The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Chair.
Madam President, in a short while, on behalf of a number of colleagues, particularly Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, and myself--and I am happy to note the occupant of the Chair, the junior Senator from Louisiana is also a cosponsor with us--we are going to be offering a substitute to the pending business to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
This is, obviously, a momentous decision. The debate has begun in this Chamber over the last few days. I have watched a lot of it with great interest. It has been carried on with the tone of seriousness and purpose the matter requires. This debate will continue in earnest over the next few days as we, each in our own way, facing our own conscience, considering our values, our sense of history, our understanding of the threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein, will reach a conclusion.
Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, and I have reached a conclusion in submitting the resolution. I say for the record this resolution is the result of an open and spirited process of discussion and negotiation between the President of the United States and Members of both parties in both Houses.
The result is a resolution that, in its preamble, states the case against Saddam, the case of the ambitions this brutal dictator has to gain hegemonic control over the Arab world and the oil there; the extraordinary acts of brutality he has committed himself and directed others to commit against his own Iraqi people; his invasions of his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, which is evidence, prior to the gulf war, of the long-held belief that he has had which is fundamental to the Baath party, which he heads, of rising to dominate the region as a modern-day Saladin and all that it contains.
The resolution records the allied efforts in the gulf war which were triumphant, and the resolutions of the United Nations that followed thereafter as part of the promises Saddam Hussein made to end the gulf war, the most significant of which was to disarm and to allow United Nations inspectors in to guarantee the world that disarmament would occur.
I talked to someone who was in our Government at that time, and they said the presumption was disarmament would occur rapidly and that inspectors might be necessary just to make sure there was not, over time, an attempt to rearm. Of course, it is 11 years after the gulf war ended, and disarmament has never occurred. The United Nations resolutions have been violated repeatedly, and ultimately the inspectors were thrown out in 1998. All of this, and more, is recorded in the preamble section of the resolution we will offer.
Also recorded is the effort the Bush administration is making now to finally convince the United Nations to act, to prove its resolutions are worth more than the paper on which they are printed; that the United Nations Security Council will act to enforce its resolutions, to protect the world from the unique threat represented by Saddam Hussein, an ideology which calls on him to spread out and dominate his region, weapons of mass destruction he has used not once but repeatedly against the Kurdish people who are Iraqi citizens, and against the Iranians in war and his support of terrorism.
There are only seven nations in the world our own State Department lists as state sponsors of terrorism.
Iraq is one of those, and it has supported terrorist groups that have killed Americans. This is a unique circumstance. At different times I know our colleagues have asked: What about the other countries that are on the list of state sponsors of terrorism? What about other nations that have weapons of mass destruction? What about other nations that have aggressive ambitions? Well, there are such nations, but there is no one other nation that brings as much poison and evil intent together and, in that sense, so threatens the United States of America as Iraq.
This resolution, which again is the process of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation with the White House, is explicit. It has taken some clauses out of the original White House proposal and has added some others, but in its most operative sections it says this Congress of the United States authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
There are those who ask: Why now? What is the urgency? My own response, as the President of the United States declared most recently, last night, is: Why not earlier? Why not over the course of the last decade, when Saddam Hussein, to our knowledge, continued to build up his weapons of mass destruction and the most dangerous and threatening means to deliver them on targets near and far, constantly ignoring and violating resolutions of the United Nations, growing more ominous a threat to his neighbors and to the world?
My answer, again, to, why now? is, why not earlier?
Others have said: There has been no provocation. Why are we not waiting for an attack to occur? Well, why, after the devastation of September 11, 2001, would we want to wait until an attack occurs by someone who is clearly arming and threatening us?
This is not, in the classic sense, an act of preemption to authorize the President to take military action against Iraq as a last resort if all else fails. In fact, the United States of America--and the United Nations, for that matter--have been in a continuing military conflict with Iraq since the gulf war began.
We have 7,500 American military personnel dispatched to the region, working alongside their British colleagues to enforce the no-fly zones, costing American taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. This is not safe duty. This is not casual duty. These American Air Force personnel are being fired on repeatedly. More than 400 times this year alone, American and British aircraft have been fired on by Iraqi forces. So this is not an act of preemption. This is an act of response and prevention.
