military action, if necessary. I am convinced that if we lead decisively, others will come to our side, in the U.N. and after. If we are steadfast in pursuit of our principles, allies in Europe and the Middle East will be with us. Why not just authorize the president to take military action to disarm the Iraqis instead of giving him a ``blank check''? Our resolution does not give the president a blank check. It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and to ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.'' There are 535 members of Congress who have the constitutional responsibility to authorize American military action, but there is only one commander-in-chief who can carry it out. Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam. Five hundred and thirty-five members of Congress cannot wage war; we can only authorize it. The rest is up to the president and our military. a record of strength We in Congress have now begun a very serious debate on these questions and others. Each member must act on values, conscience, sense of history and national security. When it is over, I believe there will be a strong majority of senators who will vote for the bipartisan resolution that John Warner, John McCain, Evan Bayh and I have introduced. I am equally confident that a strong majority of Democrats in the Senate will support it. In doing so, they will embrace the better parts of our party's national security legacy of the last half century. From Truman's doctrine to prevent communist expansion to Kennedy's ``quarantine'' of Cuba to prevent Soviet missiles from remaining there, to Bill Clinton's deployment of American forces to the Balkans to stop genocide and prevent a wider war in Europe, Democrats should be proud of our record of strength when it counted the most. Each of the Democratic presidents above tried diplomacy, but when it failed, they unleashed America's military forces across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and to prevent any more damage to America or Americans. That is precisely what our resolution would empower President Bush to do now.

Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague for an excellent contribution to this debate. He has a remarkable way of tying it to the reality of the present day and the present time and also looking toward the future. So, again, I thank him for his participation and hope he can perhaps return to the floor in the future. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, an op-ed piece that appears today, Monday, October 7, in the Wall Street Journal, authored by our distinguished colleague Joe Lieberman, whose name appears in the first place on the resolution that is before the Senate, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague very much. I have enjoyed his observations. I respect him very much, as he bears the scars of a brave soldier on behalf of freedom while defending this country. Mr. President, to conclude our colloquy, I want to read a brief statement that was given by President Clinton at the time of this resolution: 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. Mr. President, I see others on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. As my colleague, I assume, agrees with me, whoever is President of the United States--be it President Clinton or now President George Bush--has the inherent power to utilize the Armed Forces of our Nation when he deems there is a threat to our security. That, of course, is the essence of the debate we are undertaking now. So when I read the clause where the Congress said ``therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States,'' to me, that implies a recitation of what we all know since the very first President--he has the authority to use force, if he deems it necessary, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligation. I wonder if the Senator would agree with this Senator one thing that has changed since this resolution is the situation in Iraq has worsened in the sense Saddam Hussein has had these years to proceed with his scheme of building weapons of mass destruction, and I think the open evidence shows he has achieved it in terms of the biological, and he has achieved it in terms of the chemical. With respect to the nuclear weapons, I believe the agreed-upon set of facts is he is doing everything he can to complete a program. There is a difference of opinion as to the time within which he can complete a program to give him a nuclear weapon. So, in my judgment, what has changed since 1998 is the situation has gotten worse and more threatening from Saddam Hussein. Does my colleague have a view in concurrence with the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator also made reference to the period of the Clinton administration when President Clinton, again, in consultation with the Congress, acted on the seriousness of the issues of Saddam Hussein after he kicked out the inspectors and defied all 16 resolutions. We in the Senate acted, and I am going to read the resolution we adopted in the Senate: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Both the Senator from Georgia and I supported it, am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my very valued friend and colleague a question or two. With his indulgence, I would like to make a few preliminary comments. First and foremost is that we have shared for some years now a strong friendship and strong working relationship, primarily through his service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There has been no Senator who has been more mindful of the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces than our colleague from Georgia. I felt his remarks today were exceedingly well taken, and in particular the need for a strengthened resolution here in the Congress, House and Senate together, acting on a resolution which is clear in its terms, in such a way that there be no daylight, no perceived or actual difference between the legislative bodies of our Government--the Congress, the Senate and the House, and the Executive, the Commander in Chief, the President. I commend him on that point and share it. In previous days on this floor, most particularly on Friday, I have said that repeatedly. That is the key, the arch of this whole debate is the need to have unity of the two branches of Government. I was also drawn to his excellent analysis of what we call the Powell doctrine, enunciated by General Powell during his period as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It is interesting today, of course, in his role as Secretary of State and in his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee here in the Senate, those criteria he set down are basically the criteria he follows today as he represents this Nation on behalf of the President and all others in the United Nations and in his constant series of meetings with heads of state and government in an effort to build a coalition much like that which was built by the first President Bush in 1991. The Senator from Georgia hit on the key part of the formula of Secretary Powell: What is the cost? And he quite properly enunciated some concerns and areas in there. The question I ask is the question that has to be asked: What is the cost if we don't act now, act as we are doing; namely, through the United Nations, trying to exhaust all diplomatic means, act as we are now acting in consultation with the heads of state and government in order to build a coalition, and, as I understand it, supporting in some way the writing of a new resolution to be considered by the Security Council which would enable a new inspection regime, this time with clear absolute authority, no equivocation whatsoever about the authority of those going in to perform it and the consequences? Hopefully that resolution would be forthcoming, spelling out the consequences of the failure of Saddam Hussein to accept the resolution and indicate cooperation. As my colleague knows, cooperation is essential in discharging any inspection regime. So that is where we are now. What would be the cost, had our President not taken the initiative here in the past months to bring to the very forefront of the entire world the problem facing liberty and freedom with the potential of weapons of mass destruction being made night and day by Saddam Hussein in amounts far exceeding anything he would ever need to defend a sovereign nation? What is the cost, had we not elevated this debate, had we not gone to the U.N., had not the Congress been asked by the President to have a resolution? What is your estimate of the cost? What would be the course of action for the world to take?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my valued friend and colleague on the Senate Armed Services Committee that I thought we had an excellent debate on Friday afternoon, at which time a number of the points the Senator from West Virginia raised today were discussed. But I believe the administration has worked diligently in consultation with the Congress--most particularly the appropriate committees--the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which my colleague from West Virginia and I are privileged to serve, and also our colleague from Georgia, as well as the Foreign Relations Committee. These questions, I believe, and the information that can be made available are and perhaps will again in the next day or so be made available to the Congress. I know I have, I say to my good friend from West Virginia, pressed the administration to see whether or not further information that now has classification can be given. I and other Members of the Senate were back with our constituencies this weekend. I had about five meetings with my constituents at various places, and foremost in their minds is the seriousness of this situation we face with Saddam Hussein and his regime which possesses these weapons of mass destruction. I believe this debate is evolving. I believe the Congress is in possession of those facts to justify a vote on the resolution, which Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, Senator McCain, and I have drawn up in accordance with consultations with the White House and the leadership. I thought we got off to a good start on Friday. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to debate him--and we do very vigorously, and undoubtedly we will continue. But I believe, if I might say respectfully to my colleague from West Virginia, it is a good, strong record for the Congress and the American people. And there may be additional facts forthcoming. Certainly, we should await the President's message to the Nation and to the world with great respect because he has time and time again said war is the last option, the use of force is the last option. He pursued diligently diplomatic means before, not only with the United Nations but in one-to-one meetings himself, and the Secretary of State with the heads of state and governments in a great many nations. I believe progress has been made in all directions. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Alaska. It was very helpful for him to make references to his knowledge of the pre- world War II days. He had a very distinguished career in World War II as a member of the Army Air Corp and as a pilot. I had a very modest one at the tail end, just in training, in the Navy. But both of us remember that period very well. The Senator emphasized quite forcibly the need for the United Nations to face up to this. Having lived through that period, we remember the League of Nations. We remember the blatant attack by the Italian military under the leadership of Mussolini against then Abyssinia, now referred to as the nation of Ethiopia, and how the league began to look at that situation, and look at it and look at it and look at it and did nothing, and then the aggression during the attacks by Japan on China. The Senator recalls these periods in history. Eventually the league went out of business. It fell into the dust bin of history and in some small vestige was absorbed into the United Nations. I have a strong view, and I think our President has made reference to this, that unless the United Nations lives up to its charter and assumes the responsibility of enforcing its own Security Council resolution, that organization, too, could fall into the dust bin of history, not unlike the League of Nations. Does the Senator share those views?