Others have said on this floor that the authorization we are giving the President of the United States is an abrogation of our constitutional responsibilities and is much too broad. I respectfully disagree. It seems to me the Constitution and the Framers have set up attention, attention that they must have understood, to give us, the Members of Congress, the authority to declare war, to essentially authorize war, but they gave one person, the President of the United States, the power to be Commander in Chief to carry out war. Five hundred and thirty-five Members of Congress cannot conduct a war. It is our responsibility to determine when and under what circumstances we will authorize the Commander in Chief to do that, but only the President, as Commander in Chief, can do that.
This resolution we will submit in a few moments strikes exactly the right balance. It gives the President a clear and a strong mandate, but it limits it. It limits it to a defense of the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and it authorizes the President to use military force, if necessary, to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
For those of us who are sponsoring this resolution, it is based on our conclusion that Iraq is a threat to the security of the American people, a clear and present danger that, if we do not stop Saddam now, we will look back on some terrible day, with a profound sense of remorse and guilt, and say why didn't we do it?
Based on those conclusions, all the evidence I have recited, and so much more that has been recited on this floor and will again be recited, this resolution says: Mr. President, we have decided Iraq is a danger to the United States, we have decided that United Nations Security Council resolutions can no longer be ignored, and we give you the authority, as Commander in Chief, to take it from there.
In closing, with that authority we are giving the President come accountability and responsibility. There are some who have said this is a blank check. Of course if somebody forges a check, they are held accountable, but it is not as if this is a blank check, without accountability, on a bank account that has no limit.
With this resolution--if and when, as I hope, it passes overwhelmingly--we not only give the President the authority to act within the parameters of the resolution, we give him a tremendous and awesome responsibility. It is not a blank check. It is the most serious responsibility the Congress can give the President. As the President himself has made clear over the last several weeks on several occasions, he understands the weight of that responsibility. But he and we, the sponsors of this resolution, understand if we do not authorize him to take this action, the American people may suffer a far worse fate.
It is our intention to lay this resolution down soon. I look forward to the debate. My colleagues and I intend to be in the Chamber to answer questions of our colleagues about these issues.
Mr. McCain: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Lieberman: I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. McCain: I appreciate the remarks of my friend, their tone, and particularly the content that really lays out the parameters of this debate. I ask my friend from Connecticut: Did the Senator have a chance to hear the President's address to the Nation last night?
Mr. Lieberman: I did.
Mr. McCain: Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs.
As we conduct this debate, we need to talk about the fact that this is not the preferred option for the President of the United States or any Member of this body. This is the last option. We can make the case that it is obvious that Saddam Hussein continues this buildup of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But we are not the ones who are forcing this issue. The President of the United States in this resolution is not forcing the issue. It is Saddam Hussein who is forcing this issue.
We will, as we go through this debate and the conversations at the United Nations Security Council, make sure we have exhausted every possible option. This is a critical factor in getting the American people behind this resolution and behind the President of the United States and behind the men and women in the military.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Senator from Arizona for his question. Of course, I agree with the Senator that the President of the United States has made it quite clear that he is asking us for this authority to dispatch our responsibility under the Constitution to give him the power to make war if necessary, but he hopes--and clearly, we hope-- that will not be necessary.
I hope this is one of those cases where, as someone once said, the best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. The best way to achieve compliance by Saddam Hussein with the promises he made at the end of the gulf war is to show that finally we are prepared to go to war once again to enforce those promises he made.
This Nation has been remarkably patient. The fact is, over the last decade or more we and the United Nations have tried just about every other conceivable way, short of war, to get the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein to keep the promises they made and to disarm. We have tried sanctions which have been so difficult because of the way Saddam Hussein has carried them out on the Iraqi people. We have tried inspections. We have tried the Oil for Food Program. We have tried limited military action. None of it has worked to convince this brutal dictator to observe the rule of law and to keep the policies he made.
In one sense, we might say this is the moment of truth for him, the challenge the President has given Saddam Hussein, and that this bipartisan resolution, which I hope and believe will achieve an overwhelming vote of bipartisan support by our colleagues, this resolution finally says to Saddam Hussein: Disarm. We do not want to go to war against you. Disarm or face war. The danger you represent is so great. We can only hope and pray that message will be heard in Baghdad.
I thank my colleague for the question. I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
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. Lieberman: Will the Senator yield for a question?
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. Lieberman: I thank the Senator from Virginia. May I say first how grateful I am for his kind words towards this Senator. I return them in the fullness of sincerity. One of the great honors and pleasures of the last 14 years has been serving with you, but also getting to know you and considering you a friend. There is not a better person or gentleman or anyone more committed as a patriot to our country than the Senator from Virginia. I am honored once again to be working with him in this cause.
I appreciate what he has just said about the programs of weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein has, and particularly these programs of chemical and biological weapons.
I know the Senator has spent some time considering, and I wonder if you might, to the extent you are able to, discuss matters in an open session as to some of the concerns that I know you and I share about the programs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq has now to develop not just ballistic missiles to carry biological and chemical weapons but unmanned aerial vehicles, some of which are quite small and potentially could threaten not only Saddam's neighbors there in the region but potentially could threaten us, the American people, here in the continental United States.
The Presiding Officer: The time of the Senator from Virginia has expired. Under the order, it was 15 minutes.
Mr. Warner Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks for 5 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. Lieberman: I thank the Senator. Our colleague from Indiana is waiting to speak, but I want to just very briefly say to you again what you know--and I hope to put some testimony into the Record--about the devastating biological weapons that Saddam possesses, some for which we do not have an effective cure or have an effective response.
I hesitate to even say this, but I think to show the seriousness of what we are about, I know there has been a lot of discussion: Does Saddam have nuclear weapons? How soon will he have them? Will it be 10 years or 1 year or 5 years?
But does the Senator agree with me that the biological weapons capacity Saddam has now, if delivered by an unmanned aerial vehicle, could do far more damage--I am talking about death to people--than the kind of primitive nuclear weapon he might have in a year at best, 5 years, 10 years?
In other words, the danger is here. It is clear and present, and it is now.
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.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, if I may seek the indulgence of my colleague from Indiana for just a moment, I am now prepared to send, on his behalf, on behalf of Senator Warner and Senator McCain, the occupant of the Chair, Senator Landrieu, and others, a resolution, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for S.J. Res. 45, which I ask the clerk to call up at this time, and ask that the clerk, for the Record, read the names of the initial cosponsors of the resolution.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bayh, Mr. McCain, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Miller, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Helms, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 4856.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that this information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. Reid: I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Warner Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. Bayh: Thank you, Madam President. It is good to be with you today. I am reassured by your presence. And I am grateful for the support of the Senator from Louisiana for our resolution.
It is an honor and privilege for me to join today with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and my good friend, Senator Lieberman, in support of this resolution granting the President of the United States the authority to defend our country.
Madam President, I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adopts.
I favor this resolution because in a world where we have rogue regimes possessing weapons of mass death, and suicidal terrorists who are all too eager to use them against us, weapons of that nature in the hands of a regime such as Saddam Hussein's represents an unacceptable risk to the safety and well-being of the American people.
As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that in all conscience we cannot.
Finally, along with my colleagues, I support this resolution because I believe we must learn the terrible lessons from the tragedy of September 11, foremost among which is that we waited too long to address the gathering danger in Afghanistan. If we had acted sooner, perhaps--just perhaps--we could have saved 3,000 innocent lives: men, women, and children. We waited too long to act. Let us not make that mistake again.
Unfortunately, in dealing with Saddam Hussein and the regime of Iraq, we are dealing with a brutal dictator who understands one thing, and one thing only: either the threat of force or the use of force.
We have tried everything else. We have tried economic sanctions for years, to no avail. We have tried diplomacy for over a decade. It has availed us nothing. We do not have the covert means presently to deal with this tyrant. And so as my colleagues have indicated, there is nothing left to us to defend ourselves except an ultimatum to Saddam: Disarm or else.
For those who believe we can remove the weapons of mass destruction from this regime without the credible threat of the use of force, I regrettably must say they are engaged in wishful thinking. It is my heartfelt conviction that the best and only chance we have for a peaceful resolution to this problem, for him to give up these instruments of mass death, is to present him with a credible ultimatum that the survival of his regime depends upon doing so, that any other course of action will lead to his overthrow, and that alone will preserve the peace, the safety, and the security of our country.