Mr. WARNER. Might I add that those pilots to whom the Senator referred, American and Great Britain, were shot at 60 times in just the month of September alone and they have been at it now for over a decade. It is the only enforcement of any resolution undertaken by any of the member nations. It is the United States, Great Britain, and at one time France. They have now discontinued. That is the only enforcement of any resolution.

Mr. WARNER. In writing.

Mr. WARNER. The purpose of this resolution is to prevent a pilot from being downed. If we are resolute in this Chamber, if we clearly show, not only to the American public but to the whole world, that we stand arm in arm with our President, no daylight between us which can be exploited by Saddam Hussein and perhaps weak nations--if we are arm in arm, it is the extent to which this United Nations is more likely to fulfill its obligations under the charter and, hopefully, devise a resolution which can bring about an inspection regime which has teeth in it this time, and make it very clear if Saddam Hussein's regime does not live up to it, then member nations such as ours and others in the coalition can utilize and resort to force.

Mr. WARNER. My colleague is absolutely right. Now with the transportability of some of those weapons of mass destruction, and if he were to place them in the hands of the international terrorist ring--I don't say he hasn't done it already. We don't have the specific knowledge--that is an imminent danger to the United States. But you concluded on history. I would like to read one brief statement. June 1936, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Abyssinia--Ethiopia today--in an appeal to the League of Nations. I assert that the problem submitted to the Assembly today is a much wider one. It is not merely a question of the settlement of Italian aggression. It is a collective security. It is the very essence of the League of Nations. It is the confidence that each state is to place in international treaties. It is the value of promises made to small states that their integrity and their independence shall be respected and ensured. It is the principle of equality of states on the one hand, or otherwise the obligation laid upon small powers to accept the bonds of vassalship. In a word, it is international morality that is at stake. Do the signatures appended to a treaty have value only insofar as the signatory powers have a personal, direct and immediate interest involved? The rest is history. The League did nothing but debate and debate and did nothing. And this country perished. We are at that juncture now, I say respectfully to the United Nations. Will they fall into the dustbin of history as did the League? I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our colleague. The advancement of technology is what makes things different. The advances of technology are what underlies this doctrine of preemptive strike, which our President says must be addressed now, not only by our Nation, but other nations that wish to protect themselves and their own security. That is a very important issue, and I give great credit to this President for having the courage to bring to the forefront of the world--not just the United States, but the forefront of the world--the threats we face with now rapid technology and the development of weapons of mass destruction. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his kind comments, and also for his important statement he has delivered to the Senate. I want to pick up on one thing that the Senator mentioned, and there has not been as much discussion as yet on this subject. It is a very important one. The President has repeatedly said the use of force is the last option. But should that be taken, and there be force used by presumably our country, Great Britain, and hopefully others in the coalition, then the responsibility devolves upon those nations, primarily those who use force--again, hopefully, the United Nations would take a strong role, but that remains to be seen--in trying to reestablish, for the people of Iraq, against whom we hold no animosity--the people--a nation bringing together the factions in the north, the Kurds, and the Shi'ites in the south, and hold that country together. But I find, in studying, as my astute colleague will undoubtedly believe, as we look at the situation in Kosovo, we had to come in there with other nations and help establish the economy, and we are still there. Indeed, in South Korea, how well you know we have been there now over 50 years. It seems to me there are several points with regard to Iraq which differentiate the responsibilities of our Nation and other nations following such hostility, as hopefully will not occur, but should they occur; that is, Iraq, at one time, was an absolute extraordinary nation, a nation of well-educated people, a nation which had a number of natural resources, primarily petroleum, from whence to gain a revenue flow. So far as I can determine, much of that infrastructure of intellectual people and well-educated, hard-working people and, indeed, the oil that is present there, once it is properly cared for and put in the competitive world market, it seems to me that the dollars involved would be, comparatively speaking, much less because of the natural resources, and the problem of reconstructing a government, hopefully, would not be as challenging as maybe some say because of the presence of such a fine citizenry, almost all of whom, not all, have been severely depressed by Saddam Hussein and the brutality of his regime. Does the Senator share those thoughts?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. He has many years of experience in the Senate. His wisdom is being brought to bear on this critical issue. All of us feel a weight on our shoulders, the importance of this debate, and the importance of the vote we will cast. If there was ever a vote that would be clearly a matter of conscience between all of us, this is it.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.