I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action.
Unfortunately, the United Nations has a long history of equivocation when it comes to taking difficult steps to enforce even its own resolutions. Our allies, as much as we cherish their support, also have a mixed record in this regard. Need I remind the Senate that for too long we waited while genocide was perpetrated on the very doorstep of Europe in Bosnia and Kosovo? It was only when the United States of America demonstrated a willingness to take action to bring that lamentable chapter to a conclusion that the United Nations and our allies demonstrated the will to act with us.
It is only through strong leadership, leadership by the United States, that we will preserve the peace, rally our allies, and convince the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. If these efforts avail us not, it is my heartfelt conviction that weapons of mass death in the hands of a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein, combined with the presence of suicidal terrorist organizations that would all too eagerly use these instruments of mass destruction against us, represent an unacceptable risk for the safety and well-being of the American people.
I hope Saddam will do the right thing. I pray that he will do the right thing and give up these weapons of mass destruction. Regrettably, based upon the track record of his past behavior, I believe he probably will not.
Weapons of mass destruction represent an indispensable part of his power. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac who has attempted to project that power around the region. As we all know, he invaded Kuwait. He has invaded Iran. He has launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. He has killed hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of his fellow citizens.
I ask my colleagues to anticipate a world in which we do not act. What will Saddam do? Can there be much doubt that he will attempt to develop the ability to deter our future action by threatening us with the use of weapons of mass destruction? I believe there is not. If he cannot develop this deterrent on his own, I believe there is little doubt he will reach out to al-Qaida or Hezbollah or other international institutions of terrorism to develop a deterrent to threaten us, with unacceptable consequences, if in the future we decide to restrain his aggressive actions.
If there is only a 10-percent chance or a 15-percent chance that weapons of mass death will find their way from Iraq into the hands of suicidal terrorists, I believe this is a risk to the American people that we cannot afford to run.
The world changed forever on September 11. The principal lesson of that tragedy is that America waited too long to address the gathering danger in Afghanistan. We must not make that mistake again.
To those who say, what is the rush? why can't we wait? I respond by asking the question: How long must we wait? Until the missiles have been launched? Until smallpox, anthrax, or VX nerve agent has found its way into our country? Is that how long we should wait?
The consequences of error in this instance are much too great. The deaths next time might not be numbered in the threes of thousands but 30,000 or 300,000.
To respond to the question of my friend from Connecticut, in all likelihood Saddam Hussein possesses smallpox. We are not sure whether he has weaponized it yet. There is a 50/50 proposition. But if he has and if that would find its way into our country, which would not be too difficult to accomplish, the consequences would be catastrophic.
We conducted a simulated exercise of a smallpox attack--I believe it was called Dark Winter--simulating a smallpox outbreak put into a ventilation system in a mall in Oklahoma City. The consequences were catastrophic: Tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of illnesses; civil law broke down. These are the kinds of consequences that would be all too real were we to stay our hand.
I remind my colleagues that in a world of imperfect intelligence--and there will always be imperfect intelligence--if we wait, we run the very real risk of having waited too long. We have seen the kind of tragedy to which that can lead.
I ask all of us to consider, if this debate had been conducted 2 years ago and my colleagues and I had laid a resolution upon this desk that said, there is danger brewing in Afghanistan, it threatens the United States of America, we need to take it seriously, and we must act before it is too late, all of the arguments that are being made against the current resolution would also have been made at that time. As we now know, the arguments have all been mistaken. They are mistaken today as well.
To those who say the threat is not imminent, after 9/11, how long can we afford to wait? To those who say regime change is not an appropriate reason for acting, I say weapons of mass destruction and the regime of Saddam Hussein are one and indivisible. To remove weapons of mass destruction, we must remove that regime. To think anything else is to delude ourselves.
For those who believe the United Nations' approval is necessary for our action, I say it is preferential but we cannot afford to give that great body veto power on America's right to defend itself. To those who say we need allied support, I agree. But this is an argument of the chicken and the egg. It is only with American leadership and taking a strong hand in this instance that we will receive the kind of united allied support we seek.
To those who ask the question, What will we do after our victory? I say that is a good question, but can the regime in Iraq be worse? I think not. We could begin to rebuild that country in a way that would provide a positive example to the people of that region about the principles and the ideals upon which America stands.
Our eventual victory in the war against terror will be won as much by the values and the principles we embrace and advocate as by the force of our arms. This gives us an opportunity to put those principles and values into action.
To those who say we must exhaust all of our alternatives before acting, I simply say that we already have. In conclusion, let me summarize by saying this: I and my colleagues support this resolution not because we desire war but because it is our heartfelt conviction that this is the best and only path to preserve the peace. My colleagues and I support this resolution not because we favor the U.S. acting alone, but because we know that, by taking a strong stand, it gives us the best opportunity to garner U.N. support and to rally our allies to our side.
We support this resolution because we believe that the lesson learned, very painfully and so tragically by our country on September 11 of last year, is that we wait in an era of mass terror at our peril. We were mistaken then; let us not be mistaken again. Let us act to protect our country and, in so doing, discharge our constitutional duty. It is my privilege and honor to do so in such esteemed company.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCain: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Bayh: Yes.
Mr. McCain: The Senator from Indiana indicated to me when we had discussions about this resolution, introduced by Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, the Senator, and myself, about the fact that in his home State there is great concern about going to war. In fact, he mentioned to me that was the majority of calls and communications he had with the people of Indiana, which he was privileged to serve as Governor as well as a Senator. In other words, the Senator has a fairly good finger on the pulse of the people he represents. That skepticism was based on what concerns and what led the Senator from Indiana to conclude that it was important for him not only to support this resolution but play a role as a major sponsor of this legislation. I think it is important for the people of this Nation and our colleagues to understand that, since his State is part of the heartland of America, as is Arizona. Many people feel otherwise.
I am very interested in hearing what the Senator from Indiana has viewed as the factors leading him to play such a visible, as well as important, role in this resolution.
Mr. Bayh: I thank my colleague. Our State is known as the crossroads of America. With my colleagues' States, I believe we represent the common sense and wisdom of the American people.
On my visits home, and in communications from constituents, there has been an expression of concern about our present set of circumstances. I must say to my friend that it is a concern that I share.
I did not come easily to the conclusion that we have collectively reached. There is reluctance in my heart, as I know there is in the other Senators', to contemplate the use of force. But I reached the conclusion that we were simply left with no other credible alternative to protect the safety and well-being of the American people.
As you indicated in your colloquy with Senator Lieberman, and as I indicated in my own remarks, and the President spoke to last evening, I hope beyond anything else that this does not come to war; that the use of force will not be necessary. But I also believe that the best chance to achieve that outcome is the credible threat of the use of force. Saddam Hussein responds to nothing else. If he does not disarm voluntarily--as I hope he will, and we all pray he will--I have also concluded that his possession of weapons of mass death, and the real likelihood that he will develop the capability for using them against us to deter us from restraining him at some future point, or the risk of those weapons--nuclear, biological, chemical weapons--falling into the hands of suicidal terrorists represent too great a risk to our country.
As I tried to outline in my remarks, I believe the principal lesson-- and I asked this question to the head of the CIA: What is the principal lesson we learned from 9/11?
He responded directly and said the principal lesson was that we waited too long to address the gathering threat in Afghanistan.
So I am convinced we should act sooner rather than later to defend our country because we have seen the terrible consequences that can result. For all those reasons, I have reached the conclusion that this resolution is necessary.
Mr. McCain: Will the Senator yield for one further question?
Mr. Bayh: Yes.
Mr. McCain: I have one additional question for the Senator from Indiana. He mentioned, as the Senator from Connecticut has and as the Senator from Virginia has, there is great concern about this issue amongst our constituents. Yet I have found in communications with the people of my State, both directly and from being on talk shows and in speeches and things such as that, that the reassurance given to them that we are taking every possible action by going to the Congress of the United States and having this debate on the resolution of approval, which represents the people of this country in both bodies, by going to the Security Council and getting a very important resolution through the Security Council--which has not been achieved yet, but I think is part of the very important part of the process we are going through--I find that people are far more comforted and feel much more supportive in a realization that this is the last option and not the first option.
Perhaps some months ago the impression was created that this was the first option the President wanted to pursue when, clearly, I think he has displayed, by what he is doing and by how he spoke last night, that that is not the case. Has the Senator had that feeling?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Indiana has used 15 minutes.
Mr. McCain: I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana may respond to the question.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Bayh: Madam President, I would say three things to my colleague. First, I believe he is correct. I think there was an initial impression that our Government had a preference for unilateral action, perhaps without exhausting every other alternative. I do not believe that to be true. We have begun to correct that. I should compliment my colleague from the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, who played an important role in convincing the administration to reach out and pursue other alternatives with the U.N. and our allies.
The Senator from Arizona has raised two very good points. When I go home, people say to me: We understand the danger and we wish it didn't have to come to war.
That is a reluctance that I share. My response would be, looking at the brutal nature of his regime, and Saddam Hussein's history, I believe the best chance to remove the weapons, without coming to war, is to present him with a credible ultimatum. That is what we are doing here.
People also say: Senator, we wish we were not in it alone, and that we had the U.N. with us and more allies with us.
As my colleague knows--and I think we share this belief--my strong conviction is that our best chance to gather that support is through strong American leadership. Only then will the U.N. and our allies rally to our side, when we show our own determination.
So the best chance for a peaceful outcome, the best chance for a united front with our allies and with the imprimatur of the U.N., I believe, is by giving a strong hand to the President to present Saddam Hussein with no alternative; and when I have a chance to relay that to the people of Indiana, they understand.
Nobody wants war, but they understand this is the best avenue to avoid that, while also ensuring the security of our country.
Mr. McCain: Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana.
One of the reasons why I return to this particular aspect of this issue is, as the Senator from Virginia knows well, or better than I-- and others do, too--we once embarked into a conflict that the American people were not well informed on and, over time, they did not support. I believe this debate is important. I respect and admire the views of those who disagree with this resolution, but we will not enter this conflict without it being fully understood by the American people, as to what is at stake and why we are doing it. That is why I continue to go back to this issue of whether our constituents will be satisfied; that if, as a last resort, we enter into a conflict, it will not be because they have not been informed.
Madam President:
The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim.
So concludes a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
I want to repeat that. The International Institute for Strategic Studies said:
The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim.
The question facing all of us in this body is whether Saddam Hussein's aggressive weapons development in defiance of this gulf war cease-fire in the decade of U.N. Security Council resolutions can stand when the cost of inaction against this gathering threat could be intolerably high.
I am proud to join Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Bayh in laying down our amendment providing the President the necessary authority to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions against Saddam Hussein's regime.
I welcome this debate. I am confident it will result in a resounding vote of support for the President as he moves to confront the threat we face in Iraq. I also believe it will be a powerful signal to the world that the American people are united in their determination to meet and to end this menace.
Our diplomacy at the United Nations will benefit from a strong and bipartisan congressional vote in favor of this resolution. Our enemies will understand that we are united in our resolve to confront the danger posed by a dictator whose possession of the worst weapons and systematic defiance of every norm the civilized world holds dear threaten all who value freedom and law.
Congress has already spoken on this matter. On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 54 which declared that "the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relative laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
On October 31, 1998, then-President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act which stated:
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a domestic government to replace that regime.
That was October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by the President of the United States. Then, as now, Democrats and Republicans recognized the menace posed by Saddam Hussein's arsenal and his ambitions. Unfortunately, after 4 days of bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998--4 days of bombing--the United States and the international community effectively walked away from the Iraq problem, freeing Iraq from a weapons inspection regime that, by that time, had become so compromised by Saddam Hussein's intransigence as to be completely ineffective.
Nothing has taken place over the past 4 years, even as a porous sanctions regime and illicit oil revenues have enriched the regime. Over this time, Saddam Hussein's threat to the world has grown without hindrance. Regrettably, some of the very same permanent members of the Security Council whose vote for a new resolution on Iraq we are now courting actively conspired against rigorous weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s, for reasons that had more to do with their narrow commercial interests than with the world's interest in getting rid of the menace posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of terror. The threat is not new. Saddam Hussein has been in gross violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf war since that war's end, as a host of United Nations Security Council resolutions passed since 1991 can attest. As The Economist has written:
He has treated inspections as a continuation of the Gulf War by other means.
After years of stymied efforts to enforce the inspections regime, the international community effectively sanctioned Saddam's impunity after it became clear he would never allow intrusive inspections, and once it became apparent to many Americans that the only way to end his defiance was to end his regime. The withering under U.N. Security Council auspices of the international inspections regime over the course of a decade, and Iraq's decision not to even consider renewed inspections only under the threat of force today, make clear that unvarnished faith in the ability of the U.N. Security Council or a new corps of inspectors to disarm Saddam's regime is misplaced. Over the course of this debate, the Senate will consider amendments that would require Security Council authorization before the United States could act to enforce a decade of Security Council resolutions, and that would narrow the focus of American policy to Iraq's disarmament, rather than against the range of Saddam's offenses against his people and his neighbors and the continuing threat his regime itself poses to American national security. These debates will be important. I believe the President's position will prevail. Congress cannot foresee the course of this conflict and should not unnecessarily constrain the options open to the President to defeat the threat we have identified in Saddam Hussein. Once Congress acts on a resolution, only the President will have to make the choices, with American forces likely deployed in the region to carry out his orders, that will end the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons and his ambitions pose to the world. Congress should give the President the authority he believes he needs to protect American national security against an often irrational dictator who has demonstrated a history of aggression outside his borders and a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is not just another Arab despot, not one of many tyrants who repress their people from within the confines of their countries. As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who recently traveled across northern Iraq, recently wrote in Slate:
There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular danger. To review: there is no dictator in power anywhere in the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored al Qaeda fugitives . . . ; attacked civilians with chemical weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human subjects; committed genocide; and . . . [weaponized] aflotoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else. I do not know how any thinking person could believe that Saddam Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one else comes close . . . to matching his extraordinary and variegated record of malevolence.
In light of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression, prohibited weapons deployment, and consistent rejection of every international obligation imposed on him, I believe the burden of proof in this debate must rest on those who believe inspections could actually achieve the disarmament of Iraq, rather than on those of us who are deeply skeptical that inspections alone could accomplish our common goal. History shows that we will most likely not disarm Iraq without changing the regime in Baghdad--a regime whose continued existence is predicated on possession of weapons of mass destruction. As arms control experts Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz have noted:
Unless the Iraqi dictator should suddenly and totally reverse course on arms inspection and everything that goes with it, or be forced into early retirement--in other words, unless Saddam Hussein's Iraq ceases to be Saddam Hussein's Iraq--inspections will never work.
Similarly, given the Security Council's failure to enforce its own article 7 resolutions against Iraq, which are backed by the threat of force and have the sanctity of international law, I believe the burden of proof in this debate must rest on those who can defend the Council's record with regard to Iraq and can convince the rest of us that the Council's judgment, rather than that of our Commander in Chief, should be the final authority on a matter that so directly affects American security. Important participants in this debate support the President's determination to use military force to bring about Iraq's disarmament but would constrain the President's authority to act against Iraq to uphold Security Council resolutions related to repression within Iraq, Iraq's support for terrorism, and other issues. This approach would limit the President's authority to achieving only Iraq's disarmament and would explicitly oppose a comprehensive challenge to his tyrannical regime. I believe those who hold this view have an obligation to explain why they would constrain the President's authority to use military force in ways he believes would tie his hands and raise unacceptably high the threshold for ordering military action to defend the national security of the United States. Others will argue that Saddam Hussein can be deterred--that he is a rational actor who understands that acting on his ambitions will threaten his regime. But deterrence has failed utterly in the past. I fail to see how waiting for some unspecified period of time, allowing Saddam's nuclear ambitions to grow unchecked, will ever result in a stable deterrence regime. Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam's neighbors to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish. Again, the burden in this debate rests on those who believe American policy has actually been successful in containing the threat Saddam's regime poses to the world. There is no greater responsibility we face as Members of this body than voting to place the country on a course that could send young Americans to war in her defense. All of us must weigh our consciences carefully. Although we may hold different views of how to respond to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the very fact that we are holding this free debate, and that the fate of nations and peoples other than our own will be determined by the outcome of our actions, serves as a reminder that we are a great Nation, united in freedom's defense, and called once again to make the world safe for freedom's blessings to flourish. The quality of our greatness will determine the character of our response. I want to again thank my colleagues for the introduction of this resolution. I think it will take place at some time within the next few minutes.
I yield the floor.
